Why We MUST REJECT Power-Sharing? (Episode I)
By Mira Dumbuya : Former Sierra Leone Police Superintendent
🛑 1. Self-Protection Masquerading as Reform: These laws are often designed not to empower others, but to shield the ruling elite from accountability once they leave office.
⚖️ 2. Power-sharing – a trapdoor for continued control.
🧱 3. Institutional Paralysis: It weakens the ability of new governments to implement change, as every decision becomes a negotiation with remnants of the old regime.
🔒 4. Entrenches Impunity
• These laws often protect perpetrators of human rights violations, corruption, and constitutional abuse.
• Instead of transitional justice, they offer transitional immunity—blocking investigations and prosecutions that are vital for healing and accountability.
🗣️ 5. Erodes Public Trust
• Citizens recognize when power-sharing is a disguise for elite protection.
• It deepens cynicism, fuels unrest and undermines faith in democratic institutions.
• People begin to see politics as a game of survival for the powerful, not service to the people.
🌍 6. Damages International Credibility
• Global partners and donors may view such laws as signs of democratic backsliding.
• It can lead to sanctions, reduced aid, and isolation from international justice mechanisms.
#We reject immunity disguised as inclusion#True reform means accountability, not negotiated impunity#justice cannot coexist with self-preservation laws#
Why We MUST REJECT Power-Sharing? (Episode II): Power Sharing Can Be An Authoritarian Mask
Here’s the real twist behind the fanciful justifications given by “you-know-whos.”
They painted the power sharing they are proposing to be:
• Mechanisms like coalition governments
• With proportional representation
• With intention to broaden inclusion
• Reduce/prevent tensions
• Ignoring another form like ROTATING LEADERSHIP
BUT let me bring the other side of the coin that they refused to project:
In most cases, power sharing can be co-opted by dominant parties or authoritarian regimes to entrench control rather than distribute it.
For example:
• Authoritarian regimes may use superficial power-sharing arrangements to appease opposition or international observers, while maintaining real control behind the scenes.
• In one-party dominant systems, power sharing might symbolize offering minor roles to opposition figures without granting them meaningful influence.
So, power sharing can become a dent in democracy when:
• It’s used to legitimize undemocratic rule.
• It limits genuine competition or suppresses dissent.
• It creates elite cartels that exclude broader public participation.
The Democratic Trade-Off
Even in well-intentioned democracies, power sharing involves trade-offs which may:
• slow decision-making
• dilute accountability, and/or
• entrench elites.
In short, power sharing is a tool, and its impact depends on who wields it and why.
“True inclusion begins with transparency and trust—not last-minute legislation.
Power sharing must never be a mask for manipulation. Sierra Leone deserves leadership that empowers the people, not one that dilutes their voice.”
Leave a Reply