The APC stands at an important point in its political history. After losing executive power in 2018 and remaining outside government following the disputed 2023 presidential election, the party has every reason to focus intensely on rebuilding its political strength and positioning itself for another opportunity to govern. Its supporters describe this as determination to reclaim power. Its critics describe it as an intense thirst and hunger for political power.
For the APC, power is not simply about occupying State House. It represents the restoration of a political tradition that governed Sierra Leone for decades and was defeated by the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) in 2018. The APC subsequently returned to the political battlefield in the 2023 elections, where the Electoral Commission declared President Julius Maada Bio the winner. The APC and its leadership rejected the electoral outcome and demanded political and electoral reforms.
The APC’s continued focus on elections, electoral reform, political participation and mobilisation demonstrates how central the question of power remains to the party’s political identity. Its political future depends heavily on whether it can transform opposition energy into a coherent national campaign capable of persuading voters beyond its traditional base.
This is where the phrase “hungry and thirsty for power” becomes politically interesting.
A political party that has spent years outside government naturally wants to return. It wants its ministers back in offices, its legislators strengthened, its policies implemented and its supporters re-energised. It wants the opportunity to demonstrate that it can govern differently.
Sierra Leone is not merely looking for a party that desperately wants power. Sierra Leoneans need political organisations capable of explaining precisely what they would do with that power once they obtain it.
The APC therefore faces a challenge that goes beyond criticising the SLPP.
Opposition is relatively easy. Government is considerably harder.
An opposition party can point to rising prices, unemployment, infrastructure problems, economic difficulties and shortcomings in public services. But once it returns to government, it inherits responsibility for solving those same problems. Every promise becomes a budgetary commitment. Every slogan requires implementation. Every campaign speech eventually encounters the difficult realities of public finance, institutions, bureaucracy and limited resources.
These are not hostile questions. They are the normal questions citizens should ask every political party seeking their votes.
The APC’s political history gives it significant experience to draw upon. It has governed Sierra Leone before, meaning voters can compare its previous record with its present promises. That history is both an asset and a responsibility. The party cannot simply campaign as though its previous periods in government never existed. Its record, achievements, controversies and shortcomings are all part of the political conversation.
At the same time, the APC should not be permanently imprisoned by its past. Political parties can change. Leadership can evolve. Policies can be redesigned. New generations can enter politics. A party returning to government should ideally return with lessons learned rather than merely old slogans repeated.
This is especially important because Sierra Leone’s electorate is changing.
Young Sierra Leoneans constitute a politically significant constituency. Many are less interested in the historical rivalry between APC and SLPP than in questions of employment, education, technology, entrepreneurship, affordable living and opportunities for a dignified future.
They want to know what political parties can do for them.
They are unlikely to be satisfied indefinitely by political nostalgia.
The APC therefore has an opportunity to transform its hunger for power into a broader national project. But that requires convincing citizens that the party wants power for a purpose, not power for power’s sake.
An opposition party should be ambitious. It should challenge government decisions. It should expose weaknesses. It should organise supporters. It should demand accountability. It should prepare seriously for elections.
But political competition becomes healthier when parties compete primarily through ideas, records, programmes and peaceful democratic mobilisation.
The APC’s determination to return to government should therefore be measured against the quality of the alternative it presents.
A party can be hungry for power without being prepared to govern effectively. Conversely, a party can be intensely ambitious while simultaneously developing serious policies, strengthening its internal institutions and preparing competent teams for government.
The difference lies in preparation.
If the APC truly believes Sierra Leone needs a change of direction, then its strongest argument should not be simply that it wants power back. Its argument should be that it has developed a credible, measurable and nationally inclusive plan for the country’s future.
It means demonstrating that political victory is not the destination but the beginning of responsibility. The APC’s hunger and thirst for power are therefore understandable features of democratic politics. After years in opposition, the desire to return to government can be expected to be powerful. But the ultimate judgment belongs to Sierra Leonean voters.
They will decide whether the APC’s message, leadership, record, programme and proposed direction deserve their confidence. The party can campaign vigorously. Its supporters can mobilise passionately. Its leaders can make their case forcefully. But political power is not something any party owns permanently. In a democracy, it belongs temporarily to those whom voters entrust with it. Its current political posture certainly reflects a strong determination to regain influence and return to government. But whether that determination becomes a successful democratic mandate is ultimately not for the party to decide.