By Isaac Massaquoi
Unlike some of their Western colleagues, Chinese diplomats are not known to make strong and controversial statements about their host countries. In fact they are always very careful not to say anything to suggest they are uncomfortable with the quality of governance in their new home. I note however that any time they are confronted with geopolitical questions over Taiwan and Tibet, they bristle. I understand why.
Talking about take-no-prisoner diplomats, my mind goes back to the period of multi-party democracy agitation in Africa when US Ambassador, Smith Hempstone took on the powerful government of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya. He openly associated with the pro-democracy movements that would eventually break Moi's stubborn dominion over power.
In more recent times (2004), British diplomat Edward Clay challenged the government of the same east African country in somewhat undiplomatic language to fight and defeat corruption or risk losing vital aid. His language was so graphic that Kenyan politicians were compelled to act against him.
In the early 90s, the NPRC government in Sierra Leone expelled German diplomat Karl Prinz because it was thought his dealings with the RUF rebels were suspicious. Prinz had become critical of Valentine Strasser's military regime that was steadily being derailed by unbridled corruption while the soldiers began showing early signs of wanting to reinvent themselves as civilian politicians.
Germany was the biggest aid donor to Sierra Leone at the time and the consequences of Strasser's moment of madness against Germany are still being felt today particularly in relation to bilateral cooperation between the two countries.
When I read the Chinese ambassador's speech he delivered at SLAJ headquarters in early September, I was a little moved to see that apart from the obvious talk about bilateral cooperation and investment opportunities that Sierra Leone could benefit from, Ambassador Kuang Weilin let off steam about issues many Sierra Leoneans don't appear to pay much attention to.
When some local civil society organisations recently issued ultimatums to the government urging them to deliver important social services within a certain time frame, the government spokesman's office went into overdrive. Apart from State House accusing the CSOs of blackmail in a press release, the whole week was taken up by arguments over whether it was right for any organisation to issue ultimatums.
I am not a keen supporter of such ultimatums because I really can't see what the CSOs in question can do should the government ignore them and move on as usual. I also cannot see what is really wrong about citizens of Sierra Leone asking their minister who has clearly failed to deliver good roads in Freetown, to resign even without issuing a 90-day ultimatum. They could have asked for him to go immediately. In fact I think the 90-ultimatum for the minister of works is a publicity stunt deliberately crafted into a very serious national issue to enhance the visibility of the CSO in question.
Underneath all this is the serious question of how we came to this situation where almost all our roads in Freetown are littered with potholes and all the minister can say is that the nation must wait for the rains to go. I have to say that even if Petito started constructing all the roads in Freetown simultaneously next week, he will be only half way through before the rains return in 2014. So the ultimatums as far as I am concerned were only a way of telling the government about the urgency of the situation. It was certainly not a challenge to the authority of Ernest Bai Koroma's government and he could have dealt with them in a better way.
He had his finger on the pulse when the Chinese ambassador told his audience that Sierra Leone “needs to be on the fast track, particularly when people are demanding more and are eager to see rapid, tangible changes. What is more important, African countries are competing fiercely with one another for more investment and assistance from China. So if we do not act quickly, this country will be unable to take full advantage of many opportunities". Sierra Leone is not on a fast track, definitely not. I know this country has been through a disgraceful war and we have spent most of the post-war period trying to restore the state and provide basic services for the people but I honestly believe we could have done more than what we have so far.
Let me demonstrate this using just one example: Every time I have had cause to use the central bus station at Wallace Johnson street to travel outside the city, I have faced the reality that nothing has changed in that place since the mid to late 1970s. Then, as a boy, I used the same station to travel to the provinces twice a year on holidays. The population of people using the bus service has increased beyond recognition and yes, there are a few more buses than before, but the infrastructure and service have remained very rudimentary.
The process of securing a ticket is fraught with corruption and criminals operate unchallenged in the bus station. Many have been distressed. Travellers can't even get a seat at the park not to talk about high quality snacks to start the day or even good toilets. Is this really asking for too much from the SLRTC?
Ambassador Kuang also spoke about our attitude to time and prearranged business meetings thus: "... another person informed me in a casual manner and with a shrug of his shoulders that the appointment had just been cancelled, the moment I entered his office, excited and ready to discuss some important matters with him. One close friend of mine was kind enough to ask his secretary to make a call to cancel a planned visit to China only thirty minutes prior to the flight departure..."
So look at what we have here. An official has an appointment with the ambassador of great China. The diplomat turns up in time only to be told "in a casual manner" that the meeting was off. In the other situation, another official cancels a trip to China half an hour before departure time. It's almost as if this is not happening in the real world. So when the ambassador talks about this country not being "on the fast track", he is right.
I can't remember the last time I tried to see any government minister, including my friends. Their waiting rooms are always packed; they don't pick up their calls nor do they respond to text messages. They honestly believe that everybody who calls them wants money or some other favours from them.
I honestly feel sorry for them because there are many people around wanting to get money off them at every turn but if they coped with them during electioneering campaigns, they should continue doing so once in office.
Politicians spend their way into office and then set up elaborate structures around themselves to hide from their own people – they have personal assistants, several telephone lines and secretaries who spend all their time telling people "the minister is busy."
In the same speech, the Chinese ambassador called on Sierra Leoneans to "pay more attention to implementation. In China, a real gentleman never goes back on his words. A promise is a promise. When it is made, we should do whatever we can to fulfil it. But some people are not serious about their commitments and implementation…" The last line captures the average Sierra Leoneans attitude to work.
The ambassador now knows that he should never trust people here when they promise to do things until they make good their promises. It's so common here. The main reason public officials hide from their people is because they can't fulfil unrealistic campaign promises and they can't stand up and tell the people the truth about life in such public offices. Sometimes, public officers hide because they are unable to meet deadlines with their tasks either because they are incompetent and are too proud to ask for help or they are outright lazy.
I should end by letting the ambassador know something he didn't mention in his speech – informality. It is killing this country. It's an issue I will deal with extensively in the coming weeks. But for people like ambassador Kuang who are surprised at the way we do things here, they probably have experience of our love for being informal.
I recall an encounter I once had in a shop along Wilberforce Street. I had gone there with two of my colleagues to buy some electrical goods for our office. The transaction was in millions of leones. While we waited for the receipt, the trader told us he would cut the price significantly if we agreed to go without a receipt but that if we insisted on taking a receipt, he would have to include the goods and services tax (GST) which would shoot the price even higher. We were shocked to hear him make such a proposal to people he was meeting for the first time. What if we were NRA officials? We rejected his offer and left him wondering what kind of Sierra Leoneans we were. We were to learn later that this was common practice. The state is bleeding on the altar of informality.
I am waiting to read Ambassador Kuang Weilin's memoirs, particularly the section dealing with Sierra Leone.
© Politico 16/10/13
