governance and livelihood revival in the
reconstruction of post-war liberia: a political economy approach
momodou olly mboge
Department of international environment and development studies, noragric Master Thesis 30 credits 2008
i
The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). It consists of eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments.
The Noragric Master thesis are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programmes.
The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.
© Momodou Olly Mboge
e-mail: [email protected] Noragric
Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O Box 5003
N-1432 Ås Norway
Tel: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01
Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric
ii DECLARATION
I Momodou Olly Mboge, hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and has not previously been published by any academic institution for a degree or otherwise. All the sources used are duly acknowledged.
Momodou Olly Mboge
Ås, 15th May 2008
iii DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my late sister-in-law, YASIN DORA MBOGE, who passed away suddenly in her sleep on MAY 1, 2008 after nursing her sickly husband my brother
(BABUCARR MBOGE). Your love and dedication to your family have been an inspiration. I also dedicate this to my brother whose health has been going downhill yet keep telling me to persevere.
iv Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and unconditional support of many individuals. I am grateful to all those ordinary Liberians who took time to talk to me.
I cannot mention all the individuals who helped during the course of preparing this thesis but i am obliged to mention the name of some who were instrumental in the process. I am grateful to the following individuals for their time and resourcefulness. SIDY DIEYE, country director for International Alert in Liberia, his programme officer Abdoulai Kamara, my local guide Juma Kiazulu, Mohammed Yahya of International Alert, Monique Cooper of the UNDP, Ambassador Wendell McIntosh. I express my gratitude to my wife JUNE
FYLKESNES for her patience. I would want to thank my classmate Michael Martey Tei- Ahontu for always being positive.
I am grateful to my supervisor Professor N Shanmugaratnam for his time.
v ABSTRACT
The case of Liberia in the study of post-war reconstruction and development is quite pertinent. This study is an attempt to understand the link between governance and livelihood revival within the context of reconstructing war-torn societies. The policies, institutional structures and processes in any given society have consequences on its members in relation to politics and economic choices. These choices inform their livelihood options and strategies.
Thus in essence the constitution and governance of PIPs are important and can either enhance or constraint peoples access to a livelihood.
On August 18, 2003 different factions of the Liberian conflict signed a peace deal in Accra (Ghana)-the Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement (LCPA) committing themselves to work towards a good democratic polity for a new Liberia, that is inclusive and addresses the socio-political cleavages and economic disadvantages that pervaded Liberian society and had contributed to the civil war.
Following the peace agreement and the election of the new government in 2005 a major reconstruction programme began with a massive foreign involvement. New policies and institutions are being implemented to address the social divide and marginalization that affected the majority. The strides so far towards a new inclusive governance system are quite impressive. Liberians seem to be hopeful towards the future. A new optimism is evident amongst her citizens.
vi Table of Contents
Declaration II
Dedication III
Acknowledgement IV
Abstract V
Table of Contents VI
Chapter 1 Problem Statement 1
1.0 Problem Statement 1
1.1 Main Objective 3
1.2 Core Research Question 3
1.3 Area Covered for Study 4
1.4 Institutional Support 5
1.5 Methodology and Research Approach 5
1.6 Sampling and Data Sources 6
1.7 Data Analysis 7
1.8 Challenges during Fieldwork 7
1.9 Ethical Issues 8
1.10 Scope and Relevance of Thesis 8
1.11 Structure and Organisation of Thesis 9
Chapter 2 The Governance Debate 10
2.0 Introduction 10
2.1 The Governance Debate and Post-War Reconstruction 11
2.1.0 Conceptualizing Governance 12
2.2 External Influences, Policies and Institutions 15
2.3 Complex Realities of Post-War Societies 17 2.4 The Governance Question in Post-War Societies in Africa 18
vii
Chapter 3 Governance and Post-War Liberia 21
3.0 Introduction 21
3.1 Ending the War and the Struggle for Inclusive Governance 22 3.2 Charles Taylor, NPFL and the False Quest for Peace 23 3.3 A Turning Point: The Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2003) 23
3.4 Structuring a new Governance System 25
3.5 Genesis of Bad Governance 29
3.6 President Tubman and Presidential Patronage 31
3.7 Governance under President Johnson-Sirleaf 35
Chapter 4 Reconstruction and Development 40
4.0 Reconstruction as a Development Process 40
4.1 Livelihoods and Development 43
4.2 Livelihood Frameworks or Approaches 45
4.3 Governance and Urban Livelihoods 49
4.4 Steps Towards Livelihood Revival and Development in Liberia 49
4.4.1 Institutions, Policies and Processes 49
4.5 Economic Revitalization and Livelihood Construction 51
Chapter 5 Findings and Discussion 54
5.0 Introduction 54
5.1 Characterising Governance and Livelihood Reconstruction 54
Chapter 6 Conclusion 59
References 62
Chapter 1: Problem Statement 1.0 Problem Statement
This study is an attempt to understand the link between governance and livelihood revival within the context of reconstructing war-torn societies. There is a very strong link between governance related issues that affect people’s access to livelihood activities and options that are visible in societies recovering from war. Peter Newell’s (2001:1) contention that:
‘Livelihood decisions even in the most remote areas of the world are increasingly affected by policies, institutions and processes that take far away’. The policies, institutional structures and processes in any given society have consequences on its members in relation to politics and economic choices. These choices inform their livelihood options and strategies. Thus in essence the constitution and governance of PIPs are important and can either enhance or constraint peoples access to a livelihood.
The case of Liberia in the study of post-war reconstruction and development is quite pertinent. Liberia came out of more than a decade of civil war and strife and has embarked on a major reconstruction and development path, informed by a strong commitment to democratic governance in relation to its economic, political and socio-cultural life.
The main protagonists agreed to end hostilities by signing a peace deal on 18 August 2003 in Accra (Ghana)-the Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement (LCPA). They committed themselves to creating a good democratic polity in a new Liberia, that is inclusive and addresses the socio-political cleavages and economic disadvantages that pervaded Liberian society and had contributed to the civil war. The zest for democratic governance is due partly to the fact that almost all commentators and observers as well as the actors in the conflict believe the Liberian crisis was the result of bad governance (MDGR 2004, LHDR 2006 etc).
Sawyer (2005), Jaye (2006), Sirleaf-Johnson (2006) have all discussed in detail the profound need for a new democratic governance to characterise the new Liberia. It is a widely held view across the nation that livelihoods are best revived and sustained through transparent and accountable institutions with policies aimed at enhancing the people’s potentials.
Almost all the policy documents since the signing of the peace agreement have the common recurring thread of good and inclusive governance. Bad governance and its impact on poverty are highlighted on the peace agreement as well as the Result Focus Transition Framework (RFTF 2004) which was the main policy strategy during transition period to its sister policy
1
the Governance and Economic Management Assistance Programme (GEMAP). The Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy of the Government of Liberia (2006-2008:29) policy document reiterates the vitality of good democratic governance and its relationship with economic performance as well the socio-political potency it has to uplift the marginalized as well as managing conflicts and enhancing justice. The issue of governance and how it is suppose be reconfigured is among the pillars on which the Liberia Poverty Reduction Strategy (2008- 2011) is premised.
Johnson-Sirleaf took office as the first elected female president in Africa and committed her government to a 'good' and democratic governance programme. To this effect she has extended the mandate of the Governance Reform Commission (GRC) established during the transition government's tenure that preceded her election as president. The GEMAP which was developed with both international as well as local stakeholders was reinvigorated by the new government. Its recommendations are being implemented by Johnson-Sirleaf’s government though with some challenges. A commission oversees the effective implementation of the GEMAP. The commission is called the Economic Governance Steering Commission (EGSC) and is chaired by the President of Liberia with international donor agencies as part of the team. So far the commission is doing a good job.
The recent history of Africa south of the Sahara has witnessed a series of devastating conflicts that has rendered and destroyed the basic fabric that held societies in many a country. The violence observed in many of these conflicts has been crass and grossly inhumane. The brutalities people meted out on each other were phenomenal.
A distinguishable component of the reconstruction project is the link of governance institutions, policies and their implementation processes in reviving livelihoods. Clearly in any post conflict situation there exists the urgent issue of livelihood revival and how it should be organized and managed. The ability for people to recover, access and sustain their livelihood capabilities is an imperative for peacebuilding and development. To understand the phenomena of governance and livelihoods one has to inquire into the policies (both economically and politically), the social structures and institutions as well as processes that determine outcomes that affect people. Such an enquiry must be done at various levels in relation to a given entity such as the state.
2
Thus an in- depth investigation of governance and livelihood revival in post-war reconstruction is informed by an understanding of the political economy of the state at all level of the society. It follows that a political economy approach to governance and livelihood revival, helps in comprehending the apparent power dynamics and relations amongst people. Understanding power relations is important because this helps also in understanding governance institutions and their interactions with people’s livelihood activities.
1.1 Main Objective
Thus this paper was spurred by the desire on my part to understand the political economy that underlies governance and livelihood revival in post-war societies such as Liberia. It is not a comprehensive study neither does it claim to be representative, rather it is snapshot of the reconstruction project being carried out in post-war Liberia. The study is amongst other things a review of the policies and institutions being created in the renewal of Liberia in relation to people’s livelihood access and options. The fieldwork enquired about the various livelihood strategies/activities people were applying and engaged with, especially those with minimal or virtually no access to a viable livelihood.
1.2 Core Research Questions
z How and what policies are being formulated to address issues of governance and livelihood revival in post-war Liberia? What is the impact on Liberian society?
z What institutional arrangements (in terms of capacity building and institutional development) are in place for the enhancement of livelihood strategies and how are they impacting on the most vulnerable and the marginalized?
3
1.3 Area covered in study: Figure 1
Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/monrovia.pdf
The research was carried out in Monrovia, capital and largest urban settlement in Liberia.
The map shows the centre of Monrovia where all research activity took place. The centre is a bevy of activity. The area is known as greater Monrovia and it was convenient for me to access and I stayed just 20 minutes car ride. It is the home off nearly five hundred thousand people, about half of the million estimated population (no official censors figures were available at the time fieldwork was done) of Monrovia. Most of the institutions I visited and had interviews with were located in the city. The main market where I spent several hours’
observing peoples activities is also located in the heart this area. On any given day there are thousands of the unemployed and street hawkers found in the centre of Monrovia trying to a make a living. Most of the international organisation and government departments are
4
located in area shown on map.
Urban dwellers are intricately with policies, institutions and process of governances by fact most poor people’s livelihood accessibility is determined by the availability and delivery of services by city institutions (Meikle, Ramasut and Walker 2001:6) citing Beall and Kanji (1999). Thus against such this contention I chose to do my research in the urban settlement of Monrovia, Liberia.
1.4 Institutional Support
I had no formal link with any institutions in Liberia and Noragric is not affiliated with any that I am aware of. However, I had informal assistance from the Country Director of International Alert (a London based peacebuilding and development agency) in Liberia whom I know on a personal abases. The IA offices were also situated in the area where I conducted my research. I was given space where I could do some work and access the internet. The Programme Officer of International Alert through his knowledge of the local settigs also facilitated virtually all the interviews. They work with different sections of the Liberian society thus without their help it would have been near impossible to carry out my research.
1.5 Methodology and Research Approach
I will try in this section to detail the approach and method used to gather data for my research. I believe that it is more appropriate to state that an amalgam of approaches was employed in the course of this research. Governance and livelihoods according to Collinson (2003) can be best illuminated through the lenses of political economy. Whilst Ellis posited
‘that there are plenty of field methods around on which to draw in order to put together combinations that capture the livelihood strategies and constraints of the poor ...’ (2000:185).
Flexibility and a combination of methods give authenticity and enhance triangulation.
Thus upon arrival in the field I had to make quick strategic decisions in order to optimise my information gathering. I was aware I had limited resources and also since my only institutional connection in Liberia was on an informal bases and their was no obligation on the side of my acquaintances to render assistance I decided on the cheapest and most convenient method of gathering information.
I decided that the main form of data collection will be the qualitative method. It was an easy 5
option and convenient for my purposes. ‘Qualitative research has both immediate and lasting attractions’ (Chambliss and Schutt 2003:187). A qualitative method has various advantages. It provides room for flexibility, has a participatory element and has a human feel. The method deals with perceptions, feelings and emotions. ‘Qualitative research aims to go...where real people live’ (ibid).
I was able to observe up close the manner in which people went about their various livelihood activities and dynamism by spending time with people I had befriended in the area I was doing fieldwork. I sat in cafes, spent time in markets etc. My local guide was a computer student who also has a spot in an abandon building at the edge of the main market, housing nearly a hundred youths with old typewriters and old IBM computers which they use to type documents such as application letters for a fee. I spent many hours here observing the different livelihood activities going on around me. Through observing people I was able have an idea on the social reality of their livelihood activities.
1.6 Sampling and Data Sources: Primary and Secondary
I was interested in sampling out a cross-section the community in Liberia so as to have a good overview of what is going on in the reconstruction process. Most of the institutions and people selected for interviews were based on factors such as convenience and voluntarily wanting to talk to me. Prior notice of the purpose of my research was given to key informants and meetings were arranged as and when they choose to grant an interview. I was able to arrange most of these interviews with the various groups and individuals through the office of International Alert.
I interviewed donor agencies and international non-governmental organisations as well as national NGOs. I interviewed market vendors and other local associations as well students.
I had meetings with civil society organisations in media sector as well as a national human rights organisation.
The primary sources of data were in the form of individual interviews with various stakeholders. All the interviews were semi-structured and the questions were open ended.
All the informants were aware that they were being tape recorded and did not object. Some of these interviews were group interviews. Most of the informal information I gathered were in the form of unstructured interviewing and some of it happen by chance meeting.
6
This research also benefitted from secondary data such as reports of donor agencies on Liberia’s recovery programme and as well national reports of the Government of Liberia such as the PRS and the Liberia Human Development Report (2006), Liberian newspapers (eg http://www.newdemocratnews.com/) especially those on line have been useful. The Government of Liberia’s webpage (http://www.emansion.gov.lr/) has been a useful source of information as well.
1.7 Data Analysis
Qualitative interviews being the main source of gathering data, I decided that it is best to let perceptions of those interviewed form the bases of analysis. The perceptions individual have of themselves and their environment is useful in studying and capturing the impact of policies, institutions and processes constructed around them. The underlying aim and objective of this study is to understand the political economy affecting governance and livelihood revival in post-war reconstruction and since qualitative interviews were prominent in gathering information, then it should follow that the respondents’ answers should speak for themselves. Thus, in the findings and discussion part of this paper, citations and direct quotes are laced in to provide descriptions of the views of the informants.
1.8 Challenges during fieldwork:
Liberia having emerged from a long war with a fragile peace made me anxious about security prior to going there. However, my experience after six weeks (6th February-16th March 2008) was completely a positive one. In terms of security, Monrovia was relatively very secure for its inhabitants, though there is room for improvement on that score. I encountered no problem whatsoever in terms of my personal safety. People were generally welcoming and willing to give information.
Transportation though is a struggle, but I did not have much of a problem moving around.
Taxis and buses are always crowded and loaded beyond the legal capacity. On occasion I had use of private transport provided for through friends. On the whole I was able to travel around relatively fast to my meetings.
I had virtually no problem with communication since all the people I interviewed spoke English extremely well. Though, my local guide sometimes helped and clarified some things
7
I did not understand. I had an amicable relationship with all those I encountered and I thoroughly enjoyed my fieldwork.
I must admit though there is massive poverty in Monrovia and most people are unemployed.
Since they do not have a sustainable means to a livelihood some of them expected some money before they allowed you to talk to them. However, I insisted that I am a student and had no money give which most understood.
I was in Liberia at the best time of the year in terms of weather. The climate was nice and mild.
1.9 Ethical Issues
Qualitative research is loaded with issues of ethical dimensions that have important bearing on the process and results of such an exercise. These can be quite sensitive and complex in nature. Chambliss and Schutt (2003: 185) notes the social context in which qualitative research takes place is by itself is “unnatural”, however much the research seeks to be objective and natural. Some issues of concern highlighted by Chambliss and Schutt include voluntary participation of subjects, which must be clarified as far as possible. They then took issue with the well-being of the researcher’s subject to ensure harm is not done to them. It is also ethically required to disclose ones identity when doing research on others. Identity disclosure helps in getting consent from informants. Lastly confidentiality must be paramount in all field research. This is important because carelessly publishing certain information given by informants may compromise them. ‘Researchers should thus make every effort to expunge possible identifying material ... to prevent disclosure’ (ibid).
All my interviews I carried were given voluntarily, all interviewees were accorded due respect and confidentially is of utmost important in the process of putting together this thesis.
There was no harm posed to the well-being of my informers and all participants were aware of the purposes of this exercise.
.
1.10 Scope and Relevance of Thesis
The scope and the relevance of this thesis is that it has a limited audience presumably centred in academia. It may modestly provide a little insight to researchers. It is not an exhaustive
8
study nor does it claim to be a comprehensive representation of the reconstruction process of post-war Liberia. It is simply a little snapshot of how Liberians perceive governance and livelihood construction in the aftermath of a long war.
1.11 Structure and Organisation of the thesis
This thesis is comprised of 6 chapters. Chapter 1 sets out the general premise of the research and the problem statement. It clarifies the method and approach used for data gathering analysis. It also gives a background and introductory note on post-war reconstruction in Liberia relating it to governance and livelihood revival issues. Some recurring terms are explained in this chapter as well. Chapter 2 is concerned with the governance debate and post-war reconstruction. It situates this debate in the context of external influences on policies and institutions of post-war countries and how they are constructed from these images. The complexities of post-war are societies discussed as well. The governance question in post-war societies is detailed given that Africa since the end of Cold-War has been a theatre of violent intra-state conflict. Chapter 3 details governance and post-war Liberia within the context of its history and then discusses the new governance system taking shape in Africa’s oldest Republic. Chapter 4 presents the reconstruction and development debate in general and in particular to Liberia. The link between livelihood revival and development is also considered and how Liberia is tackling it in her reconstruction process. Chapter 5 discusses the research findings. Chapter 6 concludes the thesis with a summing up.
9
Chapter 2: The Governance Debate
2.0 Introduction
This chapter outlines some of the main issues that pervade the contentious issue of governance and post-war reconstruction. The linkages of governance and access to livelihoods in post-war situations is quite apparent given that policies, institutions and processes if managed properly can go a long way in enhancing peoples livelihood outcomes.
In equal measure if governance is not constituted properly it can adversely hinder or distort people’s access to a livelihood. The dynamic relations between governance and livelihood access is understood well when focus is put in the way the rules of game are set. Who sets the rules? Do the rules empower or are they disempowering access for the poor? The following observation though long by Hoon and Hyden (2003:14) is apt in studying the relationship between governance and sustainable livelihoods:
‘Governance deals with how actors can cope and adapt in an uncertain and changing environment. [...] In politics, such changes are primarily caused by the wishes of empowered groups of people to change the conditions under which they are ruled. [...] Governance, like strategic management, becomes a way of looking at a problem in the context of the “the big picture”, of adapting systems of rule to changes in the environment (political, economic, technological as well as socio- cultural) [...], and of encouraging leaders to find consensual--positive-sum—
solutions to problems their constituents or followers encounter. It encourages analysis of the way power relations are [...] shifted through institutional means’.
It is within this context this study wishes to understand the governance aspect of livelihood revival in the post-war reconstruction of societies with a focus on Liberia.
Governance or its lack has become immensely important in development circles both in relation to policy and practice for reconstructing post-war societies. The issues of trust, legitimacy, efficiency in basic service delivery and security are visible in societies emerging from civil strife. These variables amongst others need to be given significance in order to re- establish functioning governance structures that can help individuals recover their livelihoods.
This chapter is divided in four sections with a subsection briefly charting the concept of governance. It begins with the discussion of the general governance debate in post-war
10
societies. This debate involves the contested meaning of governance, the way it is practiced and how it is prescribed for post-war societies trying to revive its livelihood.
The second section goes on to discuss the external element of governance and livelihood revival. The institutions involved in this project and the policies guiding them. It is an indisputable fact that the external factor of the governance project in post-war societies has garnered utmost significance. The role of institutions such as the UNDP and World Bank to name just a few occupy a massive chunk of the literature on post-war reconstruction. The policies these institutions prescribe have both been attacked and defended by different interests.
In the third section the complex nature of post-war societies will be looked at. Post-war societies have unique characteristics that need to be thoroughly examined and understood so as to avoid new cleavages or opening old wounds. This is imperative for long term peace building. It has been noted that a lack of understanding of the complexities of post-war societies by those intervening in some instances, have resulted in a relapse to conflict.
The final section reviews the governance question in post-war African societies. The most observable cause of strife in the majority of intra-state wars in Africa since the end of Cold- War has been the issue of governance. Thus most regional and continent wide initiatives of peace building and livelihood revival have concentrated on governance and the political economy driving it.
2.1-The Governance Debate and Post-War Reconstruction
The issue of governance has gained prominence in the last few decades. During the 1980s governance beyond government became the focus of most social scientists, as well as politicians and economists. Development practitioners and those concerned with International Relations are engaged in an on-going debate on the issue of governance, in the areas of trade, security and so on. This debate is even more pronounced in developing countries and post- war societies.
It is assumed or rather a consensus among development professionals and academics that the prominence of governance in the past few decades is due to the World Bank’s emphasis on efficient management of aid by donor recipients. The reasoning behind the WB’s refocusing
11
on governance was that the Structural Adjustment Programme of the 1980’s failed to deliver the anticipated results (WB 1992). It was also acknowledged by the bank that governments had key roles to play in the governance and development process. Thus the Bank concluded:
‘Good governance, for the World Bank, is synonymous with sound development management. The Bank's experience has shown that the programs and projects it helps finance may be technically sound, but fail to deliver anticipated results for reasons connected to the quality of government action’ (WB 1992:1).
The emphasis on governance is even more pertinent in post-war societies. Its importance as a mechanism of reconstruction and peace building cannot be overstated. Such a prominence is due to the fact that there is consensus that governance deficits are perhaps the root causes of most conflicts. Indeed ‘rebuilding governance institutions ... are critical in driving forward peace-building and nation-building processes’. (UNDP [4thBergen Seminar] 2004:4). There has been a massive proliferation of literature on governance. The debate has taken various slants. Some commentators are concern with conceptualizing what governance is? Whilst others are concern with how it is applied and some focus on the merits of democratic ‘good’
governance and the consequences of ‘bad’ governance.
The governance debate in post-war reconstruction of societies has been dominated by the liberal peace thesis paradigm (Paris 2004, Sawyer 2005). This paradigm emphasizes democratic governance and market economics as the most important variables that can bring sustainable peace, revive and development people’s livelihoods. However, this hegemonic position occupied by the thesis is increasingly questioned.
2.1.0 Conceptualizing Governance
A brief tour of what the concept of governance entails is in order for the sake of clarity. The meaning of the term is varied and remains a contentious one. As Pierre and Peters (2000:28) observed the variations and concepts of the term is as diverse as the growing number of scholars researching it. Governance in its varied and contested guises refers to the way in which a society organizes and manages itself. This is in relation to its economic, political, and socio-cultural needs.
Paul Hirst (2000) discusses governance by identifying five salient components. These 12
include governance at governmental/state level. This means the way the state within a recognized territory organizes society in terms of access and delivery of goods and services to its citizenry. This perhaps is the traditional dimension of governance. Governance in this sense is deemed efficient and effective only if the state is able to recognize and ‘limits the scope of its action to what it has the capacity to accomplish’ (Hirst 2000: 149).
The next on the Hirst's template is that governance be understood in the context of international structures and regulations. There is no doubt that many problems are beyond the capacity and capabilities of any one state to regulate. These problems may be related to global warming or other environmental issues. These require international agreements or other instruments to manage them. In this sense governance transcend a state’s boundaries.
Hirst, however, cautions on the problems that come with international governance. Some governance decisions at the international level have had detrimental impact on local populations.
The third concept in relation to governance is that of corporate governance. This basically deals with how firms and corporations and the structures of management systems they employ in running their affairs. Governance in this sense entails the relationships of a firm's management and its owners or shareholders.
Fourthly, governance permeates the way the public sector organizes itself to deliver its duties and obligations. The past few decades of public sector management has witnessed some fundamental changes. Some management practices hitherto unknown to this sector were to become standard practice. Private sector management styles made a foot hold in service delivery in the public sector.
The final element of governance which Hirst identified was that it be construed in respect of 'coordinating activities through networks, partnerships, deliberative forums that have grown up on the ruins of the more centralized and hierarchical corporatist representation of the period up to the 1970s. Such negotiated social governance is growing in salience; typically to be found at micro- and mezo-level in cities, regions, and industrial sectors'(Hirst 2005:19).
This form of governance is generally associated with civil society. It has become entrenched in both policy and practice of development and conflict resolution/prevention practitioners and researchers.
13
Other commentators encapsulate governance in terms of 'mechanisms, processes, relationships, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and obligations, and mediate their differences' (Shabbir Cheema 2005:5). Both the World Bank (WB) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have their own concepts of governance with adjectives prefixing them. For the WB it emphasizes in very apolitical manner 'good' governance (Abrahamsen 2000) whilst the UNDP in their publication Governance for the Future (2006) argues for 'democratic' good governance.
Governance as construed by observers like Anne Mette Kjær (2004:15) following Hyden (1992) ‘is about managing rules of the game in order to enhance the legitimacy of the public realm’. Legitimacy she went on to observe is coterminous to ‘democracy as well as efficiency’. Thus governance is also a function of institutional arrangements that are democratic and efficient.
Democracy as a form of governance is believed to be the best means of attaining sustainable peace and development. Shabbir Cheema (2005:2) affirms this assumption in view of the critical importance of democracy and good governance in the 'development process' and more generally to the 'human condition’.
Post-war societies are seriously incapacitated by dysfunctional institutions. There exists a void in the management of the public realm. It is then an imperative to device imaginative and just governance measures to start the reconstruction process. A distinguishable component of the reconstruction project is the linking of governance institutions, policies and their implementation processes in reviving livelihoods.
Clearly in any post-war situation there exists the urgent issue of livelihood revival and how it should be organized and managed. The ability for people to recover, access and sustain their livelihoods is perhaps one of the most urgent issues the reconstruction agenda has to address.
To understand the phenomena of governance and livelihoods one has to inquire into the policies (both economically and politically), the social structures and institutions as well as processes that determine outcomes that affect people. Such an enquiry must be done at various levels in relation to a given entity such as the state. Thus an in- depth investigation of
14
governance and livelihood revival in post-war reconstruction is informed by an understanding of the political economy of the state from the macro to the micro level of the society. It follows that a political economy approach to governance and livelihood revival, helps in comprehending the apparent power dynamics and relations amongst people. Understanding power relations is important because it can be helpful in comprehending the dynamics of governance institutions and their interactions with people’s livelihood activities.
2.2- External influence, policies and institutions.
As noted above the post-war governance discourse and practice is dominated by the liberal ideology. The hegemonic liberal worldview concerning governance and post-war reconstruction is understood better by observing the external influence exerted on peace processes and the rebuilding role of outside actors.
In almost all peace settlements/agreements arrived at since the end of the Cold War era, it is the international community that has exercised the pivotal influence in pressuring various disputing factions in many civil wars to come to the negotiating table. In the aftermath of most civil strife, societies lack the capacity or capability to deal with the immense and expensive task of rebuilding the political, economic and social infrastructure or institutions that has been destroyed. Governance institutions if they exist are acutely constrained in what they could deliver for people to revive and sustain their livelihoods.
Due to the lack of means or capacity to provide the basic necessities for survival by societies emerging from civil strife, reconstruction and peace building became dominated by the external institutions (see Debiel and Terlinden 2005). Reconstructing war-torn societies has become a preoccupation of many multilateral development agencies as well as many governments in the developed world (Kumar 1997, de Zeeuw 2001, Brinkerhoff 2005, Shanmugaratnam 2006). The phenomenon of reconstructing war-torn societies ‘has become almost routine work for international development agencies and for the foreign aid agencies of the United States, Great Britain and many European countries’ (Rondinelli and Montgomery 2005:15). Shanmugaratnam captures this trend very well when he notes ‘a prominent trend in the post-cold war era is the internationalisation of intra-state conflict resolution and the active linking of peace processes with an agenda of “post-conflict development”. This trend is characterised by the international mediation of internal conflicts and multilateral donor-lead post-war reconstruction and development (2008:1)’.
15
International assistance according de Zeeuw (2001) has been visible in re-establishing governance institutions, in dealing with rehabilitation and reintegration as well as addressing poverty. However, this assistance has had limited success. This is due to the haphazard approach the international community maintains. ‘The poor international record that no less than 30 percent cent of world wide conflict that have ended resume within ten years shows that ‘post conflict’ or peace building assistance has only been marginally successful (2001:8).’ He went on to emphasize the need to build institutions with transformative capacity for peaceful decision making. This emphasis on institutional building is in line with what Roland Paris (2004) argued in his proposal ‘Institutionalisation Before Liberalisation’ as an antidote to the ‘Liberal Peace Project’. The ‘Liberal Peace Project’ criticized by Paris as well as Michael Pugh (2005) is seen as too dogmatic in its adherence to the Wilsonian ideal of democracy and its attendant market economy which is not always the very best prescription in post-war situations. The liberal peace project in its self-absorbed ‘common sense’ approach to peace building is seen to be negligent of some inherent socio-economic realities of the poor and marginalised. Pugh (2005:2) insists that it ‘ignores the socio- economic problems confronting war-torn societies, it aggravates the vulnerability of sectors of populations to poverty and does little either to alleviate people’s engagement in economies or to give them a say in economic reconstruction if they expect outside help’.
The criticism of the hegemonic liberal approach to post-war governance issues though acknowledged, have not necessarily resulted in the institutions involved shifting their policy frameworks. The recent history of international assistance still emphasizes variables such as democratic elections and market liberalisation. It is very clear that the donor agencies are very much aware of the problematic of pushing too soon for elections, which might not assuage certain cleavages existing in some conflict afflicted societies, yet their underlying policy frameworks are still based on the liberal peace ideology. ‘In many post-conflict societies, elections represent a key step in a broader process of building political institutions and legitimate government and yet they can also be a lightning rod for popular discontent and extremist elements’ (UNDP 2004:29). Getting the right balance is the challenge.
International institutions led mostly by the World Bank and the UNDP right to regional and bilateral aid donors all follow the same policy framework of ‘good’ and ‘democratic’
governance. The EU, DFID, NORAD and many developed world aid agencies more or less 16
follow the paradigm set by the WB. However, the myriad of criticism faced by the aid industry in their approach to post-war reconstruction have generated attempts to redirect policy more coherently. Corporation among agencies have become systematic and appears as normal practice. An example of this new spirit of collaboration observed recently was between the UNDP and WB in Afghanistan in assessing and prioritising the sequencing of governance capacity building (Rondinelli 2007: 86).
2.3-Complex realities of post-war societies
Reconstructing war-torn societies is a mammoth task. The governance question in societies traumatized by civil strife is very complex and delicate. A comprehensive and nuanced approach to governance is a necessary imperative if it is to be beneficial to post-war societies.
In promoting governance, consideration should be given to the various factors and their peculiarities which were part of the reasons that precipitated the disintegration and destruction of such societies. It is quite clear that political decision-making and the power that recites with it is often distorted towards one segment of society whence the violent contestation. This has been a source of grievance and resentment especially if manifested along tribal or ethnic lines.
Another factor in war-torn societies is the economic marginalization of certain groups as noted in the case of Liberia (Sawyer 2005, Pham 2006). ‘Restoring effective governance and rebuilding trust in government is complex because deliberately or inadvertently ignoring any important segment of society in the post-conflict reconstruction process can easily undermine government’s legitimacy or its ability to extend needed services and infrastructure’
(Rondinelli 2007:13). Furthermore, socio-cultural issues which in some cases exacerbated the marginalisation of some groups in terms of political power and economic possibilities are worthy of note in dealing with the reconstitution of traumatized societies.
The complexities of war-torn societies in some cases were neglected by those intervening due to the rigidity of institutional policy. In Sierra Leone as well as in Liberia the first attempts on peace building saw the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes of the war elevated to positions of power. In both cases the lack of sensitivity in governance arrangements created more strife and violent repercussions resulted. This lack of sensitivity to the complexity of post-war situations has been observed also in other conflict zones such as Afghanistan where
17
the Pasthun ethnic group were inadequately represented in government to the detriment of the rulers (ibid: 13).
The following statement sums up the inherent complexities that post-war situations pose for governance and livelihood recovery: ‘The defining characteristics of conflict societies that complicate building and consolidating democracy and good governance are: a legacy of autocracy opposed by protracted armed democratic struggles, perceived irreconcilable political divisions, widespread destruction of social and physical infrastructure, severe population displacement and dislocation, collapse of the State, polarized personality clashes of the leaders, and competing foreign interest and intervention’(Katorobo 2003:5). Having an awareness and formulating realistic policy to address these issues goes a long way to maintaining long term sustainable peace and minimise tension. Policy makers, especially the international community, whom history has shown to be perhaps the main driver of post-war revival, must give priority to the above problems. This is important so as to avoid what Collier (2007) concludes as a very acute probability of post-war communities going back to war.
2.4 The Governance question in post-war societies in Africa
The governance question or debate concerning Africa has been intense for the past few decades following the dreadful failure of the Structural Adjustment Programme and other dynamics of the political economy in the world. The end of the Cold War and the triumph of the liberal paradigm precipitated discussions on governance or its lack in the developing countries. The African state and the manner of its constitution became the concern of the development aid agencies. Moreover, the rise of the African masses demanding openness and efficiency from the state in delivering its obligation made the question of governance a very important issue. As noted above the World Bank and United Nations change of policy refocused the governance question towards legitimacy and efficiency.
The new global political economy of the late 1980s that saw the African state being challenged by its citizens exposed the artificiality of its composition and the widening fissures of its lopsided constitutional make-up. During the first decade of the post-colonial era the African state was kept together only by a distorted sense of independence and nationhood. Many of its leadership were engaged in a zero-sum game of staying in power to perpetuity. This false and deliberate drive for perpetual adherence to power which in some
18
cases was in direct contrast to people’s desires, was exacerbated by the dichotomous nature of the world political economy prior to the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall.
The international political economy which was polarized and highly partisan in relation to the then contesting ideologies of the super powers had an impact on governance in Africa.
Depending on whether a state was Communist oriented or Capitalist oriented was a determining factor for being probed up by the superpowers. Though history shows that some of the leaders were ideologically bankrupt, their only interest was power and it really didn’t matter who was supplying the means by which they could maintain their position. Most African leaders used and divided their citizenry along ethnic and tribal lines. The state was a vehicle of doling out favours to those loyal to the powerful elite or the ‘big men’ (cf Bayart 1993, Joseph 1997).
However, the status quo could not be maintained for various reasons. What is of importance to keep in mind is that the African masses demanded their rights and forced the leadership to change. The political and economic dynamics at the international level was in a state of flux, coupled with the leading lenders in the development industry read WB having felt that the problem of underdevelopment was caused by bad and inefficient governance. According to Hyden (1992) the underlying economic and social ailment of African societies was the aloofness and the disjointed relation between rulers and the ruled. He claims that by the 1990s ‘political will had crippled and social energy exhausted’ (Hyden 1992: ix). He goes on to conclude that what happened during this period in Africa’s postcolonial political struggle towards state building and nation building was in fact this period was as momentous as the revolution of 1789 was in France and Europe.
The glamour for empowering and responsible institutions though a welcomed development caused serious ripples in many of the countries in Africa resulting in some cases in civil war.
Some African leaders kept in power by outside assistance found that the state coffers which were operated as personal property were empty. Their usefulness as buffers for the ideologically charged Cold War era has ended. They can no more maintain the patron client relationship they had with their constituents. The paucity of delivering goods and services to people became unbearable. In this state of affairs some opted to dislodge the state through arm struggle. Most of these struggles descended or were expressed along tribal or ethnic lines. The Liberian case among several is instructive of the many conflicts Africa manifested
19
20 violently.
The disintegration of the state and its governing capacity caused by the civil wars across the continent has resulted Africa being referred to as a tragedy. There were more than a dozen African countries involved in some form of arm conflict by the turn of the new century.
‘Africa has become synonymous with conflict’ (Addison 2003: 39). Concern in dealing with this tragic state of affairs grew and thus Africans themselves took some initiatives in the direction of genuinely addressing the governance of nations. Regional bodies such as ECOWAS and NEPAD took up governance and insisted that it be both democratic and good in order to deal with the problems of the African state. These bodies view governance as an extremely necessary element for development and sustainable peace. Governance thus accordingly must be seen as a ‘developmental necessity’ (Roussel 2005). Perhaps it is important to note the ideological underpinning of the type of governance championed by these institutions is that of the liberal worldview.
Chapter 3: Governance and post-war Liberia 3.0 Introduction:
Liberia emerged from more than a decade of civil war and strife to a very fragile peace. The conflict caused the death of more than a quarter of a million people and displaced close to a third of the country’s population of three million (Redelett 2007, Sawyer 2005). Not only did the war dislocate and displace a large number of people, it destroyed all semblances of social order and cohesion. Governance structures/institutions and the ‘rule of law’ completely broke down whilst anarchism took over and violence became the arbiter of disputes between parties.
The destruction of institutional structures meant normal economic as well as livelihood activities were near impossible to access. A war economy became the order of the day. For the majority of Liberians’ access to livelihoods became a life and dead issue. The institutional infrastructures which had hitherto provided policy guidance and govern economic life were absent, thus a vacuum in normal economic relations in terms of exchange, trust, reciprocity became obsolete. During the conflict, if one possessed a weapon, it gave access to extorting anything from the helpless, thus looting and other forms of thuggery were the norm.
The destruction of Liberia somehow had to stop, at some point the factions got tired of war and destruction. Regardless of several flawed attempts of attaining peace, the protagonists eventually agreed on a peace deal in the autumn of 2003. This agreement is still holding though admittedly in quite a precarious and fragile state.
Against such a backdrop this chapter will examine the governance system being put in place in post-war Liberia, whilst trying to situate the discussion in context of the manner the country was constituted at birth one hundred and sixty-one years ago. I begin by looking into the recent of history of the conflict in Liberia and the various attempts that were made to stop the war both by internal actors as well as international ones. I discuss also the role of Charles Taylor and his NPFL followers since they were the biggest rebel group and that their actions plunged Liberia into crisis. The peace agreement of 2003 which brought the civil war to an end is briefly reviewed.
21
3.1 Ending the War and the struggle for inclusive governance
From the very beginning of the incursions by the rebels of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) in late 1989, attempts were made to swiftly bring the crisis to an end.
Various Liberian groups comprising traditional elders as well as governments from the neighbouring countries convened peace conferences and adopted resolutions to stop the war.
Civil society groups were instrumental in creating space for dialogue between factions to come to agree to a peace plan. Among these groups were the Inter-faith Mediation Committee (IFMC) which ‘held the first consultations between the parties to the conflict in 1990, and its proposals were adopted and articulated as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) peace plan for Liberia’ (Toure 2002: 1).
This first peace plan coordinated by ECOWAS amongst other things recommended the creation of an interim government which was to include all the rebel factions, as well as members of the Liberian civil society groups, not excluding the then existing political parties.
At a conference in Banjul, capital of the Gambia, an Interim Government of National Unity (IGNU) of Liberia was elected. There was hope that this peace plan will bring back peace to the Liberian nation. But this was not to be the case. Immediately following the aftermath of the election of the IGNU, headed by the well known Liberian scholar/activist Professor Amos Sawyer, the main rebel faction (NPFL) pronounced its opposition to it. It refused to recognise the IGNU and questioned its legitimacy. Instead the NPFL under the leadership of Charles Ghankay Taylor, who served in Doe’s regime created a parallel government with its
‘administrative seat in central Liberia at Gbarnga, Bong County’ (Liberia’s Governance Progam [UNDP] 2001: 5).
With the backing of the ECOWAS, the IGNU was able to operate albeit only from the capital.
It had very limited impact in its activities since more than ninety percent of the country at the time was controlled by NPFL forces. Subsequently the three to four years following the Banjul meeting according to Sawyer (2005:40) nothing less than ‘seven peace conferences were held and as many agreements and modifications of agreements were signed in efforts to bring the NPFL into a settlement’. In all these negotiations, Taylor and his group were involved and appended their signatures to all what was agreed just to turn around and stall any progress towards attaining peace.
22
3.2 Charles Taylor, NPFL and the false quest for peace
Several ill-fated peace agreements and deals were signed between the warring factions during the 1990s but war raged on. According to some observers most of the accords gave respite to the warlords to entrench themselves in their positions. The peace agreement of the mid- nineties which resulted in the elections of 1997 did not only foster the entrenchment of Charles Taylor and his National Patriotic Liberation Front (NPFL), but it legitimised him in the eyes of both Liberians and the international community. Instead of showing statesmanship and the will towards rebuilding Liberia, following his election, Taylor and the NPFL used their mandate to try to destroy all form of opposition against it. Sawyer (ibid: 40- 41) maintains that ‘... the Taylor government after elections embarked on a course of recrimination and exclusion rather than reconciliation and broad-based participation, there was no surprise when fighting flared up again within three years.’ Gberie further elucidates Taylor’s lack of desire or vision to improve the lot of Liberians whom he had claimed to have come to liberate from the tyrannous clutches of Samuel Kanyon Doe. He observed: ‘Illiteracy and unemployment remained above 75% throughout his presidency. Moreover, even after being in office as president for five years, he continued to function in a foraging mode, operating the quintessential warlord economy and refusing to rebuild formal state institutions that were destroyed during the war he started, or destroying those still existing’ (Gberie 2005:
62). The behaviour of the Taylor regime precipitated resistance and the Liberian conflict entered another phase in the late 1990s and intensified in the first few years of the twenty first century. New factions with very strong ethnic leanings and backed by neighbouring countries fought against the NPFL. The Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and its off-shoot Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) were to challenge Taylor’s hold on to power. The formidability of their combined forces controlled most of the country in 2003. They were able to contain the NPFL forces around Monrovia (Capital of Liberia) and thus forcing Taylor to negotiate and his eventual departure to exile in Nigeria.
The pressure from the LURD and MODEL fighters coupled with external pressure forced the NPFL leadership to agree to a peace deal in August 2003.
3.3 A turning point: The Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement(2003)
The signing of the peace agreement between the warring factions to end hostilities on 18 August 2003 in Accra; the Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement (LCPA) was a pivotal point in the path towards a durable peace in Liberia. The LCPA has been criticized by some observers as ‘nothing more than a “sharing of spoils” between former belligerents [...]’
23
(Bashua 2005:134). Such criticism might have been justifiable during the transition government’s tenure when ‘key public positions...were doled out among the former belligerent forces who...believe that they are in power in order to serve their factional interests rather than the supreme interests of the Liberian people’ (ibid). The intrigues of the various parties during the transition period understandably were worrying given the fragility of the Liberian state. The fact remains that in as much the LCPA (2003) had many aspects in it that were deemed flawed and appeasing to the various factions responsible for the war, it provided a framework towards which peace has returned to Liberia.
The peace agreement amongst other things recommended the establishment of a transition government charged with organising and supervising of elections and to be assisted by the international community. The transition government was further mandated under ART XXII:
1. [...] ‘to ensure the scrupulous implementation of this Peace Agreement.’
2. (a) Implementation of the provisions of the Ceasefire Agreement
(b) Overseeing and coordinating implementation of the political and rehabilitation programs enunciated in this Peace Agreement;
(c) Promotion of reconciliation to ensure the restoration of peace and stability to the country and its people;
(d) Contribution to the preparation and conduct of internationally supervised elections in October 2005, for the inauguration of an elected Government for Liberia in January 2006.
The National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) which was headed by a businessman Gyude Bryant (currently on trial under the incumbent government of Sirleaf- Johnson for corruption during his chairmanship of the transitional government) was constituted by members of the various rebel groups(NPFL, LURD, MODEL etc) as well as individuals from civil society and political party stalwarts. The NTGL was able to carry out its mandate, however, with massive guidance and input from the international community.
One of the major successes of the NTGL was the supervision of the elections during later part of 2005. There were challenges but in the end Liberians were able to express their democratic rights in a relatively free and peaceful election. Unlike the many failed peace deals signed previously, the LPCA of 2003 witnessed the international community actively participating in the implementation of the provisions of the agreement. In reality it can be argued that without the active presence of the international community the implementation of
24
the agreement would have followed the same fate that visited earlier attempts.
The characteristic influence of outside contribution to the process of keeping the peace and providing security for the people of war ravaged Liberia, is maintained in the following opinionated observation by Pham (2006: 44): ‘During the transition, Liberia was, for all intents and purposes, under a regime of international trusteeship, the NTGL being propped up by the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) [...].’ He went on to claim that: ‘For a change, the international community backed up the peacekeepers with resources necessary for reconstruction and other humanitarian assistance’ (ibid). It is indeed pertinent in the study of conflict transformation and peace building to note the significance of UNMIL’s deployment in Liberia as a massive step forward in United Nations efforts in peace keeping and peace building in Africa. Going by its prior record on the continent in implementing peace deals, the UN has been if anything lacklustre in providing adequate resources for its peace keeping missions in Africa.
The agreement also mandated the creation of various institutions such as a Governance Reform Commission as well other commissions to oversee government procurement and so on. These institutions notably the Governance Commission charged with providing guiding rules had been quite visible in its endeavours. The Governance Reform Commission been instrumental in writing the Anti-Corruption legislature and the Code of Conduct rules for public sector government employees of the Government of Liberia.
3.4 Structuring a new governance system
Liberia’s present governance system is modelled on the western type of liberal democracy as manifested by representative democracy and market economics. This type of governance architecture is essentially the type most African states in transition have adopted since the 1990s when most found themselves in political flux and economic contraction (E.Gyimah Boadi 2003, A.Sawyer 2005). The liberal model champions the separation of powers and expects the independence of the three main branches of government. This has been the case since Liberia became independent in 1847 and was stipulated in ART II, III and IV of the constitution of that period. The same spirit of the separation of powers is clearly stated in the 1983 and 1986 constitutions, the latter being the governing instrument at present. This is what is carried in the 1983 constitution:
25
ARTICLE 3: Liberia is a unitary sovereign state […]. The form of government is
Republican with three separate coordinate branches: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. Consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, no person holding office in one of these branches shall hold office in or exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches except as otherwise provided in this constitution …
Following same principle ART XXIII of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2003 is also clear concerning the principle of separation of governing branches of government.
However, constitutional provisions have never been a serious consideration in the polity that governed Liberia since its birth. The executive dominated all aspects of governance since the birth of the Republic. As noted by Bashua (2005:130) the ‘three-tier system of governance’
has been if anything never practiced by the Liberian state due to what he refers to as an
‘unbridled love of power and corruption’ by the elites.
As stipulated in the Art XXII (Sec 2d), the IGNU was responsible for ‘the preparation and conduct of internationally supervised elections in October 2005’; elections were held and a new government was elected. The new president took oath of office on 16 January 2006. A major reconstruction and development programme is underway under the new government headed by Africa’s first female president. The government is strongly committed to democratic governance in relation to reviving the economic, political and socio-cultural life of the Liberian people. The commitment to democratic governance, is due to fact that almost all commentators and observers as well as the actors in the conflict, agree that among the major factors of the Liberian crisis was the issue of bad governance ( see Liberia’s Governance Program [UNDP] 2001, MDGR 2004 on Liberia amongst many other reports affirms this contention). Sawyer (2005), Bashua (2005), Jaye (2006), Sirleaf-Johnson ( 2006), Pham(2006) variedly published and discussed in detail the profound need for a new governance dispensation in Liberia guided by democratic principles that will substantively address the needs and aspirations of its citizens.
Liberia's peace and development as noted is hinged on democratic good governance which the Johnson-Sirleaf government claims to represent. This task is far reaching and requires a herculean and ruthless political will to execute and sustain. This is due to the fact that during Liberia’s more than a century and a half’s existence the culture of corruption, political
26
patronage, lack of economic transparency and accountability is manifestly endemic.
Professor Amos Sawyer (2005) in his book Beyond Plunder: Toward Democratic Governance in Liberia puts emphasis on the importance of democratic governance as the underpinning element Liberia needs for peace and sustainable development. Also acknowledged in Liberia’s Governance Program promoted by the UNDP is good democratic governance because according to this report: ‘Most Liberians believe that the economic, political, and social hardships they are facing, [...] are consequences of bad governance (2001:22)’. The Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement (LCPA) sometimes called Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement (ACPA) -because the warring parties signed the document in the Ghanaian capital- committed the signatories ‘ to promoting … governance and the advancement of democracy in Liberia […] (LPCA 2003:1).’ The incumbent president of the country affirmed this commitment in her inaugural speech of January 16, 2006. This is what she said in her inauguration speech concerning the need for democratic governance in the new Liberia she envisioned following the experiences of the tragic consequences of bad governance:
‘My administration [...] commits itself to the creation of a democracy in which the constitutional and civil liberties and rights of all our people will be advanced- safeguarded. While ensuring the security of our nation and people, we will work tirelessly to ensure the writ of democracy is expanded, not constricted in our land.’
This commitment is quite commendable, however given Liberia’s acute problem pertaining to lack of human capacity, some Liberia watchers are wont to be sceptical on how the new enthusiasm on good governance can be implemented.
The view pervading a significant cross section of the Liberian post-war society is that livelihoods are best revived and sustained through transparent and accountable institutions with policies aimed at enhancing the people’s potentials. Thus Sirleaf-Johnson acknowledges that the ‘desire for an environment for private sector driven sustainable growth and development cannot be achieved without the political will and a civil service that is efficient, effective and honest’ (ibid:2006). The Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy of the Government of Liberia (2006-2008:29) policy document reiterates the vitality of good democratic governance and its relationship with economic performance and socio-political potency to
27
