In 2021, Sierra Leone was offered an extraordinary gift that would have helped strengthen her fragile democracy: a practical path to electoral credibility.
Through a formal bilateral engagement, the Electoral Commission of Sierra Leone (ECSL) sent a senior technical delegation to India to study the systems used by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the world’s most experienced electoral management body.
The mandate was explicit—modernise voter registration, secure electoral data, and strengthen transparency ahead of future elections. What the delegation learned was transformative. A deafening silence followed.
*A Missed Opportunity with Global Implications*
The ECSL–ECI study tour was not symbolic diplomacy. It was a technical deep dive into systems that underpin elections for nearly one billion voters. Indian officials demonstrated continuous voter roll updating, cloud-based data security, citizen-facing voter verification tools, real-time polling and results monitoring, and robust safeguards against post-election manipulation.
Most importantly, the Indian authorities confirmed that these systems could be customised for Sierra Leone. They invited the ECSL to submit a formal engagement proposal to begin implementation and even indicated willingness to provide technical secondments to ensure skills transfer. The official study tour report—prepared by ECSL staff themselves—recommended exactly that: rapid engagement, pilot programmes, and deployment of digital voter register solutions tailored to Sierra Leone’s context.
None of this happened. Not even an acknowledgement to the Indian High Commission in Sierra Leone. What was the motive or motivation behind ignoring such a (no-cost to Sierra Leone) gesture?
*Reform Avoided/Denied, Not Failed*
By the time Sierra Leone entered the 2023 electoral cycle, the voter register remained opaque, verification mechanisms weak, and public trust low. The European Union Election Observation Mission later confirmed serious deficiencies in transparency, particularly in results tabulation and aggregation. This outcome was not the result of technical incapacity. The tools existed. The expertise was offered. The roadmap was written.
The failure was institutional.
When electoral authorities avoid systems designed to increase transparency and independent verification, the question is no longer whether reform was possible—but why it was resisted. From within the electoral process, it was clear that advocacy for data integrity, institutional accountability, and democratic safeguards was unwelcome. Personnel who pressed for transparency were marginalised. Decision-making became increasingly centralised. Internal scrutiny was discouraged.
In that context, the refusal to modernise the voter register takes on political meaning. A credible, verifiable register would have limited discretion, constrained manipulation, and made it significantly harder to manufacture post-election outcomes.
Opaque systems preserve power. Transparent systems redistribute it.
*Elections Without Evidence*
Elections are not legitimised by announcements; they are legitimised by evidence. Polling-station–level data, auditable voter rolls, and independent verification are the foundations of democratic consent. Sierra Leone entered its most consequential election in years without those foundations—despite having had a clear opportunity to build them.
The result was predictable. Disputed outcomes. Withheld data. A crisis of legitimacy.
This pattern mirrors broader global warning signs: when electoral management bodies resist reform, weaken internal accountability, and reject proven safeguards, elections shift from democratic exercises to administrative performances.
*The Cost of Choosing Opacity*
The tragedy is not merely that Sierra Leone missed a chance to modernise. It is that the chance was consciously declined. India’s electoral systems were not imposed. They were requested, studied, recommended, and then ignored. That sequence matters. It suggests not oversight, but calculation.
For international partners, this episode carries a lesson. Support for elections cannot end at funding or observation. It must include scrutiny of whether institutions actively resist transparency—and why.
For Sierra Leoneans, the cost is deeper: eroded trust, weakened legitimacy, and the normalisation of elections that cannot be independently verified. Democracy rarely collapses dramatically. More often, it is hollowed out quietly—when reform is avoided, accountability deferred, and opportunity deliberately wasted.
* *Sierra Leone deserved a credible voter register.*
* *It was within reach.*
* *It was rejected.*
* *And democracy paid the price.*
By: Arthur Peter Harleston
