Constitutional Power Grab in Guinea-Bissau: A Recipe for Instability?

The approval of a new constitution in Guinea-Bissau that significantly expands presidential powers has sent shockwaves through the tiny West African nation. The revised constitution reduces the number of seats in parliament from 102 to 65 and cuts electoral constituencies from 29 to 12, but its most contentious provision requires presidential candidates to have lived continuously in the country for at least five years before the vote.

This move is widely seen as targeting diaspora-based politicians with significant followings, who have been a thorn in the side of traditional ruling elites. Proponents argue that the new constitution will steady the political landscape and pave the way for more stable governance, but they conveniently gloss over Guinea-Bissau’s troubled history of coups and disputed elections.

Since gaining independence from Portugal in 1974, the country has experienced at least 10 coup attempts, half of which have been successful. The most recent came last November, when both candidates declared themselves winners and the military intervened to set up a transitional ruling council. Critics argue that the new constitution’s architects are concentrating power further in the presidency rather than addressing the country’s deep-seated governance issues.

The outgoing constitution, implemented in 1993, has indeed been cited as a contributing factor to instability. Rather than scrapping it altogether, however, the new constitution’s architects have chosen to concentrate power further in the presidency. This raises important questions about their motivations and whether this move will genuinely address the country’s governance issues.

Critics of the referendum argue that it is little more than a thinly veiled attempt by the ruling elite to consolidate their grip on power. The leading opposition party, PAIGC, had urged its supporters to boycott the vote, labeling it a “democratic farce.” Its leader, Domingos Simões Pereira, warned that the outcome would be nothing short of a continuation of last November’s coup.

The fact that over 55% of registered voters turned out for Sunday’s referendum suggests that there is still widespread disillusionment with the country’s leadership. Rather than addressing these concerns through meaningful reforms, however, the ruling elite appears to be opting for a more authoritarian approach.

As Guinea-Bissau prepares for elections in December, the outcome of this constitutional change will set the tone for what promises to be another tumultuous period in the country’s history. The new constitution’s emphasis on presidential power may seem like an attempt to break the cycle of coups and disputed elections, but it also raises questions about whether such an approach will ultimately create more problems than it solves.

Guinea-Bissau’s history is marked by a series of coups and disputed elections that have left the country struggling to find its footing. The residency requirement for presidential candidates has been widely interpreted as an effort to sideline diaspora-based politicians, which undermines democratic principles and risks exacerbating existing divisions within the country.

International observers will be closely monitoring developments as Guinea-Bissau hurtles towards another potentially volatile election season. The US, EU, and other key players have a vested interest in seeing stability returned to this fragile nation-state. But what happens when the very institutions that are meant to promote democracy instead seem to be perpetuating instability?

The combination of concentrated power, electoral manipulation, and widespread disillusionment has all the hallmarks of a perfect storm. As Guinea-Bissau careens towards another uncertain future, one thing is clear: the path ahead will be fraught with peril, and the consequences of failure could be catastrophic.

Guinea-Bissau’s constitutional referendum has been hailed as a major step forward by some, but for many others, it represents an ominous warning sign. As the country hurtles toward December’s elections, the question on everyone’s lips is: what happens next?