By Jensen Brian Abass Cummings
The involvement of only the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and the opposition All People’s Congress (APC) in discussions surrounding the moral guarantor has raised important questions about representation, inclusion and the true meaning of democracy in Sierra Leone.
While SLPP and APC are undoubtedly the two largest and most influential political parties in the country, a fundamental question remains: Do these two parties alone represent the entire population of Sierra Leone?
Sierra Leone is made up of diverse groups beyond the two major political parties. Smaller political parties, civil society organizations, religious institutions, traditional leaders, youth groups, women’s organizations, professional bodies and ordinary citizens who do not belong to any political party are also important parts of the nation. Their absence from such a significant national discussion raises concerns about whether the process can truly be considered fully representative.
There is no doubt that SLPP and APC must be part of any serious national dialogue because of their political influence and the support they command. However, their importance does not automatically mean they represent every Sierra Leonean. A democracy is built on the participation of different voices, not only those of the most powerful political actors.
The ordinary Sierra Leonean—the market woman, farmer, student, worker and unemployed youth—may question whether their concerns are fully reflected when decisions are made only by political leaders. Political parties are established to represent citizens, but they also have their own interests and political objectives. Therefore, national issues require broader consultation to ensure fairness and public confidence.
The purpose of a moral guarantor is to promote trust, credibility and confidence in the democratic process. For this reason, discussions about such an important matter should have considered the involvement of other stakeholders who could provide independent perspectives and ensure that the interests of all citizens are represented.
The decision to involve only SLPP and APC can be interpreted in different ways. Some may argue that focusing on the two major parties was a practical approach aimed at reaching agreement quickly. Others may see it as a deliberate act that limits wider participation. Regardless of the reason, a national issue should not only seek agreement between political parties but should also seek acceptance and ownership from the wider society.
Including civil society organizations, religious leaders, traditional authorities, youth and women representatives, smaller political parties and professional groups would have strengthened the process. These groups represent important sections of society and could provide perspectives that political parties may not always capture.
The issue is therefore not whether SLPP and APC should have been involved—they clearly should have been. The real question is whether they should have been the only voices at the table. Democracy is not only about political power; it is also about inclusion, accountability and ensuring that citizens have a meaningful role in decisions that affect their future.
SLPP and APC may be the dominant forces in Sierra Leone’s politics, but they are not the entire nation. The voices of all Sierra Leoneans matter, including those outside the two major political parties. A stronger democracy is one where national decision is made with the people and not only for the people.
Ultimately, the moral guarantor debate represents a larger question about the future of Sierra Leone’s democracy. If the country truly seeks unity, trust and national ownership, then future discussions of national importance must go beyond political party representation and embrace a wider range of voices. Sierra Leone belongs to all its citizens, and every citizen deserves a place in shaping its future.
Copyright –Published in Expo Times News on Monday, 3rd August 2026 (ExpoTimes News – Expo Media Group (expomediasl.com)
