As the December 2024 legislatives, provincial and communal elections approach in Chad, and while the main opposition parties remain hesitant to engage in the electoral battle, citing unfavorable weather conditions and calling for a postponement, another battle is taking shape: the smaller political parties, which had previously aligned with the ruling Mouvement Patriotique du Salut (MPS) within the grand Tchad Uni coalition, are once again seeking to partner with the dominant party, hoping to leverage its strength. However, this time, their advances were met with a firm rejection.
MPS Secretary General Mahamat Zen Bada delivered a blunt response during a discussion with allies: “Every political party has its own identity first and foremost. Each political party was established primarily to gain power through the ballot box. Every political party is ready every day for any election. So, the MPS will not prevent a party, just because it’s an ally, from running here or there. Each party can run wherever it can and wherever it wants… and in the elections it considers easiest, be they legislative, provincial, or municipal. Don’t attribute things to us by using big words like ‘the divorce is pronounced.’ Nowhere is it written that the coalition must share the 190 seats.… One does not create a party to become an ally. That is shameful. Everyone goes alone and we reap the rewards in the end.” This declaration marks a pivotal shift in the MPS’s strategy. Far from simply dismissing potential alliances, it reveals a deeper ambition to maximize political gains, not through coalitions or shared power, but through total electoral domination.
The underlying message is clear: the fewer parties there are to share seats and positions with, the more power the MPS can monopolize.
At first glance, this call for smaller parties to compete independently and prove their worth on the political field might seem like an attempt to clean up the political landscape, avoiding superficial alliances and encouraging a more equitable and transparent competition. Interpreting the MPS’s distancing from traditional electoral alliances in this way, however, equals misunderstanding the political actors involved. The MPS’s stance is driven not only by its overconfidence in its ability to win elections without the support of smaller parties, but also by a kind of political greed. By urging each party to “fend for themselves,” the MPS appears intent on keeping full control of the spoils of victory. The underlying message is clear: the fewer parties there are to share seats and positions with, the more power the MPS can monopolize. Some view this posture as realpolitik, resulted from lessons learned from the May 6, 2024, presidential election, during which the MPS did not truly see the added value of its allies. As Félix Houphouët-Boigny once said, “Politics is the sound appreciation of the realities on the ground.” The MPS aims to be pragmatic: “If you don’t benefit me, don’t bother me.”
This power-consolidation strategy is not new among dominant political regimes. By refusing to play the alliance card, the MPS positions itself as the central force in the electoral arena. Strong in its resources and network, the party knows it can overpower the competition in most constituencies. By pushing the smaller parties to stand alone, the MPS is sending a message: only those who can prove their worth in the field will earn a seat at the table of winners.
Will this electoral isolation strategy, driven by both confidence and a desire to monopolize power, allow the MPS to sweep the elections, or will it lead to unexpected consequences in an already fragile political landscape? In any case, Zen Bada’s party seems willing to take big risks to secure total victory, leaving the smaller parties to their own devices.
Dr Pierre Kadi Sossou is the Country Director of EISA’s Chad Office
This blog post was made possible thanks to financial support from the European Union under grant agreement No. NDICI AFRICA/2022/435-927. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EU.
