The Best Revenge Is Not to Be Like Your Enemy — Why Sierra Leone Must Resist Tit-For-Tat Politics

By Jensen Brian Abass Cummings

Politics is a blood sport in many places, but revenge politics is a slow death for a nation. The old proverb — “the best revenge is not to be like your enemy” — is not only ethical advice; it is a survival strategy for fragile democracies. In Sierra Leone today, as tensions between the ruling SLPP and the opposition APC simmer following contested elections and bitter public debate about jobs, appointments and removals, the country faces a choice: return the nation to cycles of reprisal, or build institutions that make those cycles impossible.

The problem: perception of purge, and the lure of “an eye for an eye”

Since the elections, rumours and reports have circulated that many who served in high-profile positions under previous administrations were removed from office. In a political environment where partisan loyalty often shapes appointments, those who lose power frequently complain of being sidelined or sacked — and the aggrieved party rightly wonders whether it should respond in kind if it returns to power. That logic — “they did it to us, so we’ll do it back” — is understandable at the level of human emotion, but catastrophic as public policy.

This is the moment that can turn ordinary political rotation into cycles of instability: mass dismissals, the hollowing out of institutional memory and a civil service that changes every time a new party comes to town. Such moves may seem like short-term political housekeeping, but they have long-term costs for public service delivery, economic management and public trust. International observers documented deep electoral tensions around the 2023 vote, noting the potential for post-election unrest and lack of transparency during critical stages of the process.

Evidence the problem is real — not just rumour

The danger is not simply hypothetical. Sierra Leone has seen episodes where security or public service personnel were retired, reassigned, or dismissed on grounds that critics say were political. For example, reports surfaced about the forcible retirement of dozens of military officers — actions framed by authorities as administrative but read by sections of the public as politically charged. Such events feed the narrative that winning equals the right to remake the state.

Wider commentary and civil society analysis have also warned that deep social and political divides persist since recent elections, and that rhetoric about “returning the favour” risks undermining fragile cohesion. Institutions and civic leaders have repeatedly urged dialogue and reforms rather than reprisals.

Why “eye for an eye” politics hurts everyone

1. Erodes the civil service and institutional memory. Constant purging of officials discourages experienced professionals from public service and creates a vacuum of expertise. Governments then pay for “in-house” learning while services suffer.
2. Distorts policy and governance. If appointments are made primarily for partisan loyalty rather than competence, economic policy and public programs suffer. The very manifesto promises parties use to win power become harder to deliver.
3. Increases instability and risk. Tit-for-tat dismissals raise the stakes of each electoral contest. Democracy becomes a zero-sum game where losing risks economic ruin and social exclusion, increasing the chance of unrest.
4. Undermines reconciliation and national unity. Sierra Leone has a history of painful national rupture; in a nation still consolidating democratic gains, perpetuating political vendettas is a poor legacy to hand the next generation.

Analysts and some political actors have recognized the danger and the need for constructive approaches rather than vindictive ones. Recent op-eds and political analyses in national media have argued that both parties should prioritize unity and institutional resilience if they truly intend to govern in the national interest rather than merely reward supporters.

What the proverb actually demands from leaders

“The best revenge is not to be like your enemy” asks leaders to rise above petty retaliation and to meet vindictiveness with restraint, competence and fairness. Practically, this means:

• Adopt merit-based appointments: Strengthen transparent, competency-based selection for senior civil service and public boards. Make the default the retention of career officials unless there is clear, documented cause for removal.
• Protect career civil servants: Enshrine and enforce rules that distinguish political appointments (short-term, clearly marked) from career public servants (protected, with due process). That reduces the temptation to purge.
• Agree on transition protocols: Parties should negotiate and publicize transition rules ahead of elections — timelines for handovers, what constitutes political versus administrative action, and mechanisms for dispute resolution. There have been attempts at post-election accords in the past; such frameworks need to be strengthened and respected.
• Use independent oversight: Strengthen the role of constitutional bodies, anti-corruption institutions and independent media to investigate wrongdoing rather than allowing political actors to take summary measures.
• Invest in reconciliation and public dialogue: Civil society, faith leaders and traditional chiefs can mediate and build public pressure against revenge politics.

The political calculus: why restraint can win votes

Restraint is not weakness. A party that wins power and governs fairly, upholding rules and protecting livelihoods, stands a better chance of delivering its manifesto and keeping public trust. Voters remember which governments improved schools, roads and health — not which party rewarded friends and punished opponents. Political leadership that delivers inclusion and competent governance builds durable legitimacy, which is a far more powerful form of political “revenge” than retribution.

A call to both SLPP and APC — and to Sierra Leoneans

Both the SLPP and APC have responsibilities. The ruling party must avoid actions that look like settling scores; the opposition must reject the logic that victory legitimizes mass purges. Political competition can be fierce without turning the state into a spoils system. The people who suffer from tit-for-tat politics are the ordinary citizens whose children’s schools, hospitals and jobs pay the price.

This moment offers an opportunity. Political leaders can choose to model the proverb: respond to past wrongs not with mirror retribution but with governance that is better, fairer and more inclusive. That is the ultimate—and most effective—form of revenge: transform grievances into policies that make the country stronger, not angrier.

Copyright –Published in Expo Times News on Monday, 16th September, 2025 (ExpoTimes News – Expo Media Group (expomediasl.com)