|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Momodou |
Posted - 24 May 2026 : 03:49:57
Understanding the Situation in Senegal
By Madi Jobarteh
Diomaye vs Sonko: Power for What and for Whom?
It was Capt. Thomas Sankara who once said:
“You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness. In this case, it comes from nonconformity, the courage to turn your back on the old formulas, the courage to invent the future.”
Sankara made this statement in the context of transforming Burkina Faso, arguing that dismantling systems of oppression and exploitation required far more than cosmetic reforms. It demanded a complete restructuring of society in pursuit of freedom, justice, equality, dignity, and genuine sovereignty.
When Sankara came to power in 1983, his objective was not merely to replace a corrupt, autocratic, and neocolonial regime in Upper Volta. His mission was far deeper: to fundamentally transform the social, cultural, economic, and political foundations of society. Like the rest of Africa, Upper Volta had endured centuries of Arab and European domination through slavery, colonialism, exploitation, and imposed dependency. It was also a deeply patriarchal society marked by entrenched inequality and systems of exclusion.
Over time, these oppressive systems eroded the moral and political fabric of society. Corruption, tribalism, opportunism, violence, and elite patronage became normalized. Power and privilege were monopolized by politically connected elites while the masses remained marginalized, impoverished, and abused.
Sankara understood that his country did not simply need change, but in fact needed a revolution. He believed that longstanding beliefs, institutions, traditions, and structures that reproduced and entrenched inequality, injustice, corruption, and deprivation had to be dismantled and replaced. To build a new society, he argued, it was necessary to create a new political culture and a new citizen. This vision informed the renaming of the country from Upper Volta to Burkina Faso, “The Land of the Upright People.”
Unsurprisingly, Sankara quickly became a target. Opposition came not only from remnants of the former regime and sections of the political elite, but also from all those benefiting from the status quo: religious leaders, traditional authorities, business interests, sections of the media, academia, foreign powers, and even ordinary citizens whose access to power and privilege depended on the existing order.
Like Upper Volta then, Senegal today continues to grapple with deeply entrenched sociocultural, economic, and political systems sustained since independence. The demand for systemic transformation has long existed within Senegalese society. When Macky Sall came to power in 2012, movements such as Y’en a Marre promoted the idea of creating “a new type of Senegalese citizen.” Yet that aspiration ultimately faltered as the same structures of patronage, privilege, and exclusion persisted.
Then emerged Ousmane Sonko and PASTEF. Their appeal rested on the argument that Senegal required profound structural transformation rather than superficial reform. It was this message that mobilized millions of Senegalese and propelled the movement to power. Consider the Gambia where a similar agenda for system change informed the 2016 Coalition with the objective of creating a ‘New Gambia.’
Sonko has consistently committed himself uncompromisingly to the pursuit of that transformative agenda. However, since assuming office, Pres. Bassirou Diomaye Faye has gradually accommodated elements of the old political order. The language of gradualism, reformism, compromise, and coexistence with entrenched interests has increasingly shaped his leadership and governance.
The split between Diomaye and Sonko is therefore not fundamentally about personality clashes, arrogance, or temperament. Rather, it is a struggle of convictions over what kind of Senegal should emerge.
Diomaye appears inclined toward preserving the existing order while pursuing gradual reforms within limits acceptable to the prevailing forces benefiting from the current decadent system. Sonko, on the other hand, represents the argument for a total structural overhaul, regardless of how disruptive or painful such transformation may be.
Senegal is not the first country to do so. In what they describe as the Renaissance or the ‘Age of Enlightenment or Reason’ in Europe, feudalist and patriarchal systems had to be confronted and crushed. They dismantled deepseated social, cultural, economic and political systems to create the modern Europe that we have today. In 1789, at the onset of its revolution, France had to even abolish feudalism as a whole while others such as England only reformed it.
After all, if the chick does not break the shell, it will never be born and will instead die inside the egg. Likewise, until Africans dismantle patriarchy, confront neocolonialism, and reclaim the state from selfish politicians, corrupt elites, and opportunistic technocrats, neither Senegal nor Africa will fundamentally change. Nearly a century after independence, much of the continent still struggles with poverty, dependency, corruption, weak institutions, injustice, and insecurity despite its immense human and natural wealth.
Whether it was Edward Francis Small, Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, or today Sonko, Africa has always required “mad” men and women, individuals with clarity, conviction, courage, and an uncompromising commitment to transformation. This is why Amílcar Cabral declared in 1965 that Africa’s liberation must be led by its best sons and daughters.
The struggle against colonialism and neocolonialism within the broader framework of imperialism is inseparable from the internal struggle against patriarchy, corruption, patronage, and elite domination. These systems of oppression and exploitation serve both foreign interests and domestic elites while the masses continue to wallow in poverty, unemployment, insecurity, injustice, and deprivation.
Meanwhile, both local and international forces continue to proclaim democracy even as they routinely violate human rights, plunder public resources, disregard constitutions and laws, flout court orders, and violate international law. Yet they reward themselves with enormous powers, privileges, benefits, immunities, and extravagant pensions at the expense of national wealth and the wellbeing of ordinary citizens.
Understanding this reality is what has distinguished different categories of African leadership since independence. Leaders such as Cabral, Nkrumah, Lumumba, Sankara, and now Sonko possess the political clarity and revolutionary courage necessary to fundamentally transform society.
Unfortunately, the masses themselves have often lacked the political education necessary to defend and sustain transformative leadership against both domestic and foreign forces determined to preserve the status quo. It is therefore unsurprising that impoverished populations often continue to support corrupt politicians even while suffering from high living costs, poor public services, unemployment, and systemic injustice.
The same narratives used today against Sonko, that he is arrogant, dictatorial, rash, impatient, or dangerous, were similarly deployed against Sankara, Lumumba, and Nkrumah. History frequently portrays transformational leaders as threats precisely because they challenge entrenched systems of power and privilege.
The broader issue in Senegal is therefore not merely about personalities, elections, or political competition. It is about whether an entrenched system that is corrupt, unequal, exclusionary, and fundamentally unjust, can truly reform itself. History repeatedly shows that systems designed to preserve privilege rarely dismantle themselves voluntarily.
Transformational leadership therefore requires clarity, sacrifice, courage, political education, and confrontation with entrenched interests. Those who fear disruption often settle for managing decline rather than rebuilding society. For supporters of this revolutionary vision, Ousmane Sonko represents that clarity and determination to pursue a fundamentally different social, economic, and political order for Senegal and, by extension, for Africa itself.
The rift between Bassirou Diomaye Faye and Ousmane Sonko is fundamentally about one question: power for what purpose and for whose benefit? Is state power meant to serve the elites or the masses?
This has always been the underlying question behind independence and governance across Africa. Countries like Senegal did not fight colonialism and achieve sovereignty merely to replace foreign rulers with local elites while the masses continue to live in poverty, deprivation, unemployment, and injustice amid abundant national wealth. That was never meant to be the purpose of self-governance. Unfortunately, this is precisely what many postcolonial elites have turned our countries into.
A republic cannot exist merely to sustain the comfort, privileges, and lifestyles of public officials. The state derives its authority, legitimacy, and very purpose from the people. Public office is therefore meant to serve citizens, not to enrich or glorify office holders.
In simple terms, how can a government justify purchasing a D12 million vehicle for a minister while police stations lack computers, hospitals struggle to acquire X-ray machines and essential medicines, classrooms lack modern teaching tools and proper learning environments, and basic social services remain inaccessible, unaffordable, or dysfunctional for ordinary citizens?
That is not the meaning of independence. That is not the purpose of a republic. That is not the objective of governance. The central issue is whether the state exists to protect elite privilege or to guarantee the dignity, welfare, security, and prosperity of the masses. That is the real debate.
Forward ever. |
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
