Paper delivered at the All-Liberia Conference,

organised by the Liberian Association,

London, UK,

July 2, 2005

I.                    Introduction

Let me take this time to express thanks and appreciation to the organisers of this forum for extending me an invitation to address this occasion. I could not have been invited at a better time in the history of our country, Liberia. I am sure that your deliberations will go a long way in contributing to the debate about the way forward at this critical juncture in the history of our embattled country.

You have given me the topic, Liberia: The way Forward. Quite frankly, this is a very difficult topic but I will try to contribute to the ongoing debate about the way forward for our country. Yes, as we meet here today, Liberia is going through a difficult period in its political history; a period that has been shaped both by history and politics. We are 158 years old as an independent country but our recent history and politics have been characterised by a tale of dismal failure, armed violence and upheavals. Over the past 14 years we have been brutalised by a protracted civil war which, on the one hand, has left a negative impact on our lives; on the other hand, however, it can be said that the war has provided an opportunity for national renewal. That is, the civil war itself has been a cause and effect of non-democratic politics.

In this light, I start with the assumption that like other societies within the continent and beyond, Liberia has also been going through enormous changes. We have toppled regimes; we have fought; and we are now in the process of finding a durable solution to our national problems. Historically, in some countries, such changes are cosmetic in the sense that they maintain the existing status quo; in others, they lead to qualitative changes in the form of social revolutions – qualitatively undermining and destroying the roots and foundations of the ancien regime, and replacing it with a society that caters for the needs of ordinary people. However, irrespective of whatever changes that occur within any given country like ours, the past always survives; it lives with us and often co-exists with the present. This is largely because the old never dies away at will; it must be destroyed and in its place must be created a vibrant society. Moreover, the vibrancy of that society will depend on people who are sustainers or torch bearers of the new society.

Regrettably, our recent experiences in Africa indicate that wars are fought to maintain the old order as opposed to radically transforming it for the better. Unfortunately, unlike in pre-independent Africa, these are not wars of national liberation and emancipation; instead, they are wars executed to both loot the nation’s natural resources and repress our poor and helpless people. However, if we carefully look at the flip side of this painful coin, these wars have the tendency to also create an enabling environment for democratic politics. The latter can only lead to positive radical changes when the people are organised under a capable, time-tested and committed leadership that has the foresight, willingness and tenacity to pursue people-centred development. The West African state of Liberia is a typical example of the contradictory nature of political changes in contemporary African politics. Since independence in 1847, our country has experimented with democracy, but we have never been a democratic country.

My dear brothers and sisters, to reiterate, you have asked me to talk to you on the topic, Liberia: The way Forward. What I would like to do is to spend a little bit of time on the theme of democracy and its significance for the way forward, because it is my belief that if we fail to get our political economy right, we will continue in the vicious circle of poverty, violence and stunted growth. Certainly, in the search for a solution to the way forward, there will be many viewpoints, and this is understandable; but the debate about the future becomes fruitless if we also fail to find a political-least-common denominator that will galvanise the creative energies and talents of our people into the proper direction. In essence, in this debating exercise we should avoid engaging in unnecessary verbal calisthenics.
 

II.                  Liberia: The Way Forward

In dealing with this question, Liberia: The Way Forward, we need to critically probe our recent political history in order to comprehend the processes that brought into being the current interim political arrangement in our country. After years of mayhem, chaos and carnage, a solution was sought to confront our problems. Significantly, the driving factors behind the current interim political arrangement in Liberia has to be viewed within the context of the existing political conditions produced by 14 years of war. For the vast majority of ordinary Liberians, this process was seen as part of their overall struggle for democracy; a struggle that arose out of the protracted period of political repression and economic mismanagement, which badly affected their daily lives. It was borne out of the lack of social justice and 14 years of mayhem. In the end, our people needed the breathing space to get their lives back on track, and so the CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) offered a sign of relief. For the ruling elites in our country, those elements who continue to recycle themselves in different forms, the process has ushered in another opportunity in order to pursue ‘business as usual’ practices: the use of political power for personal enrichment.  

Externally, it was common knowledge that Liberia was the epicentre of the conflict system in West Africa. Consequently, the conflict in Liberia had an immense impact on the politics of the region. We only need to look at Cote d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone to verify this assumption. The regional powers had to find a solution and, in doing so, they adopted a generic model of conflict management based on the premise that the types of conflicts in our region are fought as part of the struggle for political power. Consequently, a two-fold solution was instituted:

1. Appease the armed factions and reward the warlords with lucrative posts through the formation of a government of national unity.
   

2. Send in the troops to keep the peace.

Thus, on the face of it, the political arrangement that emerged out of Accra was based on national consensus by virtue of the level of representation from civil society, political parties and the armed factions. However, if we probe with hindsight, we will see that the vast majority of people who participated in the peace process did not even enjoy the mandate of their parties; in fact, some of the parties only existed on paper, and yet they were allowed to decide the fate of a ‘war-ravaged people’. Further, with the exception of a few, many of these so-called participants were never committed to democracy or national renewal. And so a National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) was formed that is now widely dubbed as: ‘Nothing To Give Liberia’. The NTGL is comprised of groups and individuals with competing interests and a manager whom many believe lacks the capabilities to steer the ship of state.

The abject failure of this arrangement is such that it has been rumoured that the international community of states is allegedly intending to impose what most people now refer to as a "trusteeship," "quasi-trusteeship," etc. To what extent this is true remains to be seen. One thing that seems clear to me is that unless there are powerful global forces who are intending to bend the rules, any effort to impose a "trusteeship" on any state today cannot be enacted outside of the context of the UN Charter principles. The rules are clearly laid down in Chapters XII and XIII of the UN Charter, and in keeping with Article 78:

The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.

And let us set the record straight: Liberia is an original signatory to this Charter in 1945, and thus, to apply any form of trusteeship to a UN member state will be highly suspect and legally problematic. In fact, I am still not convinced that the UN will seek to make a legal mockery of itself on this issue and therefore, unless this rumour is confirmed, I will urge that we treat it with caution.

Let me now turn to the issue of our system of representative democracy. Since independence, our system of governance has been based upon representative democracy, but how has this type of democracy responded to the problems afflicting society, and how did it help in nurturing 14 years of war?

Yes, over the years we have paid more attention to procedures and institutions than what these institutions can provide in order to promote inclusive and stable politics. When politics is democratic, it means that the citizenry have a role to play; that the expectations and demands of the citizenry for institutional accountability and responsibility are met; that the citizenry has a say in what institutions do. It is democratic politics that can legitimize democratic institutions and structures. First and foremost, when emphasis is placed upon democratic institutions at the expense of democratic politics, as Luckham and others argue, "institutional development tends to be seen as a good in itself" (2003: 21). Furthermore, they elaborate that “elite pacts defining ‘rules of the game’ are given more attention than the political struggles of marginalised groups, including women, minorities and the poor. The latter enter the picture mainly when they can disrupt the ‘normal’ functions of democratic institutions and hence have to be accommodated by the latter. Their incorporation has tended to be seen as a solution to the problems of political order or governability in fledgling democracies, rather than as a requirement of democracy per se” (Luckham, Goetz and Kaldor, 2003: 21).

In light of the above, as we ponder on the way forward, we need to recognise that building democratic institutions always occur within specific historical contexts and cultures; they never take place in a socio-economic and political vacuum. This means that we need to pay attention to the problems engendered by the 14 years of brutal civil war. We should also pay more attention to the things that we did not get right in our national politics. Often, when reforms in democratic institutions are carried out, there is the growing tendency for the reformers to pay more attention to short-term measures. Unfortunately, our emphasis is always placed on what is generally referred to as ‘good practice;’ perhaps this is why we adopt ‘cut and paste’ and ‘one size fits all’ measures. What a farce this is!

Given the abovementioned, we need to realise that we are where we are today partly because Liberia started on the wrong premise. There have been different explanations for our failures but on this occasion, I would like to refer back to a statement made by the elderly Liberian statesman, Edward Wilmot Blyden, in a speech entitled Three Needs of Liberia. Blyden made this speech in 1908, in Lower Buchanan, almost one hundred years ago. In that speech, he stressed that the first emigrants "escaped physical bondage . . . the body was set free, but the soul remained in bondage’ (Blyden, 1971: 120). In order to move forward, he urged that Liberians be emancipated from the social, industrial and religious theories which they brought with them from America. Through emancipation, they would be enlightened as to the laws governing the true life of the African in Africa. Blyden went on to assert that the failure of Liberia was a result of the inability of the settlers to study the ‘aborigines’ – "the life and backbone of the country" (Blyden, 1971: 122-23). Blyden contended:  

Can we make a nation without the aid of the aborigines? Were it not for them should we have any commerce worthy of the name? Any coastwise trade upon which to place restrictions? When we went before the world to ask to be received into the family of nations, did we not base our request upon the native populations? Was it not them that we professed to represent? Just as at that time it was to our interest to avail ourselves of their numerical assistance to secure national recognition, so now it is our wisest policy, apart from philanthropic duties, to fraternize with them in order to secure national strength and respectability. (Blyden, 1971: 81)

Today, after almost a century, Blyden's prophetic words remain significant. In other words, our claim to national sovereignty and statehood is based on the false notion of representative democracy for all the citizens of Liberia. In reality, Liberia seems to belong to tiny political cabals and elites who continue to recycle themselves. What is even more sad is that we continue to commit the “original sins” of the founders of the Liberian state by refusing to recognise that Africa and its culture have a role to play in charting the future of the country. Today, when you read the Internet and our press, any Liberian who lives, has studied, or is studying abroad, thinks that he or she is endowed with knowledge of the solutions to our complex problems; they pontificate about the future of our country with ease without reference to Africa and things African.

Yes, Europe and America are advanced in their politics, economics, technological development, etc., but we need to be careful with how we uncritically copy from them. In fact, we should stop wasting our energies on ‘catching up’ with them. My dear brothers and sisters, all we need to do is to try to identify our national priorities and put in place those things that will enable our people to live in security, freedom, and self-esteem. That is why in this presentation, all I am trying to do is to make suggestions, for I am aware that I do not have the solutions to Liberia’s problems. My attempt is to provoke discussion around the burning issues of our history and collectively, we shall decide what to do in order to improve the living conditions of our people. Our people need leadership and there are plenty of leaders out there in our society who will never be given the chance to serve our people.

Liberians are returning home today from different parts of the world, like the repatriated Africans who returned home to establish Liberia in 1822, and they will be taking with them different political experiences and cultures. We should never repeat the mistakes of the past that Blyden referred to. Whatever we want to take home to foster development should be critically adapted to the Liberian, and ultimately to the African, experience. For example, for those of you who live in the United Kingdom and elsewhere abroad, there are a lot of good things that you can take back that can help Liberia, but be mindful of the bad things as well. Do not be contemptuous of our people who did not travel out of the country to gain the sort of experiences you have acquired. We need to listen to them so that we can harmonise our energies and collective experiences of life. It is only through such collaborative interactions and sharing of experiences that we can lift our people out of poverty and misery and really make impoverishment, exploitation and dependency history.

As far back as 1857, in an Independence Day address, Blyden also pointed out that one of our problems have been the "haste to get rich." As he pointed out exactly ten years after Liberia’s independence, “to be rich seems with many ‘the chief end of man.’ Hence, no talents, no endowment of the mind, no skill or knowledge, no amount of education, is appreciated only so far as it will pay . . . This fact has operated greatly in retarding the literary progress of our youth . . . ” (Blyden, 1971: 63). Blyden spoke bitterly against the "false and fictitious" prosperity that Liberians cherished and aspired for:

Another cause of our adversity may be seen in the unjustifiable extravagance in which we indulge; in that luxury of expenditure for houses, for dress, for furniture, for food, constantly made the reprehensible remark by thinking foreigners. We are in dreadful error in regard to our country, if we suppose we are truly prosperous. Our prosperity is not real; it is false and fictitious. The prosperity of a nation is real when the springs of prosperity are contained within itself, in the hands of its citizens; when it depends for its existence upon its own resources; when it is independent. But this is not the case of Liberia. We are a nation, upheld by foreigners. We are entirely dependent upon foreigners for our schools, for churches, for preachers, for teachers. Most of the talent of the country is in the employ and at the control of foreigners. (Blyden, 1971: 63)

At no time have these words been more true than today. While there is nothing wrong with getting rich, what is wrong is that every Liberian wants to get rich quick even at the expense of their poor brother or sister. Ill-gotten wealth is used to perpetuate misrule and the neglect of the vast majority of the people. Today, if you do not have money, you will find it extremely difficult to win an election in Liberia . Our youth are either selling themselves as ‘mercenaries’ fighting wars in other countries for pennies, or they are engaged in the ‘black money’ business. This is what society has forced upon them. We need to address this problem or our young men and women will continue to waste their much-needed talents in foreign prisons.  

One point I wish to also raise here is that we cannot afford to continue depending on the outside world for our daily subsistence. We are endowed with rich human and natural resources, and how we exploit and use them will enable us to regain some sense of dignity in the international community of nations. It is sad that today in our country, everywhere you turn there are western NGOs, and of course the EU and the UN are everywhere for us to see. We depend upon them for our drinking water, electricity, toilets, food and other basic necessities. Under these conditions, why would the international community not try to impose a quasi-trusteeship upon us (as some seem to be suggesting), when we have to depend on them for everything?  

My dear brothers and sisters, while we are also aware that we now live in a globalised world, we should equally be mindful that all we continue to enjoy an unequal position within global politics and the global capitalist economy. Such an unequal position retards rather than promotes sustainable development. In this sense, my gut feelings against donor-driven agendas and imposition of solutions from abroad resonate squarely with the ideas of Blyden. As far back as 1857, Blyden had realised this, but no one paid attention to him. He emphatically stated:  

Africa . . . has a right to demand of Europe . . . if we abolished customs known and tried and helpful to us, and adopted yours, what shall we do with our submerged tenth, our thieves, and prostitutes? But alas, this is a question which Europe and America are trying in vain to answer for themselves. Then Africa must say to our would-be benefactors on these subjects: “Great and good friends, you grapple with your domestic and social problems and leave us to grapple with ours. In political, military, material and financial problems we need and solicit your guidance and help, but as to the subtle problems which involve the physical, physiological and spiritual or psychological well-being of the people, we deprecate your benevolent but dislocating interference . . ." (Blyden, 1971: 121)

In the face of this insightful analysis, it would be helpful to take the advice of the British scholar who objectively stresses that democracy must be seen as a "double-sided process" (Held, 2003: 30). We need to deepen democratic processes not just within our narrow national communities, but the entire process must also extend across our borders. In other words, we need to press for democratic reforms within world bodies. I predict, as history has shown us, such a call will fall on deaf ears. However, what an ironic farce it is that the very institutions that demand democratic reforms from us are often the most undemocratic bodies in the world. I am not suggesting, however, that we should not pursue democratic politics. We must redefine democracy and reconceptualize what democracy means in ways that will benefit ordinary people.  

While recognising the limits of externally driven and imposed agendas and solutions, I am also fully aware that we live in a "complex interconnected world where the extent, intensity and impact of issues (economic, political or environmental) raises questions about where those issues are most appropriately addressed" (Held, 2003: 28). This clearly signifies that the issue of democratic order or even sustainable development can no longer be decided within narrow territorial boundaries.

The structure of the world today is of a transnational decision-making character. Currently, the UN, the IMF, World Bank and other institutions impose ‘solutions’ upon us. Why should these undemocratic institutions impose solutions on us? My worry is that we never question whether these ‘solutions’ are right for us or not. For some of us, externally imposed solutions are never viable and durable. External actors can help to facilitate our national processes, but they cannot provide enduring solutions to our problems. Thus, they should never be allowed to impose solutions upon us. We need fair and equal access to world markets, and not dependency. Why should we continue to export our primary products on the cheap and buy the finished products expensively? The world needs a radically different global economic structure that will facilitate development and not “economic growth without development.” Thus, in the face of the pressures of globalization, ‘let us act locally but at the same time think globally.’ Consequently, under the global circumstances in which we find ourselves, what we need to do is to join forces with other African states and peoples in the continent and abroad to see how we can collectively address the problem of dependency because, on our own, we can never make it. Pan-Africanism is the way forward.
 

CPA and the Way Forward

Importantly, in recent times, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed by the armed factions and other Liberian ‘stakeholders’ has come under close scrutiny. Without delving into its positives and drawbacks, I look at it from the position that if there is anything that it offers us, it has provided an opportunity for the pursuit of democratic politics. However, it seems that we have not set our priorities right. For example, in our urge for ‘good governance,’ we seem to put emphasis on the mere establishment of democratic institutions. As significant as democratic institutions are in the prevention of conflicts through peace-building initiatives, we need to also pay attention to democratic politics, which deals with substantive issues like political inclusiveness, justice, and respect for the rule of law, as opposed to elite democracy, which is based on gangsterism and political highway robbery.  

Unfortunately, we have not made use of the democratic space created so far; one would have thought that civil society would take the lead in setting the agenda for a national debate on the way forward. You need a vibrant civil society to do so, but lamentably, this is not the case. Unfortunately, like in most African states, the agendas pursued by NGOs, which have appropriated the role of civil society, are driven by donor interests. Yes, the NGOs across our region continue to line up behind donors, with the latter setting the agenda. Civil society in our part of the world does not provide any alternative platform for critical thinking; on the contrary, they serve to give a human face to the global capitalist exploitation of our countries. Unless this situation is rectified, we are in for a long haul.  

Another issue that seems to be dominating our debate about the way forward is the call for constitutional reforms. Once again, this is an important undertaking in any given post-conflict situation, but by itself, constitutional reforms do not bring about meaningful changes unless they address the underlying causes of armed violent politics; unless they address the basis for substantive democratic politics: health, food, housing, education, jobs and other basic necessities of life. These things are at the heart of sustainable development and democratic politics. Of what use are institutions or constitutions that do not implement poverty reduction strategies and programmes? In order for constitutional reforms to be effective and beneficial to the citizens, they must be adhered to and held as supreme: constitutionalism; and led by a principled and a committed national leadership and not those who bend the rules when it suits them. Even at the global level, we have seen recently when the rules, as enshrined in the UN Charter, were bent in order for Britain and America to go to war in Iraq. I was part of an anti-war march in London in which more than one million people participated, but this did not stop the British government from going to war in Iraq.    

What we need, therefore, is what Samir Amin refers to as "emancipatory modernity." According to Amin, "emancipatory modernity is based on a quite different concept of democracy, one that involves both strict equality of rights and duties (including the creation of conditions for this to be a reality) and respect for differences. Respect is stronger than tolerance. It implies that state policies create the conditions for equality in spite of diversity" (Amin, 2003: 173). When we talk about emancipation, we are referring to a situation in which people are free as individuals and groups, from the social, physical, economic, political and other constraints that stop them from carrying out what they would freely choose to do (Booth, 1997: 110).  

Finally, as we seek a lasting solution to our national mess, let us also be mindful of the fact that it will take us years to overcome our problems; the resolution of these problems cannot be an overnight affair. That is, we need to think in generational terms, and not just about elections. The former is the task of statesmen and the latter that of politicians. We need to think like statesmen. Let us not just think repeatedly about the replacement of one elite group with the other at elections held every four or six years. On the contrary, we should ensure that democracy is about people’s lives and how families can adequately prepare their children for the challenges of the future. In short, we need to rethink our future on a long-term development basis, without which peace and progress are impossible.

I thank you very much.

Amin, Samir. Obsolescent Capitalism. London : Zed Press, 2003, 173.

Blyden, Edward Wilmot. “Liberia as a Means, Not an End.”
        Independence Day Address, Monrovia, Liberia, July 26, 1867.
        Black Spokesman: Selected Published Writings of Edward         Wilmot Blyden ed. Hollis Lynch. London: Cass, 1971.

---. “Liberia as She is; and the Present Duty of her Citizens.”
        Independence Day Address, Monrovia, Liberia, July 27, 1857.
        Black Spokesman: Selected Published Writings of Edward         Wilmot Blyden ed. Hollis Lynch. London: Cass, 1971.

---. “The Three Needs of Liberia." A Lecture delivered at
        Lower Buchanan, Grand Bassa County, Liberia, January 26, 1908.
        Black Spokesman: Selected Published Writings of Edward
        Wilmot Blyden ed. Hollis Lynch. London: Cass, 1971.

Booth, Ken. “Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen
        Realist.” Critical Security Studies: Concepts
        and Cases. Eds. Keith Krause and Michael C.
        Williams. London: UCL Press Limited, 1997, 110.

Held, David, “The Changing Contours of Political
        Community: Rethinking Democracy in the
        Context of Globalization.” Global Democracy:
        Key Debates. Ed. Barry Holden. London and New
        York: Routledge, 2003, 28.

Liberia Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Accra, Ghana,
        August 18, 2003.

Luckham, Robin, Anne Marie Goetz and Mary Kaldor.
        "Democratic Institutions and Democratic Politics."
        Can Democracy Be Designed? The Politics of
        Conflict-torn Societies. Eds. Sunil Bastian and
        Robin Luckham. London : Zed Press, 2003, 21.

United Nations Charter. Chapter XII: INTERNATIONAL
        TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM: Article 78.
        http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapt12.htm