In Sierra Leone, the political rivalry between the All People's Congress (APC) and the Sierra Leone People's Party (SLPP) has transcended a mere competition for political authority. This long-standing dynamic has solidified into a prevailing national mindset, influencing how many citizens perceive public events, justify government choices, and assign accountability. Oumar Farouk Sesay stated, "The APC–SLPP rivalry has become more than a contest for political power. Over time, it has hardened into a national habit of thought – a lens through which many citizens interpret public events, defend government decisions, assign blame, and even determine what they are prepared to accept as truth." According to observers, this partisan loyalty frequently overshadows reasoned public discourse in the country. Indeed, in Sierra Leone, partisan loyalty too often takes precedence over public reasoning, creating an environment where objective assessment is frequently sidelined by allegiance. This deeply ingrained pattern affects not only political discourse but also the everyday lives of citizens, shaping their trust in institutions and their expectations of governance.
The Politics of Moral Equivalence Defined
The 'politics of moral equivalence' describes a tendency to defend current misconduct by referencing past wrongs, effectively treating previous misdeeds as justification for present ones. This dynamic shifts the focus from evaluating the inherent qualities of a decision, such as its wisdom, necessity, affordability, transparency, or benefit, to questioning whether the opposing political faction engaged in similar actions in the past. This phenomenon, which Oumar Farouk Sesay meticulously detailed, is essentially the habit of defending today’s wrongs by pointing to yesterday’s wrongs, thereby treating past wrongdoing as a license for present wrongdoing. This becomes particularly problematic when the identity of the actor begins to matter more than the quality of the action itself. Oumar Farouk Sesay explained, "The identity of the actor begins to matter more than the quality of the action. A policy praised under one party may be condemned under another. A failure denounced in opposition may be defended in government. Principles become flexible, outrage becomes selective, and accountability shifts colour whenever power changes hands."
Sesay elaborated that this approach means "Instead of asking whether a decision is wise, necessary, affordable, transparent, or beneficial, we ask whether the opposing party once did something similar. The argument is no longer “This policy is right.” It becomes “They did it too.” History, instead of serving as a teacher, is recruited as a defence lawyer." This effectively means that a policy lauded under one administration might be criticized under another, and failures condemned while in opposition could be defended once in government. The fundamental issue is that the argument becomes "They did it too" instead of "This policy is right," fundamentally altering the basis of public debate and policy evaluation. When one side is criticized, its supporters instinctively search the archives for an equivalent failure by the other, attempting to neutralize the criticism through historical comparison rather than addressing the present issue on its merits.
In this framework, when one political side faces criticism, its supporters often search historical records for comparable failures by the opposing side. Every accusation frequently elicits a counter-accusation, and current concerns are redirected towards older grievances. This creates a perpetual cycle where every present concern is redirected toward an old grievance, preventing any meaningful progress or resolution. However, an earlier wrong does not diminish the seriousness of a present one. Sesay emphasized, "An earlier wrong does not make a present wrong less serious. A bad decision does not acquire legitimacy because it has a precedent. Two mistakes do not become wisdom simply because rival parties committed them." The identity of the actor thus takes precedence over the quality of the action itself, leading to a situation where accountability becomes fluid and principle-based evaluations are overshadowed by partisan comparisons. This practice fundamentally undermines the possibility of objective governance and reasoned public discourse, as the focus continually shifts from the substance of an action to the historical actions of its proponents or opponents.
Consequences for Governance and Citizens
The culture of moral equivalence in Sierra Leone weakens institutions by making scrutiny conditional, according to observers. It also lowers the standard of leadership by enabling governments to justify current choices through references to their predecessors’ failures. This dynamic further divides citizens into rival camps, where commitment to protecting party reputations often supersedes safeguarding the public interest. Ordinary Sierra Leoneans ultimately bear the consequences of this political environment, experiencing lost opportunities, weakened services, delayed development, and deferred hopes. This culture of conditional scrutiny means that accountability is applied selectively, depending on which party is in power or which party is being criticized. Such an environment lowers the standard of leadership, as governments feel empowered to justify their current choices not by their inherent merit or benefit to the populace, but by pointing to the failures of their predecessors. This continuous cycle of blame and counter-blame effectively absolves current administrations of their responsibilities, using past mistakes as a shield against present accountability.
The consequences extend deeply into the fabric of society. This political environment divides citizens into rival camps, where loyalty to a party often becomes a more potent force than a shared commitment to the nation's well-being. Individuals find themselves more committed to protecting their party's reputation, even at the expense of safeguarding the broader public interest. The true cost of this political dynamic is borne by the ordinary Sierra Leoneans, who face tangible setbacks in their daily lives. They experience lost opportunities for advancement, weakened public services that fail to meet their needs, delayed development projects that could improve their communities, and deferred hopes for a better future. The quality of education, healthcare, infrastructure, and economic opportunities all suffer when political discourse is mired in partisan point-scoring rather than constructive problem-solving.
Historical comparison becomes dangerous when precedent is treated as a form of absolution, experts note. The ongoing debate surrounding the newly constructed ECOWAS Conference Centre in Lungi, for instance, has drawn comparisons to Sierra Leone’s hosting of the 1980 OAU Summit. This illustrates how contemporary issues are frequently framed within a historical context of 'they did it too,' rather than being evaluated on their own merits and implications for the present and future. For many citizens, political parties are deeply intertwined with identity, family history, region, community, opportunity, grievance, and a sense of belonging, which contributes to the intensity of these comparisons. This deep personal connection to political affiliation makes it exceedingly difficult for individuals to objectively assess the actions of their chosen party or to hold them accountable without feeling as though they are betraying a fundamental aspect of their identity. Nations rarely decline due to one catastrophic decision; instead, they often weaken through the steady accumulation of avoidable mistakes. This pattern of decline is exacerbated when political leaders and their supporters consistently deflect blame by referencing past errors, rather than learning from them and striving for improvement.
Pathways to Accountability and Progress
Sierra Leone will not deepen accountability until citizens stop judging wrongs by party colour and begin judging them by principle, according to Oumar Farouk Sesay. He stated that the goal in public discourse is no longer to determine what is right, but to prove first that the other side was wrong. Sesay elaborated, "The goal is no longer to determine what is right. It is to prove first that the other side was wrong. This weakens accountability by confusing explanation with justification." This shift in objective, where the primary aim is to discredit the opposition rather than to seek truth or optimal policy, fundamentally undermines the very foundations of good governance. When the focus is solely on proving the other side's culpability, genuine accountability becomes elusive, as explanations are often mistaken for justifications, and substantive issues are obscured by partisan rhetoric.
True loyalty to a country, Sesay observed, is the willingness to hold one’s own party to the same standards demanded from its opponents. This principle is key for fostering an environment where accountability is universal, irrespective of political affiliation. Breaking the politics of moral equivalence requires changing the syntax of public debate, he noted. Oumar Farouk Sesay explained, "Breaking the politics of moral equivalence, therefore, requires more than changing governments. It requires changing the syntax of public debate. Citizens must judge policies by their merits rather than by the identities of those proposing them. Governments must defend decisions with evidence rather than partisan comparisons. Opposition parties must criticize on principle rather than practice reciprocal outrage. The media, civil society, scholars, and political commentators must resist the temptation to become archivists of partisan vindication and instead act as custodians of public reason." This full approach suggests that every segment of society has a role to play in shifting the national conversation from one of blame and historical deflection to one of principled evaluation and forward-looking solutions.
A mature democracy is characterized by the expectation that every administration will exercise better judgment than its predecessor, rather than inheriting its failures, recycling its excuses, or using its worst decisions as a benchmark. This means moving beyond the cycle of 'they did it too' and embracing a commitment to continuous improvement. The responsibility of the present, Sesay emphasized, is to do better, not to prove that the past was equally guilty. This approach suggests a focus on current performance and future improvement over historical recrimination. It calls for a collective commitment to elevating standards, fostering transparency, and promoting a culture where decisions are judged on their inherent wisdom, necessity, affordability, transparency, and benefit to the people, rather than through the distorting lens of partisan loyalty and historical comparison. Only by embracing this shift can Sierra Leone truly deepen accountability and pave the way for sustainable development and progress for all its citizens.
