"The SLPP government’s project to devolve and decentralize power proves that Dr. Kandeh is wrong to assume that the state power restructuring SLPP is undertaking is merely restorative. The present devolution of power project undertaken by the SLPP is as transformative as you can get. It epitomizes the quest for decentralization of power and governance through the institutions of local government councils at the district level. It also negates the assertion of Dr Kandeh that the SLPP government is not decoupling state and government."
By Sia Tiyaama.
At last, Jimmy Kandeh is slowly taking a deep breath and he has, for once, written a piece that can elicit serious debate - the serious contradictions in his concepts, definitions, and use of terms notwithstanding.
In the opening sentences of his article titled “Reconfiguring State Power in Sierra Leone,” Dr. Jimmy Kandeh projects a distinction between regime and government that suggests mutual exclusivity, when he argues that the organization of state power is regime, and the exercise of such power is government. This projection conflates the definition of the two concepts. A regime can both be an organization and the exercise of state power, depending on what type of regime one is talking about.
It is clear that Dr Kandeh is talking about regimes as fundamental rules and norms in a society. However, fundamental rules and norms of a society seldom organize power, particularly if taken in the context of comparing de jure and de facto organizations. In other cases, regimes clearly point to the exercise of state power. For instance, fascist, authoritarian, and democratic regimes clearly tell us how state power is exercised.
After defining regime as rules and norms of a society, Dr. Kandeh proceeds to explain the concept in terms of who and/or what party is in power as opposed to the organization of state power. One expects Dr. Jimmy Kandeh to discuss the SLPP in the context of regimes as a concept that focuses on a group of people or party running the country rather than as government (as he insists on doing in his essay), in which case one can then discuss the SLPP regime, Kabbah’s regime, and so forth. Dr Kandeh defines regimes based on ideology. Confusing such concepts and context tells us Jimmy Kandeh’s basic assumptions and premises are faulty and the logic that informs his paper is therefore problematic.
FROM POWER RECONFIGURATION TO STATE RECONSTRUCTION
Dr Kandeh’s piece is not only full of contradictions, it is also convoluted, analytically misleading and conceptually misplaced. I have a strong feeling that Dr. Kandeh wants us to focus on state power reconfiguration and so I will oblige although not before pointing out that he uses reconfiguration and restructuring interchangeably. He starts out by arguing that Sierra Leone needs to reconfigure state power but ends the first paragraph by arguing against post-war reconstruction.
While post-war state reconstruction includes reconfiguring state power, it is by no means the same as state power reconfiguration. Post-war reconstruction entails a whole lot more than state power reconfiguration. He also correctly argues that the previous structure of state power was predatory. Dr. Kandeh further argues that the state [power] reconstruction [reconfiguration] the SLPP has been doing for the past eleven years is restorative rather than transformative. While some aspects of state power restructuring are restorative, I will argue that it is more transformative than Dr. Kandeh would like us to believe. This is especially true when we look at power devolution, the structure of the branches of government, revenue collection, and press freedom, to name a few.
DEVOLUTION OF POWER
The SLPP government’s project to devolve and decentralize power proves that Dr. Kandeh is wrong to assume that the state power restructuring SLPP is undertaking is merely restorative. The present devolution of power project undertaken by the SLPP is as transformative as you can get. It epitomizes the quest for decentralization of power and governance through the institutions of local government councils at the district level. It also negates the assertion of Dr Kandeh that the SLPP government is not decoupling state and government. Instead of acknowledging this decoupling of governance, he turns attention to the state and market.
Unless Dr. Kandeh completely misconstrues what decoupling means, he would notice that there has been significant decoupling of state resources from market resources. It is a little disingenuous for Dr. Kandeh to focus only on the decoupling of accumulation and dominance. Of course, we see the usual PMDC refrain here-corruption. Inasmuch as there is consensus that there is a problem of corruption in Sierra Leone, what Dr Kandeh’s logic directs us toward is an erroneous catch-all that where there is corruption, there is no decoupling of state and individual resources.
Dr. Kandeh also fails to see other aspects of decoupling in the state system? It is also clear that Dr Kandeh is mixing his concepts again. The type of decoupling he discusses fits more with a federation or confederation wherein constituent units of the country exercise autonomy in taxation and other state-like duties. Such decoupling is not easily feasible in a unitary state like Sierra Leone.
PRESS FREEDOM, DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES, AND SEPARATION OF POWERS
On Press Freedom, only a highly partisan intellectual would call what the press is enjoying now in Sierra Leone as restorative or predatory. Such phenomenon of press that is transforming the state is so glaring that I need not spend time on that. Let us look at the restructuring of the organs of government and the democratic processes. Can Dr. Kandeh in all honesty call those reconfigurations restorative? Sierra Leone was a one party state, with the president always going unopposed while having no term limits. That was followed by a military regime. Can Dr. Kandeh tell us with a straight face the democratic processes being instituted now in Sierra Leone are restorative? In addition, there has been a clear separation of the executive from the legislature.
Elementary political science tells us about the dangers of the executive being part of the legislature. Presently in Sierra Leone, no one can be part of the Sierra Leone legislature and executive at the same time. Is Dr. Kandeh deliberately contorting terms again? That members of the executive (the cabinet) need parliamentary approval for them to serve in the executive is an indication of a transformative re-casting of state power from the dictatorial days of the APC. Such processes in an ideal situation ensure checks and balances and there have been instances when the legislature has rejected presidential nominations. With these few examples and others I have not discussed here, it is clear that Dr. Kandeh is confused about institutional (state) reconfiguration, restoration, and transformation.
In short, the SLPP government is not restoring predatory state institutions. Instead, the SLPP is busy transforming the state as we knew it under APC and NPRC. In addition, the SLPP is putting in place structures that will prevent avowed dictators like Charles Margai from usurping power. I will leave the contradictions entailed in Dr. Kandeh’s prescription for distancing accumulation from state power (instituting neo-liberal market economic systems) on the one hand, while advocating for activist welfare policy and populist social development policies on the other. Dr. Kandeh, for your information, populist welfare states and neo-liberal market economies do not necessarily go together. More work needs to be done on your policy front as you seem to be out of your league on this one.
Photo: SLPP leader Solomon Berewa.
Comments