By approving a new constitution that strengthens the presidency and redraws the country’s electoral map, Guinea-Bissau has opened a new chapter in its long-running struggle between military intervention and democratic governance.
For Guinea-Bissau, constitutional change has rarely been merely about legal language. It has often been a reflection of the country’s deeper political struggles — struggles involving the military, elected institutions, competing centres of power and an electorate repeatedly confronted with uncertainty about the future of its democracy.
The latest development is therefore being watched far beyond the constitutional chambers.
Guinea-Bissau has approved a new constitution in a referendum, according to provisional results announced by the National Electoral Commission, in a move that could significantly alter the country’s political architecture ahead of a presidential election scheduled for December.
The proposed charter was backed by 70 per cent of voters, while 30 per cent voted against it. About 544,060 people participated, representing almost 60 per cent of registered voters.
On the surface, the result appears decisive. Beneath it, however, lies a more complicated political picture.
The referendum was conducted under a military administration that came to power after officers seized control in November 2025. Its timing, coming months before a presidential election, has inevitably raised questions about how the new constitutional order could influence the political contest and the balance of power between the executive and legislature.
A presidency with greater reach
Perhaps the most consequential feature of the new constitution is the expansion of presidential powers.
Under the proposed system, the president would have the authority to appoint and dismiss the prime minister and members of the cabinet. The president would also be able to create or abolish ministries.
More significantly, parliament could be dissolved in circumstances deemed to constitute a grave political crisis.
That represents a substantial departure from the existing constitutional arrangement, under which the legislature names the prime minister, who then appoints the cabinet.
The shift effectively moves the political centre of gravity towards the presidency.
Supporters could argue that a stronger executive may help Guinea-Bissau overcome years of political instability and institutional deadlock. Critics, however, may see the concentration of authority as a potential threat to checks and balances, particularly in a country where democratic institutions have repeatedly been disrupted by military interventions.
The question is therefore not simply whether the president should have more power, but what safeguards will prevent that power from becoming excessive.
An election system being redrawn
The constitutional changes go beyond the presidency.
Parliament would be reduced from 102 seats to 65, while the number of electoral constituencies would fall from 29 to 12.
Supporters of the reforms could contend that a smaller legislature may be easier to manage and less costly. But changing the size and structure of parliament inevitably affects political representation.
Fewer constituencies could alter the relationship between voters and their elected representatives, while a smaller parliament could reshape the influence of political parties and regional interests.
The new constitution also introduces a major eligibility requirement for presidential candidates: contenders must have lived continuously in Guinea-Bissau for the five years preceding the election.
That provision could become particularly important as political parties and potential candidates position themselves for the December presidential contest.
A referendum without the main opposition
The legitimacy of the exercise, however, remains one of its most contentious issues.
Guinea-Bissau’s main opposition party, the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), called on its supporters to boycott the referendum.
Its leader, Domingos Simoes Pereira, accused those behind the process of seeking to “kill our freedom and bury our democracy.”
The opposition’s absence from the ballot campaign means that the 70 per cent approval figure does not necessarily tell the entire political story.
In a democracy, constitutional legitimacy is measured not only by the number of votes recorded but also by the credibility, inclusiveness and transparency of the process through which those votes are obtained.
Reports from the capital, Bissau, suggested that polling stations were largely quiet on Sunday. Some residents reportedly told local media that they were unaware that a referendum was taking place or did not understand its purpose.
Such reports raise questions about voter awareness and public engagement with a constitutional process that could fundamentally alter how the country is governed.
The shadow of the barracks
Guinea-Bissau’s constitutional debate cannot be separated from its history.
The country has experienced repeated military interventions and remains one of the most politically fragile states in West Africa. The November 2025 coup was part of a wider wave of military takeovers that has swept across West and Central Africa over the past five years.
Across the region, military governments have frequently justified interventions by pointing to political dysfunction, insecurity, corruption and the failure of civilian institutions.
But military rule presents its own dilemma: governments that come to power outside established democratic processes must eventually answer the question of how and when authority will return to elected institutions.
For Guinea-Bissau, the December presidential election could become a crucial test.
The new constitution may provide a new institutional framework, but its success will ultimately depend on whether political actors accept its rules and whether those rules are applied impartially.
Between stability and concentration of power
There is an understandable attraction to the promise of political stability in a country that has endured years of institutional turbulence.
A powerful presidency could, in theory, provide clearer lines of authority. A streamlined parliament could potentially make legislative processes more efficient. Redrawing constituencies could also be presented as an attempt to modernise electoral administration.
Yet constitutional engineering carries risks when it occurs under a military-backed political order.
The stronger the presidency becomes, the more important independent institutions become. Courts, parliament, electoral bodies, political parties, civil society and the media must have sufficient space to scrutinise executive power.
Without such checks, reforms intended to create stability can instead institutionalise imbalance.
That is why the months leading to December will be critical.
A test for Guinea-Bissau — and West Africa
Guinea-Bissau’s experience is also part of a wider regional debate over the future of democracy in West Africa.
The region is grappling with declining public confidence in civilian governments, rising military influence and growing demands for political systems that deliver security, economic opportunity and accountable leadership.
The danger is that constitutional reform becomes a mechanism for consolidating power rather than strengthening institutions.
For Guinea-Bissau, the challenge is to demonstrate that the new constitution can serve the country rather than whoever happens to occupy the presidency.
The referendum has delivered a numerical verdict. The more difficult task now is to translate that verdict into a political system that commands broader legitimacy.
As the December presidential election approaches, Guinea-Bissau stands at a familiar crossroads: between military influence and civilian rule, between executive authority and institutional checks, and between the promise of stability and the protection of democratic freedoms.
The constitution may have changed.
The fundamental question remains whether Guinea-Bissau’s political culture will change with it.
