Ousmane Kane, a politician, former senior international civil servant, lawyer, and governance analyst, has broken his silence. He has delivered a critical analysis of the political situation in Senegal.

In an opinion piece entitled "President and Prime Minister at the foot of the wall: governance, clarity and responsibility at the top of the State", the former senior international official describes an executive branch in place but marked, according to him, by a lack of clearly assumed command structure.

"Senegal is going through an unprecedented and deeply troubling situation: an executive in place, but whose line of command remains unclear; a power exercised, but whose coherence becomes more difficult to discern every day. In a country that has chosen a semi-presidential regime, this confusion at the top of the State is not a simple political malaise: it now constitutes a factor of institutional instability and a direct obstacle to public action," he said.

He considers this situation "unprecedented and deeply troubling" for a country governed by a semi-presidential system.

A worrying institutional confusion

Ousmane Kane observes that, for several months, Senegalese citizens have witnessed contradictory signals from the President of the Republic and his Prime Minister on major issues such as the amnesty law, the composition of the government, accountability, and the handling of past responsibilities. This public dissonance, he argues, goes beyond the normal adjustments of the beginning of a term and raises a central question: who is really making the decisions at the highest levels of government?

For the legal expert, when this question remains without a clear answer, it is not only the executive branch that falters, but the very credibility of the State that erodes.

"Ambiguity can, in the short term, serve as a political tactic. But when it becomes entrenched at the highest levels of the state, when it translates into contradictory speeches and unharmonized orientations, it becomes a failure of governance. Senegal has reached this critical point. The question is therefore no longer whether the situation is uncomfortable; it is, and everyone can see that, but rather to decide clearly: will the executive branch clarify itself around a common and accepted line, or will it have to assume, without hesitation, the political and institutional consequences of a now predictable failure?" explains Mr. Kane.

In his analysis, Ousmane Kane insists on a fundamental point: Senegal has chosen a semi-presidential system whose architecture is clearly defined by the Constitution.

"Whatever the perception of a Prime Minister presented as 'super strong', the Constitution is clear: the President of the Republic appoints the Prime Minister and can terminate his functions. This institutional reality does not vary according to the political balance of power at the moment," he warns.

He specifically addresses the Prime Minister's statement affirming that he does not work for the President, but for the Senegalese people. He considers this statement politically understandable, but institutionally ambiguous. According to him, serving the people necessarily falls within the framework of presidential authority, as defined by the Constitution. Pitting these two dimensions against each other would amount to establishing two competing centers of power at the highest level of the State, to the detriment of governmental effectiveness.

He also points to a persistent dissonance in communication and governance methods. On the one hand, presidential discourse which he describes as measured and institutional; on the other, a more combative, sometimes confrontational, government discourse, giving the image of a power operating on two opposing philosophies.

According to Ousmane Kane, a state cannot function sustainably based on conflicting priorities without paying a price. The consequences are already visible: delays in key decisions, postponed sensitive reforms, a hesitant administration, and slowed public action.

The governance analyst believes that time will not resolve this situation. On the contrary, he considers that prolonged ambiguity at the highest levels of power breeds indecision and paves the way for the failure of public action.

Faced with this reality, Ousmane Kane makes a clear appeal: either the President of the Republic and his Prime Minister speak with one voice and govern according to a common, coherent and assumed line, or they will have to assume, before the Senegalese people and before history, the consequences of a governance that has remained ambiguous.

Mr. Kane points out that Senegal, given its history, stability, and regional position, cannot afford chaotic governance. The requirement, according to him, is simple and non-negotiable: a clear, coherent, and fully accountable executive branch.