CRITICAL ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN XVII

The Politicization of Civic Voter Education Campaign

Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei

Elections in Liberia are just 10 months way, and the stakes are getting too high, ultimately, there will be huge desperations in contenders for the presidency and legislative seats. Electoral processes with high stakes and uncontrolled desperations are usually characterized by enmity amongst contenders, violence and distrusts. With the dawn of 2011 commencing with a voter registration exercise, one can see that the politicians or interested contenders are not waiting for full certification and declaration of campaign period. The strategy of subterranean campaign activities can now be seen in the ongoing civic education process aimed at increasing mass turnout during the voter registration exercise.

This edition of this series has one major argument: That voter and civic education initiatives during electoral processes are functions of the legitimate electoral management institution, and independent civil society organizations. Unfortunately, the current trend of voter education is being overshadowed by politicians in the name of promoting mass turn out. What is more ironical in this process is that people who are publicly known to have direct vested interest in contesting the elections or are members of political parties are the ones fronting as civic educators and claiming neutrality. Interestingly, the National Elections Commission and the civil society are accepting this, and in some cases, endorsing them.

Some political parties have begun to publicly announce to offer free transportation facilities to voters wanting to travel distances to register. Ministers in government are launching their own voter education campaigns. Incumbent legislative candidates have begun the same. These legislative and cabinet officials claiming neutrality have several advantages over other candidates; this must be seen as the beginning of what is called unfair elections. First, they invite the citizens in the name of their official capacities, and second use the forums to create awareness about their interests in the elections. It is no argument that any citizen has the right to call an assembly of citizen or to canvass for support. But the assumption of the functions of the National Elections Commission and that of the civil society movement by political parties and interested candidates can influence the electoral process in many ways and cast doubts on the credibility of the election.
Contrary to the popular belief that electoral frauds can only be done during voting and counting of ballots, is the fact that frauds begin from the beginning and planning processes of elections. To ensure credibility in democratic elections like the forthcoming one in Liberia, the process must be thoroughly guided from the process of nominating members of the electoral management body – developments have shown that we have an independent and credible NEC in Liberia. Other sources of fraud long before the voting exercise can be the process of registering political parties and candidates; the process of civic voter education, and the process of voter registration, and so forth.

With voter registration being the issue at hand, what political parties and candidates should do is to train their supporters to observe the process and take recorded notes of registered voters, outline successes and challenges. Developments from this exercise will give each party a roadmap to strategizing an effective campaign and will also help to give early warnings to the NEC where challenges are discovered. The announcement of transportations facilities for voter education and distribution of food and water at registration sights are the beginning campaigning with material inducements or vote buying. The NEC must therefore call on the parties and the interested candidates to stay clear of the civic voter education campaign, and the voter registration. Each citizen is entitled to be at the center only on the day he is registering, except electoral workers and observers.

The Liberian civil society movement has a huge challenge. And bulk of the work of civic voter education should be channeled through the CSOs that are in the counties, and this should be done in effective collaboration with the NEC. With the civic voter education being overshadowed by politician using covert-campaign slogans, concerned activists will continue to wonder as to what the civil society is doing in all of these, and what role will the civil society play in the future, and will the parties leave the continue their proclaim ‘civic education campaign’ when political campaign is declared open?

-In the cause of democracy and social justice, the pen shall never run dry

CRITICAL ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN XVI

AN EXPERIENCE WITH LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES

Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei




For the past few months, I have been engaged with official matters going around the country working on a major national reform process: the Liberia Decentralization and Local Development program. This engagement and other scholarly vocations have kept me not necessarily silent, but in action for what I have been campaigning for - the empowerment of local people to advance themselves through democratic self-governance. For those who have been reading this series for the past two years, I invoke your forgiveness for keeping you waiting so long, but truly I have been working to ensure that our collective visions and thoughts are translated into actions. Our work around the country has been about engaging local leaders and citizens in each county on the National Policy on Decentralization and Local Governance. This has basically involved sensitization and soliciting inputs on how decentralization can be implemented in Liberia.

My experiences around the country were mixed. And I intend to share these experiences in this edition and the ones that will follow. First, may I say that it was a grand opportunity, and a significant education for me to travel to all of the counties in Liberia. I spent not less than 72 hours in each of the county capitals. My curiosity led me to discovering lot of things I have not learned in a classroom, neither had I seen on paper. Through conversations with local residents, I discovered a resilient characteristic to survive in the absence of a fully functional state authority. I travelled so many miles and passed so many towns and villages without seeing state institutions. I saw how resourceful Liberia is in terms of forest and habitable resources when I travelled through the southeast, and I discovered a huge potential for tourism and fishery investment in some counties, like Grand Cape Mount, Rivercess, and Grand Kru Counties. Gambia is today boasting of tourism as a major source of revenue. Kenya and Ghana are also making significant gains in the tourism industry. Liberia needs to dig into this area to have an additional source of state revenue. This will also empower local communities.

The people of Rivercess for example, have two major occupations: Fishery and Forestry. Empowering the people in that part of the country to advance in these areas will take them from subsistence to commercial activities. This will promote local employment and sustainable development. Our failure to efficiently tap into what nature has endowed us with is what continues to hold us back.

It is not strange that despite Monrovia being a very least developed city, all of the capitals in the counties are far least developed, and that effective modern institutions for human development are absent. My experience at a magisterial court hearing in the Cestos City Hall (Rivercess County) in April 2010 further convinced me that the state is not fully functional at the level of the counties, and the local people are left to survive their own way. Yet, they look up to that system. I witnessed major cases concerning mineral agents and illegal miners, rapes, and civil matters decided by undertrained magistrates and city solicitors.

In all of the counties, you see revenue collection offices, but you will hardly see effective service delivery institutions. This piece is just intended to practically state how challenging it is for an under-resourced central government to effectively deliver services to the local people. The need for decentralization in Liberia is long overdue, but will never be late in as much as the centralized state system continues to dismally fail those that are not in the urban and peri-urban areas of Monrovia. I mean not to say either that it has greater efficiency in the urban and peri-urban areas, but I admit that it has huge visibility in those areas.
In some of the counties, the imperial presidency in Monrovia is vested in the president’s agents - Superintendents and Commissioners - who do not see themselves as leaders of the people, whose power and authority is in the hands of the people. As agent of the President in Monrovia, they act on their own and wait for command from Capitol Hill to decide the fate of thousands of people in big communities and towns. Some of them see themselves as lords, and they are imposing arbitrary rules on the local people. In Bomi County for example, a County Attorney is using his title to intimidate people for a contested farmland in which he has vested interest.
Beyond Monrovia, there is no major socio-economic development, and the rise in rural-urban migration is heavily affecting agricultural activities in those areas; and with limited employment opportunities in Monrovia, the potential for crime in idled young people cannot be overemphasized. Monrovia is getting populated by the day even in the absence of socio-economic facilities. The solution to our development problems can be directly traced to our inadequacies in governance and public administration. In order to avert these and ensure an equitable distribution of our collective power and wealth, we must accelerate the process of transferring power to our local people. Through this, they will be empowered to determine who leads them, and what development priorities they want. Government decentralization is also a means to peace and democracy. The ‘power inherent in the people’ as provided for in Article One of our Constitution, cannot be adequately accentuated if our people do not fully participate in their own governance and development processes. Holding periodic elections does not translate into functional participatory democracy. Participatory democracy extends to the right of the people to continuously decide what they want, get regular accounts of the actions of their leaders, alter government at their will, and so forth. And this process is not an end, but its goal is to advance the lives of the people at all levels, and to create the enabling environment through which every individual has equal opportunities to excel. By this, greed is curtailed, and the possibilities for individual, ethnic or sectarian grievances become limited. Thus peace and development will prevail. Therefore, the most sustainable solution to our development challenges lies in a process of decentralization or a system shared-authority between national government and semi-autonomous local governments.

-In the Cause of Democracy and Social Justice, the Pen Shall Never Run Dry-

POST-WAR SECURITY SECTOR REFORM IN LIBERIA: DEVELOPMENT AND CHALLENGES

IBRAHIM AL-BAKRI NYEI

NOTE: This article was first published in the April 2010 Issue 1 of Conflict Trends by the African Center for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD) in South Africa. Any reference to this article should mention that issue because it is the sole property of ACCORD.

The end of the civil war in Liberia in 2003, and the
subsequent free and fair democratic elections of 2005,
signalled the emergence of peace, stability and sustainable
development to the country. Reaping benefits from
the cessation of hostilities and the ensuing democratic
environment, Liberians needed to make necessary
adjustments to accommodate decisions stemming
from the 2003 Peace Accord. The National Transitional
Government of Liberia (NTGL) and the United Nations
Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) worked together to ensure that
the Peace Accord was decisively pursued and scrupulously
implemented. Subsequently, the first post-war democratic
regime assumed power in 2006, and continued the
collaboration with the UN Mission to ensure that the
country’s reform peace agenda was implemented.

Paramount among the reform recommendations
was Security Sector Reform (SSR). This issue sparked
major debate amongst the country’s actors. Warring
factions wanted to feature their generals in the reformed
(new) army, while civil society activists and political
parties argued against the recruitment of “rebels” into
the military. The outcome was an agreement that the
new army would accommodate members of all warring
factions in its ranks, including the moribund Armed Forces
of Liberia (AFL) and forces loyal to the government of
Charles Taylor1 at the time of the signing of the peace
agreement. The reform programme was ongoing until
31 December 2009, when the United States turned over
the Armed Forces of Liberia’s SSR programme to the
democratic government of Liberia.

This article is an assessment of the SSR programme
in Liberia since the end of the civil war. It also looks
into the challenges faced by the stakeholders in ensuring
that Liberia gets trained security institutions that are
responsive to the people and are not agents of abuse and
blind state loyalists, as was seen in the past.

The Context of Post-war Security Sector Reform

SSR is a concept that was introduced in international
development discourses in 1998, in a speech delivered
by the ministerial head of the British Department for
International Development (DfID), Clare short. Issues
concerning the building of democratic security institutions
and the need for a viable and comprehensive security
sector had featured earlier in development discourses,
but it was short’s speech and the policies promulgated by
the DfID that made the concept of SSR a relevant concept
in international peace, security and development2. Since
then, it has been applied to countries emerging from
wars, and nations that are either failing or weak and
fragile. Specifically, development donors have argued
that assistance must flow into secured environments and,
as such, the necessary security architecture must be in
place to ensure successful and peaceful implementation
of such development aid. Security reform has mainly been
applied to help countries that are transitioning to peace
and rebuilding state institutions.

The concept of SSR is now widely accepted and
popularly used, even though there were proposals of
different phrases to represent the concept when it was
introduced to the development debate. These proposals
included that of the Bureau of Crisis Prevention and
recovery (BCPR) of the united Nations Development
Program which, in 2003, began to promote similar ideas
but with different terms, like “justice and security sector
reform” (JSSR)3.

SSR is now understood to refer to a programme of
reform of a country’s security system, which involves the
transformation and restructuring of the military and police
forces, and any paramilitary organisations controlled by
the state. This process has to do with the restructuring
and empowering of security-related institutions for
effectiveness, discipline and capacity-building for
community development initiatives. In some instances,
judicial or judiciary reform initiatives are considered under
SSR programmes.

When a country goes to war or becomes embroiled in
internal civil strife, and its legitimate security institutions
(the military and police) divide into factions with belligerent
motives, peacekeeping activities become difficult, civilians
are abused, more warring parties emerge, and the entire
nation degenerates into disorder. In such a scenario, when
the violence subsides and peacebuilding programmes
are being implemented, reform of the security sector is
essential to restore the state’s credibility and to reassure
the citizenry of their security.

Liberia’s security sector has been no exception to the
above. During the country’s 14-year-long civil war, all of
the security forces and institutions joined warring factions,
and the institutions became factionalised. As a result, the
citizenry lost faith in these security institutions. reforming
the sector in the post-war era was thus critical to ensure
the security of the people of Liberia, and not merely the
protection of short-term regimes.

Political and Legal Background of Security Sector
Reform in Liberia

Even before the plunder and devastation of the civil
war (1989–2003), Liberia’s security institutions were
heavily politicised by officials of government, and
survived on patronage. Its personnel were poorly trained
and had no special civic education programmes. Security
personnel saw themselves and their political patrons as
masters of the people rather than protectors and servants
of the people. They became unpopular for their lack
of professionalism, corruption, frequent human rights
violations and their exploitation by their political patrons
to intimidate – and, at times, terrorise – the people. In
1980, the military seized power in Liberia and, in 1985,
transformed itself into a civilian government. From 1980
onwards, Liberia’s security forces were part of the political
process and thereby lost their neutrality and relevance
as enforcers of the law and protectors of the people.
The ruthlessness of these forces was seen during the civil
war, when most of them joined factions and led campaigns
of terror against the civilians. After the civil war – and with
virtually no reliable security institutions left in the country
– it became politically necessary to reorganise, train and
rebuild an effective and well-trained pro-people security
regime for the country, as part of the post-war governance
reform process.

Liberia’s SSR programme was conceived to address
the above historical faults, and “to create a secure and
peaceful environment, both domestically and in the
sub-region, that is conducive to sustainable, inclusive,
and equitable growth and development”4. In the Poverty
Reduction Strategy of Liberia (PRS) of 2008-2011, the
government articulated issues of peace and security
as a first priority, without which there could be no real
development in the country. The first pillar of the PRS was
therefore “consolidating peace and security”.
Liberia’s SSR programme is legally empowered by
three enabling, but complicated, instruments. These are
the Comprehensive Peace Accord of 2003, the Constitution
of Liberia, and the united Nations security Council
resolution 1509 of 2003.

The Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA)
The CPA was signed in 2003 in Accra, and set the
platform for the end of the war. It provided for several
institutional reforms – including those in the security
sector – to guide the peace process and lead the transition
to a new democratic dispensation. It was operational for
two years, and was the foremost legal instrument for the
NTGL of 2003-05, since certain provisions of the 1986
Constitution of Liberia were suspended to accommodate
the compromises and reforms needed for the country’s
stability and recovery. Part four of the CPA – security
sector reform – first called for the disbandment of all
irregular forces in the republic of Liberia, to set the stage
for total reform in the security sector. The real process of
reform is outlined in Articles VII and VIII of part four of
the CPA.

In Article VII, the CPA called for the disbandment of
all irregular forces, and the reforming and restructuring of
the Armed Forces of Liberia. It also requested substantial
support in material, capacity-building and other technical
support from the united Nations (UN), the economic
Community of West African states (ECOWAS), the African
Union (Au), and the International Contact Group on Liberia
(ICGL), with a call to the United States (US) to play a lead
role in reforming the Armed Forces of Liberia. To that end,
the US contracted the services of private companies –
including DynCorp and Pacific Architects & Engineers, or
PAE – to take charge of the training process.

Article VII also set out the criteria by which personnel
should be recruited into the new armed forces, and it laid
emphasis on education, medical fitness, professionalism
and one’s human rights record. Article VII (c) clearly
outlined the mission of the new Armed Forces of Liberia
as “to defend the national sovereignty and in extremis,
respond to natural disasters”5.

In Article VIII, the CPA called for the restructuring of the
Liberia National Police and all other security forces in the
country, including the Special Security Services, as well as
the “ruthless” Anti-Terrorist Unit and the Special Operation
Division of the Liberia National Police – both of which were
created by the regime of Charles Taylor and had developed
fearsome reputations for human rights violations. The two
were disbanded in 2003 and their members demobilised.
In restructuring the police and other security services, the
CPA laid special emphasis on democratic controls and
values, and the respect of human rights by these forces,
stating:
There shall be an immediate restructuring of the
National Police Force, the Immigration Force, Special
Security Service (SSS), custom security guards and
such other statutory security units. These restructured
security forces shall adopt a professional orientation
that emphasizes democratic values and respect for
human rights, a non-partisan approach to duty and the
avoidance of corrupt practices6.

The Constitution of Liberia (1986)
The Constitution of Liberia gave the executive and the
legislative branches of government a broad mandate on
security issues in the country. under the Constitution, the
president as commander-in-chief “appoints members of
the military from the rank of lieutenant or its equivalence
and above; and field marshals, deputy field marshals,
and sheriff”7. In addition, issues of defence and security
management are implemented by agencies in the executive
branch, headed by the president.

The Constitution empowered the legislature to “provide
for the security of the republic, defend, declare war and to
order the executive to declare peace, and to make rules for
the governance of the Armed Forces of Liberia”8. At the
inception of the SSR programme, all the provisions of the
Constitution concerning the powers of the executive and
the legislature were suspended, and the only legal national
instrument was the CPA of 2003.

Upon the election and subsequent inauguration of
President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in 2006, all suspended
provisions of the 1986 Constitution were reinstated, and
the Constitution regained its position as the supreme law
of Liberia. This Constitution has been very relevant to the
post-war security reform process over the last years.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1509
UN Security Council resolution 1509 of September
2003 provided a legal framework for the SSR programme
in Liberia. It mandated UNMIL to assist the transitional
government in monitoring and restructuring the police
and military forces, with an emphasis on democratic
values. The security Council also mandated UNMIL to
monitor and facilitate reforms in other areas, including
the security sector, where it required that UNMIL “…assist
the transitional government of Liberia in monitoring and
restructuring the police force of Liberia, consistent with
democratic policing, to develop a civilian police training
program, and to otherwise assist in the training of civilian
police, in cooperation with ECOWAS, international
organizations, and interested states”.

For the AFL, it mandated UNMIL “to assist the
transitional government in the formation of a new and
restructured Liberian military in cooperation with ECOWAS,
international organizations and interested states”9.

What Progress?

Since 2004, stakeholders in the Liberian peace process
have been engaged in a public campaign to recruit young
Liberians into the police and military forces, as well as
such paramilitary groups as immigration and correctional
services. Restructuring of the Liberian National Police
(LNP) began in 2004, with the help of the UNMIL. This
reform has gone beyond a mere recruitment of officers
to a process of institutional capacity-building, with
reforms in the rank and file of the police service. Monthly
salaries for the lowest rankings in the police have been
increased over 100% during the last four years. In the
areas of infrastructure and institutional reform, the LNP
has undergone considerable restructuring. The position
of police director has now been changed to inspector
general, and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is
now called the Crime Service Department. These changes
in names are intended to reflect the modified missions
and purposes of the positions and departments within the
police. For example, a Women and Children Protection
Section has been created within the LNP as a first line of
response regarding women’s and children’s issues.

Other institutional rebuilding initiatives that have
taken place include the development of a LNP duty manual
and the establishment of a Police Promotion Board, and
new police stations (depots) are being built around the
country. Currently, the police have trained and deployed
over 3 500 personnel. In the area of emergency response
to armed robberies and riots, the LNP has established an
Emergency Response Unit (ERU). This unit is intended to
be a specialised, armed anti-crime unit in the police, and
it now has 287 personnel toward a target of 500. There is
also a Police support unit, which has trained 148 officers
toward a target of 60010.

With regard to the military, the AFL is currently the
main spotlight of the country’s SSR programme. Liberians
fear the military, due to its brutal roles in the civil war
and its general violence, indiscipline and human rights
abuses. Reforming the AFL is popular with the people of
Liberia, and the process has involved individual citizens
and civil society organisations – citizens have the right
to challenge and vet new applicants to the army. During
the recruitment process, photographs of applicants are
displayed in community centres for citizens to review and
to object, should candidates have a record of indiscipline,
crime and human rights abuses. Besides this process,
background investigations are conducted on individual
applicants in their communities and schools. The
target for the reformed AFL in the PRS is 2, 000 soldiers.
Successfully, through the support of the US government
and other development partners of Liberia, the AFL has
trained over 2 000 personnel, who have been deployed to
various barracks.

The AFL is also undergoing institutional and human
capacity-building. The reform process is serious about
having a literate army. This new AFL is now comprised of
personnel with at least a junior high school education, and
it also has in it many high school and college graduates.
The “new AFL”, as it is called, has over time been involved
in community services, including the construction of
roads and bridges, medical assistance to hospitals, and
community clean-up efforts.
The US and other partners have aided the government
of Liberia in rebuilding barracks and providing logistical
support to the new army, and four barracks have been
refurbished and made fully operational11. The Liberian
Coast Guard unit of the AFL has also trained about
40 officers, and this unit has a mandate of improving
coastline management, controlling smuggling and illegal
fishing. There is also a new bureau for the welfare of
retired AFL servicemen, called the Bureau of Veteran
Affairs.

Other security institutions have also been reformed
and reactivated, including the Bureau of Immigration,
Bureau of Correction and the National Fire Service. A
general review process of all of the security institutions
has taken place, and the government has adopted a
National Security Strategy as the working tool for peace
and security in the country.

Factors Impeding the SSR Programme

Liberia’s security reform programme, like most post-conflict
governance reform initiatives, is faced with the
perennial challenges of inadequate resources and limited
human resource capacity to improve and sustain the
integrity of the programme and the effectiveness of the
security institutions. All of these are faced with logistical
challenges in the discharge of their duties, and these are
further exacerbated by the level of underdevelopment in
the country.

The ineffectiveness of the LNP to respond to
emergencies in the country has been attributed to a lack
of equipment – including radios, vehicles, handcuffs and
raincoats (for the rainy season). These shortages are also
common to the Bureaux of Immigration and Correction,
and the National Fire service. The integrity of the police
system is highly criticised in the country, resulting in
some citizens describing the police force as “a new wine
in an old bottle”. The police have been seen engaging in
violations, including brutality against civilians and bribery.
These attitudes of indiscipline, while publicly condemned,
discourage a populace already weary of insecurity
and corruption.

The country is also still struggling to deal with the
ex-servicemen of the AFL, who have staged numerous
strikes for benefits and re-enlistment into the new military.
Some of the demobilised soldiers still allege that they
are in the army, claiming that the CPA called for the
restructuring of the AFL, and not its disbandment. The
new army has retained some staff from the old army
and re-enlisted them into the force. The government has
tried to respond to the concerns of the disbanded soldiers
by paying arrears of US$4.1 million – including US$228
000 to AFL widows – and has promised that any further
assistance to the disbanded soldiers will be directed at
jobs and training opportunities as a means of ensuring
sustainability in benefits12.

Conclusion

Liberia’s current security system is a considerable
improvement over the pre-war untrained and highly
politicised security institutions that were used to
intimidate citizens and maximise the power of the security
forces. Significant gains have been made through the
training and/or retraining of officers for the AFL, LNP,
Immigration, Correction and other security institutions. As
the training of security institution personnel – particularly
in the armed forces and the police – grows in terms of
numbers, donors are gradually leaving the process to the
Liberian government.

As for the AFL, the us government has already turned
it over to the Liberian government. It is now time for
the country to protect its citizens by maintaining trained
and equipped security institutions. The need to train
and deploy more police officers around the country is
critical to sustaining the integrity of the SSR programme
and promoting internal security. The need to open
educational and training opportunities for personnel of
the security institutions to advance themselves cannot
be overemphasised, since there is a yearning for a literate
security regime with civic and democratic values. Equally
important to the process is the need to improve the
salaries and benefits of servicemen and women in security
institutions, and to maintain the standards of training
introduced by the development partners at the inception
of the SSR programme.

Endnotes

1 Forces loyal to the government of Charles Taylor included the
Anti-terrorist unit, special Operation Division, the militia, and
other paramilitary forces.

2 Brzoska, Michael (2003) Development Donors and the Concept
of Security Sector Reform. Geneva Centre for the Democratic
Control of Armed Force (DCAF), Occasional Paper No. 4, p. 3.

3 Malan, Mark (2008) Security Sector Reform in Liberia: Mixed
Results from humble Beginnings., strategic studies Institute,
US Army War College. Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

4 Republic of Liberia (2008) Consolidating Peace and security,
Chapter 6: Poverty Reduction STrategy

5 Comprehensive Peace Accord of Liberia, Part Four,
Article VII (c).

6 Comprehensive Peace Accord of Liberia, Part Four, Article VIII,
Section 1.

7 Constitution of the republic of Liberia, Article 54, January
1986.

8 Constitution of the republic of Liberia, Article 34 (b) and (c),
January 1986.

9 United Nations Security Council resolution 1509, September
2003.

10 Annual Message to the 5th session of the National Legislature
by Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, 25 January 2010.

11 Griffith, Cecil (2010) Initial report on Liberia’s SSR Program.
Civil society SSR Working Group.

12 Annual Message to the 5th session of the National Legislature
by Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, 25 January 2010.

Commemorating Africa’s Liberation on May 25… But is Africa Really Free?

Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei

In the 1960s the struggle to wipe out white imperial rule on the continent of Africa gained steam with several nations gaining political independence – to govern themselves without the interference of western imperialists. During that time revolutionary movements on the continent became strong and the battle for independence became fierce. Some western powers yielded to compromises, some were defeated and forced out.

In the first three years of the 1960s independent African states formed what was the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union) with the aim of decolonizing the rest of Africa. Through the OAU several efforts were made to help territories under colonial rule become independent. Before the OAU, there were some other pro-independent African organizations like the Pan-African Movement, the Conference of Independent African States, and the All-African People’s Conference (made up of territories under colonial rule) all vociferously advocating the total independence of Africa.

Then before them and even during their existence, there were so many wars during which thousands of Africans died at the hands of imperialists just to gain access and control over their own lands. This article also recognizes the role of the mosquito in inflicting malaria on the imperialists, something that also feared them away.

But the question now is after all of these efforts and years of independence… is Africa free? The answer here is a big NO – and open for extended arguments. The first burden on the continent was slavery through which Europeans captured or bought the living and healthy bodies of African men and women, took them away as their properties. They were made to work on plantations and in homes, and tied in chains with their freedom restrained in all aspects. Above all, they were dehumanized as they were made to believe that they were sub-humans. Since then, Africans have lived with the mentality that whatsoever is Western, and whosoever is not a black by race, is a superior. Here individual worth does not matter, but race and country of origin. This is one burden on the mentality of Africans.

During exploration, either through geographical adventures or the search for resources, the westerners discovered that Africa was a rich continent, and to claim ownership of that wealth was to establish political authorities on the continent. Then came colonization and imperialism. They came and took over territories and established governments amenable only to themselves. They looted, pillaged, plunder the continents resources. They desecrated African cultures, religions, and traditional values. They colonized and corrupted the mentality of the young Africans and made them to believe that anything African is uncivilized, even though civilization began in Africa (Egypt). Then it came time when there was a scramble over African territories, so they met and partitioned the continent like a piece of pie.

The new bondage on the continent is huge debts. While the West is keeping Africa in bondage through huge debts, they are also keeping the continents development in check through international institutions that enforces rules of governance and for development assistance only applicable to Africa. International laws are also enforced in Africa then any part of the world.

Those are the external factors that have over the years affected the states in Africa. And by extension the people. In the midst of the threats from imperialists in the 19th and 20th centuries and neo-imperialists of today, African leaders pose a second and more frustrating threat to the total liberation of their people. Yet, they are politically free to run sovereign nations. But their people are impoverished to the ebb. African leaders in many countries have not done much to liberate their people from poverty and make them feel proud of the abundance of resources and potentials endowed to the continent. Africa tops in all of the vices: Highest HIV/AIDS rate, highest malaria rate, highest rate in teenage pregnancy, and harbors the world’s poorest people; even though those poor people own lands and resources that are making the world’s richest people to be who they are. As a result there are mass exoduses of Africans everyday to western nations in such of greener pastures. There, they work as casual laborers to process raw materials from their homes, and the end-products sent back to them to purchase.

Corruption and autocratic leadership have been the most internal obstacles to the freedom of African people. I accept that we are running sovereign states, but I argue that we the people are not free. And that remains the basis of my argument. In Zimbabwe the man once revered to be the freedom fighter and the ‘people’s popular leader’ has clinched unto power, terrorizing and crushing opposition dissents, and at the same time westerners have imposed sanctions on him in vengeance to his stance against neo-imperialism. That is a dilemma for the people of Zimbabwe. Their economy has sunk into an abyss, and socio-economic conditions have become too harsh. In the central region of the continent, most of the states have failed, collapsed or are weak. Congo has failed, Sudan has collapsed and secession is eminent by next year, Chad and the Central African Republic are weak. West Africa is dominated by weak and failing states. Corruption is uncontrollable in this region. This is where society frowns on accountable leaders and cherishes murderers and corrupt officials. In Liberia, few groups of people, about 75 persons have held the country for over forty years and it is among them leadership circulates. The rest of the population still lives in poverty and hopelessness. Corruption is at its peak in the present government, and it is not just casting doubts on the credibility of the present regime, but also eroding public confidence in the state as a whole. Warlords and former corrupt government officials are the most ‘honorable’ citizens.

Guinea, Niger, Mauritania, Guinea Bissau, and Madagascar are failing as a result of coups and civil uprisings. Madagascar is a rear case and deserves extended political research. This is where civilians launched a coup and the coup was endorsed by the military.

Again I continue to argue that with poor leadership on the continent, bad governance, mass poverty, poor health care, mass illiteracy, huge debt burden, and the external threat of neo-imperialism through international organizations, AFRICA IS NOT FREE!

The vices are enormous and pathetic to name. Africa’s solutions to total liberation must begin now! And that must be a priority of every African, mainly the continent’s leaders. True independence in Africa will come when the leaders of the continent are accountable and transparent in public service; when the people of Africa participates freely and openly in a system of democratic governance; when the people are free to choose among options that will advance their socio-economic needs; when the nation-states in Africa will be strategic partners in international development and cooperation not mere receivers of aid, or not ‘gatekeeper states’; when civil uprisings and violent conflicts end; and when the first priority of every African government will be to advance the human security of its citizens. LONG LIVE AFRICA, AND LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE OF AFRICA!!!!

A MESSAGE FOR PEACE AT FLY’s ASSEMBLY 2010

Fellow young people, delegates to the Sixth general Assembly of FLY, I bring you greetings in the name of unity, peace, solidarity and nationalism. We have left our counties, our homes, our families and schools to assemble here today and deliberate on issues pertinent to the socio-economic empowerment of ourselves and our country. We are here to discuss issues that will affect us and the generation behind us. It is therefore incumbent upon us to be tolerant and peaceful as we embark on this process intended to open a new chapter for the Federation and the young people of Liberia. Let us remember that a house divided against itself cannot stand at all. We must therefore be united and mutually tolerant to speak as one, because we have the same problems that affect us as young people. What affect the youths of Maryland County, affects the youths of Grand Cape Mount County, and the same affects youths all over the country. We share the same problems; we must therefore derive collective solutions. If one person succeeds, we have all succeeded. This assembly must be a turning point for us all. We have had perennial problems of marginalization in national development issues, and our progress have been retarded by the level of poverty and underdevelopment that resulted from the fourteen years of decadent conflicts our country went through. Today is a new day, we are experiencing peace and normal activities have resumed in our country. This is therefore a moment of opportunity we must seize to address the problems associated with our advancement. We cannot hold anyone responsible if we fail to work together for ourselves today, and for the generation behind us. For the past few years we have been stereotyped as violent-oriented youths. Our critics build their assumptions on what we have done in the last two years. In 2007 we made the world to think negatively about us when we failed to organize ourselves in Gbarnga (April) and in Kakata (September). A replica of the same situations took place when we met in Gbarnga in 2009 (July) to elect a new leadership for LINSU. We are challenged to prove our critics wrong. We are challenged to tell the world that we are prepare for peace and we that are prepare to contribute to the peace and development of our country. This assembly is an opportunity for us. We must strive as best as possible to ensure that we have peaceful deliberations and a peaceful electoral process that will facilitate a smooth transition in our leadership. We must relinquish our personal interests for the collective good. We are here today as individuals, but what we do will represent our counties, our homes, and the schools we come from. Some months back, I got several calls by friends from all over the country asking me to contest for the position of First Vice President of FLY. I accepted those petitions as a call to duty. Today I am in the race as a candidate certified by the Independent Election Commission of FLY. I look up to you all to support me in this election, and also after the election that we all may work together and make FLY the organization we want it to be. While we look up to government for our empowerment, we must also begin to put in place those mechanisms that will prove to the world that we are serious; and we must begin to work towards our own empowerment by organizing ourselves peacefully, by working in our communities as volunteers for development, and by ensuring that we get the necessary education, discipline and training for national leadership. Long Live FLY!!!!! LONG, LONG LIVE LIBERIA!!!!!!!!! May Peace Prevail Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei

What Does The Legatum Prosperity Index Mean For Liberia?

A fortnight ago one of the world’s leading development and research institutes published what is called the Prosperity Index, a rating of nations on the basis of development and the livelihood of individuals.

The Legatum Institute surveyed 104 nations for the 2009 Prosperity Index. More African nations, as usual ranked among the lowest with Zimbabwe taking the 104th place. Interestingly, Africa’s peacekeeping hero and one of the continent’s power center, Nigeria, was ranked 98th. Above all, a critical look at the index tells that African countries have a lot to do to improve the satisfaction of their people in terms of physical and economic securities, fundamental freedom and rights, and basic social services to support standard and happy life.

Liberia was not part of the 104 nations surveyed. But the indicators used by the Legatum Institute, if applied to Liberia will rank the West African nation no farther from the lowest ten if not amongst the lowest countries on the index. The problem is that the impacts of reform and development policies have not reached the lives of the ordinary citizens.

The institute used nine specific areas identified as ‘building blocks of prosperity’. They include economic fundamentals, entrepreneurship and innovation, education, democratic institutions, governance, health, personal freedom, security, and social capital.

Does Liberia have high scores in these areas considering the livelihood of its ordinary citizens from rural to urban setting? How effective and efficient are the responses of government institutions to socio-economic and political issues in the country?

Recent reports on the country are encouraging on economic issues. Two reports this year predict higher economic growth. Before the Prosperity Index was launched the World Bank ranked Liberia as one of the best 10 countries for doing business in the world. Just after the Prosperity Index was published the IMF Director for Africa announced report of a study that predicts higher economic growth for Liberia in the tone of 7.53%.

However, there is a problem with local entrepreneurship as many Liberians doing business lack the capital and the capacity to engage in bigger businesses, and free their economy from foreign merchants. Liberian businesses are commonly described by the phrase ‘from –hand-to-mouth’ indicating that what is earned can only provide daily meal therefore no capital for saving or growth. The issue of innovation among local Liberians is discouraging because motivations are very low and gains are negligible.

Illiteracy and human resource deficit are major problems for Liberia. The country has less than 20% literacy rate, and currently there are no encouraging signs of growth in literacy because of the lack of educational institutions in most parts of the country. Observers comment that Liberia’s older generation is educated than its younger generation.
Good Governance and economic prosperity are threatened by corruption. There is currently no effective mechanism of deterrence for corruption in the country. All of the institutions of reform put in place to combat corruption are being defeated by the lack of political support, official shielding or cover-ups and massive defrauding.

What the Legatum Institute index will mean for Liberia is innumerable. While countries like Zimbabwe, Botswana, Nigeria, and Kenya know their status in terms of prosperity, Liberians need to know their status too, to set the stage for evaluation, reform and were necessary make adjustment for the better.

The reforms that are sweeping across postwar African countries are also visible in Liberia. Aid comes every year and from numerous sources since the return of the country to democratic civilian rule in 2006. It is important for the people of Liberia to know at what level their individual lives have gone considering the high level of aid coming to the country.

Personal freedom and security of the people come under threat daily. The judiciary is plagued with problems of corruption and lack of capacity. The services of the police do not reach most parts of the country, particularly the rural settings. Crimes such as rape and armed robbery are surging. There is also the issue of land dispute that threatens the general peace of the country.

Effective social services in education, health, electricity, water and public transportation are lacking in almost every part of the country. The national census conducted in 2008 put the poverty rate of the country at 68%. The government’s major policy response to poverty and the restoration of democratic governance and human rights to the country is articulated in its poverty reduction strategy called “Lift Liberia’, intended to be implemented in three years. Unfortunately, the first year was a failure as announced by the Government of Liberia.

Happiness and Prosperity are every individual’s goals in life. All of the Building Blocks of Prosperity as outlined by the Legatum Institute, if pursued decisively and sincerely, can solve Liberia’s political and socio-economic problems. The primary focus is placed on the individual citizen – his economic situation, his right to associate, participate in governance and to choose for himself, his security in the pursuit of his goals, and the opportunities at his disposal to advance himself like any other person in the world.

It is only government that can provide the necessary ambience for the attainment of the aforementioned by an individual. The programs articulated in Liberia’s PRS can be linked with all of the Legatum indicators, and if the PRS can be accepted as a collective national development agenda instead of a regime-based platform, then the prospects for national prosperity are higher and far beyond the intent of the regime that carved it. The Building Blocks of Prosperity must therefore be adopted locally as indicators for measuring the progress of our PRS with dual focus on advances made by individual citizens and the government.

Open Letter to the Chairman of the Mano River Union

H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
Chairman of the Mano River Union
President of the Republic of Liberia
Executive Mansion
Republic of Liberia

Ref: Policy Advice on the Crisis in Neighboring Guinea

Greetings of Peace!

This is my second time writing to you since you took over the leadership of our war-ravaged country. Over the years, I have made attempts to call your attention and the attentions of other decision makers, the citizenry, and the international community to major issues relevant to the socio-economic conditions of our people, the sustenance of the peace, the nurturing of our nascent democracy, and the overall development of our country. I have been speaking through my series entitled ‘Critical Issues of National Concern’ which is widely published by the Analyst Newspaper, the Public Agenda Newspaper, the Daily Observer and several online news outlets. In recent times, I have been opportune to secure a permanent column in the Nation Times Newspaper called ‘Cocorioko’ with the same aims, objectives, and mission of the series ‘Critical Issues of National Concern’.

As we hope to continue to live in peace and that those who wish to advocate for us and fight for freedom will continue to do so constructively, and this time through the democratic process and in the towns, rather than going to the bushes with the bullet, we have seen significant strides in the growth of democracy under your regime occasioned by the level of free speech, an ambience for free media operation, and the submission of the regime to criticisms from all ends. This progress is however, largely accredited to all of the democratic forces that rallied and agitated for change in this country.

In my last communication to you (see the July 30, 2007 of both the Daily Observer and Public Agenda newspapers) I addressed several policy issues regarding corruption and the need to go beyond policy writing to practical implementations in order to address local needs. That discussion was centered mostly on local issues.

Today, I am taking you off the shores to present a foreign case but with much local implications bordering on both the physical and economic securities of the people of Liberia and the entire Mano River Basin.

It is with great acknowledgment of your authority as a leader in the basin that I select you amongst four leaders to direct this note for immediate policy considerations and actions which if pursued decisively will avert what seems to be a threatening danger hanging over the innocent and impoverished people of Guinea, and the people of the Mano River Basin at large.

Guinea has been a shadow state for several years, largely due to the level of instability and violent military operations in its neighbors. Today Guinea is on the brink of completely falling into the vortex of violent conflict. As you may be aware, violent conflict in one country has the proclivity to spew out negative consequences on neighboring countries, and the international political system as a whole.

Liberia’s descent into a violent and internecine feud in the late 1980s was exploited by economic and political strongmen in the sub-region as a means of counterbalancing and getting through with parochial interests successfully. This was what led to the participation of multilateral actors in the Liberian civil war. As you may recall Madam Chairman, interests became complicated and the strategies of the warlords were to either support oppositions against regimes that checkmate their interests or to establish and unleash their own dissidents as a means of getting through with their objectives. Consequently, Sierra Leone’s weak state became a conflict-state, Guinea a shadow and fragile state, and Ivory Coast, the route of Liberia’s dissidents, lastly succumb.

This was ho w the Mano River Basin became polarized by instability, crimes, wars, economic decadence, and consequently, became an unnecessary burden on the international community. Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast tasted full skill military wars; while Guinea remained unstable and fragile thereby making the then regime suspicious and overly autocratic.

The same ghost of violent crisis is haunting Guinea, and the lessons learnt from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast must be applied quickly to save the people of Guinea. You have the ball in your court as Chairman of the MRU to act, even though the Union has been a ‘sleeping watchman’ and ‘a toothless bulldog’ over the years, but you need to exert yourself beyond all to save the people of Guinea from dying.
My concern now is not whether the junta leaders participate in the ensuing elections or not. My concern is about calling for a concrete and forceful international action in favor of the innocent, unarmed and impoverished people whose freedom, right to happiness, and liberty are being suppressed by a politically unsophisticated and popularly rejected military junta.

Madam Chairman, may I now call your attention to several mistakes by the international community which they direct at regimes, but in no way threaten the livelihood of the elites and leaderships targeted. On numerous occasions, the international community as a means of punishing regimes imposes economic sanctions and travel bans on leaders. These leaders on the extreme use local resources for to consolidate their authority and manipulate systems at the expense of the people. They and their families live happily, and the purpose and intent of the sanctions become irrelevant. Adversely, the same people the international community intends to save suffer the worst.

The years of sanctions and bans on Zimbabwe did not affect the personal lives of politicians in the ruling class, but economically and socially relegated ordinary families, with girls as tender as 12 and 13 turning to prostitutes. The coup leaders in both Madagascar and Honduras who seized powers have local resources at their disposals which they manipulate for the survival of their families and to consolidate their local themselves against the intents of international sanctions against them.

In the same way sanctions will not directly affect the juntas in Guinea. The juntas must be persuaded to a deal with the oppositions and the civil society to restore calm immediately.

People are dying, and there are fears around the borders of war and terror. It is our people whose survival is being endangered by the situation in Guinea.
Liberia stands to suffer from all fronts if the appropriate actions are not taking to restore calm and reduce the chances of war in that country.

Madam Chairman of the MRU, you and I may recall that in the heat of the crises in Liberia, all of the nations in the basin became diplomatically hostile to each other. There were claims and counterclaims of support to insurgent groups in the basin to the extent that diplomats were expelled and leaders refusing to attend summits protesting the participation of other leaders.

In July of this year (2009), while preparing for an MRU heads of state summit in Guinea, similar thing occurred when the juntas claimed that dissidents were training in Foya, Lofa County (Liberia) to destabilized Guinea. This opened up a feud between the two countries and led to the cancellation of the planned MRU summit in Guinea due to your abrupt decision to boycott the meeting as Chairman. This decision came just after some members of your entourage had arrived in Guinea awaiting your departure.

The issue of how a conflict in one MRU country affects another or the entire sub-region needs not be overemphasized. Guinea now is a major exporter of local products to Liberia, and the security of traders between the two countries must be highly considered at this critical time.

Your positions on the situation since the self-catapulting of the purported National Council for Democracy and Development (NCDD) to power in Guinea have been highly laudable. Your call for an immediate international action must be supported by sufficient political will which you must rally with your colleagues in the basin and in ECOWAS to ensure the safety of the people.

May I now give several recommendations that you may need as Chairman of the MRU in the resolution of the political instability in Guinea.

It has been taught by history that emotional and power-drunk military leaders transform themselves easily into civilian leaders by stage-managing elections. We have an example in our records like many other African countries. You must therefore impress upon your colleagues that the NCDD must be encouraged to dialogue with the opposition as a means of establishing a government of National Unity closely monitored by the international community to pave the way for democratic rule. To believe that the NCDD will relinquish power and bar its members from contesting elections is inconceivable at this time considering Africa’s political history with the military. To further harass the NCDD as a means of encouraging civilian up-rising will give rise to mass civilian casualties or war as we have seen over the last few days. The most appropriate international action needed now is the facilitation of talks for a power-sharing government with a longer life span and the deferment of elections. Guinea needs an overall reform in its system of governance. There have been no effective constitutional authority and democratic system primarily due to the iron-fist style of the last regime that was very autocratic.

You must put, above everything, the safety and survival of the masses in Guinea. The CNDD must be warned against further civilian casualties, and must be given an immediate notice that it will one day account for its terror against our people.

Second, I also recommend that you build the most necessary security fortresses around the sub-region and warn your colleagues against harboring dissidents in their various countries. As Chairman of the Union, I admonish you to please consider the need for an MRU Peace and Security Council as a sub-regional body to preside over security issues and to promote peace initiatives in the basin.

Finally, as we all pray for and anticipate an immediate end to the crisis, it is prudent that we begin to liberalize immigration and cross-border trade policies so as to promote the spirit of integration in the basin as envisaged by the founders of the MRU.

May God Bless you and save Liberia and the Mano River Union.

Respectfully yours,

Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
Citizen of Liberia
+231 6265366
pericle925@yahoo.com

CRITICAL ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN XV

YOUTHS AND THE GROWTH OF DEMOCRACY IN LIBERIA
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei

A wave of transformation is blowing across the world. It is blowing from all hemispheres, and even those who stand to detest it in support of traditional leadership systems, ironically accept some of its tenets. This wave is gradually sweeping across Africa, and Liberia is rising up to the moment to benefit from the goods that come with it. It is breaking down the wings of tyranny; disestablishing oligarchies shaking the foundations of imperial and autocratic rules. It is implanting the popular will of the people as the most appropriate means of governance. It is installing justice, and awakening common people to the light of government. The wave is building strong public service institutions and leading to the eradication of poverty. That wave is the wave of democracy.

The pace with which governance is changing across the world to fundamentally address the interest of the masses who are the true custodians of power and authority is highly attributed to the growth of democracy in the 21st century. Democracy, in simple terms, is a system of government in which the people rule either directly or indirectly through their elected representatives.

Liberia is a growing democracy with a representative form of government. The country went through decades of conflicts that resulted into a full-scale military and violent conflict that lasted for fourteen years.

Today the country is recovering and rising to the demands of good governance by instituting the rule of law and building effective institutions for adequate service delivery. The above are all aimed at consolidating democracy and avoiding the recurrence to violent conflicts. The country has a constitution that gives power to the people, guarantees free speech and association and the right to worship in any form. Notwithstanding, the constitution has several lapses that pose major challenges to the growth of democracy and the rising political and economy order of the century – globalization.

It is however clear from the constitution that the country theoretically supports democracy, but the problem lies in practicing it as a culture of life and governance. If these were done, it would be impossible for one to have imagined that the country would go to war.

Since the end of the civil war, with the election of the first postwar government, the country is gradually rebuilding its institutions and putting in place appropriate mechanism to ensure that the government is answerable to the people, and representative of their interests at all levels.

Some of the greatest opportunities available to the people of Liberia today, particularly activists, are the growth of a free media community and the open environment to register and operate pro-democracy or civil society movements. The country currently has over eighteen local newspapers and more than thirty radio stations nationwide. The amount of civil society organizations operating in the country is about four hundred.

The only alternative to the problems of governance and economic development in Africa is democracy. It is the only system that can hold our leaders accountable for their numerous excesses in the management of our resources. In Liberia, precepts of transparency and accountability are very strange concepts that we find difficulties in dealing with.

But there is much to be gained if we truly understand and comply with those principles. The first thing we need to do is to open up the process of choosing our leaders freely. If the people openly and freely elect their leaders, the leaders feel accountable to the people. On the contrary, when leaders are imposed on the people, they have the tendencies of imposing their wills against the general interest of the masses they claim to lead.

The second is the issue of transparency and accountability. These are two inseparable concepts of democracy that demand openness in transactions, and taking responsibility for actions. The applicability of the two is a means by which corruption, which has for centuries impeded growth and development in Liberia, will be minimized.

This time, I will name decentralization of power as the third important precept which the new dispensation demands for accelerating growth in poor and underdeveloped countries. The overly centralization of power in Africa which is historically rooted in the legacies of colonialism has proven to be a failed system. The need for the decentralization of power and the equitable distribution of resources cannot be overemphasized at this time.

Under a decentralized governing system where power is in the hands of the people, and authority closer to them, democracy will flourish. This system will also take development closer to the people and reduce poverty in so many ways. When local leaders are elected and made to control their own resources under a transparent and accountable system, the issue of service delivery becomes effective and efficient, thus economic and social development.

As stated earlier, Liberia is a growing democracy, with glaring prospects. For the first time, young Liberians have the opportunities to participate in all aspects of governance. Through international and locally made programs, youth employment and empowerment is growing in Liberia.

It is through these processes that the consciousness of the youth is awakening to government and public debates. The country currently has about 376 youth organizations with a majority of them having programs of human rights and democracy advocacy, a few are in the area community development while some focus on other areas such as health (HIV/AIDS), environmental affairs, education, etc, according to a Federation of Liberian Youth report.

The National Youth Policy drafted by the Federation of Liberian Youth with support from donors is a real means to achieving the real end of increasing and legally positioning the youths in public activities. The policy is yet to be passed into law by the legislature due to some clauses that conflict with the Constitution of Liberia.

At present, there are numerous opportunities available to youths in the country particularly when it comes to the issue of governance and civil society activism. Notwithstanding there are daunting challenges as well since the youth face problems of limited resources and the lack of technical and professional know-how in planning and implementing programs.

All of the political parties in the country have youth wing structures that are very powerful and critical in decision making due to their population, exuberance and ability to move around. The latest census conducted in Liberia (2008) puts the youth at 60 percent of the total population.

In 2005, the openness of the first postwar elections in Liberia saw democracy at work in Liberia. The support of the youth was highly craved by political parties. There were also several young persons under the age of 35 who contested for various seats in the legislature. There were about eight young persons elected to the legislature that year.

That was a defining moment for Liberia’s emergence from conflict to peace and from anarchy to democracy. The youths were very much significant to that process. Several youth organizations participated as monitors and observers while individual youths were employed by the National Election Commission as election workers.
That was not the end. Since the inauguration of the first post-war government youth participation in public affairs and government is increasing steadily. Several mainstream civil society organizations are headed by young people, and they presently represent the most independent structures for public advocacy and civic activism in the country.

Youths are no longer chastised as agents of violence as they were. Much is being done in the areas of community peace education and dialogue to promote non-violence approaches in resolving conflicts.

Some youth organizations are mostly engaged with organizing public debates on national issues and promoting initiatives of dialogues amongst young people. These activities are helping to strengthen the peace and nurturing our nascent democracy.
It is no doubt that the role of the youths in the current democratization of Liberia is highly remarkable and unprecedented. This needs to be supported and sustained. What the youths needs are empowerment in education and employment to be self-sufficient and independent in their campaigns. This call is not just for young people who are activists, but for the entire youthful population. If the young people are kept busy with productive activities, it is unlikely that they will be involved with lawlessness or negative activities in society.

It has been established that the young people were used as proxy warriors to represent the interests of warlords on battle fields during the country’s civil war. Today most of those young people have been abandoned, and their participation in the civil war has been widely attributed to poverty and ignorance and idleness. This future of this new generation must therefore be protected by every means necessary. Again, the most appropriate securities needed are education and economic empowerment.

The productive energy of every society is in the youthful population. The talents of the youths need to be tapped for society to utilize that productive energy in them. Currently, many agencies of government are employing young people to work in communities either as volunteer teachers or health workers as a means of helping local people to reducing poverty in their communities. These are all some of the good products of the emerging democratic order we have in the country.

Over two thousand students were recruited to work in public and private offices in the country between July and August of 2009 while some were assigned in various communities as community volunteers to help local citizens in the areas of civic education and local community development services.

Haven worked as activists for many years, mobilizing youths and animating communities, we are still contributing, this time our services have gone at the level of national government. For years, we work with regional organizations like the Mano River Union Youth Parliament through which we were used to carry peace messages on a caravan in the Mano River countries – Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. We have also been working with other local civic organizations helping to promote civic education in our country and promoting good governance principles.
At present I and four other university students are working with the Governance Commission on the Liberia Decentralization and Local Development Program. Through this program, we have been able to travel around the country, meet local leaders, and organize workshops and dialogues with local people. It is through this program that local leaders and citizens alike have appreciated the need for government to be decentralized so that local fiscal, administrative and political decisions can be taken by local leaders. This they believe will give them the opportunity to elect their own local leaders, take ownership of their own budget and development programs.
Our roles at the Governance Commission, like other youth volunteering on other programs have been very important to the successful promulgation and public awareness campaign of major government’s policies to people all over the country.

There is also a free media community in the country which one youth leader once described as a product of the democratic forces that agitated for change in the country. This has been a point of public debate as to whether the present ambience of free speech and expression are gains of the present government. But majority, mainly activists believe that it is a collective gain attributed to the entire population that went against tyranny and oppression. Today, youth groups, civil society actors, as well as opposition leaders use the press freely to speak out against social and political ills. The government on the other hand exercises much restrain and tolerance in upholding press freedom and freedom of speech and expression as a means of consolidating the peace and democracy we have today. It is of much interest to note that instead of using security agents to clamp down free speech and media institutions as it was done in the past, the government today uses the courts to try violators.

This is the level at which the wave of democratization is blowing on our shows with young people playing significant roles. Indeed, democracy is blowing a wind of change in Liberia and the youth are at the center of that change.

In The Cause of Democracy And Social Justice, The Pen Will Never Run Dry!

CRITICAL ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN XIV

WHEN THE VICES GO AROUND AND AROUND: WHO TAKES THE BLAME?

Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei

What is emerging as a blow to development efforts initiated by this current leadership under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and also against the general aspirations of the people to move the country forward on a trajectory acceptable to advance human civilization and international standards is not only found in the widely public outcry against corruption in government. Every other government has suffered this in the history of our country. It is in a cycle of mistrust, distrust, lack of patriotism from within government, civil society, and the general citizenry.
Corruption at all levels of society, and the lack of patriotism and national consciousness in the citizenry are part of the forces militating against the collective desire for peace and economic growth in the country. And specifically, those are direct offenses against the current administration.

The driving force behind the development of any given society is the people who benefit from the outcomes of policies and projects. The same people must therefore be the ones to participate in policy formulation and at the same time initiating self-empowerment and local development programs that will ameliorate their collective wellbeing.

Like the political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita argues, governments and political leaders only seek the welfare of their subjects because they want more opportunities to enjoy their stay in power, and to avoid being ousted; not because they are particularly interested in seeing their subjects live happily. Mesquita’s argument is a source of support to validate my premise that the people are the driving force behind their own development.

On July 1, 2009, US President Barack Obama spoke in Accra, Ghana and stated that the ‘future of Africa is up to Africans. That was a part of numerous popular calls to make us know that no one can solve our problems, not donors, and not governments operating through agents, for they do because they target an ultimate goal which is the unhindered access to and, the perpetuation of power.

It is therefore left with the ordinary people to catalyze their own development and growth. In Liberia today, the syndrome of dependency grows increasingly, despite the numerous civic education and community awareness programs, and local empowerment initiatives conducted by CSOs and NGOs in the country.

While resources are being galvanized and efforts exerted towards local empowerment it is saddened to witness the level of distrusts and complete carelessness of the local masses towards the plight of each others. In most instances, particularly in the control and regulation of prices, the government’s regulatory and control mechanisms initiated toward stabilizing prices are challenged by the citizens who are the targeted beneficiaries. The questions now are – what functions do we as citizens recognize in the government we elect; in whose interest does government intervene; and when do we recognize the role, power and authority of our government; it is only when we feel subdued by someone else then we begin to trust the government by referring to law enforcement officers? If so, then we are in a vicious circle of delusions and deceits.

For example, while the government arranged and announced transportation fares for various destinations in the city of Monrovia, commercial drivers went on a spree of defiance and extortion. This act was also supported by impatient passengers.
When the government announced new regulations and prices for petroleum products, petrol dealers went the other way in defiance. The same continues to happen on both the cement and rice markets where the criminal acts of sabotage through hoarding and re-bagging are very common.

The most recent and troubling event that blew a wave of shock among the citizenry and at the government is the ongoing tuition and extra-curricular fees crisis in private schools. Both the Poverty Reduction Strategy of the Government of Liberia and the 2008 National Census reported mass illiteracy rate in the country.
The government has however seen as a challenge, the reduction of illiteracy through building schools in local communities, monitoring private schools effectively, promoting enrollment, and encouraging more essentially- the enrollment of women. At the same time, there is a free and compulsory primary education program which has been on-going for a number of years. But this is limited to government primary schools. Some missionary schools have kindly joined the scheme.

In the wake of these developments, with the ensuing financial crisis, private schools, including some missionary schools, have launched a completely high level of profiteering scheme through exploitation and extortion by increasing tuition fees exorbitantly, imposing unnecessary extra charges, opening markets on campus for the sale of uniforms and books. Interestingly, this exploitative scheme is very bare and absurd for the mere fact that schools authorities will with no regard and understanding of measurement considering body size, weight and height, are charging the same for a set of uniform for every student. This is the most recent debate in the country since the month of August 2009.

There are many instances of such in the country, and no one seems to care from amongst us the citizens. Yet, we blame the government for most of these misfortunes.
Does the government pursue her self-made regulatory policies and framework to ensure compliance through monitoring and sanctioning when violators are caught red-handed? This is the question, and the answer is a capitalized, italicized and bolded ‘NO’.
The responses of government have usually been through the establishment of ‘Investigatory Commissions’ whose reports are sometimes treated in secret, discarded or trashed. There is the case of the Ad-Hoc Price Commission set to investigate the causes of the hike in prices of basic commodities. It is over one year the report of this commission or the status of the commission itself remains an issue of oral history; the case of the commission set to investigate a riot at the Free Port of Monrovia involving officials of the Liberia National Police on one hand and the Seaport police on the other hand; the case of the commission set to investigate the death of SSS of popularly known as ‘Silver J’ during a fight among top security heads. Then there is the case of the commission set to investigate the controversial email scandal that linked the presidency to alleged influence peddling and corruption.

Now the president has mandated an investigation into the tuition crisis in Liberian schools. But this investigation is taking place after the exploiters have succeeded, and the victims have already wiped their tears. Whatever the investigation produces will be for the future, which we hope will serve the popular interest of our poor and vulnerable people.

The President’s intervention is very late because the damage has been done. And it is an affront to her policies and development programs. What is needed now is to act decisively, but not to wait and suffer damages before acting. There is an urgent need to enforce policies and regulations and demand full compliance from all and sundry.

It is only the government that can curtail corruption in the private sector by enforcing regulations and setting up safety nests for the economy against the barbarity of economic vampires. But the problematic of fighting corruption in the private sector by the government is that the government pays lot of rents (rent is a favor or reward political leader give their supporter in return for their loyalty and support) to supporters and elitist cronies. Besides, there is a serious case of conflict-of-interest in the Liberian political and economic class setting. Those in Government are major entrepreneurs and investors. They are partners and shareholders in foreign investments that come to the country. They are most likely to soften and bend the rules in favor of their partners, and their supporters. At the end, the circle of corruption becomes wider, and the government takes all of the blames. This is why all eyes against corruption points at the government. And there is much reason to accept all. Then the government will cry that the people are not complying, and there are not enough resources to enforce laws and regulations. And the cycle goes around and round. Who then takes the blame?

Finally, it is no doubt that there are corruptible practices outside government on a general scale like it is in government itself. But the one in government must be publicly condemned because what is abused and corrupted represents popular ownership. The Government must therefore must therefore muster the courage and exercise the necessary will and authority to cleanse itself of corruption, the success of which may cut across.

Again, as government builds security to protect the weak citizens against the stronger ones, it must also protect the poor from being exploited by businesspeople whose urge of profiteering is as restive as the egregious and invading armies of Hitler. The people, too, must see themselves first at the ultimate beneficiaries of the actions of government, and begin to build trust for each other while reposing the soundest confidence in the sovereign authority. Then the vicious cycle of deceit and hypocrisy will compress. This is how credible and progressive societies are built.

I end this edition of the series with a call for local people empowerment in a system of power and administrative decentralization. There has been a very high level of dependency on central government. This in some way can be traced to the historical growth of the country, and the culture of politicking characterized by high degree of zero-sum politicking in which the winner takes all and the loser takes none. All of these are further complicated by the high centralization of power at the presidency and the cabinet.

When power and authority are left with a few who sent agents to represent them to the people, they (agents) become only answerable and accountable to those who sent them not those they are sent to serve. Thus development becomes very slow and sometimes completely absent. Conversely, when power and administrative decisions are in the hands of the people at all levels, they become more proactive in managing their own affairs locally. Thus transparency, accountability and the rule of law and development becomes effective and more productive.

-In The Cause of Democracy And Social Justice, The Pen Shall Never Run Dry-

CRITICAL ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN XIII

WHAT DO WE HOPE TO GET FROM CLINTON’S VISIT?

Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei

America’s most senior diplomat and apparently the most powerful voice in the international political system is expected to visit Liberia this week, specifically on Thursday August 13, 2009. The position of Secretary of State in the U.S Government automatically gives an individual the above description. Madam Hilary Rodham Clinton, with her experiences in U.S politics, gaining highlights first as First Lady of the United States, later as Senator, then lastly a contender for the presidency, is best suited for this post. Clinton came to the post under a liberal regime headed by the first Afro-American president of the United States of America whose lineage can be directly traced to an African village in Kenya, unlike millions of others who cannot find any trace of their ancestries on the Dark Continent.

Obama’s ascendancy to the U.S presidency increased the hopes of African leaders and their people for more aids in development, partnership, and foreign trade with the United States. But this is yet to be actualized since Obama is committed to supporting only pro-people and democratically functional governments something that is only sung in words in Africa, but not felt in practice.

In July Obama himself came to Africa for the second time, the first being in Northern Africa. This second visit which was widely publicized as Obama’s first visit to the least developed part of the continent – Sub-Saharan Africa – gave Ghana, an emerging democracy, sufficient applause among fifty-three other countries for its outstanding democratic and good governance credentials. In Ghana President Obama called for a partnership which he suggests “…must be grounded in mutual responsibility and mutual respect”.

Like Marcus Garvey, who preached philosophy of ‘Africa for the Africans’, so Africans must take full responsibilities of their own development, Obama said, “…Africa’s future is up to Africans”. This is indeed a challenge to African leaders and their peoples who are endowed with abundant resources in nature and human capital.

For Clinton, she is particularly in Africa to affirm a commitment by the Obama administration to tackle trouble spots from Somalia and Zimbabwe to the DR Congo and Liberia according to the State Department.

Naming Liberia as a ‘trouble spot’ with nations like Somalia, DR Congo, and Zimbabwe is a terrible label which undermines the strides made so far.

However, as she comes to Liberia, there must be something to collect and put in our basket as we struggle with a balance of about 1.9bn debt, mass poverty, and deplorable infrastructure. The controversial report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is also one of those things that have called the international community’s attention to our country again which the Clinton delegation may not ignore. Besides, we need to display something to prove to the Obama Administration that Liberia is not a trouble spot any longer.

As she roams the continent, four African leaders, including our own Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf have called for more partnership instead of increasing patronage. Clinton however does not have the will and power to seize the patronage style of relations. Again, it is how Africans govern themselves will determine whether they will live on patronage or be considered as potential partners in development.

In Kenya, where she began her tour of Africa she called on African’s to open borders to each others in trade. This is a demand that has been made for decades in Africa. Opening trade borders is now overdue, particularly in a continent that is highly dependent on foreign handouts. Opening borders to fellow Africans to promote trade and education as well as free movements of people is very necessary as we strive to integrate our economies and peoples. So Clinton’s call to Africans is highly laudable and Liberia as the oldest sovereign state on the continent must take the lead in liberalizing trade policies and limiting restrictions on goods and peoples of African origin.

Several other development issues were discussed in South Africa and the DR Congo. Emphases were placed on health issues mainly on HIV/AIDS in South Africa and in the DR Congo, the issue of women’s rights and violence against women was highly condemned, and the Kabila government was urged to find an end to the violence in the eastern region of the mineral rich country. In Angola the talks were highly centered on trade between the two countries in oil where she promised that US oil firms would give greater helps to other sectors of the Angolan economy.

It is our turn. We must take something. Since this administration took seat, several world leaders and business moguls have paid official visits here. What these visits signals are not in material gains, but the trooping of foreign leaders to our country radiates bright light on our peace and stability and also indicate that the future is brighter. In all, we hope that the gains from our visitors will translate properly to improving the lives of every citizen.

As for President Bush, he promised books and chairs. We don’t know what Obama may promise through Clinton. But like our president jointly said with her counterparts, we need more partnerships, and if the US still believes that we are what many call ‘America’s Stepchild’ then there must be a direct plan to rebuild Liberia like it was done to rebuild Europe through the Marshall Plan after World War Two.

In the Cause of Democracy and Social Justice, the Pen Shall Never Run Dry