Senegal’s political rift: sonko and diomaye’s power struggle

The Senegalese political landscape frequently witnesses power struggles, whether among figures within the same party or between different political factions. As Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, famously asserted in 1848:

In politics, there are no permanent enemies or permanent friends, only permanent interests.

This timeless maxim perfectly encapsulates the current dynamic at the apex of Senegal’s executive branch.

The once harmonious Sonko-Diomaye partnership, comprising Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye and his Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko, who initially appeared to speak with one voice, is now grappling with profound internal disagreements. These escalating tensions culminated on May 22, when the President announced the dismissal of his Prime Minister and the subsequent dissolution of the entire government.

While the rally held on November 8, 2025, hinted at the nascent signs of fraternal discord, a crucial discussion on May 2, 2026, removed all ambiguity. President Faye himself acknowledged fundamental disagreements with his Prime Minister, specifically decrying the “excessive personalization” of power that had seemingly coalesced around Sonko.

Analysis of recent transformations within the Senegalese political system, particularly through the rise of Les Patriotes africains du Sénégal pour le travail, l’éthique et la fraternité (PASTEF), the ruling party, and the sociopolitical realignments observed between 2021 and 2024 amidst significant political instability, reveals how this anti-establishment party successfully disrupted Senegal’s traditional sociopolitical order.

The illusion of an indivisible symbolic capital, a two-headed mirage

The unique partnership between Sonko and Diomaye was forged when Sonko personally endorsed Diomaye following the invalidation of his own candidacy. Initially structured around a dynamic of political complementarity, one partner was tasked with managing the state apparatus while the other provided robust political legitimacy during their initial months in power.

However, PASTEF’s significant political gathering on November 8, 2025, exposed the limitations of this two-headed illusion, largely sustained by Sonko. “The period after November 8,” as Sonko himself declared, marked a pivotal moment for the future institutional collaboration between himself and the President. Today, the relationship between the two leaders appears to be at an impasse. Divergences first emerged regarding the choice of the ruling coalition’s coordinator, then concerning their respective visions for power, and finally over the selection of political allies.

Consequently, the once unifying slogan “Sonko mooy Diomaye” (Sonko is Diomaye, in Wolof), initially a survival strategy for PASTEF against the regime of former President Macky Sall, began to wane. It progressively gave way to new affirmations such as “Sonko est Sonko” or “Ousmane est Sonko.” Journalist Sidy Diop’s observations corroborate this shift, highlighting that “the proclaimed unity has vanished. It has been replaced by a now visible, almost acknowledged duality, where roles are being redefined and ambitions are asserting themselves.”

The sentiment has clearly become, “Diomaye is no longer Sonko. Sonko is no longer Diomaye.” Yet, within the framework of domination and symbolic reproduction theory, which enabled Sonko to wield a “proxied capital,” their symbolic fusion had previously cultivated a “unique partisan habitus.” This meant that the homopastefien and supporters of the “Project” perceived not two distinct representatives, but a singular, indivisible political force.

This duality at the summit represents the temporal culmination of their initial “complementarity” upon entering the executive political sphere. The presidential nature of Senegal’s political system mandates a clear distinction where the President’s authority is not shared. The prerogatives of the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister are meticulously defined by the Constitution in Articles 42 to 52, thereby transforming their initial fusion into a “gentle rivalry.”

President Faye often adopts a reserved posture, positioning himself as the guarantor of institutions, while Sonko maintains his characteristic style of mobilization and disruption. This aligns with what French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu described as the “position occupying the man,” where the institutional role dictates an individual’s actions, language, and demeanor, rather than the reverse. The presidential function imposes a “sovereign” habitus that inherently distinguishes itself from the Prime Minister’s “party leader” habitus. This distinction, in line with an ethical separation between the roles of Head of State and party leader, led President Faye to resign from his position as Secretary General and all other leadership bodies within the PASTEF party.

Furthermore, an invisible, yet very real, boundary between the President and his Prime Minister lies in the transition from informal street communication, like “Diomaye est Sonko,” to formal institutional communication, where the President’s image takes precedence according to protocol. Where Sonko propelled Diomaye to power, Diomaye now wields discretionary authority, including the power of appointment, thereby fostering a political bipolarization between pro-Diomaye and pro-Sonko factions. This dynamic is a key aspect of African current affairs and reflects the complexities of African governance.

The limitations of duality

In physics, fluid mechanics illustrates that when two bodies of differing masses share an enclosure, the one with greater mass will compress the other. Applied to Diomaye and Sonko, this signifies that power, much like human nature, is not static.

Through an ascending flow of influence, derived from his charisma and control over the party, Ousmane Sonko imbues Bassirou Diomaye Faye with popular legitimacy. Conversely, through a descending flow of influence, Bassirou Diomaye, via his state decrees and decisions, materializes the aspirations of the “Project” by embedding them within Senegalese positive law. Thus, if Sonko becomes too prominent, his influence can encroach upon Diomaye’s institutional territory.

At such times, the President might appear to be under tutelage. Conversely, if Diomaye becomes too isolated, he risks losing the vital vein of legitimacy that Sonko represents. They exist within a system of mutual dependence and potential self-destruction. Power continuously oscillates between the presidential office and the Prime Minister’s residence, a dynamic that perpetuates their gentle rivalry.

By mirroring each other’s desires, they are becoming antagonistic doubles. The more they resemble one another, the deeper their divergence becomes, as each sees their own ambition reflected in the other. Both leaders covet the same objectives: power, the presidency, leadership. Sonko aspires to hold executive power; Diomaye seeks to solidify his position.

The unfolding events at the pinnacle of power serve as a stark reminder that in politics, a “gentlemen’s agreement” remains merely a myth for idealists. It is the perennial resurfacing of the “number two syndrome.” The presumptive successor, initially loyal and competent, ascends through the ranks only to turn against their leader when the latter commands all the attention.

The hegemonic actor, in their quest to secure future electoral victories, often transforms a loyal ally into an adversary out of suspicion. This fosters a reciprocal paranoia that portends a period of social and political turbulence, a common theme in Africa breaking news and continent news. This situation in Senegal offers valuable insights into African governance and political leadership across the continent.