By Kenday Kamara, USA.
The typical vindication for President Ernest B. Koroma’s popularity is straightforward. In the ten years the country was under Sierra Leone’s former president, Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, the country was ungovernable, the economy cringed, and the population languished. The December 2007 democratic elections has provided an opportunity for Koroma (if he is so determined) to return order in Sierra Leone, to guide the economy to flourish, and to help the average Sierra Leonean to live better than ever before. True that political freedoms have the potential to create the enabling environment for increased economic growth but provided Koroma is prepared to rule with an iron hand, instilling discipline of character especially for Sierra Leoneans in public office and ordinary Sierra Leoneans alike, which will be necessary sacrifices on the altar of stability and growth.
This narrative has a powerful rhetoric, and most Sierra Leoneans will be reluctant to buy it. Because of his humble and self-effacing persona, Koroma’s approval rating lingers near 85 percent, and nearly a third of Sierra Leoneans would like to see him win the 2012 presidential elections. And Koroma seems emboldened by such adoration and is becoming too complacent and too soft manifesting the characteristics of a weak, indecisive and easily manipulated president. The problems of Sierra Leone are too multifarious and convoluted to be toyed with by a “soft” and “unassuming” president which may continue to hold Sierra Leone back. To drive development in Sierra Leone requires a powerful presidency to prove that assertive leadership is what it takes, and this does not mean that liberal democracy will be totally undermined.
This unconventional narrative is relevant considering the state of disrepair of Sierra Leone’s democracy, based almost entirely on a valid correlation between assertiveness and development. The redefinition of Sierra Leonean democracy in 1964 when Albert Margai took office did indeed coincide with state breakdown and economic decline, and liberal democracy has since not fared well.
The truth is democracy without the firm presence of presidential power that will influence the attitude and faith of Sierra Leoneans in driving change is inadequate. The achievement of independence with a democratic model, conversely, has coincided with the fervor of nationalism but not made any difference in Sierra Leonean lives (the British deserved all the credit for the people of Sierra Leone were better off during British colonialism than in independence). There is also ample evidence to show that independent Sierra Leone run by indigenous Sierra Leoneans under a fractious democracy has led to less effective governance. In fact, Sierra Leonean leaders have used the popular concept of liberal democracy to mislead their people and perpetuate a negative influence on governance and economic growth. Whatever the apparent gains of Sierra Leone after independence, the gains would have been greater if democracy had been combined with an assertive leadership model necessary to demand patriotism and an unflinching commitment to clear development goals.
Koroma’s Thermidor
The process of democratization started before Sierra Leonean independence. In the years immediately following the independence of Sierra Leone, Milton Margai began to introduce important reforms, including market reforms. Sierra Leone had all the basic elements of an electoral democracy. There were competitive elections for parliament and the presidency. Political parties of all stripes operated freely. So vibrant was the political opposition that even with the coup detat following the defeat of Albert Margai in the 1967 democratic elections, a counter coup a year later to install Prime Minister-elect Siaka Stevens became inevitable.
But still, Siaka Stevens was far from being a perfect democrat: with negative intentions, he used force to crush the Sierra Leone parliament in 1971, bulldozed into place a new constitution that increased presidential power again with negative intentions and literally made Sierra Leone a one-party state, and barred any other party from competing in national elections. He also imposed a successor (Joseph Saidu Momoh) on Sierra Leoneans refusing to allow elections to elect his successor. The system that Stevens handed over to Joseph Momoh apparently lacked many key attributes of a liberal democracy. And Momoh continued in that path set by Siaka Stevens and was unquestionably even more ineffective than Siaka Stevens. The same formal institutional contours of the Sierra Leonean political system was maintained by Momoh further eroding the actual democratic content with no development taking place and Sierra Leoneans hopelessly suffering leading to the military takeover by soldiers who formed the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC).
The military regime of the NPRC had many key attributes of an authoritarian leadership model and it was going to work for Sierra Leone as it worked for President Yayah Jammeh of the Gambia if the military boys had not allowed their internal squabbles to destroy them. Civil servants were made more accountable for their actions, cities and towns were cleaned as a result of the mandatory national cleaning Saturday program, and street peddlers were tamed, among other positive developments. All these actions became doable because the military leaders had the gun and they were hard and decisive. If only the NPRC leaders had just stayed focused to achieving national development goals they would have succeeded to positively change things in Sierra Leone.
When Tejan Kabbah came to power, replacing the NPRC regime with their internal squabbles expectations were high. The people expected him to rule them. But Tejan Kabbah must be thinking that democracy simply gave him the joy of exploiting the opportunities of power without doing the work that needed to be done to develop Sierra Leone. Corruption was openly practiced. Roads were neglected. The people became poorer and hungrier. Tribal politics of vengeance was practiced made explicit by public executions of people who were not supposed to have been executed. For ten years, Sierra Leone was literally under siege. But hope was not lost. The 2007 democratic elections in Sierra Leone ushered in a new era with Koroma taking the center stage in Sierra Leone’s politics. The elections were transparent. The people voted and their votes were counted.
Koroma can use this democratic dispensation to the advantage of his office and in the interest of national development. As the most powerful Sierra Leonean he has to use that power to influence change for the good of the nation. Of course, he does not have to rollback any democratic elements to prove his leadership. He can effectively use his power without having to "muzzle" the independent media outlets which Tejan Kabbah did many times by jailing For Di People editor Paul Kamara under spurious charges of "seditious libel" in October 4, 2004, and sentenced to four years in prison. "The charges against Kamara concerned an article from October the same year entitled "Kabbah is a True Convict". It repeated the fact that the president was found guilty by a Commission formed to inquire into alleged fraud in the Sierra Leone Produce Marketing Board" (International Federation of Journalists, 2004, http://www.ifj-asia.org/page/globaldefsnapshot.html). “The death of the interim editor of the same independent daily For Di People, Harry Yansaneh, who died following an assault on May 10, 2005, by thugs allegedly acting on the orders of ruling party parliamentarian Fatmata Hassan Komeh" (Reporters Without Borders, 05, http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_ article=14565) was not properly adjudicated and the perpetrators were unpunished.
The print media can do what they do best and the independence of radio stations as sources of news should be maintained. But what the independent media outlets write or say should not prevent Koroma from pursuing his national development agenda. Local government must be made to work. He can give more power to his resident ministers assigning them the task of taking control of all local agencies in their jurisdictions. Local authorities should be made to know that because they are investigated does not undermine their autonomy or threatening them into subjugation but to make them stay on task and do what the national government expects of them. Again, Koroma should make his office more powerful with adequate personnel to supervise ministers and their departmental heads and demanding from these ministers more accountability and effectiveness.
Koroma has a strong majority in parliament. His own popularity may be Sierra Leone’s greatest electoral asset. Koroma as president has the advantage of taking control of other political resources (such as SLBS, the We Yone press and the ACC) to give his administration a strong presence and formidable influence in Sierra Leone.
Political parties not aligned with his party can operate freely and that should not deter Koroma from managing a successful presidency. The opposition party, the SLPP, can still be allowed to operate in a less constrained political environment and that should pose no problems against the Koroma presidency. Koroma does not have to threaten the opposition. There should not be any cost against individuals involved in opposition politics.
NGOs too, especially good governance promotion NGOs, should not be a threat to his power. He does not have to propagate laws that give the state the leverage to bully, weaken, and even close down NGOs considered too political. Again, there is no need for Koroma to repress public assemblies. All what Koroma has to do is to strike a note of austere nationalism to warn Sierra Leoneans against acts which are blatantly undermining the development of Sierra Leone. He should release an executive order that should describe these acts as treasonable. Not all Sierra Leoneans like the stable, gradual rise of Sierra Leone. Some still prefer the Stevens, Momoh, NPRC and Kabbah eras - a free for all society - where those in public office steal from the people and the state, loot natural resources, and rid the country of its political and economic independence. Corrupt officials should be speedily processed in ACC special tribunals and jailed for betraying their country. The Anti-Corruption Commission should be given a broader mandate to investigate crimes of corruption and to jail convicted corrupt officials.
Bigger is Better, but Must Deliver
Koroma should preside on a "managed" democracy with such assertiveness to enhance the state’s ability to provide for its citizens. Koroma has the responsibility to create a country that is safer, more secure, with Sierra Leoneans generally living better than they were living during the SLPP era of Tejan Kabbah. He will be accordingly credited if he can do that. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he has the means to provide order in the country but he has to be smarter than his predecessor to wisely use these means to his advantage. Kabbah’s era was a period of instability, economic collapse, and revolutionary uprisings in political and economic institutions. Kabbah was not an assertive leader and he did not fare well even with all the international support he got at ending the civil conflict, providing aid for healthcare, and more reconstruction funds.
The Sierra Leonean state under Koroma can be bigger because there is a lot of work to be done to raise Sierra Leone to a level of civilization more like of the 21st century. But bigger has to be better, measured by A+ performance. Koroma needs more state employees and more young Sierra Leoneans in a military that has to be transformed to be more instrumental in undertaking development reconstruction and providing order in the country. The police, the tax authorities, the intelligence services - should be given bigger budgets with imposing presidential oversights to ensure performance. Koroma has to do more about public safety, health for all Sierra Leoneans, stiff penalties against corruption, and the security of property rights.
Security, the most basic public good a state can provide for its population, has to be a central element in the politics of "Koromaism" He should not allow any group including the now dormant "Kamajor" civil defense force to undermine public safety. Taking former junta ruler and the self-styled Brigadier Julius Maada Bio (Rtd.) as well as the disgraced minister from the ousted SLPP administration, Dr. Prince Harding, in a ten-man delegation to Burkina Faso in January 2008 to attend a summit of Head of States and government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), is like spitting in the wind and as you know what they say about spitting in the wind, the spit might blow back in your face. President Koroma could not be that lenient and too accommodating to dance with the devils, so to speak.
Further, Koroma has to be firm against violent crimes in Sierra Leone. The police must be empowered to shoot to kill any bandits caught in the act. The murder rate in the country should not be allowed to continue to rise. Public health has to be improved. The international community has always been very generous in terms of supporting Sierra Leone to provide healthcare for its people. The government can therefore work closely with international aid agencies to reduce the mortality rates in the country. Communicable diseases should be contained and the rates of HIV infections be controlled by putting in place adequate or more proactive legal and policy responses and a more equipped health-care system.
At the same time Koroma should make Sierra Leonean society more secure and healthier, Sierra Leone’s international image for economic competitiveness, business friendliness, and transparency and robust anti-corruption strategies should be strengthened. The president himself has said in a Newsweek interview in February 2008, in his visit to Chatham House in London, during which he discusses his “country’s move from civil war to democracy, and from ’blood diamonds’ to a business-friendly nation [that his government] is “trying to review [the law] to ensure that we give the anticorruption commission complete autonomy. That will give them the authority to investigate and prosecute. The issue here is not only to prosecute but also to prevent corruption, which involves improving on our systems, ensuring that at the end of the day the consciousness that Sierra Leoneans have, that corruption should be the order of the day, will be taken away" (Newsweek, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/id/107838). But most World Bank governance indicators, on issues such as the rule of law and control of corruption, are still flat or negative under Koroma after five months in power. The area on which the Koroma administration has shown some improvement in the last two months, especially regulatory quality and government effectiveness, is providing electricity to homes and businesses of Sierra Leoneans. Though the recent Global Integrity Report on Sierra Leone has concluded that "post-conflict countries are often typified by dysfunctional governments that lack the ability to provide services or be held accountable by their citizens. [That] the process of re-establishing a functional legal framework and governmental service delivery mechanisms can take a long time;” (Global Integrity, 2008, http://report.globalintegrity. org/globalIndex/findings.cfm) the Koroma administration must double up its efforts to put in place an anti-corruption agenda that works
Property rights have to be protected. The Koroma government cannot continue on the foot path of its predecessor to make claims to reclaim so called "government lands" especially when most of these lands were properly processed by officials of the Ministry of Lands. The seizure and reclaiming of these government lands by demolishing houses hard working Sierra Leoneans have labored to build is the most egregious case of a broken government, not only causing chaos and disorderliness, but diminishing the stability of a country that is still licking its wounds from a ten year bloody conflict.
In short, the government of the day should simply support the notion that by being assertive in governance in areas that have to do with drastically dealing with corrupt government officials, Koroma is building an orderly and highly capable state that is addressing and overcoming Sierra Leone’s rather formidable development problems. Koroma’s successes in this regard will be all the more striking given the tremendous growth of the Sierra Leonean economy in the coming years. With the unending international support and the abundance in natural resources the country boasts of, Koroma’s government should do better of a job of providing basic public goods and services than Kabbah’s government did during those ten bloody years of conflict and political corruption.
"Shock Therapy" Vs Gradual Reform
The second supposed justification for an assertive Koroma administration is to guide Sierra Leone to a spectacular economic growth. Koroma can consolidate his authority with an impressive growth rate against the backdrop of a post-conflict economy. Budget discipline, eradicating foreign debt through negotiating debt reliefs and the accumulation of hard currency reserves to control the exchange rate can stimulate sustained economic growth. Sierra Leone should be exposed to the stock market, and foreign direct investment in Sierra Leone’s emerging market should be encouraged. And it should not just be the small 2% middle class that should benefit from Sierra Leone’s economic upturn. Real disposable income should be increased, consumer spending should be made possible, and unemployment should be tackled responsibly, and poverty in all measures should be addressed. Sierra Leoneans deserve to be richer considering the natural assets they have.
Sierra Leoneans have not experienced the benefits of democracy notwithstanding the painful sacrifices Sierra Leoneans have made for democracy. Democracy can only yield its benefits of economic growth in Sierra Leone with assertive leadership. Sierra Leoneans expect President Koroma to lead and make decisions that work in the interest of nation building. As an assertive leader Koroma should command the influence to make the final decisions, to set goals and develop both short- and long-range plans. He has to show the effrontery to inform his ministers and directors of inadequate performance when their ministries and departments are not performing and give them rational reasons for needed improvement. In other words, Koroma should be prepared to reward and discipline firmly and fairly. A need exists in Sierra Leone to have such an assertive leader. The country is in an economic emergency. But again, such assertive leadership is no excuse for
Koroma to ruffle the press, rig local elections, and eliminate human rights groups. What he should be doing is to lead responsibly and the country must follow.
The years of Tejan Kabbah in power were indeed a time of incredible economic hardship. The GDP contracted over those years. The United Nations Human Index places Sierra Leone at the bottom of its index. Investment remained flat, unemployment ballooned, disposable incomes dropped, and poverty levels jumped to more than 80 percent after the January 6, 1999 military showdown. Democracy has not had any effect on any economic outcomes and has not helped to move the country forward. For one thing, Sierra Leone’s economic decline became pronounced after her independence with a democratic system of government. Clearly, Sierra Leone’s democratic independence has been key to her economic collapse. The political struggles, often times violent, under the democratic polity inherited from the British has only triggered massive economic disruptions as a result of a system that politicians are using under rigged circumstances to keep themselves in power. The democratic polity has therefore not done much for Sierra Leone. But it is reasonable to believe that with an assertive leadership model in a democratic polity; such a merger of models has the elements of being capable to alter the negative economic consequences of an ill-governed society.
Economic decline in Sierra Leone became evident in the post-independence era. It followed political struggles, which were often times violent, in the different leaderships of the country after independence. In recent times, Koroma has inherited an economy that was already in the worst post-conflict economic depression. And, given the dreadful economic conditions, Koroma’s government is now compelled to pursue some degree of price and trade liberalization, macroeconomic stabilization, and, eventually, privatization. Koroma, as a businessman, has to implement some market reforms. Sierra Leone’s economic recovery will depend on how Koroma wishes to stretch comprehensive market reforms. Koroma’s Sierra Leone must follow a sustained recovery trajectory that would make democracy more meaningful to the people of Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone’s economic hardships in the era of Tejan Kabbah were deeper than any other leader’s average, and that was largely because his economic legacy was worse than any other administration.
Koroma does have serious policy choices to make regarding the nature and speed of price and trade liberalization, privatization, and monetary and fiscal reforms. This complex web of policy decisions has to come down to pursuing a "shock therapy" economic reform strategy (doing all of the things to address the causes of conflict and misgovernment in Sierra Leone quickly and simultaneously) versus "gradual reform" (implementing the same essential list of policies at a snail’s pace and in stages) because the people of Sierra Leone have lost all patience and just want to have a leader that delivers. Koroma’s economic policy has to be guided by this extreme of "shock therapy" because Sierra Leonean elites and Sierra Leonean society now share a common view about how reforms should be conducted - as quickly as possible.
Now that the APC is in power, Koroma and his government should pursue fiscally responsible policies. His government’s role in the economy is key. His government’s fiscal austerity supported by sound fiscal policies will create the permissive conditions for real economic growth. Using more of his emergency powers, Koroma has to dust off and put into place several liberal reforms drafted during years of World Bank studies, including "a strategy of shared growth that invests in the poor to help them to contribute to and benefit from the growth process" (FinFacts citing John Page, the World Bank’s Chief Economist for the Africa Region, http://www. finfacts. com /irelandbusinessnews /publish /article_10002435.shtml).
The good thing is, Sierra Leone has diamonds which are forever and there is also gold, bauxite or rutile that is worth a price in the world market. Worldwide prices for rough diamonds continue to increase approaching $375 a carat. Assertive leadership inside Sierra Leone will be directly attributed to effective price control mechanisms and with so much money from diamonds, gold, bauxite and rutile windfall in government’s coffers, Koroma has to crack down on corrupt government officials making sure government revenues are accountably managed and wisely invested in massive national reconstruction programs.
There is a causal relationship between assertive leadership and economic growth in Sierra Leone which is positive. A more assertive Koroma administration can prevent corruption and promote secure property rights — which, as studies by the World Bank and the African Development Bank demonstrate, tend to sustain growth in the long run.
One can only wonder how fast Sierra Leone would grow with an assertive leadership model of governance under a democratic polity. The strengthening of institutions of accountability — a real opposition party, genuinely independent media, a court system and an Anti-Corruption Commission not beholden to any political interests — would help alleviate corruption and secure property rights and would thereby encourage more investment and growth. The Sierra Leonean economy will do well, and it is going to do well with an assertive leadership model under a democratic polity.
The Botswana Model
International development operatives frequently evoke Botswana as a model: a seemingly modernizing democracy that has delivered an annual growth rate over ten percent for three decades. "Since gaining independence in 1966, Botswana has developed from one of the ten poorest countries in the world to one of the richest countries in Africa, and has channeled its economic growth into such things as a well-developed educational system and universal health care. Botswana is often called "Africa’s oldest democracy", and since time immemorial there has been a system of village assemblies, at which communal decisions are made about village affairs and simple disputes are settled by the village headman. These democratic traditions provide a stable basis for modern Botswana society. Since independence from Britain in 1966, the country has enjoyed a multi-party system and a constitution that allows everyone equal rights; there is also freedom of expression and there are no reports of political prisoners” (SIDA, 2008, http://www.sida.se/sida/jsp/sida.jsp ?d=273&language=en_US).
Identifying Botswana as a model sets the development bar for Koroma’s administration much higher. "Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of $14,700 in 2007" (Wikipedia, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana). The Botswana analogy is appropriate because sustained growth under democracy effectively managed by an assertive presidency is enviable. In the economic growth race, assertive leadership under a democratic polity does accelerate growth.
World rough diamonds, gold, iron ore, bauxite and rutile prices make sustained economic growth in Sierra Leone likely for the foreseeable future. And it is only sustained assertive leadership that will contribute to this growth through efficient management and utilization of the country’s resources. Continued poor governance will be a drag on any economic development initiatives. Koroma can create a prosperous and orderly nation, and the path the country should follow has to be something like that of Botswana - also a diamond rich country that is rapidly growing because of the high rough diamond prices and whose leaders are not just interested in maintaining themselves in office to control diamonds revenues and other rents but on providing public goods and services to their population. As Botswana’s president, Festus Mogae, has demonstrated by the years his party has being in power since independence because it delivers stability and economic growth to its people, it is not impossible for Sierra Leone’s president Koroma to do the same in Sierra Leone.
Kenday S. Kamara(photo) is a native of Sierra Leone, where he attended Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, 1982-1986. He is a consultant for VVMZ (an independent international consultancy firm based in Slovakia) as Administrator Expert for the 2007/08 ACP-EU BizClim Microfinance Demand Survey Project implemented for the National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA). Kamara is also a consultant for Global Integrity (an independent, nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., tracking governance and corruption trends around the world). He is a Ph.D. scholar-practitioner in applied management and decision sciences at Walden University, specializing in leadership and organizational change.
Credit:Sierra Leone Digest.
Comments