Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
When political victory gives way to the burden of governance
Political movements are often forged in struggle. They emerge from dissatisfaction, mobilize citizens around a shared vision, and promise to transform society. During the journey to power, unity appears natural because attention is directed toward a common objective. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that the greatest test of a movement is not winning power, it is governing after victory.
The emerging political divide between Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye and his former Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko offers a powerful illustration of this reality.
What initially appeared to be rumors of disagreement within Senegal’s ruling movement has evolved into a public political rupture. Sonko’s announcement that the party he cofounded called PASTEF would not formally participate in the newly constituted government signaled more than an internal dispute. It revealed the collapse of the dual leadership arrangement that characterized Senegal’s political transition following the historic 2024 elections.
For Senegal, this moment represents a critical test of democratic resilience.
For Africa, it offers an important lesson about the relationship between political ideals and statecraft.
For Namibia, which is entering a transformative era of its own, it provides valuable insights into the challenges that accompany political transition, resource wealth, and national development.
The end of a political fusion
The electoral victory of 2024 in Senegal was built upon one of the most powerful political partnerships in contemporary Africa.
The slogan “Diomaye is Sonko, Sonko is Diomaye” projected an image of complete unity. To supporters, the two men represented different expressions of the same political project, a movement committed to reform, sovereignty, accountability, and economic transformation.
Today, that political fusion appears to have come to an end.
President Faye increasingly governs as an autonomous head of state, while Sonko positions himself as the defender of the movement’s original vision and ideological direction.
At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental question that has surfaced throughout history whenever movements enter government. The question is; who truly embodies the mandate that brought a political movement to power?
President Faye possesses constitutional legitimacy. He is the elected head of state, entrusted with executive authority, responsible for foreign policy, national security, and the management of state institutions.
Sonko, however, possesses another form of legitimacy. As the founder and principal architect of PASTEF, he retains substantial influence over the movement’s grassroots supporters, parliamentary representatives, and political identity.
One commands the state. The other commands much of the political energy that made the state’s capture possible.
This creates a rare but significant political dynamic that struggles between constitutional authority and movement legitimacy.
History suggests that such arrangements are difficult to sustain indefinitely.
The paradox of political transformation
The disagreement between Sonko and Faye is not merely about personalities or political ambitions.
It reflects a deeper contradiction inherent in many reform movements.
Movements often gain support because they promise rupture. They challenge established systems, reject compromise, and offer a vision of profound change.
Governance demands something different.
Governments must manage public finances, reassure investors, negotiate international agreements, maintain institutional stability, and balance competing interests. The language of protest frequently collides with the realities of administration.
This paradox has appeared repeatedly throughout African history.
Liberation movements that once spoke the language of resistance later discovered that governing requires a different set of skills. Revolutionary rhetoric often encounters the constraints of economic realities, institutional responsibilities, and international obligations.
Activism rewards conviction. Governance rewards balance. Opposition thrives on certainty.
Leadership often requires compromise.
The Senegalese experience reminds us that political victory does not resolve these tensions. It simply shifts them from the streets into the institutions of the state.
Sovereignty and the reality of interdependence
Economic policy appears to be one of the major fault lines behind the growing divide.
Many of Sonko’s supporters were attracted by promises of greater national control over economic policy, strategic resources, and development priorities. The movement’s rise was partly driven by criticism of arrangements perceived as limiting Senegal’s sovereignty.
Yet governing a modern state requires engagement with an interconnected global system.
International lenders, financial markets, foreign investors, development institutions, and trade relationships all influence the choices available to governments.
For President Faye, maintaining constructive relations with international partners may be viewed as essential for preserving macroeconomic stability and financing development, even when others accuse him of compromising with the Bretton Woods Institutions and going back on the electoral promises.
For Sonko and his supporters, excessive accommodation may appear to compromise the transformative vision that inspired the movement’s rise.
The tension reveals one of the defining questions confronting African states in the twenty-first century on how can countries preserve sovereignty while remaining integrated into the global economy?
The answer is neither isolation nor dependency but that true sovereignty is not the rejection of international engagement. It is the capacity to engage from a position of confidence, strategic clarity, and national purpose.
Diplomacy as the management of power
This debate inevitably leads to a broader reflection on diplomacy.
Diplomacy is often described as the peaceful management of relations among states. While accurate, such a definition overlooks a crucial reality: diplomacy is also the management of power.
Nations negotiate not because power is equally distributed, but because it is not.
The effectiveness of diplomacy is influenced by economic strength, technological capacity, political stability, and strategic resources.
Africa’s diplomatic history reflects this reality.
Long before colonialism, African kingdoms and empires practiced sophisticated diplomacy through alliances, mediation, trade agreements, and political negotiations. Colonial rule disrupted many of these systems, but diplomacy later became a powerful instrument of liberation.
African leaders used diplomatic engagements to challenge colonialism, secure international support, and build the foundations of sovereignty.
Today, diplomacy remains central to Africa’s future.
The challenge is no longer simply achieving political independence. It is transforming political independence into economic resilience, technological advancement, and strategic influence.
In this sense, diplomacy is not merely a foreign policy tool. It is an instrument of development and sovereignty.
The politics of resource wealth
The timing of the Sonko and Faye’s divide is particularly significant because Senegal is entering a new era as a natural gas producer.
Large scale offshore energy projects have created expectations of accelerated growth, job creation, and economic transformation.
Yet resource wealth often raises difficult questions.
Who controls the revenue?
How should wealth be distributed?
How much influence should foreign investors possess?
How can national interests be protected while attracting capital?
President Faye appears inclined toward preserving contractual stability and investor confidence.
Sonko, who is now the speaker of Parliament and second in command of the state, has consistently emphasized resource sovereignty and stronger national participation in strategic sectors.
This debate mirrors conversations taking place across the African continent.
Natural resources create opportunities, but they also create political pressures. The management of resource wealth often becomes a test of leadership, institutional strength, and national vision.
What can we learn from this binary dichotomy?
Although Senegal and Namibia have different historical trajectories, Namibia can draw important lessons from this unfolding political moment.
Institutions must be stronger than individuals
The first lesson is that political stability ultimately depends on institutions rather than personalities.
Political movements may rise around charismatic leaders, but sustainable governance requires mechanisms capable of managing disagreement without threatening national stability.
Strong institutions provide continuity when political alliances evolve or fracture.
The long term health of any democracy depends on the strength of its constitutional structures rather than the popularity of individual leaders.
Liberation legitimacy has limits
A second lesson concerns the evolution of political legitimacy.
Throughout Africa, many ruling parties derived authority from liberation struggles or transformative political movements. However, historical legitimacy alone cannot sustain public confidence indefinitely.
Citizens increasingly judge governments based on performance, economic outcomes, service delivery, and opportunities for future generations.
Political history may open the door to power, but effective governance determines whether that power endures. Nevertheless, staying true to the promises and loyalty to a cause is also a great attribute that says one is not blinded by absolute power and does not go back on their promises.
Resource wealth is not development
Namibia’s recent oil discoveries have generated significant optimism.
Yet Senegal’s experience serves as a reminder that resource wealth alone does not guarantee prosperity.
Many nations possess abundant resources while remaining dependent, unequal, or economically vulnerable.
The real challenge is converting natural wealth into productive capacity, industrialization, education, infrastructure, innovation, and employment.
Oil and gas should be viewed as tools or instruments of development rather than development itself.
Diplomacy must deliver national capacity
As global competition for African resources intensifies, Namibia faces opportunities similar to those confronting Senegal.
The objective should not simply be attracting foreign investment.
The objective should be negotiating partnerships that strengthen domestic capabilities through technology transfer, skills development, local content participation, and industrial growth.
Successful diplomacy is measured not by the volume of agreements signed but by the long term national benefits those agreements generate.
Democracy is tested during disagreement
Perhaps the most important lesson concerns democratic maturity.
Political disagreements are inevitable.
Leadership transitions are inevitable.
Competing visions for development are inevitable.
The true measure of democracy is not the absence of conflict but the ability to manage conflict within institutional frameworks.
Strong democracies survive disagreement because institutions remain stronger than factions. Perhaps one last lesson learned is about the ‘Trap of Dual Leadership’. The “Diomaye is Sonko, Sonko is Diomaye” dynamic that won the 2024 election proved unsustainable. Delegating supreme executive power requires a clear definition of roles; a Prime Minister trying to exert more power than the President or a Prime Minister controlling party narratives more than the President can inevitably trigger a constitutional crisis and raises an important question of legitimacy.
Conclusion: Beyond Senegal, toward a broader African reflection
Much of the discussion surrounding the Sonko and Faye divide focuses on political calculations, alliances, and immediate consequences.
Yet the deeper significance of this moment lies elsewhere.
The crisis raises profound questions about power, legitimacy, sovereignty, leadership, and the difficult transition from political aspiration to practical governance. Will Diomaye Faye succeed in convincing people of his legitimacy without Sonko? Nothing is less certain. Will Sonko seek to have him removed from office? The question remains open. The response from Sonko’s tone was not rebellion, but it was not submission either. It was something more complex: a recalibration of power.
What we are trying to articulate with unusual clarity is the central contradiction now defining Senegal’s leadership. On one level, Bassirou Diomaye Faye is the constitutional head of state, elected by the people and bound to govern for the nation. On another level, Ousmane Sonko remains the political anchor of the movement that made that presidency possible.
The result is a dual system of legitimacy—one institutional, the other ideological.
However, this fratricidal duel is overshadowing the country’s real difficulties: healthcare, the economy and, above all, youth unemployment.
Senegal’s experience reflects a challenge confronting many African nations.
How can reform movements preserve their ideals once they enter government?
How can sovereignty be strengthened in an interconnected world?
How can resource wealth be transformed into broad based development?
How can institutions remain stable when political consensus breaks down?
For Namibia, these questions are particularly relevant as the country enters a new phase shaped by energy discoveries, generational change, and evolving expectations from its citizens.
The lesson is clear.
Winning power is not the final destination.
The true challenge lies on what to do with that power and in building institutions capable of reconciling ideals with reality, ambition with responsibility, and political change with national stability. Indeed, Senegal’s future political trajectory will depend largely on how the relationship between President Bassirou Diomaye Faye and the new Speaker of Parliament Ousmane Sonko develops. One thing is already certain: Senegal’s political landscape is undergoing a profound transformation in which state institutions will increasingly play a central role in redefining the balance of power.
In the end, the future of both Senegal and indeed of Africa as a whole will depend not merely on the leaders who govern, but on the strength of the institutions that endure long after individual leaders have passed from the political stage.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper. They represent our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.
