The Mauritanian political scene today faces a perplexing political impasse. The comprehensive national dialogue called for by President Mohamed Ould Cheikh Ghazouani, which leaves no topic out and excludes no one, and from which it is hoped that it will resolve Mauritania’s chronic problems, is currently at a standstill, after having been on the verge of launching. According to observers, the reason for the impasse, based on a comparison of the existing positions and data, is that “the majority is seeking, indirectly, to use this dialogue to legislate a constitutional amendment that would allow the president to continue ruling Mauritania for a third term after the 2029 elections.”
According to many of its members, politicians within the majority believe that Mauritania is not ready, given the current local, regional, and international crises, for a transfer of power to a new, inexperienced president. This position is bolstered by Western support for Ghazouani remaining in power, and by the experiences of other African countries that have allowed their presidents to remain in office for three, four, or even five terms, prioritizing stability over the principle of power rotation.
According to many of the majority politicians, Mauritania is not ready, given the current circumstances marked by local, regional, and international crises, for a transfer of power to a new president.
In contrast to this trend, the Mauritanian opposition rejects any tampering with the article concerning the fixed presidential term limits, including the presidential oath stipulated in the constitution, which includes a commitment not to seek, directly or indirectly, to amend it. The opposition considers the rotation of power, with each elected president serving two terms without exception, a sacred democratic achievement that must be preserved.
Faced with this impasse, the authorities found themselves in a dilemma: either to concede on the issue of presidential terms and thus lose sight of the true objective of the dialogue, or to suspend the dialogue until more suitable conditions were in place—a move that could be interpreted as a failure of a major initiative spearheaded by the president himself. Three weeks ago, the coordinator of the political dialogue, Moussa Fall, announced the suspension of the preparatory sessions for the dialogue, which were underway, in order to work towards overcoming the controversy surrounding the issue of presidential terms. The ruling parties insist on this issue, while the opposition parties refuse even to discuss it, or stipulate that it be restricted to cases where constitutionally protected articles are not touched.
The "strongman" intervenes
After the opposition called on President Ghazouani to intervene to save the dialogue as its initiator and guarantor, a number of political party leaders confirmed that Interior Minister Mohamed Ahmed Ould Mohamed El Amine, the strongman of the regime, held a series of meetings with them with the aim of ensuring the resumption of the preparatory sessions for the dialogue, which have been suspended since the end of last March, and removing or overcoming the obstacles that have led it to a dead end.
According to multiple sources, Ould Mohamed El Amine informed the heads of opposition parties he met during the last two days of the need to work on resuming the preparatory sessions for dialogue, adding that “the issue of discussing the third term, which was the reason for their objection and refusal to continue the sessions, is not on the agenda and is not part of the authorities’ agenda.”
The Secretary called on the politicians he met to “cooperate with him in order to resume the sessions, and to support his efforts to facilitate the process and bring the viewpoints of the negotiating parties closer together.”
She added that Ould Mohamed El Amine called on the politicians he met to "cooperate with him to resume the sessions and support his efforts to facilitate the process and bridge the viewpoints of the negotiating parties," noting that "his work and endeavors do not constitute an overreach of the dialogue coordinator's authority, nor an interference in his prerogatives." The minister also cautioned the politicians he met about the necessity of completing the dialogue fully before the end of this year, because postponing it until next year would subject it to the pressure of approaching elections and the escalating political and electoral calculations. Ould Mohamed El Amine urged the opposition politicians he met to provide an opportunity for the majority parties to save face on the issue they had put forward and declared their commitment to, emphasizing that it was unrelated to a third term, and that the latterwas not even on the table.
State of stagnation
Thus, just as Mauritania was preparing to launch a national political dialogue intended to turn the page on chronic tensions, the process has returned to a standstill, amid sharp disagreement over the scope and limits of the debate, particularly the issue of presidential terms. The country finds itself once again facing a familiar political scenario: promising initiatives followed by setbacks at the first real test of consensus.
More than a year ago, Ghazouani announced a “comprehensive dialogue without red lines,” attempting to open a new political horizon to address structural issues, from governance to institutional reforms. This call was initially met with widespread welcome from various political parties, who saw it as an opportunity to reshape the rules of the political game in the country. However, this momentum quickly ran into a fundamental disagreement: should the dialogue be open to all issues, including amending the number of presidential terms, or are there constitutional red lines that cannot be crossed?
fear of slipping
The opposition is wary of any move toward amending the constitution and maintains a firm stance: no dialogue on presidential term limits. Opening the issue to discussion constitutes a "political trap" that could lead to a restructuring of the political system to perpetuate the current regime. For them, any ambiguity in the roadmap represents a loophole that could be exploited to revive scenarios that have previously sparked widespread controversy in the region.
Statements by some close to the authorities, along with the positions of nationalist movements that reject dialogue in principle, have contributed to complicating the situation.
At the heart of this impasse stands the coordinator of the national dialogue, Moussa Fall, who has made intensive efforts for more than a year to bring viewpoints closer together. He conducted a wide series of consultations that included various political forces and actors, culminating in the drafting of a roadmap described as “consensual.” However, this document, which was supposed to form the starting point, has itself become a point of contention due to differing interpretations of its contents.
Ironically, this setback came after positive indicators that suggested an agreement was close. After a year of consultations, there seemed to be near-unanimity on the major issues at hand, and the parties seemed ready to enter into actual dialogue. But what changed later, according to observers, was the emergence of new political calculations that reshuffled the cards.
Statements by some close to the authorities, along with the positions of nationalist movements that reject dialogue in principle, have contributed to complicating the scene. Strangely, these voices, which adopt a hardline discourse, sometimes appear to contradict the conciliatory tone that the president is trying to promote, which raises questions about the extent of consistency in positions within the ruling camp.
Fragility of agreements
The question today is not only about the fate of this dialogue, but also about the ability of the Mauritanian political system to manage its differences within institutional frameworks. Previous experiences, the latest of which was the 2022 dialogue that ended without tangible results, show the fragility of political agreements and how quickly they collapse at the first test.
The question today is not only about the fate of this dialogue, but also about the ability of the Mauritanian political system to manage its differences within institutional frameworks.institutional frameworks.
Moreover, the continuation of this deadlock opens the door to uncomfortable scenarios, in light of increasing economic and social challenges, and an urgent need for deep reforms; in such contexts, dialogue is not a political luxury, but a necessity to ensure stability and avoid slippages.
In short, Mauritania stands at a crossroads: either to restart the dialogue process through mutual concessions, or to remain mired in stagnation, with all the risks this entails for the democratic transition. The crucial question remains whether Ghazouani can resolve this hesitation, either by readjusting his camp's positions or by offering clear guarantees that reassure the opposition and restore confidence in the political process. It must be emphasized that the success of the dialogue depends not only on declared intentions but also on clear rules and genuine commitment to them; without these, the dialogue risks transforming from an opportunity for a solution into a new source of renewed crisis.
Tags:
africa
