Apolitical presidency, politics intact (by Sidy DIOP) May 6, 2026
The preliminary draft constitutional revision made public on April 27, 2026, which prohibits the head of state from leading a political party and confines him to an honorary role, breaks with what we are used to in Senegal. There is, in fact, in this promise of separation, an elegance of principle which flatters the republican spirit.
On one side, a head of state elevated above the fray, impartial arbiter, incarnation of a united nation. On the other, parties restored to their autonomy, freed from the tutelary shadow of executive power. The idea is attractive because it outlines a more breathable democracy, where politics would cease to be confused with the State.
But reality is tough and habits last a long time. Because, in truth, separating the presidency from the leadership of a party does not dissolve power, it displaces it. It makes it more discreet, sometimes more opaque, but by no means harmless.
The partisan link does not disappear by decree. It recomposes itself in the margins, in old loyalties, in loyalties built over the course of electoral battles. The president, even without a title, remains the one around whom the party revolves. He is no longer its official leader, but he remains its magnet.
Senegalese political history provides a clear demonstration of this. Since independence, the presidential figure has been constructed in a dual posture, both supreme office and partisan command. From Léopold Sédar Senghor to Macky Sall, via Abdou Diouf and Abdoulaye Wade, the State and the party have moved together, sometimes confused, often intertwined. It was not just a drift, it was a logic of power. Governing also meant maintaining your base, nourishing your networks, maintaining the political machine that allows you to last.
The proposed reform intends to break with this tradition. It apparently achieves this by prohibiting the head of state from formally leading a political party and relegating him to an honorary position. But this distancing resembles these borders drawn on the sand that the first tide erases.
Because power is not a function that we put in the locker room by changing our institutional costume. It is a relationship, an influence, a capacity to guide, to arbitrate, to decide, even without an official signature.
The president’s argument above parties is thus a legal fiction, in the almost literary sense of the term. He constructs an ideal figure, detached from contingencies, while the conquest of power is always based on alliances, support, commitments. No head of state arrives free of all political debt. No one governs without taking into account those who carried it.
Absolute neutrality is a mirage. It reassures, but it does not exist. Abdoulaye Wade, with his keen sense of political realities, expressed it bluntly: “you don’t break away from your activists like you shed a coat”.
Behind the formula, there is a simple truth. Democratic power is born from partisan roots. To deny it is to misunderstand the very nature of the political game.
In our latitudes, this tension is even more acute. Activism is nourished by identification, sometimes by affection, often by personal loyalty. The leader is not only a political leader, he is a reference figure, sometimes an incarnation.
Under these conditions, asking the president to distance himself from his party amounts to asking him to split up. On the one hand, the statesman. On the other, the party man. But these two figures coexist in the same body and in the same practice.
The reform, in this sense, does not lack interest. It introduces a requirement, it draws a line, it forces us to rethink the balance. But it cannot be enough to transform practices.
The risk is even that it produces a power that is less visible, more diffuse, less assumed. A power which no longer speaks its name, but which continues to act. Democracy does not always benefit from these subtleties. She prefers the clarity of responsibilities to the elegance of fiction.
Because ultimately, what matters is not so much the formal place of the president in his party as the way in which he exercises his power. It is there, and only there, that the truth of a breakup comes into play.
