By Ibraheem Daramy
In the context of best practices, political equalisation aims to ensure all citizens have an equal voice and influence in the political process, regardless of their background or identity. This involves dismantling systemic barriers that prevent certain groups from fully participating, such as discriminatory laws, unequal access to resources like education and information, or ingrained societal biases. It requires not only formal legal equality, but also substantive equality—addressing the underlying power imbalances that continue to marginalise particular segments of the population.
Achieving true political equalisation necessitates a multi-faceted approach: electoral reforms, increased political representation for underrepresented groups, tackling economic inequalities that affect political participation, and combating discrimination in all its forms. The pursuit of political equalisation is continuous and often contested. Different scholars and policymakers employ various strategies to achieve this goal, ranging from affirmative action policies designed to redress historical injustices to comprehensive campaigns aimed at promoting civic engagement and political literacy. Even the definition of equalisation itself is debated—some advocate for proportional representation based on demographics, while others prioritise ensuring equal opportunities for all individuals to compete within the existing system. The challenges are significant, involving deep-seated social structures and power dynamics, but the fundamental principle—ensuring every citizen possesses equal weight in shaping their shared future—remains a cornerstone of a just and democratic society.
On the evidence of what obtains in Sierra Leone and much of Africa, political equalisation can conveniently, though regrettably, be replaced with tit-for-tat. It is more than just a playground taunt; it is a powerful strategy with profound implications for political interactions, both domestically and internationally. At its core, it is a strategy of reciprocal action—cooperation is met with cooperation, defection (or aggression) with defection. Its effectiveness lies not in inherent aggression, but in predictable rationality and its potential for fostering long-term cooperation. However, the political effectiveness of tit-for-tat is limited, because the strategy only works in scenarios where actors interact repeatedly. And of course, retaliation lacks lasting impact. The politics of retaliation is far more complex, influenced by multiple factors, often leading to unpredictable and escalating consequences. Retaliation in politics is rarely purely emotional—it is often driven by calculated strategic motivations.
The preceding political administration in Sierra Leone and the current one have both had their fair share of reverting to what they despised in opposition. In the case of the former, there was profound neglect, motivated by arrogance, when it rejected—save for a few less-fancied ones—the recommendations of the Justice Cowan Commission of Inquiry. That report boldly rubber-stamped public calls for the presidency to be stripped of some of its powers. The government white paper left people wondering how leaders could superintend the loss of five million United States dollars and then walk away with nothing to show for it. There were even rumours that government ambivalence towards the inquiry’s findings contributed to the untimely death of the chairman.
President Julius Maada Bio promised to implement most of the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee when he ran for office in 2018. It is a shame that, more than seven years into his presidency, those papers are now food for rodents. The infamous slogan coined to excuse failures on key election promises—they did so to us when they were in power—exposed more than weakness; it betrayed a cycle of political vengeance. Whatever happened to those juicy blueprints touted on campaign tours now seems like disguised deception. Those who held power yesterday may today be ruing the chance they lost to set governance on a path befitting the 21st century.
The politics of retaliation, a strategy where actions are driven by a desire for revenge or retribution against perceived enemies, presents significant downsides that undermine effective governance and social well-being. While the immediate gratification of striking back might seem appealing, the long-term consequences often outweigh any short-term gains. One of the most damaging effects is conflict escalation.
Retaliatory actions, rarely proportionate, often provoke further counter-retaliation, creating a vicious cycle of tension and hostility. This leads to prolonged conflicts, hinders progress on pressing issues, and drains valuable resources that could be allocated elsewhere. The focus shifts from constructive problem-solving to a reactive, tit-for-tat approach, undermining any possibility of cooperation or compromise. Furthermore, the politics of retaliation breeds distrust and polarisation. When actions are driven by revenge rather than reasoned policy, they foster a climate of fear and suspicion. This erodes the social fabric, making it harder to build consensus and find common ground.
Political opponents are demonised, and the possibility of bipartisan cooperation becomes increasingly remote. The public suffers as essential services and infrastructure projects are delayed or abandoned amidst partisan bickering. Another critical drawback is the undermining of due process and the rule of law. Retaliatory measures often bypass established legal and procedural frameworks, leading to arbitrary and potentially unjust outcomes. This erodes trust in institutions and fuels the perception that power is wielded capriciously, based on personal vendetta rather than objective principles. It weakens the very foundations of a just and equitable society.
Moreover, the focus on retaliation often distracts from addressing the root causes of problems. Instead of tackling the underlying issues that sparked the conflict, energy is diverted into punitive measures that address symptoms rather than causes. This ultimately leads to unresolved problems and increases the likelihood of similar conflicts in the future. Finally, the politics of retaliation corrodes leadership. Leaders who prioritise retribution over reconciliation appear short-sighted and lack the statesmanlike qualities required to build bridges and forge lasting solutions. Their credibility suffers, diminishing their capacity to govern effectively.
In conclusion, while the allure of immediate retribution may seem tempting, the politics of retaliation carries significant long-term costs. It escalates conflict, deepens societal divisions, undermines due process, distracts from problem-solving, and weakens leadership. A more constructive approach—prioritising dialogue, negotiation, and tackling root causes—is essential for building a stable and prosperous society.
#Daramyibraheem
