The nature of the coup that took place on November 26th became the focus of national and international debate. German researcher Sophia Birchinger, a specialist in African affairs, described it as “an unnamed coup"An expression that resonated with many, as it captured the ambiguity of this political moment."

According to Birchinger, four distinct narratives emerged after the fall of President Embaló, reflecting the deep division that runs through Guinea-Bissau. The first narrative, presented by the military themselves, justified the seizure of power by alleging the discovery of a plan involving influential politicians and drug lords, whose intention was to manipulate election results and destabilize the country.

From this perspective, the military intervention would have been a preventive measure intended to protect constitutional order and avoid internal conflict. The second narrative, defended by the opposition and various civil society organizations, described the events as a “fake scam".

In these sectors, the belief is that the outgoing President orchestrated a maneuver to prevent the release of the official results—which were to be announced by the National Electoral Commission on November 27—and thus avoid a possible defeat. According to these accusations, the objective would have been to maintain power at all costs, even at the expense of institutional breakdown.

The third narrative emerged from Embaló's defenders. For them, what occurred was a true military deposition, illegitimate, abrupt, and contrary to the constitutional order. This interpretation portrays the President as a victim of insubordination that took advantage of institutional weakness to overthrow the head of state.

The fourth narrative, quieter but profoundly revealing, is that of popular resignation. After decades marked by coups, dissolutions, internal disputes, and cycles of instability, many citizens reacted with an almost fatalistic indifference. For a significant portion of the population, yet another political collapse was not a surprise; it was continuity.

Guinea-Bissau was already experiencing a fragile institutional situation long before the elections. Following the dissolution of the National People's Assembly, the opposition was pressing for the country to quickly return to normality. The prolonged debate over the end of the presidential term heightened the tension.

The opposition argued that Embaló should have left office in February, while the President insisted on the September date, based on a previous court decision. The dispute worsened with the exclusion of some of the most influential figures in the country's political life. Domingos Simões Pereira, a historic leader and Embaló's adversary, was prevented from running.

The same happened to the PAI-Terra Ranka coalition, associated with the PAIGC, and to the API Cabas Grandi coalition. These exclusions raised suspicions about the impartiality and transparency of the electoral process. Thus, the contest was reduced to two names: Umaro Sissoco Embaló and Fernando Dias da Costa, an independent candidate supported by the PAIGC.

The day after the election, Fernando Dias claimed victory in the first round, long before the official results were announced on November 27th. When the military coup occurred, the country plunged into a new spiral of uncertainty. The institutions could not withstand the pressure, and the crisis became inevitable.

Guinea-Bissau ends 2025 immersed in a profound political vacuum. Without a president, an active parliament, a suspended Constitution, and published election results, the country lives in an institutional limbo that weakens all governance structures.

The ambiguity surrounding the November coup and the contradictory accounts fuel a climate of uncertainty, affecting both the political sphere and daily life. Decades of instability have generated collective weariness, manifested in a loss of confidence in institutions and a fear of recurring cycles of disruption.

The suspension by regional organizations and diplomatic isolation reinforce this concern. ECOWAS and Nigeria have demonstrated their refusal to allow democratic backsliding, but the consolidation of democratic defense falls to Guinea-Bissau internally. The immediate future will depend on the management of justice, reconciliation, and preparation for the next elections.

The lesson is clear: Guinean democracy has resisted, but remains under surveillance. 2025 marks an unavoidable turning point, and the future will tell whether this rupture will pave the way for a solid democratic reconstruction or whether it will be yet another chapter of instability. The desire for a stable and predictable country, capable of responding to aspirations for freedom and dignity, remains unchanged.