Why We MUST REJECT Power-Sharing? (Episode I)
By Mira Dumbuya : Former Sierra Leone Police Superintendent
๐ 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.
โ๏ธ 2. Power-sharing – a trapdoor for continued control.
๐งฑ 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.
๐ 4. Entrenches Impunity
โข These laws often protect perpetrators of human rights violations, corruption, and constitutional abuse.
โข Instead of transitional justice, they offer transitional immunityโblocking investigations and prosecutions that are vital for healing and accountability.
๐ฃ๏ธ 5. Erodes Public Trust
โข Citizens recognize when power-sharing is a disguise for elite protection.
โข It deepens cynicism, fuels unrest and undermines faith in democratic institutions.
โข People begin to see politics as a game of survival for the powerful, not service to the people.
๐ 6. Damages International Credibility
โข Global partners and donors may view such laws as signs of democratic backsliding.
โข 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
Hereโs the real twist behind the fanciful justifications given by โyou-know-whos.โ
They painted the power sharing they are proposing to be:
โข Mechanisms like coalition governments
โข With proportional representation
โข With intention to broaden inclusion
โข Reduce/prevent tensions
โข 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:
โข Authoritarian regimes may use superficial power-sharing arrangements to appease opposition or international observers, while maintaining real control behind the scenes.
โข 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:
โข Itโs used to legitimize undemocratic rule.
โข It limits genuine competition or suppresses dissent.
โข 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:
โข slow decision-making
โข dilute accountability, and/or
โข entrench elites.
In short, power sharing is a tool, and its impact depends on who wields it and why.
โTrue inclusion begins with transparency and trustโnot 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.โ

Leave a Reply