By Marcus A. Bangura | Op-Ed & Commentary
Democracy, in its purest form, is the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is far more than holding elections or forming political parties; it is a living system of values, institutions, rights, and responsibilities. It thrives on free and fair elections, strong institutions, civil liberties, the rule of law, accountability, political pluralism, and a balance between majority rule and minority rights. When these pillars are weakened or compromised, often under a cloak of legality, democracy suffers. A country may appear democratic in form but not in function, risking descent into what may be termed “democratically undemocratic.”
Sierra Leone presents itself as a functioning multiparty democracy. It has a constitution, regular elections, an independent judiciary on paper, a parliament, civil society groups, and media outlets. Citizens vote, courts exist, and civil society is allowed to operate. Yet beneath this democratic veneer lies a troubling reality: institutions meant to uphold democracy are increasingly weak, politicized, and manipulated to serve ruling elites. The democratic framework exists, but its spirit is being eroded. Elections are held, but their legitimacy is questioned. This contradiction was especially evident in the aftermath of the 2023 general elections.
At the heart of any democracy is the legitimacy of elections. The 2023 polls were allegedly marked by irregularities, lack of transparency, and delayed announcements, triggering public distrust and unrest. Without confidence in the electoral process, the foundation of democracy becomes unstable.
Beyond elections, accountability mechanisms are deteriorating. Oversight institutions like the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Electoral Commission, and even Parliament faces credibility issues due to perceived bias or executive interference. Democracy does not end at the ballot box; it depends on strong institutions and continuous civic engagement.
One of the clearest indicators of democratic decline is institutional weakness. In Sierra Leone, bodies like the Electoral Commission (ECSL), ACC, the Political Parties Regulation Commission (PPRC), Sierra Leone Police (SLP), and Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) are increasingly seen as compromised. Rather than standing above politics, these institutions are often viewed as instruments to protect incumbency and silence dissent. Their perceived lack of independence damages public trust and democratic health.
A key example is the introduction of the controversial district block Proportional Representation (PR) system in 2022. While promoted as a reform to enhance inclusion, it was introduced through a presidential proclamation and upheld by the courts. However, the system’s 11.9% electoral threshold, among the highest globally, excluded smaller parties, reducing competition and diversity. Rather than broadening representation, it concentrated power in the hands of dominant parties. What was touted as reform ended up narrowing political space, pushing smaller parties to the margins and undermining pluralism.
Another critical institution is the Audit Service Sierra Leone (ASSL), responsible for financial oversight and government accountability. Its reports have increasingly been delayed and incomplete, weakening transparency. Without timely audits, corruption goes unchecked, public funds are mismanaged, and citizens remain unaware of how their resources are used. This failure undermines the principle of accountability and fosters mistrust in government.
Civil liberties and political rights are also under pressure. While civil society remains active, freedoms of expression, association, and assembly face growing restrictions. Journalists have faced intimidation, activists have been arrested for peaceful protest, and opposition supporters monitored or harassed. Laws like the Cybercrime Act contain vague provisions that can be used to target dissent. A democratic government should embrace criticism and allow peaceful protest throughout its tenure, not just during election seasons. Sadly, many Sierra Leoneans feel politically disempowered, not only by exclusion but by the gradual erosion of civil liberties that once underpinned the country’s post-conflict democratic progress.
Access to information and transparency in governance have also declined. Budget accountability, contract disclosures, and resource governance data remain limited. Despite legal provisions for openness, public access to information is restricted, and government contracts are often shrouded in secrecy. This lack of transparency enables corruption and erodes trust between the people and those in power.
The rule of law, another cornerstone of democracy is also under strain. While the judiciary is constitutionally independent, it is plagued by delays, inefficiencies, and at times, political influence. In rural areas, access to justice is especially limited. Where justice Favors the wealthy or well-connected, the ideal of equality before the law is undermined.
All of this reflects a deeper paradox: using democratic frameworks to produce undemocratic outcomes. When institutions and laws are structured to marginalize dissent, silence opposition, or limit citizen participation, democracy becomes hollow. The forms of democracy may remain, but the function is compromised.
Sierra Leone’s current state raises difficult questions. Is it still a democracy? Technically, yes. Functionally, the system is faltering. It retains the outer shell of democratic governance but struggles to embody its principles.
Rebuilding requires more than periodic elections. It means strengthening institutions, protecting civil liberties, enforcing transparency, and cultivating a culture where governance centres on the people, not elites. Leaders must see themselves as public servants, not rulers. Laws must protect justice, not power. And citizens must be empowered not just as voters but as engaged actors in governance.
Until then, Sierra Leone remains caught in the contradiction of being democratically undemocratic, a nation voting for change but too often denied the opportunity to experience it.
