WHEN A 75-YEAR-OLD PARTY IS ACCUSED OF BEING RUN BY “SMALL BOYS”
That blunt statement attributed to prominent journalist and social media commentator Thomas Dixon has opened a much bigger conversation than the words themselves. It is a question about leadership, experience, influence and the direction of one of Sierra Leone’s oldest political parties. The Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), founded in 1951, recently marked its 75th anniversary, with President Julius Maada Bio describing the party as an institution bigger than any individual leader.
The real issue, therefore, is not simply whether Dixon’s description is politically convenient or provocative. The important question is whether the structures of the party are allowing experience, institutional memory and the voices of long-standing members to have meaningful influence over major decisions. In any political organisation, young people have a legitimate place at the table. But youth participation becomes a concern when age, proximity to power or personal loyalty is perceived to matter more than competence, experience, accountability and the wider interests of the organisation.
Interestingly, President Bio himself has acknowledged that the SLPP must guard against factionalism, entitlement and attempts to weaken party institutions because of personal ambitions. He has also said that the party’s next leader and flagbearer should emerge through a transparent democratic process rather than sentiment or factional interests. Those remarks make the broader debate about internal party leadership particularly important.
A political party that has survived 75 years cannot afford to become trapped in personalities. Its history belongs to generations of Sierra Leoneans who built, defended and sustained it through different political periods. President Bio himself paid tribute to previous generations of SLPP leaders and supporters, including those who helped restore the party to national leadership after the return of multiparty democracy.
Therefore, if Dixon’s criticism is to be taken seriously, it should not be reduced to an attack on young people. The question should be whether the SLPP is maintaining a healthy balance between generations, whether its elders remain institutionally relevant, whether younger actors are being given responsibility because of demonstrated capacity, and whether party decisions are being made through strong institutions rather than informal circles of influence.
The SLPP has every right to reject Dixon’s characterization. But political organisations do not become stronger by simply dismissing uncomfortable criticism. They become stronger when criticism is tested against facts, institutions and performance. At 75, the party’s greatest challenge is not proving that it has a long history; that is already established. The challenge is demonstrating that its history, structures and leadership culture are strong enough to carry the organisation into its next generation.
