Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle

By: Zagazola Makama

The dismissal of Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko by President Bassirou Diomaye Faye marks the culmination of a political rupture that many observers had long considered unavoidable.

What once appeared to be one of the strongest political alliances in contemporary Senegalese politics gradually evolved into a tense rivalry shaped less by ideology than by competing ambitions, institutional contradictions and the struggle for control of executive authority.

For months, tensions within the ruling camp had become increasingly visible. Though both men emerged from the same political movement and jointly embodied the rise of the PASTEF coalition against former President Macky Sall, the coexistence between a highly charismatic political mentor and a constitutionally empowered head of state proved difficult to sustain.

The crisis is anchored in a fundamental institutional reality:Senegal’s constitutional system ultimately concentrates executive legitimacy in the presidency.

While the Prime Minister exercises substantial governmental authority, the President remains the central pillar of executive power, deriving legitimacy directly from universal suffrage and serving as the supreme authority of the state.

Sources say that the conflict emerged because Sonko increasingly projected himself not merely as head of government, but as an alternative center of political gravity within the state apparatus.

Public speeches, political positioning and repeated demonstrations of personal influence created the perception that two competing executives were operating simultaneously within the same administration.

In highly presidential systems, such arrangements rarely survive for long.

Political theorists have often observed that leaders who attain supreme office tend to resist the emergence of rival figures whose popularity, influence or visibility may overshadow their own authority. The situation in Senegal increasingly reflected that classic tension between institutional legitimacy and political charisma.

Sonko’s political trajectory has long been built around a populist and confrontational style that resonated strongly with segments of Senegalese youth and anti-establishment voters. His appeal stemmed from a mixture of direct rhetoric, anti-system positioning, nationalist discourse and his ability to embody political resistance during years of confrontation with the former administration.

However, the same qualities that fueled his rise may also have contributed to his political isolation. Sourcds note that charismatic populist figures often struggle to adapt from opposition politics to the discipline and compromise required in governance. A political strategy built around constant confrontation can become difficult to reconcile with the institutional restraints of executive power-sharing.

Over time, Sonko appeared increasingly convinced that he remained the true engine behind the ruling coalition’s legitimacy and electoral success. That perception may have encouraged attempts to expand his political influence beyond the traditional boundaries of the prime ministerial office.

For President Diomaye Faye, allowing such an imbalance to persist carried political risks.

The removal of Sonko ultimately reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle, regardless of personal popularity, a Prime Minister remains subordinate to presidential authority in Senegal’s current institutional framework.

By dismissing his Prime Minister, Diomaye signaled that he intended to fully exercise the powers attached to the presidency rather than govern under the shadow of a more dominant political personality.

The decision may also represent an attempt to consolidate state authority, reassure institutional actors and prevent the emergence of dual centers of power capable of paralysing governance. Yet the move is not without danger.

Sonko still commands significant grassroots support and retains strong influence within sections of PASTEF and among politically mobilized youth constituencies. His removal could deepen divisions inside the ruling coalition and potentially reshape Senegal’s political landscape ahead of future elections.

One of the major questions now facing Senegalese politics is whether PASTEF can survive the split without suffering a major internal fracture. Political history across Africa shows that when alliances forged in opposition reach power, tensions often emerge over authority, succession and control of state institutions.

Some party officials and elected representatives may rally behind the President, who controls the state apparatus and constitutional legitimacy. Others may remain loyal to Sonko due to his personal popularity and historical role in the movement’s rise.

The outcome of that struggle could determine whether Senegal experiences a relatively stable political recomposition or enters a prolonged period of institutional tension.

Another key factor will be public sentiment. During years of opposition politics, confrontation and political mobilisation energized large sections of the electorate. However, governing presents different expectations. Many Senegalese citizens now appear increasingly concerned with economic management, institutional stability, governance reforms and social calm rather than perpetual political conflict.

That shift may strengthen Diomaye’s position if he succeeds in presenting himself as a stabilizing statesman capable of governing above partisan rivalries. At the same time, any perception that Sonko has been politically sidelined or unfairly neutralized could trigger renewed political mobilisation among his supporters.

The crisis illustrates a recurring lesson in political systems across the world. Conquering power together is often easier than sharing it afterward. The Diomaye–Sonko alliance was extraordinarily effective as an opposition force united against a common adversary. But once in office, the unresolved question of who truly embodied executive authority became increasingly difficult to avoid.

What began as political complementarity gradually transformed into institutional competition.

The final outcome remains uncertain. Diomaye may emerge stronger by consolidating presidential authority, or Sonko could retain enough political capital to remain a major force capable of reshaping Senegal’s future political balance.

Either way, the rupture marks a turning point in Senegalese politics and may redefine the future trajectory of one of West Africa’s most closely watched democracies.

Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle