Agriculture is the lifeblood of Africa. More than 60% of African households depend directly or indirectly on the land for their livelihoods. And the continent has nearly 60% of the world’s uncultivated arable land.

Farming is a fragile sector, however. It has to deal with climate change, market volatility, weak infrastructure and demographic pressure. Addressing these challenges requires political commitment and investment. It also requires science, innovation and high-quality research.

I have been involved in scientific research, particularly agricultural research, for more than four decades. My roles have included researcher, member of multiple science academies, director general of the Africa Rice Center/CGIAR, and Senegal’s minister in charge of agricultural research.

Throughout these years, one criticism has repeatedly surfaced: agricultural research is often perceived as expensive while delivering little for people. This perception is widely shared and frequently echoed in political and media debates.

Based on my experience, I believe the criticism rests on a questionable assumption: that the impact of science depends exclusively on those who produce it. When innovations fail to change the world, scientists themselves are often presented as the culprits.

The reality is far more complex. The history of agricultural transformation across the world shows that research alone never changes societies. Impact follows when an agricultural ecosystem effectively connects science to producers, markets, finance, institutions and public policy.

International institutions have highlighted the difficulties many developing countries face in turning scientific knowledge into development. The reasons include weak innovation ecosystems, too little infrastructure and limited institutional coordination.

An example of what success looks like is the Green Revolution in Asia. Scientific breakthroughs improved wheat and rice varieties which transformed agriculture. It was not simply because the science was strong. There were other factors too. They included governments investing in irrigation, extension services, rural infrastructure, credit systems and market organisation.

In India and Vietnam, for example, science operated within a coherent system linking researchers, farmers, institutions and markets.

Science generates knowledge, informs policies, stimulates innovation and opens new possibilities. But it does not change societies on its own.

The missing parts

Recent decades have brought advances on a number of fronts. In seeds, irrigation, soil fertility management, climate adaptation, biotechnology, digital agriculture, agroecology and sustainable food systems.

African researchers, universities and international agricultural research centres have contributed enormously to this progress.

Rwanda and Ethiopia provide useful examples of how coordinated ecosystems can speed up change. In both, stronger links between research, extension systems, public investment and farmer support mechanisms have made a difference. They have contributed to faster uptake of new technologies. And they have led to productivity gains in several strategic crops such as maize, rice, cassava, beans and soybeans.

Another example is rice. During my years at AfricaRice, I saw major scientific advances in rice research. This included the development of New Rice for Africa varieties. ⁠ These resulted from years of scientific work combining the high productivity potential of Asian rice with the resilience of African rice, particularly its tolerance to drought, poor soils and local climatic stresses. It wasn’t easy, because the two rice species are genetically distant.

Farmers quickly took up the new varieties. Farmer incomes and food production improved in countries where governments, seed systems, extension services and development partners worked together. In Uganda, Guinea and several west African countries, coordinated programmes helped accelerate adoption among smallholder farmers.

These examples show that effective agricultural innovation will only be adopted and scaled if several conditions are met together. These include:

• access to inputs and technologies

• accessible financing

• efficient extension services

• functioning infrastructure

• organised markets

• coherent, predictable public policies.

Without these conditions, innovations often remain confined to research stations, pilot projects or scientific publications. Where seed systems, rural financing or market organisation are weak, good science makes little difference.

In several African countries, farmers aren’t using improved seed varieties because they can’t get certified seeds at scale. Likewise, promising innovations in irrigation, post-harvest technologies or digital agriculture have struggled because of weaknesses in infrastructure, rural credit or institutional coordination.

What’s needed

Debates on agricultural research in Africa must go beyond simplistic criticism. Agricultural research should not be viewed as a cost. Rather it is a strategic investment in food security, economic sovereignty, environmental sustainability, public health, social stability and human dignity.

Blaming science for lacking impact masks the weaknesses of broader development systems.

As Africa faces the defining challenge of the 21st century – feeding its population without destroying the planet – it would be a mistake to weaken scientific research. The continent must instead strengthen alliances between science, policy, finance, private sector actors, farmers, universities and civil society.

Across Africa, emerging innovation platforms show that when these actors work together, scientific advances can create tangible economic and social change. The challenge now is to broaden this beyond isolated successes.

In the end, the impact of science is a collective responsibility.

And science can only change the world when societies decide to give it the means to do so.

Pape Abdoulaye Seck served as director general of the Africa Rice Center/CGIAR and was Senegal’s minister in charge of agricultural research.

If you’ve ever watched a game of Australian rules football, rugby league or basketball, you’ve probably seen it happen: a player lands awkwardly, grabs their knee, and doesn’t get back up.

An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is one of the most common and feared knee injuries in sport.

Every year, thousands of Australians rupture their ACL.

The ACL is a strong band of tissue that helps keep the knee stable, especially during quick turns, sudden stops and awkward landings.

At the time of injury, people often report feeling a “pop” in their knee with rapid swelling, acute pain and sometimes, the feeling the knee might buckle when trying to stand or walk.

So, what next? For most, it’s surgery.

But our recent research shows for most people, rehabilitation delivers similar results to surgery.

---

Read more: Injured your ACL? It’s more than just a knee injury

---

Are Australians too reliant on surgery?

Our team of physiotherapists and an orthopaedic surgeon recently researched the latest evidence from around the world on how best to treat ACL injuries, and particularly what happens when you do or don’t have surgery.

An estimated 90% of young active Australian adults with an ACL rupture choose to have surgery – an ACL reconstruction. We have the highest and also fastest growing rates of ACL reconstruction surgery in the world. This may be why most people assume surgery is the only treatment option.

But in Australia, no studies have compared surgery versus other treatments, such as physiotherapy rehabilitation.

However, other countries, such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark, more routinely offer a period of rehabilitation first before deciding on the need for surgery. Importantly, patients can still be deemed appropriate candidates for surgery after first trialling rehabilitation.

What we found

When our team reviewed all the evidence from robust studies (mostly from these countries), there was no difference in most short- and long-term outcomes between surgery first, rehabilitation without surgery, or rehabilitation first plus later surgery.

In simple terms, patients’ knee strength, ability to do daily activities and ability to return to sport was similar, regardless of treatment choice.

Importantly, at least half the patients who started with rehabilitation chose not to have surgery within the first two years after their injury, without compromising their outcomes.

This also matters because surgery comes with risks, including:

• infection: about 1%
• deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot): up to 8%
• graft failure (where the new ligament ruptures): up to 20%

These risks may not always be presented to patients or may sometimes be downplayed, which can lead to a lack of awareness when making treatment decisions.

Despite these risks, ACL reconstruction surgery may be the best option for some patients, especially those with concurrent injuries to the meniscus, cartilage and/or other knee ligaments.

Patients aiming to return to sports with lots of cutting and turning, like football or netball, and patients with a knee that still feels unstable even after extensive rehabilitation, may also be good candidates for surgery. For these reasons, surgery is the norm for treatment in professional sport, though with some exceptions.

Re-injury remains a big concern – re-rupture of the new ACL graft affects up to 20% of patients. About half of all patients with an ACL rupture will also develop knee osteoarthritis within 10 years of injury. This risk is mainly driven by the injury itself.

While surgery may make the knee feel more stable, it does not remove the long-term risk of osteoarthritis.

Rehab is crucial, with or without surgery

Regardless of the treatment pathway, rehabilitation is an important component of recovery.

A physiotherapist will guide patients in restoring knee stability by improving knee range of motion, muscle strength, balance and coordination.

Nine to 12 months of rehabilitation is recommended after surgery before returning to sport, with checkpoints along the way used to measure progress.

Exercising prior to surgery may also speed up recovery.

Nine to 12 months can feel like a long time, especially if you’re used to being active or playing sport.

Research tells us not meeting rehabilitation goals is related to a lower likelihood of returning to sport and increased risk of re-injury, highlighting the importance of seeing it through.

Talk to the experts

The bottom line is, not every ACL rupture needs immediate surgery – some people do just as well with a structured exercise-based rehabilitation program.

The right advice at the time of injury is crucial.

ACL injuries require a proper assessment by experts, such as physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons, who will help guide decisions about imaging, available treatment options and whether surgery is necessary or not.

Adam Culvenor receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia.

Marc-Olivier Dubé receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Dr Thomas West does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

At a time when remote work is increasingly up for debate among companies, it remains an often underestimated lever for fostering open innovation. This article examines how initiatives designed to encourage collaborative work outside the workplace can contribute to the development of open innovation.

Open innovation traditionally refers to purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge across firm boundaries. Through various collaborations with external entities, firms will be able to be more innovative and accelerate their product development process whatever their sector. Our latest research explores the reasons why remote working is frequently undervalued as a means of open innovation.

Companies, both large and medium sized, operating in various sectors tend to use co-working spaces and makerspaces to support their open innovation initiatives.

This approach is particularly relevant in cases where co-working spaces and makerspaces function as “open labs”. They offer a physical location that acts as a symbolic totem place, an innovation-driven community, and a set of services (incubators, coaching, etc.) that promote experimentation across a variety of specific subjects.

Some companies send their employees to these open labs, where they become affiliated coworkers within the open lab communities. These affiliated workers spend varying amounts of time there, from a few days a week to regular full week residency over several months or even years. Although affiliated coworkers represent only a small proportion of open lab residents, they have a specific profile, driven by individual motivations such as curiosity and open mindedness, as well as organisational targets set by their employer.

Exploring hubs where innovation thrives

From the firms’ perspective, regularly sending employees to work in open labs reflects the diverse opportunities to foster open innovation strategies.

Remote working in open labs can be divided into three categories that each contribute to the development of firms’ open innovation initiatives in a different way:

1) Remote working for fostering a new innovation culture

Open labs give affiliated workers the opportunity to develop new innovative work practices and workplace behaviours. In open labs, people interact on the basis of reciprocity mechanisms, use various creative methods, and engage in rapid prototyping activities. Learning by doing enables affiliated workers to acquire new creative skills as well as new representations of innovation. These experiences give them confidence in their ability to play an active role in collective and innovative processes. When they go back to their offices, they in turn, help spread a new innovation culture within the workplace.

• For three years, French bank Société Générale sent more than 1,000 employees per year from its business hubs based in the greater Paris area to various open labs located in Paris to learn new innovative practices. Société Générale employees benefited from residency programs at La Paillasse, Makesense or liberty living lab where they worked on innovative projects during several weeks.

• Makesense Space offers co-working spaces and supports intrapreneurship programs for large companies. Its team supports intrapreneurs who have the opportunity to work within Makesense co-working space, and become “embedded” in Makesense’s community of innovators.

2) Remote working for finding new partners, ideas, and expertise

By regularly sending knowledge workers on short stints at open labs, companies can access new ideas and expertise that enrich their projects. This enables affiliated workers to become embedded in open lab communities that are characterised by heterogeneous expertise and collective creative projects. These environments allows them to explore new topics in depth and gain fresh insights for exploratory activities.

• In France, a number of large construction and transport companies such as Eqiom and SNCF work with ICI Montreuil. ICI Montreuil is both a makerspace and a co-working space dedicated to the crafts and creative industries. The ICI Montreuil’s community is made up of artisans from 50 different types of crafts and creative industries who are able to support the development of new original tools and products.

• Electrolab is another example illustrating original relationships with private actors. Electrolab is a hackerspace that contributes to developing new technologies based on the hacking ethos. Its community is made up of engineers, unemployed people, students, researchers, artists, etc. All members of the open lab share the same value of developing technologies based on hacking principles. Medium sized companies are also welcome. They have the opportunity to participate in the community’s activities and harness new creative ideas and ways of developing new technologies.

3) Remote working as a way of managing collaborative multi-partner projects

Firms increasingly need to develop multi-partner collaborations to explore user-centric innovations and address emerging societal challenges such as environmental sustainability. For companies, it is becoming essential to reconcile different perspectives: technological development, economic value and environmental issues. They must identify new partners and design new ways of operating and doing business.

Sending employees to work inside open labs can be an effective way to manage multi-partner projects. Open labs provide a neutral space that encourages out of the box thinking. As affiliated workers, employees don’t just come to the open lab for meetings and brainstorming sessions; they stay there one, two, or three days per week over several months to work on dedicated collaborative projects.

Collaborative remote working respectively helps employers to remain project-centred and accelerate the innovation process. It also increases their ability to adopt new collaborative practices when working off-premises. TUBA in Lyon, specialising in urban project development and Liberté Living Lab in Paris are hubs that have attracted interest from large companies such as Roche, ENGIE, Société Générale who design collective experimentation projects for smart cities or healthcare. Employees from these firms go there on one or two day per week placements over a three month period to work on dedicated collective projects.

Keeping collaborative work environment options open

The contribution of remote working to open innovation has been barely formalised by companies, even though many of them are already implementing such initiatives.

These practices help address the human element behind open innovation challenges, particularly in terms of skills, culture, and collaboration.

When companies reduce remote working, they may also deprive themselves of valuable opportunities to strengthen their capacity to manage open innovation.

As our results in the EU-backed Remaking project show, remote working can be an opportunity to build experiences beyond corporate physical boundaries to foster companies and organisations’ capacity for innovation.

---

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

---

Valérie Mérindol a reçu des financements de BPIfrance pour mener cette recherche.

Paris School of Business a reçu un financement de la Commission européenne pour le projet Horizon "REMAKING" (G.A. Nº 101132685).

Alexandra Le Chaffotec ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

To be truly inclusive, public outdoor spaces must meet the needs of the entire population, regardless of age, physical ability or mobility.

Although many cities have adopted universal accessibility policies in recent years, it’s important to consider whether these policies have actually improved accessibility and the experiences of citizens who live there.

Public spaces can become a source of fatigue and stress for older people if their features are not properly designed.

Several fields of research in urban design, urban planning, and architecture offer valuable tools for understanding the level of accessibility in public spaces. Three dimensions are particularly relevant, since they directly concern the way a built environment meets the needs of people with motor, visual or cognitive impairments. These three dimensions — comfort, legibility, and geometric clarity — enable us to assess whether a space is truly designed for everyone.

As an architect, urban planner, and full professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, I study the universal accessibility of public environments by identifying the physical and spatial dimensions that promote their equitable use.

---

This article is part of our ongoing series The Grey Revolution. The Conversation Canada and La Conversation are exploring the impact of the aging boomer generation on Canadian society, including housing, working, culture, nutrition, travelling and health care. The series explores the upheavals already underway and those looming ahead.

---

The importance of comfort

Environmental studies focus on how people live and use public spaces. According to Jan Gehl, a Danish architect and urban planner, a space suitable for pedestrians must provide protection, comfort and appeal.

• Protection ensures safety, for example through pavements separated from vehicle traffic or clearly marked pedestrian crossings.

• Comfort facilitates movement through features like flat, continuous surfaces, the absence of obstacles, benches, handrails and adapted access.

• Appeal is based on a combination of physical and sensory elements, such as greenery, light and the presence of activities, which promote a pleasant experience for users.

These criteria benefit everyone, but are especially essential for older people or those with reduced mobility. Pleasant and comfortable spaces encourage people to walk more and take advantage of the city. That, in turn, promotes social inclusion and enhances well-being.

The pedestrian route in Parc Safari in Hemmingford, south of Montréal, is an example of a tourist development that prioritizes comfort.

Flat, paved surfaces and the absence of ground-level obstacles, such as uneven steps or steep slopes, ensure comfortable and unimpeded movement. To provide a pleasant and safe experience, it is essential to maintain uniform surfaces and consistent levels, which facilitate the passage of pushchairs and wheelchairs as well as the movement of people with mobility challenges.

5 critical urban elements

Urban planning studies on the “image of the city” focus on how people perceive and navigate their environment. Kevin Lynch, an American urban planner who taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard, profoundly influenced urban design with his work how cities are perceived. His research has identified five elements that help people find their way around the city:

• Pathways (streets, pavements or footpaths).

• Boundaries (walls, rivers or railway lines) that demarcate a space that may be difficult, or even impossible, to cross.

• Neighbourhoods recognizable by their atmosphere, function or consistent architecture.

• Nodes (places of passage or gathering, such as a public square, a crossroads or a station).

• Landmarks (visible features that help people orient themselves), such as a tower, a bell tower, a sign, or a distinctive tree.

Montréal’s Esplanade Place Ville-Marie is a good example of a place with these qualities.

The design, organized around steps that incorporate a ramp clearly visible from the pedestrian’s line of sight, reduces confusion and makes it easier to understand the connections among the Esplanade’s different levels.

That makes it possible for pedestrians to anticipate the continuity of their route, making movement more reassuring and pleasant. The clarity of this layout ensures that the Esplanade Place Ville-Marie is accessible to all.

When boundaries and landmarks are clearly defined, the city becomes more welcoming and easier to navigate, particularly for people who have difficulty with orientation or trouble following directions. This reduces the anxiety associated with walking in complex environments and enhances the sense of security.

For example, as part of the Bristol Legible City project in the United Kingdom, 97 per cent of visitors highlighted the tangible impact of clear and consistent urban design on the walking experience and user comfort.

Geometrically clear urban layouts

Studies of spatiality analyze the form and geometry of urban spaces to understand how their organization influences human movement and behaviour.

Bill Hillier, a British architect and professor at University College London, is known for his syntactic approach, a method of analyzing urban and architectural spaces.

His work shows that people naturally move along clear, direct axes. Certain cognitive disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease or mild age-related cognitive impairment, can affect memory, attention and orientation. A geometrically clear urban layout eases orientation for these people and enables them to mentally visualize the spatial layout of the area where they’re walking.

Another important factor is the spatial enclosure effect created by the continuity of façades, fences or building lines, which fosters a sense of containment and security.

The most accessible public spaces are, therefore, often those with simple, linear routes that offer a smooth and predictable path. A well-organized layout makes it easier for elderly people and visitors to plan their upcoming trips, maximizing their enjoyment of a city.

In Montréal’s Old Port, spaces are clearly defined. Along Saint-Paul Street, a continuous row of building façades shapes the street and guides movement, with the view shifting as you walk. A low curb adds to this sense of order and makes the route easy to follow.

Accessibility for all

The elements of comfort, navigability and geometric clarity can guide urban designers, including architects, urban planners, landscape architects and engineers, in creating public spaces that are accessible to all.

Adhering to these criteria from the design stage helps avoid costly and late-stage adjustments while ensuring optimal comfort and safety for all users.

When high-quality public spaces are designed from the outset, it is possible to meet the needs relating to mobility, vision and cognition without designing the space for a single type of user. A thoughtful and inclusive design makes the city more comfortable, accessible and safe for everyone, particularly for an aging population.

François Racine has received funding from the Friends of the Parc Safari Foundation.

Romuald Wadagni won the 2026 presidential election in Benin with over 94% of the vote. Wadagni, 50, is a technocrat who became an influential finance minister under Patrice Talon from 2016 until his election.

The Beninese political system is a pluralist democracy organised around a presidential system, with regular elections and political alternation. It is also characterised by a strict institutional framework governing electoral competition, particularly since recent reforms.

The outcome raises questions about the current dynamics of Benin’s political system. How should the 2026 presidential results be interpreted in a context marked by reforms to the party system and the electoral framework? Political sociologist Narcisse M. Yèdji offers some insights.

---

How do you interpret the 94% result?

With the current national political climate, the landslide victory raises several questions. At first glance, the results suggest very strong support for the presidential majority. Statistically, this means a very low dispersion of votes between the two competing duos: the winning ticket formed by Romuald Wadagni and Mariam Chabi Talata, and the one formed by Paul Hounkpè and Rock Judicaël Hounwanou. More broadly, such a scenario is typical of electoral contexts where the opposition plays only a formal role and has no real chance of winning.

That said, the enormous margin between the two main candidates may also reflect strong support for the winning pair, giving the impression of a broad consensus in their favour.

Clearly, recent changes introduced to the country’s party system and the electoral code have tilted the balance in favour of the ruling party. Such a victory was predictable. The margin, however, was not.

A comparison with the 2021 presidential election places the 2026 result in a broader perspective. The 2021 election was won by Patrice Talon with 86% of the vote. The race was slightly more open. It involved a larger number of candidates: three pairs in total.

The statements are not contradictory. In a context where the political offer is restricted, voters have several options: either to stay at home, or to cast a default vote. Therefore, the 94% may reflect strong popular support. Or, given the limited set of choices, it may reflect the option of a default vote. The 2026 landslide victory can thus be read as a reflection of growing electoral support for the incumbent administration.

The latest complete overhaul of the rules of political competition left voters without meaningful and credible alternatives, thereby increasing the likelihood of people voting by default.

However, what might appear to be a gradual consolidation of electoral support for the ruling party could, in fact, be the effect of these reforms. The endorsement system, in particular, has played a key role in shaping how votes are distributed. It is a system that requires any presidential candidate to obtain the formal support of a certain number of elected officials (members of parliament or mayors) in order to be eligible to run. The threshold, initially set at 10% (16 endorsements), was raised to 15% in 2024 (28 endorsements), making it harder for the main opposition party to enter the race, as it was unable to secure the required number of endorsements.

It is therefore misleading to view the presidential ticket’s success as mere coincidence. A more realistic reading points to a long-matured political project, executed with cold calculation by those in power.

---

Read more: Présidentielle au Bénin : comment les réformes politiques sous Patrice Talon ont remodelé la compétition électorale

---

There are two issues at stake. First, avoiding any risk of retaliation from a resentful successor. The long siege of more than 50 days imposed by security forces on former president Thomas Boni Yayi’s residence after the controversial 2019 legislative election lends weight to this argument. Second, to enable reforms and economic transformation projects to continue, while reducing political uncertainty.

In 2025, Talon had, in fact, hinted at his wish to pass the baton to a successor who would “not undo” his reform programme.

From this perspective, Wadagni’s success is no accident. It is the planned outcome of political system designed to ensure its own continuity.

How do you interpret the voter turnout?

A comparison with previous presidential elections highlights a mixed trend in voter turnout. The 2026 turnout was 63.57%. That is higher than 2021’s 50.17% turnout. However, civil society disputes that 2021 figure, claiming it was actually 26.47%. These turnout rates (for the 2021 and 2026 presidential runs) contrast sharply with recent legislative elections. Turnout was 27.12% in 2019; 38.66% in 2023; 36.74% in 2026.

This contrast reveals a hierarchy among elections. Presidental elections draw stronger turnout, even without real electoral options. For many citizens, electing the head of state is a central political moment.

However, the higher turnout for 2026 (63.57%) should not be interpreted as a revival of political interest. Voter participation has steadily declined since 2006. It averaged at 74.85% in 2006 and 84.82% in 2011.

There is another important reading from the 2026 presidential elections. The relatively high voter turnout of 63.57% happened at the same time as the electoral choices narrowed. In other words, turnout does not appear to be conditioned by the perception of effective pluralism in the electoral process.

Ultimately, these changes reflect how citizens relate to elections. Presidential votes still hold some appeal. Yet, the broader electoral trend remains one of growing abstention and mistrust.

This trend can clearly be linked to a limited belief in the effectiveness of the voting process. It may also stem from a narrower range of electoral choices. If a restricted political offer appears not to affect electoral participation, this does not imply that those who went to vote fully trust the electoral process.

It is entirely possible to be distrustful of the system while still voting, especially when abstention is not perceived as the best option.

Finally, it may be indicative of shifting social expectations regarding political representation.

What are the main challenges facing the new president?

Several challenges await the new president. The first is political legitimacy. Many see his term as a direct continuation of Talon’s rule. For them, Wadagni is his designated successor.

---

Read more: Au Bénin, le bilan de Patrice Talon à l’épreuve des élections législatives

---

From this perspective, the new president appears to be both heir and hostage. He inherits the previous administration’s achievements. But he also inherits its liabilities. This raises a central question: can he build an independent authority of his own?

The central challenge of his term, therefore, is to distance himself from this divisive political legacy. He must build an image as an independent president. Wadagni has stated that his predecessor would “step aside” if he wins. But, doubts remain about whether this promised distance will become reality.

On the institutional front, the new president inherits a fragile executive branch. Parliament owes full allegiance to Talon. The Senate could also limit his room for action.

From the first challenge stems the second: restoring trust between politics and people. The outgoing president will sit in the Senate and is likely to remain, for years to come, one of the country’s most influential political figures. Meeting this challenge will undoubtedly depend on how the public will perceive Talon’s influence on government affairs from within the Senate.

Restoring trust between the political sphere and the people means winning back voters who have walked away from electoral processes. This will require credible actions that must prove renewed approach to governance.

The legitimacy of the new president’s policies may depend on this effort.

Beyond that, the deepest challenge might be national reconciliation. Recent political dynamics such as the electoral reforms appear to have contributed to deepening divisions among Beninese citizens. To ensure long term stability, the new president will need to take credible actions to ease tensions and rebuild social cohesion.

For this to happen, strong actions are expected quickly after his inauguration, especially on highly sensitive issues:

• security issues in the northern border regions exposed to terrorist threats

• economic and social issues, including the cost of living, improving purchasing power, youth employment, and reducing wage inequalities

• political and institutional issues, including “political prisoners”, exiles, and those in similar situations; easing the tax burden; and rebuilding public trust in institutions.

Amid the profound political and institutional changes underway, Wadagni’s ability to meet all these expectations will shape his legitimacy. It will also determine the overall success of his seven-year term.

Narcisse Martial Yèdji does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.