Author
By Josephus J. Ellie
It is now 13 years since the Sierra Leone civil war was officially declared ended. It was a war that wreaked havoc on the lives and property of people, the economy, culture and tradition, and most importantly crippled all the institutions that would ensure the effective functioning of a state. Successive governments during and after the conflict have pledged to rebuild the country’s institutions and promote sustainable economic development.
Sierra Leone is rich in natural resources, with enough arable land to produce for its estimated six million inhabitants. There have been four poverty reduction papers since 2001: the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2001-2005), Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 1 (2005-2007), Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper2 (2008-2012) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 3 (2013-2018). All with very interesting Medium-Term programmes to eradicate poverty in the country. Yet our country remains one of the poorest in the world, our economy is very week, many of our youths are unemployed, hungry and angry. So the main question for every Sierra Leonean is: “Where have we gone wrong or where are we going wrong in our development strives?” My answer to this question is this: our institutions are dying, and we are fast losing the post-conflict gains made in institutional development.
Development theorists, especially institutional economists like Douglas North, have established that institutions affect the performance of an economy. That the differential performance of economies over time is fundamentally influenced by the way institutions evolve (North, 1990). Also, economic development is not just about productive or natural resources but about the increased access to opportunities for political, social and economic advancement – the right to own land, obtain quality schooling, to vote or be voted for, to borrow, innovate, etc. For instance in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, the North American mainland was widely regarded to have poor economic potentials compared with the plethora of opportunities in the Caribbean and Latin America. In fact, Canada was popularly referred to as “a few acres of snow”, and not to be compared with the highly valued small sugar-producing island of Guadeloupe (Hoff, 2003).
However, by the 19th century many Latin American countries fell behind the US and Canada which continued to be richer and more prosperous nations unto present day. The success behind the development of the US and Canada over their South American counterparts is not because of natural resources, or only because of industrialisation. Rather it is because of the breadth of access to opportunities – the advancement in social infrastructure – the collection of laws, institutions, and government policies that made participation in investment and entrepreneurship possible for a broad segment of the population. (Hoff, 2003)
In the 2003 World Development Report, the World Bank indicated that the next 50 years would witness a significant increase in the size of the global economy and poverty alleviation if governments also paid attention to averting the risk of environmental degradation and social unrest. However, the World Bank clearly stated in the report that “without better policies and institutions, social and environmental strains may derail development progress, leading to higher poverty levels and a decline in the quality of life for everybody” (World Bank, 2003). This means that weak institutional arrangements generally constrain all sustainable development and poverty alleviation efforts.
Institutions are the rules of the game or, more formally, the humanly devised constraints that shape human interactions. Institutions could be political, economic and social. Political institutions constitute rules expressed in constitutions and electoral laws, separation of powers and checks and balances, the use of legitimate power and authority, decision-making and patterns of governance. Economic institutions are established through property rights, regulatory institutions, institutions for macroeconomic stabilisations, social insurance and conflict management. Social institutions are created through systems of marriage or burial, etc.
These political, economic and social institutions can also be formal such as through established and constituted binding laws, regulation and legal orders, or the informal such as through conventions, norms, values and accepted ways of doing things that are embedded in traditional social practices and culture which can be equally binding. Organisations are the players of the game – the bodies and groups that implement the rules – be it political parties, parliaments, city councils, regulatory agencies, firms, trade unions, cooperatives, educational bodies, the media, religious organisations, etc. (North, 1990). Although North has distinguished between institutions and organisations, Uphoff (1986) thinks institutions and organisations “are the same”. In this article, I refer to both institutions and organisations as “institutions” and institutional development as “the creation or reinforcement of a network of organisations to effectively generate, allocate and use human, material and financial resources to attain specific objectives on a sustainable basis”.
In the case of Sierra Leone, it is not material at this juncture to narrate how weak institutional arrangements led to 17 years of one-party rule, 13 military coups and 11 years of a brutal civil war. What is relevant now, and what I focus on in this piece, is institutional development in post-conflict Sierra Leone. The Sierra Leone People’s Party-led government of President Tejan Kabbah worked hard to bring back peace to the country and unite its people. Most importantly, the government of 1996-2007 rebuilt the state institutions necessary for the effective functioning of any modern democracy. During this period Sierra Leone benefited from the establishment of a series of independent institutions like the Independent Media Commission, Human Rights Commission, National Electoral Commission, Political Parties Registration Commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, National Revenue Authority, Office of National Security, National Social Security and Insurance Trust, etc. The military, police and prison forces were rebuilt. The Local Government Act of 2004 was passed, and 19 Local Councils were established all over the country to decentralise governance and increase local participation, accountability and efficiency. Schools and health facilities were rebuilt, the judiciary enhanced and political parties had the enabling environment to thrive. Diverse and active civil society organisations, independent journalists and fearless artists and musicians emerged. Although the late President Tejan Kabbah’s government was often accused of being lacklustre in curbing mismanagement and corruption, these institutions laid the strongest foundation for the economic transformation and development of Sierra Leone.
One may argue that creating institutions does not automatically guarantee their effectiveness and efficiency. Yes, this is true. But what succeeding governments need to do is to continue to improve on these institutions, give them a national and non-partisan outlook and see them as the factors underpinning our democracy and development. However, after 13 years of civil war our laws and security apparatus remain instruments of intimidation and injustice by politicians and their cohorts. Our trade and investment laws and policies are mere incentives to investors who continue to plunder our resources and make the poor poorer. Corruption, tribalism, regionalism and partisanship continue to pulverise our public system. Worst of all is that punishments meted out to corrupt public servants are so infinitesimal compared to their crime.
Our school system remains weak and is getting weaker than it was decades back. The country’s public service is highly politicised – apparently there is no distinction between public professionals and politicians these days. The Sierra Leonean culture, norms, values and beliefs, which epitomised our national identity, are constantly being eroded. Our national constitution, the bastion of our democracy, the guarantor of fundamental human rights, now stands the risk of being manipulated and fingered by egomaniac and megalomaniac politicians. Many political parties, civil society and media organisations have now become business enterprises, or appendages to politicians. The local governmental bodies still remain overwhelmed by capacity problems – both hard and software, and there is little or no indication of how this situation will be reversed in the nearest future. What is even more frustrating is when our laws, policies and plans get subjected to the dictates of the West, thereby furthering our dependency on these nations. Enough of this centre-periphery paradigm!
Thus, in order to ensure a sustainable transformation and economic development of Sierra Leone, we need to look back at our institutions – our laws, policies, plans, public organisations, culture, values, norms and beliefs. Our school system must be made competitive beyond our national borders, and civic education must be reintroduced in our curriculums. Our laws, plans and policies must be made with a tinge of self-reliance and within the context of our development needs, culture and tradition. Fundamental human rights must be guaranteed to every Sierra Leonean regardless of region, tribe, association and political affiliation. Traditional public administration dictates that public servants should remain professionals even though they implement policies designed by politicians. We need to get these back on the right footing, otherwise our development strives will remain ephemeral. For it is said that good institutions are preferable to good leaders.
© Politico 17/02/15
