Oumar Farouk Sesay’s essay is a powerful reflection on Sierra Leone’s trajectory—its promise, its failures, and its reckoning. He captures the paradox of our nation: the rise of exceptional individuals amid collective national stagnation. His call to action is passionate, urging Sierra Leoneans to shift their focus from individual survival to national revival.

His analysis is compelling, and it nudges us towards asking a critical question: How do we operationalize this call? Who moves first, who follows, and how do we ensure that efforts toward change do not collapse under the weight of spoiler resistance? This is where I find the need for a sharper intervention—one that moves Farouk’s call to a structured, strategic framework for transformation.

The Call to Action and the Problem of Agency

Farouk ends his essay with a rallying cry: Take up your pens, raise your voices, and take action. The appeal is urgent, but we also need to account for the practical realities of power. The issue is not simply whether people should act, but who goes first—and who follows closely enough to sustain momentum. Every movement for change faces immediate spoiler action from those who benefit from the status quo. In Sierra Leone, this reality is particularly stark. Any attempt to reform the system will be met with resistance, whether through political suppression, economic retaliation, social intimidation or the nastiness of online invectives.

This is why change must be sequential and strategic. It cannot depend on scattered acts of defiance. There must be a calculated approach that ensures the first wave of reformers is followed by a second, third, and fourth—until opposition becomes unsustainable. Without such planning, calls for action risk being reduced to moral appeals that inspire briefly but fade quickly.

The Elite Paradox: Individual Success vs. National Failure

Farouk identifies a critical paradox: Sierra Leone produces remarkable individuals but struggles with collective success. He suggests that this dynamic is an unfortunate contradiction, an accident of history. But I argue that we could also see it as not accidental at all—it is the product of a deliberately structured system. A dominating strand of Salonizing or Sierra Leonizing has been to reward personal advancement while stifling collective progress.

The very individuals who rise often do so within a collective conscience that demands their detachment from national concerns. Way u yams white korba am- yes, I know, this is a call for modesty, to not flaunt it. But it’s also a subtle call to keep your achievement to yourself- cover it, before the ‘evil eye’ of the collective sees it. It allows those who succeed to be absorbed into elite networks that prioritize self-preservation over structural change. This is not just a misalignment of priorities—it is an embedded logic of governance, economic power, and normative structures. Real transformation, therefore, requires more than lamenting this paradox; it demands a structural intervention that disrupts the incentives keeping national progress stagnant.

From Rhetoric to Operationalization: The Missing Link

Farouk’s essay is rich in historical and intellectual references, drawing from thinkers like Nkrumah, Fanon, and Samir Amin. This depth gives the piece weight, but it it could easily be pushed into the non-action of abstraction. The essay captures the emotional weight of our national decay, but we need to provide a roadmap for reversing it.

What is missing is an operational strategy—a step-by-step plan that breaks this grand vision into practical, executable actions. A successful transformation requires:
1.Sectoral Approaches – Change must be initiated within specific sectors—governance, education, the economy, civil society—rather than relying on an undefined, nationwide movement.
2.Sequential Steps – Reform cannot be spontaneous. It must unfold in phases, accounting for power dynamics, resistance, and tactical positioning.
3.Building Critical Mass – Social change is not a one-man effort. It requires a chain of actors who move in succession, ensuring that the burden of resistance is spread across multiple fronts.
4.Counteracting Spoilers – Every attempt at reform will be met with retaliation from those who benefit from the current system. A viable strategy must neutralize these forces, whether through legal frameworks, political pressure, or social mobilization.

Without such considerations, calls for action will remain poetic aspirations rather than blueprints for change.

Conclusion: Bridging Vision and Strategy

Farouk’s essay is a necessary reflection on our national predicament, but we must push towards answering the most pressing question: How do we move from lamentation to structured intervention?

The reality is that change is not simply about willingness—it is about strategy. It requires careful sequencing, an understanding of power dynamics, and the ability to sustain momentum in the face of elite resistance. Who will take the first step? Who will follow? How do we ensure that each wave of reformers is not crushed before change becomes inevitable? These are the questions we must also address if we are to move beyond national despair toward national renewal.