By Hon. Ibrahim Barrie, MP
Member of Parliament, Bombali District, Sierra Leone
Lecturer | PhD Candidate, University of Makeni
Introduction
The Constitution is far more than a legal document. It is the democratic foundation upon which a nation is built. It defines how power is acquired, exercised, and limited. More importantly, it protects citizens from the abuse of power and establishes institutions that should endure beyond any government, political party, or individual leader.
As Sierra Leone debates constitutional reforms, one proposal deserves careful national reflection: the proposal to replace the First Past the Post (FPTP) constituency system with a Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system for parliamentary elections.
This debate should never be reduced to APC versus SLPP.
It should be about one fundamental question:
Which electoral system will best strengthen Sierra Leone’s democracy for generations to come?
In my considered opinion—as a Member of Parliament, a lecturer, and a PhD candidate researching governance and sustainable development—the constituency-based First Past the Post system remains better suited to Sierra Leone’s democratic realities.
This is not because FPTP is perfect.
No electoral system is.
Rather, it is because FPTP better promotes accountability, local representation, electoral transparency, and stronger democratic institutions.
Democracy Is More Than Winning Elections
Democracy is often reduced to elections.
In reality, elections are only one component of democracy.
True democracy requires:
accountable leadership;
independent institutions;
transparent elections;
effective representation;
public participation;
and public confidence.
An electoral system should therefore not merely produce winners.
It should produce trust.
Representation Begins with Accountability
One of the greatest strengths of the constituency system is that every citizen knows exactly who represents them.
That relationship matters.
Every Member of Parliament represents a defined geographical constituency.
Citizens know:
who to call;
who to question;
who to praise;
and ultimately who to remove through elections.
If roads remain impassable…
If schools are unfinished…
If hospitals lack medicines…
If youth unemployment continues rising…
Communities know precisely which representative to engage.
That direct relationship is one of the strongest foundations of representative democracy.
By contrast, under a closed-list proportional representation system, voters primarily choose political parties rather than individual constituency representatives. Members enter Parliament through party lists, which can reduce the direct electoral link between citizens and individual MPs.
Democracy becomes stronger when elected representatives remain directly accountable to the communities they serve.
Constituencies Give Every Community a Voice
Parliament exists to represent people.
Not merely political parties.
Every constituency has unique challenges.
Some depend on agriculture.
Others depend on fishing.
Others face mining-related issues.
Others struggle with urban congestion.
Local representatives understand these realities because they are elected directly by those communities.
The constituency system therefore strengthens local democracy.
Communities do not simply vote.
They own their representation.
Sierra Leone’s Own Democratic Experience
We do not have to rely solely on foreign examples.
Our own democratic history offers valuable lessons.
Following the 2018 General Elections, Sierra Leone’s Parliament included representation from the APC, SLPP, C4C, NGC, independent Members of Parliament, and Paramount Chief Members. This reflected a broader range of political voices and local electoral outcomes.
By contrast, the 2023 parliamentary elections, conducted under district block proportional representation, resulted in a Parliament dominated by the two largest political parties.
Many factors influence parliamentary composition, and no single electoral system alone determines party diversity. Nevertheless, Sierra Leone’s recent experience invites an important constitutional question:
Which system better encourages localized political competition, creates space for independent candidates and smaller parties, and preserves direct accountability between representatives and the communities that elect them?
That question deserves careful consideration.
Democracy Is About People, Not Mathematics
Supporters of proportional representation rightly argue that PR can produce legislatures that more closely reflect parties’ shares of the vote.
That is a legitimate democratic objective.
However, democracy is not merely a mathematical exercise.
It is also about relationships.
The relationship between citizens and representatives.
The relationship between accountability and representation.
The relationship between local communities and national decision-making.
These relationships are the lifeblood of constitutional democracy.
Women’s Representation Must Be Protected
Increasing women’s participation in politics remains essential to Sierra Leone’s democratic development.
Significant progress has been made.
That progress should continue.
However, electoral systems should also protect those gains.
The recent passing of a female Member of Parliament from Kenema highlighted an important feature of the closed-list PR system. Her parliamentary seat was subsequently filled by the next eligible candidate on her party’s list, who was male.
That outcome raises an important constitutional and policy question.
Should the replacement mechanism preserve women’s representation where a woman was originally elected?
Under the constituency system, a vacancy is ordinarily filled through a by-election, allowing voters in that constituency to elect a new representative in accordance with the law. If Sierra Leone wishes to protect women’s representation in such circumstances, Parliament can consider targeted constitutional or legislative safeguards.
This discussion demonstrates that representation is not simply about numbers.
It is about ensuring that democratic gains are sustained.
Electoral Transparency Strengthens Democracy
Perhaps the greatest institutional advantage of the constituency system is electoral transparency.
Under First Past the Post, every parliamentary candidate has a direct interest in monitoring results within his or her constituency.
Every polling station is observed.
Every result is scrutinized.
Every constituency total can be independently verified before contributing to district and national outcomes.
This creates multiple layers of verification.
Each constituency effectively becomes an independent checkpoint in the national electoral process.
The more independent actors who can verify election results, the greater public confidence becomes.
Under district-wide proportional representation, parliamentary competition is organized around district party lists rather than individual constituencies. This changes the incentives for localized candidate oversight and places greater emphasis on district-level aggregation. In such systems, it becomes especially important that electoral management bodies maintain transparent tallying procedures and clearly communicate how results are aggregated.
Sierra Leone’s experience following the 2023 General Elections underscored the importance of electoral transparency and public confidence. The elections generated significant debate over the verification and acceptance of results. Regardless of differing political perspectives on those events, one lesson is clear:
Electoral systems should maximize opportunities for independent verification, transparency, and public confidence.
The strongest democracy is not merely one that declares winners.
It is one in which citizens can understand, verify, and trust the process.
Strong Institutions Matter More Than Strong Governments
Across Africa, successful constitutional democracies share one defining characteristic.
They invested in institutions.
Not personalities.
Not temporary political advantage.
Ghana retained constituency representation while strengthening the independence of its Electoral Commission and judiciary.
South Africa built one of Africa’s strongest constitutional systems by empowering independent institutions and a Constitutional Court.
Kenya responded to political crisis not by concentrating power but by strengthening judicial oversight, devolving authority, and reinforcing constitutional checks and balances.
These countries remind us that lasting democratic stability is achieved through institutions that citizens trust.
Ten Reasons Why Sierra Leone Should Retain the Constituency System
1. It creates direct accountability between MPs and citizens.
2. It gives every constituency its own identifiable representative.
3. It strengthens local development advocacy.
4. It encourages stronger constituency service.
5. It enhances electoral transparency through decentralized verification.
6. It promotes public confidence in election outcomes.
7. It provides opportunities for independent candidates and localized political competition.
8. It keeps representatives closely connected to community priorities.
9. It reinforces democratic accountability between elections.
10. It strengthens institutions rather than concentrating political influence.
Conclusion
Constitutional reform should never be driven by temporary political advantage.
It should be guided by enduring constitutional principles.
Whatever electoral system Sierra Leone adopts should strengthen—not weaken—our democratic institutions.
It should deepen—not diminish—the relationship between citizens and their representatives.
It should inspire confidence—not uncertainty.
The First Past the Post constituency system is not perfect.
But it continues to provide Sierra Leone with something fundamental:
A Parliament rooted in communities, accountable to citizens, and strengthened by direct representation.
As we shape the future of our constitutional democracy, let us remember that the Constitution does not belong to today’s Government or today’s Opposition.
It belongs to every Sierra Leonean.
And to generations yet unborn.