AnarWiki/markdown/May_1968_Events_in_Senegal.md

In fact the “Senegalese May” was better known among students: students
sent messages of protest from around the world to the government of
Senghor which was suppressing their fellow African comrades. We should
also note that the University of Dakar was the only university in the
colonies of French West Africa (FWA) until after “independence”, which
explains the presence within it of a significant number of foreign
African students.

The organs of the bourgeois press had different interpretations of what
caused the outbreak of the May movement in Dakar. For some, like Afrique
Nouvelle (Catholic), it was the crisis in education that was the root
cause of the movement. Marches Tropicaux et Mediterraneens (for the
business community) considered it an extension of the movement in
France. Jeune Afrique pointed out the connection between the student
political unrest and the social unrest of wage earners.

There was another point of view that made a connection between this
movement and the economic crisis: it came from Abdoulaye Bathily, one of
the oldest participants in the famous revolt when he was then a student;
later, in his role of researcher, he would make a general appraisal of
the events of “May in Dakar.” We will quote him a lot in this article
for his testimonies from inside the events.

The Sequence of Events “May 1968 has gone down in history characterised
across the world by the massive social upheaval in which students and
high school pupils were the spearhead. In Africa, Senegal was very
clearly the theatre for the university and high school protests. Many
contemporary observers concluded that the events in Dakar were nothing
more than an extension to May 68 in France \[...\] Having participated
directly, and at the highest level in the students’ struggle in Dakar,
in May 68, this thesis has always appeared to me to be wrong. \[...\]
The explosion of May 68 was undoubtedly fostered by a particularly tense
social climate. It was the culmination of an unprecedented agitation by
employees in the towns, the unsatisfactory national economic indicators
from the continued French rule, and members of the bureaucracy
disgruntled that the technical advisers were in control of the state.
The agricultural crisis also contributed to the growing tension in the
towns and in Dakar, notably from the influx from the rural areas
\[...\]. The memorandum of the Union Nationale des Travailleurs de
Senegal \[UNTS\] on May 8th calculated that purchasing power had
declined by 92.4% since 1961.”\[2\]

So, this was the context in which Dakar, between May 18th and June 12th,
also experienced a “May 68” which almost definitely undermined the
pro-French regime of Senghor with wildcat general strikes by the
students and then by the workers, before the government stepped in to
end the movement, with the police and military imposing a brutal
clampdown and with French imperialism providing critical support.

The “Senegalese May” had been preceded by several clashes with the
Senghor government, especially between 1966 and 1968, when students
organised demonstrations in support of “national liberation” struggles
and against “neo-colonialism” and “imperialism”.

Similarly, there were “warning strikes” in high schools. Students at the
high school in Rufisque (a suburb of Dakar) walked out of lectures on
26th March 1968 following disciplinary measures taken against a student.
The movement lasted three weeks and the agitation and protests against
the government spread to schools across the region.

The trigger for the movement The movement of May 1968 was initially
sparked off by the decision by the government of President Senghor to
cut the number of monthly instalments of student grants from 12 to 10
per year, and by so doing to greatly reduce the spending on these,
citing “the difficult economic situation facing the country”.

“The news of the government decision spread like wildfire on the campus,
causing widespread anxiety and provoking a general feeling of revolt. It
was the only topic of conversation on the campus. Upon election, the new
executive committee of the Democratic Union of Senegalese students
\[UDES\] started to campaign over student grants, amongst students in
the high schools and also with the trade unions.”\[3\]

Indeed, after this government announcement there were constant protests
and the opposition to the government grew, especially on the eve of the
elections that were denounced by the students, as the heading of one of
their leaflets demonstrates: “From the economic and social situation in
Senegal to the eve of the election farce on February 25th...” The
agitation continued and on May 18th students decided to announce a
“general strike” following the failure of negotiations with the
government about their conditions, and there was a massive strike in all
the faculties.

Galvanised by the clear success of the strike, and angered by the
government’s refusal to meet their demands, the students called an
unlimited general strike and a boycott of exams from May 27th. Already,
before this, meetings were taking place on campus and in high schools
generally; in brief, this was a showdown with the government. For its
part, the government seized control of all the official media and
announced a series of repressive measures against the strikers, hoping
to stir some opposition from the workers and peasants to the students,
who it labelled “privileged”. And the Senegalese Progressive Union
(Senghor's party) tried to denounce the “anti-nationalist position” of
the students’ movement, but without any real echo; quite the contrary,
the government campaigns only increased the anger of the students and
gave rise to workers’ solidarity and won sympathy from the public.

“The meetings of the Student Union of Dakar (UED) were the focal point
of the agitation on the campus. They attracted a considerable number of
students, pupils, teachers, unemployed youths, political activists and,
of course, many government spies. Over time, they were the barometer
indicating the size of the political and social protest movement. Each
meeting was a sort of gathering of the Senegalese opposition and of
those on campus from other countries. The interventions were punctuated
by pieces of revolutionary music from around the world.”\[4\]

Indeed, a real showdown was on the cards. In fact, at midnight on May
27th, students awoke to hear the sound of boots and to see the arrival
en masse of police who cordoned off the campus. Then a crowd of students
and pupils gathered and converged on the residential quarters to mount
picket lines.

By encircling the university campus with police, the government hoped to
prevent any movement onto or out of the campus.

“So, some of their colleagues were deprived of meals and others of their
beds because as the UED repeatedly said, the social conditions were such
that many of their colleagues (those without grants) ate in the town or
slept there from the lack of housing on campus. Even medical students
who treated patients in the hospital would be stuck in the town along
with the other students in a medical emergency. It was a typical example
of where academic freedoms were violated.”\[5\]

On May 28th, during an interview with the rector and the deans of the
university, the UED demanded the lifting of the police cordon, while
university authorities required students to make a declaration within 24
hours “to declare that the strike is not aimed at overthrowing the
Senghor government”. Student organisations responded that they were not
allied with any specific regime and that within the time granted to
them, they wouldn’t be able to consult their members. After this, the
President of the Government ordered the closure of all the academic
institutions.

“The anti-riot squad, reinforced by the police, went on the offensive
and entered the living quarters one after the other. They had orders to
remove the students by all means possible. So with truncheons, rifle
butts, bayonets, tear gas grenades, sometimes crazed, smashing doors and
windows, these henchmen entered the students’ rooms looking for them.
The riot squads and the police behaved just like looters. They stole
what they could and smashed up things blocking their path, tore up
clothes, books and notebooks. Pregnant women were abused and workers
mistreated. Married women and children were beaten in their homes. There
was one death and many wounded (around one hundred) according to
official figures.”\[6\]

The explosion The brutality of the government's reaction led to an
outburst of solidarity and sympathy for the student movement. There was
strong disapproval throughout the capital of the regime’s brutal
behaviour and against police cruelty and the confinement of large
numbers of students. On the eve of May 29th all the ingredients were
present for a social conflagration because things had reached fever
pitch for the students and salaried workers.

The high school students were already massively involved in the “warning
strikes” of March 26th, and on May 18th were the first to start an
indefinite strike. After this the university students and those in the
high schools started to link up. And one after the other, all the
institutions in secondary education declared a total and unlimited
strike, formed struggle committees and called for demonstrations with
the university students.

Alarmed by the increased numbers of young people joining the protests,
on the same May 29th President Senghor made an announcement to the media
of an indefinite closure of all learning establishments (high schools
and colleges) in the vicinity of Dakar and St. Louis, and called on
parents to keep their children at home. But with little success.

“The closure of the university and the high schools only increased
social tension. University students who had escaped the police cordons,
high school students and other young people began erecting barricades in
neighbourhoods like Medina, Grand Dakar, Nimzat, Baay Gainde, Kip Koko,
Usine Ben Talli, Usine Nyari Talli, etc.. On the 29th and 30th
particularly, young demonstrators occupied the main streets of Dakar.
Vehicles belonging to government officials and the leading personalities
of the regime were tracked down. It was rumoured that many ministers
were forced to abandon their official cars, famous cars like the Citroen
DS 21. In people’s eyes, and those of the university and high school
students in particular, this type of official vehicle symbolised ‘the
lavish lifestyles of the comprador and political-bureaucratic
bourgeoisie.’”\[7\]

Faced with growing combativity and the escalation of the movement, the
government reacted by tightening its repressive measures, extending them
to the whole population. So, the government issued a decree that from
May 30th all public buildings (cinemas, theatres, cabarets, restaurants,
bars) would close day and night until further notice; and also, that
meetings, demonstrations and gatherings of more than 5 persons would be
prohibited.

A workers’ general strike Faced with these martial measures and with
continued police brutality against young people in struggle, the whole
country stirred and the revolt intensified, this time with more of the
salaried working class becoming involved. It was at this point that the
official union apparatus, notably the National Union of Workers of
Senegal, the umbrella body for several unions, decided to make its play
to avoid being bypassed by the rank and file workers.

“The rank and file unions pressed for action. On May 30th, at 18.00
hours, the regional union, UNTS de Cap-Vert (a region of Dakar),
following a joint meeting with the National headquarters of UNTS,
announced plans for an indefinite strike from midnight on May
30th.”\[8\]

Given the difficult situation facing his regime, President Senghor
decided to address himself to the nation and spoke threateningly to the
workers urging them to disobey the call for a general strike, while
accusing the students of being “under a foreign influence”. But despite
the real threats of the government to requisition certain categories of
workers, the strike was well supported in both the public and the
private sectors.

General assemblies were planned in the labour union hall for 10am on May
31st, in which the invited strikers’ delegations would decide the next
steps for the movement.

“But the police had cordoned the area off. At 10 o’clock the order to
attack the workers inside the hall was given. Doors and windows were
smashed, cabinets pulled apart, records destroyed. Tear gas and
truncheons overwhelmed the most foolhardy workers. In response to the
police brutality, the workers in amongst the students and the lumpen
proletariat, attacked vehicles and shops, some of which were torched.
The next day Abdoulaye Diack, Secretary of State for Information,
revealed to reporters that 900 people were arrested in the labour union
hall and the surrounding area. Among these, there were 36 union leaders
including 5 women. In fact, during the week of crisis, no less than
3,000 people were arrested. Some union leaders were deported \[...\].
These actions only heightened popular indignation and readied the
workers for the fight.”\[9\]

Indeed, directly after this press conference when the government’s
spokesman gave statistics about the victims, the strikes, demonstrations
and riots were intensifying and so the bourgeoisie decided to call a
halt.

“The unions, allied to the government and the employers, felt it was
necessary to make concessions to the workers to avoid them adopting a
hard line, since in the demonstrations they had been able to sense their
power.”\[10\]

Therefore, on June 12th, after a series of meetings between government
and unions, President Senghor announced an 18 point agreement to end the
strike with a 15% increase in wages. Accordingly, the movement
officially ended on that date, which did not prevent further discontent
and the resurgence of other social movements, because the strikers were
really suspicious regarding any promises from the Senghor government.
And, in fact, just weeks after signing the agreement to end the strike,
social movements were spreading more than ever, with some lively
episodes, right up until the early 1970s.

Ultimately, it is worth noting the state of disarray in which the
Senegalese government found itself at the height of its confrontation
with the “May movement in Dakar”:

“From June 1st to 3rd, it seemed that there was a power vacuum. The
isolation of the government was expressed in the inertia of the ruling
party. Faced with the scale of the social explosion, the party machine
of the UPS (Sengho’s party) did not react. The UPS Students’ Federation
was happy to covertly distribute leaflets against the UDES in the early
stages. This situation was all the more striking since the UPS had
boasted three months earlier about having won a landslide victory in the
parliamentary and presidential elections in Dakar on February 25th,
1968. But now it was unable to provide an acceptable response to what
was happening.

“Rumour had it that ministers were holed up in the administrative
building, the seat of the government, and that senior party and state
officials were hiding in their homes. This was very strange behaviour
from party leaders who claimed to have a majority in the country. At one
moment, the rumour ran that President Senghor had taken refuge in the
French military base at Ouakam. These rumours were made even more
believable following the news in Dakar that De Gaulle had “fled” to
Germany on May 29th.”\[11\]

Indeed, the Senegalese government was truly reeling and in this context,
it was quite symptomatic that de Gaulle and Senghor were seeking the
protection and support of their respective armies at the same time.

Moreover, at the time, other more persistent “rumours” clearly indicated
that the French army had forcibly intervened to prevent the protesters
marching on the presidential palace, inflicting several deaths and
injuries.

Let’s also recall that the Senegalese government did not only use its
normal guard-dogs, namely the police, to bring an end to the movement
but that it also had recourse to the more reactionary forces like the
religious leaders and peasants from the remote countryside. At the
height of the movement, on May 30th and 31st, the leaders of the
religious cliques were invited to use media day and night by Senghor to
condemn the strike in the strongest terms and to urge the workers to go
back to work.

As for the peasants, the government tried unsuccessfully to turn them
against the strikers, by making them come to town to support
pro-government demonstrations.

“The recruiters had led the peasants to believe that Senegal had been
invaded from Dakar by a nation called ‘Tudian’ (student) and that they
were being called on to defend the country. Groups of these peasants
were actually located in the alleyways of Centennial (now Boulevard
General de Gaulle) with their weapons (axes, machetes, spears, bows and
arrows).

“But they very quickly realised that they had been taken for a ride.
\[...\] The young people dispersed them with stones and divided up their
food amongst themselves. \[...\] Others were vilified on their way to
Rufisque. In any event, the riot revealed the fragility of the political
standing of the UPS and of the regime in the urban areas, particularly
in Dakar.”\[12\]

Undoubtedly, the government of Senghor would utilise every means
available, including the most obscure, to bring the social uprising
against its regime to an end. However, to permanently extinguish the
fire, the most effective weapon for the government could only be that in
the hands of Doudou Ngome. He played his part at the time as the leader
of the main union, the UNTS. He would “negotiate” the terms for
smothering the general strike. Moreover, as a thank you, President
Senghor would make him a minister a few years later. It’s another
illustration of the strike-breaking role of the unions who, in cahoots
with the former colonial power, definitely saved Senghor’s neck.

The high-school students’ role in starting the movement “The high
schools in the Cap-Vert region, ‘aroused’ by the strike at Rufisque High
School in April, were the first to spring into action. These students
were especially quick to take to the streets as they saw themselves,
like the university students, as victims of the education policy of the
Government and were concerned in particular by the cut-backs in the
grants. As future university students themselves, they were actively
involved in the struggle of the UDES. The strike spread rapidly from
Dakar to other secondary schools around the country from May 27th
\[...\] The leadership of the students’ movement was very unstable, and
from one meeting to the next, the delegates, and there were many,
changed. \[...\] An important nucleus of very active strikers also drew
the attention of the teacher training college for young girls at Thies.
Some student leaders even moved to the old town and coordinated the
strike from there. Subsequently, a national committee of the high
schools and other secondary education colleges in Senegal was formed,
becoming a sort of general staff of the student movement.”\[13\]

Here the author is describing the active role of the high-school
students in the mass movement of May 68 in Senegal, in particular the
way the struggle was organised with general assemblies and
‘co-ordinations’. Indeed, in every high school, there was a struggle
committee and general assembly with an elected and revocable leadership.

The magnificent involvement of the high school students, both male and
female, was highly significant as this was the first time in history
that this part of the youth were mobilised in large numbers to protest
against the new ruling bourgeoisie. If the starting point of the
movement was a solidarity action with one of their comrades, victimised
by the school authority, the high-school students, like the other
students and workers, also saw the need to fight against the effects of
the capitalist crisis that the Senghor government wanted to make them
pay for.

Western imperialism comes to Senghor’s aid At the imperialist level,
France was keeping close track of the crisis that the events of 1968 had
given rise to, and for good reason; it had a lot invested in Senegal.
Indeed, apart from its military bases (sea, air and land) located around
Dakar, Paris had appointed a “technical advisor” to each ministry and to
the president’s office to steer the policies of the Senegalese
government in a direction that would clearly serve its own interests.

In this respect, we can recall that before being one of the best
“pupils” of the Western bloc, Senegal was for a long time the
principal historic bastion of French colonialism in Africa (from 1659 to
1960) and for this reason Senegal participated with its foot soldiers in
all the wars that France was involved in around the world, from the
conquest of Madagascar in the 19th century, to both World Wars and the
wars in Indochina and Algeria. It was therefore only natural for France
to use its role as “local gendarme” of the Western imperialist bloc in
Africa to protect Senghor's regime using every means at its disposal:

“In the aftermath of the events of 68, France intervened with support
from its EEC partners to rescue the Senegalese regime. The State was not
able to meet its debts following negotiations that took place on June
12th. In a speech on June 13th, President Senghor said that the
agreement with the unions would cost 2 thousand million francs (local
currency). A week after these negotiations, the European Development
Fund (EDF) agreed to the stabilisation fund for groundnut prices with an
advance of 2 thousand and 150 million francs (local currency) ‘intended
to mitigate the effects of the fluctuations in world prices during the
1967/68 campaign’. \[...\] But even the U.S., which had been taken to
task by the President Senghor during the events, participated with the
other Western countries in restoring a peaceful social climate in
Senegal. Indeed, the U.S. and Senegal signed an agreement for the
construction of 800 housing units for middle income groups for a total
of 5 million dollars.”\[14\]

It is clear that in doing this the main issue for the Western bloc was
avoiding the collapse of Senegal and its defection into the enemy camp
(that of China and Eastern Bloc).

Thus, having regained control of the situation, President Senghor
immediately set off to visit the “friendly countries”, and Germany,
amongst them, welcomed him to Frankfurt, just after the bloody
suppression of the strikers in Senegal. This welcome in Frankfurt is
also highly instructive because Senghor went there to get help and to be
“decorated” by a country that was a leading member of NATO. On the other
hand, this visit was an opportunity for the German students, for whom
“Danny the Red” Cohn-Bendit was the mouthpiece, to show support in the
streets for their Senegalese comrades, as the newspaper Le Monde
reported, 25/09/1968:

“Daniel Cohn-Bendit was arrested on Sunday in Frankfurt during
demonstrations against Mr Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal, and he
was charged on Monday afternoon (along with 25 of his comrades) by a
local German magistrate of inciting riot and illegal assembly...”

In their struggle, the Senegalese students would also receive support
from their comrades overseas who often occupied the Senegalese embassies
and consulates. News of the movement in Senegal reverberated throughout
Africa:

“In Africa, there were further repercussions from the events in Dakar
owing to the actions of the national unions (student unions). On
returning to their home countries African students, expelled from the
University of Dakar, continued campaigning. \[...\] The African
governments of that time regarded the students from Dakar with
suspicion. And in so far as most of them showed their irritation at the
way their nationals were expelled, they also feared the contagion of
their country with the ‘subversion arriving from Dakar and
Paris’.”\[15\]

Actually, almost all African regimes feared “contagion” and “subversion”
from May 68, starting with Senghor himself who had to resort to violent
repressive measures against the educated youth. Hence, many of the
strikers experienced prison or forced military service not dissimilar to
deportation into military camps. And equally, large numbers of foreign
African students were expelled en masse; some of whom were ill-treated
on their return home.

Some lessons from the events of May 68 in Dakar “May in Dakar” was
unquestionably one of the links in the chain of a worldwide May 68. The
significance of the involvement of the Western imperialist bloc in
saving the Senegalese regime was an indication of the power of the
movement of the workers and the university and high school students.

But over and above the radicalism of the student action, the movement of
May 68 in Senegal, with its working class involvement, came about
through a return to the spirit and the form of the proletarian struggle
that the working class of the colony of French West Africa had achieved
at the beginning of the 20th century, but which the African bourgeoisie
in the government had succeeded in stifling, especially during the early
years of “national independence”.

May 68 was thus more than an opening to another world breaking with the
counter-revolutionary period; it was a moment of awakening for many
protagonists, especially the youth. Through their involvement in the
fight against the forces of the national capital, they exposed a number
of myths and illusions, including the “end of the class struggle” under
the pretext there was no antagonism between the (African) working class
and the (African) bourgeoisie.

It should also be noted the police repression and imprisonment of
thousands of strikers proved insufficient for achieving victory over the
social movement; it also had to be lured into the union trap and the
intervention of France and the Western bloc in support of their
“favourite junior partner”. But it was also necessary to meet the
demands of students and workers with a large increase in pay.

The basic thing is that the strikers did not “sleep” for long after the
agreement that ended the strike because the following year, the working
class took up the fight more than ever participating fully in the wave
of international struggles that May 68 set in train.

Finally, it is noteworthy that this movement used truly proletarian
modes of organisation, proletarian strike committees and general
assemblies, strongly demonstrating self-organisation; in short, a clear
taking of the struggles into their own hands by the strikers. This is
one specific aspect that characterises the struggle of a fraction of the
world working class, fully involved in the battle to come for the
communist revolution.