“The Power Play Behind Power Sharing: Is Sierra Leone’s Political Debate More Than Meets the Eye?” (Part 23 of the Radical Inclusion Series)
By Dr Columba Michael Joe Blango (11/10/2025)
This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but Sierra Leone’s sudden debate on power sharing raises more questions than answers. Why would a ruling party so hungry for power want to share it? Is this about unity, or strategy? The facts are too strange to ignore.
This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I am completely baffled by the current debate on power sharing in Sierra Leone. In a country where politics has long been a life-and-death enterprise, where political affiliation often determines access to opportunity, and where governance is treated less as public service and more as personal gain, it is astonishing that the two dominant political parties — the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and the All People’s Congress (APC), are now locked in an aggressive debate over sharing power.
For decades, Sierra Leone’s politics has been defined by a ruthless “winner-takes-all” culture. The victor governs absolutely, while the defeated retreat into political oblivion. Against that history, the current conversation about power sharing feels oddly out of character, even suspicious. Stranger still, it is the SLPP, the party presently in government, that is pushing hardest for the idea.
A Curious Change of Heart
Why would a ruling party, firmly in control and equipped with all the instruments of state power, advocate for sharing authority? Conventional political wisdom suggests that incumbents fight to retain dominance, not dilute it. The SLPP has every advantage heading into 2028: incumbency, institutional reach, and the machinery of state. Knowing the party’s appetite for power, one cannot help but ask — what’s the game plan?
A plausible explanation is strategic overconfidence. Perhaps the SLPP, feeling certain of victory, is using the power-sharing narrative as bait — a political decoy to attract talented figures from the opposition. By offering them government posts or advisory roles under the pretext of “national unity,” the party could tempt ambitious APC members to board the gravy train, if only for a few years. History shows that once opposition figures enjoy the privileges of power — salaries, vehicles, security, and influence — few willingly disembark.
This tactic would not be new. Sierra Leone’s political past offers precedents: in 1996, 2002, and even in the post-2018 era, political alliances and defections have frequently followed this script — where “unity” becomes a polite disguise for absorption and neutralisation. The endgame? To fracture the opposition and expand the ruling party’s reach under the moral banner of inclusiveness.
Or Is It Fear, Not Confidence?
On the other hand, perhaps the SLPP’s sudden openness to power sharing stems from insecurity, not confidence. Perhaps they sense the ground shifting beneath their feet — rising economic discontent, youth unemployment, and growing voter fatigue. If they lose in 2028, a structured power-sharing arrangement could be their lifeline to remaining politically relevant and embedded within government, even from a weaker position.
Seen from this angle, the proposal becomes less about national unity and more about political insurance, a strategy to avoid total exclusion should the electoral tides turn.
The APC’s Calculated Rejection
Meanwhile, the APC has taken the opposite stance, rejecting any notion of power sharing. On the surface, their argument seems straightforward – distrust. The APC knows this game all too well because, historically, they invented it.
During the 1970s and 1980s, when the APC dominated under Siaka Stevens and later Joseph Momoh, smaller parties were invited into “coalitions of national unity,” only to be absorbed, weakened, or eliminated entirely. By 1978, that strategy culminated in Sierra Leone becoming a de facto one-party state under APC rule.
So, when the SLPP now speaks of “inclusivity,” the APC understandably suspects a political trap. Yet their resistance could also be born of sheer confidence — a belief that 2028 is theirs to win outright. Having long enjoyed wielding power exclusively, it is difficult to imagine the APC voluntarily sharing it.
The Power-Sharing Paradox
And here lies the paradox. Power sharing, in principle, could be a progressive step for Sierra Leone — a country whose politics has been poisoned by division and revenge. When done sincerely, it can stabilise fragile democracies, unite divided societies, and prioritise national interest over partisanship.
Examples abound: Kenya’s 2008 coalition government helped end post-election violence; Zimbabwe’s 2009 unity government briefly restored economic stability; and South Africa’s 1994 Government of National Unity was instrumental in the nation’s peaceful transition from apartheid. But these arrangements only worked when underpinned by mutual trust, moral integrity, and a shared sense of purpose.
The Real Question
The burning question, therefore, is this: Is Sierra Leone’s political class capable of a genuine power-sharing arrangement that serves the national interest rather than narrow political survival?
Power sharing requires maturity, discipline, and moral compass — qualities rarely abundant in a political culture shaped by patronage and personal gain. It demands leaders guided by good values, right intentions, and a clear sense of purpose — leaders who see power not as spoils to be divided but as a sacred responsibility to serve.
Until Sierra Leone’s politics is cleansed of its self-serving impulses, any talk of power sharing may remain a sophisticated illusion — a conspiracy of convenience masquerading as cooperation.
Leave a Reply