Representation To Repression: The PR System Has Failed Us

Dr. James Jonah

How Sierra Leone’s proportional representation model is silencing the people, empowering mediocrity and dismantling democracy from within.

 

By Alpha Amadu Jalloh

 

Sierra Leone’s democratic trajectory has always been fragile. It has wavered between progress and regression, between the voice of the people and the overpowering weight of the political elite. Among the many challenges facing our electoral landscape today, none poses a greater threat to the authenticity of our democracy than the Proportional Representation (PR) system. Cloaked in the illusion of inclusivity and fairness, PR has become a reservoir for mediocrity, a refuge for party loyalists lacking both the competence and the courage to truly represent the people. It has reduced Parliament to a hall of echo chambers, individuals who neither speak for the people nor have the capacity to speak for themselves.

 

Let us not be fooled by the theoretical appeal of PR. In practice, it has undermined representative governance in Sierra Leone. It has removed the vital link between the voter and the representative. Under PR, no individual MP can claim to have been directly elected by the people. Instead, they are selected through party lists that are crafted behind closed doors, heavily influenced by loyalty, sycophancy and political patronage. This is not democracy. It is manipulation.

 

When Parliament becomes an arena dominated by those who are handpicked rather than elected, the consequences are dire. We are witnessing a growing number of Members of Parliament who struggle to articulate national issues, who fumble through parliamentary debates and who remain silent even when the people are crying out for answers. Why? Because they are not accountable to the people. They are accountable to their godfathers, the President, a minister or a party strongman who placed them in that position. Their loyalty lies not with the suffering public but with the political patron who gave them their seat.

 

This system has turned the Legislature into an extension of the Executive rather than a check on its excesses. A Parliament made up of handpicked loyalists cannot challenge the Presidency. They vote as they are told. They clap when instructed. They look away when the people’s interests are trampled upon. That is the ugly reality PR has inflicted on us.

 

Compare this with the First Past the Post (FPTP) system where the people directly elect their representatives. Under FPTP, the candidate must earn the trust and votes of their constituents. They must walk the streets, engage with the people, answer questions, face scrutiny and offer a vision. That process alone is enough to filter out the weak and unworthy. It builds accountability. A representative under FPTP knows that their political survival depends on serving the people, not pleasing a party hierarchy.

 

Sierra Leone’s political system today is one of tokenism. It is not built on merit or vision. It is built on loyalty to the ruling party. If you are a foot soldier of the party, if you sing the praises of the leader loud enough, you will be rewarded, not with training or capacity building, but with a parliamentary seat. It does not matter if you have no track record, no educational grounding or no community engagement. All that matters is how loud you can chant the party’s slogan. PR enables this rot. It is the perfect system for tokenism. The party controls the list. The party determines who gets in. The voters are left with little choice. They do not vote for individuals. They vote for a logo. And behind that logo, anything goes.

 

The 2023 elections conducted under the PR system laid bare the damage this system can cause. Communities across the country were left without any identifiable representative. In some cases, wards were represented by multiple councillors, leading to confusion, duplication of roles and bureaucratic deadlock. The public, unsure of who to hold accountable, has grown disillusioned. Local governance has suffered. Service delivery has declined. Civic trust has been shattered.

 

It is often said that PR allows for diversity and inclusion. In theory, this may sound noble. But what diversity do we speak of when the same recycled names are always at the top of the party lists? What inclusion exists when the party elite make decisions in secrecy and silence dissenting voices? The truth is that PR has not helped smaller parties. It has systematically weakened them. Instead of leveling the playing field, PR has been used as a weapon to suppress and eradicate smaller parties with impunity.

 

The major parties, particularly the ruling party, use the PR system to dominate the lists and squeeze out any competition. Smaller parties are given crumbs if anything at all. They cannot compete in a system where list positions are reserved for cronies, not merit. PR has become a gatekeeping tool to shut out alternative voices. It concentrates power in the hands of a few while pretending to share it with many. That is a lie. A dangerous lie.

 

Moreover, the PR system encourages political laziness. Why campaign when the party list guarantees your seat? Why bother debating national issues or defending your constituents when your only job is to remain loyal to the party? This lack of incentive to perform has fostered mediocrity in our politics. Parliament, which should be the heartbeat of democracy, has been reduced to a rubber stamp.

 

And the consequences do not stop there. With a PR system, genuine grassroots leaders are sidelined. They may have the people’s love and trust, but without party connections, they are invisible. Their names will never make it onto the list. That is why many capable individuals have withdrawn from politics altogether. They see no path forward in a system that rewards loyalty over leadership, noise over knowledge and servitude over service.

 

To understand why PR was ever introduced in Sierra Leone, we must return to the war years. During that time, the country was broken. Entire regions were inaccessible due to conflict. The state had lost control of major territories. Thousands of citizens were displaced or living in refugee camps. The population was largely concentrated in Freetown and a few safe zones. Holding constituency-based elections was nearly impossible. PR became a temporary and necessary compromise to make elections possible under extreme circumstances. It allowed parties to be represented broadly without having to map inaccessible constituencies.

 

It also served as a counter to the “peace before elections” mantra pushed by Julius Maada Bio in 1996, who wanted to delay the democratic process and prolong military rule. But the people rejected that. Alongside the country’s moral guarantors, they chose to proceed with elections, and PR was accepted as the least disruptive path forward. At the time, we had patriots in Parliament. Many of those elected under PR contributed to rebuilding the nation. They were not perfect, but they acted with integrity.

 

> “Proportional Representation was introduced under very specific war-related circumstances. It was never intended to be a permanent feature of our democracy. Its continued use must be seriously reconsidered.”

— Dr James Jonah, Former Under-Secretary-General, United Nations

On the historical necessity of PR during Sierra Leone’s civil war era.

 

That moral compass no longer exists in today’s Parliament. PR is now being used by the ruling elite not to hold the country together but to control it from the top. It is a power consolidation strategy masked as electoral fairness. Today’s Parliament is filled with political shopkeepers whose purpose is to protect the interests of those who appointed them, not the interests of the public.

 

FPTP, while not flawless, offers a more grounded and people-centered alternative. It allows communities to choose individuals they trust. It strengthens the bond between the electorate and the elected. It encourages constituency development and rewards those who perform. Under FPTP, if a representative fails the people, they can be voted out in the next election. This simple but powerful dynamic fosters responsiveness and accountability.

 

The recent Position Paper by National Election Watch Sierra Leone following its Civil Society Dialogue sends a strong message. Nearly 58 percent of civil society participants voted in favour of FPTP while only 10.5 percent supported PR. This is not a minor statistical trend. It is a national outcry. It is a demand for a return to sanity, clarity and integrity in our elections.

 

> “The preference for the First Past the Post system is not just about tradition. It is about functionality, transparency and direct representation. Our people deserve a system they can trust and understand.”

— Mayor Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr OBE, Freetown City Council

In response to the National Election Watch Civil Society Dialogue, 2025

 

The ruling class may resist this change for obvious reasons. PR serves their interest. It gives them control. It shields their loyalists. But the interest of the people must come first. The days of political manipulation must end. The days of accountability must begin.

 

Sierra Leone deserves better. Our people deserve better. We must not allow democracy to be hijacked by those who fear competition and accountability. We must resist systems that celebrate mediocrity and silence excellence. We must demand a system that places power back where it belongs, in the hands of the people.

 

Let us rebuild our electoral process around merit, competence and public trust. Let us retire the politics of tokenism and embrace a politics of substance. The First Past the Post system is not a perfect solution, but it is a democratic lifeline. If we want a better Parliament, better leaders and a better Sierra Leone, then it is time to bring back the people’s vote and with it, their power.