“Predictable outcomes,” “lackluster races,” and “incumbent presidents winning outright in the first round.” These phrases dominated discussions about Africa’s 2025 presidential elections. A disturbing pattern emerged: opposition candidates were systematically sidelined long before campaign season even began. The most recent examples came from Djibouti on April 10 and Benin on April 12. In Djibouti, incumbent Ismaïl Omar Guelleh secured a sixth term with 97.8% of the vote, while in Benin, Romuald Wadagni—handpicked successor of Patrice Talon—clinched victory with 94% of ballots cast. Both landslide margins told the same story: elections without real competition.
In Djibouti, opposition leader Alexis Mohamed abandoned his bid for the presidency, citing insurmountable barriers. While security concerns played a role, the “exorbitant nomination fees” proved to be the decisive obstacle. Observers described the vote as a “purely ceremonial exercise,” leaving little room for genuine political rivalry.
When money trumps democracy
This phenomenon is not confined to Djibouti. Across the continent, presidential hopefuls face crippling financial hurdles long before the campaign trail begins. Nomination deposits—often exceeding millions of local currency—are routinely set at levels designed to exclude all but the wealthiest contenders. The result? Political landscapes dominated by incumbents, with opposition voices silenced by economics rather than ballots.
In Benin, the cost of running for president ballooned to several billion Central African francs, effectively pricing out all but the regime’s favored candidate. The system, critics argue, transforms elections into “a contest of wallets rather than ideas.”
Systemic barriers to fair competition
- Financial gatekeeping: Nomination fees now function as a de facto exclusion tool, disproportionately targeting opposition figures.
- Administrative roadblocks: Bureaucratic obstructions compound financial barriers, making it nearly impossible for challengers to meet compliance standards.
- Legal intimidation: Vague electoral laws are selectively enforced to disqualify rivals under pretexts like “insufficient signatures” or “technical errors.”
The combined effect is an electoral process that prioritizes the status quo over genuine democratic choice. As nomination costs continue to surge, Africa’s elections risk becoming little more than an elaborate confirmation of incumbents’ dominance—with opposition voices systematically erased before the first vote is cast.
