By Christian Lawrence
How many citizens know that the game is on to fix Sierra Leone’s PRSP III otherwise known as Agenda for Prosperity? Not many I know. For your information, the government had sought the services of, mostly, government agencies/institutions to write the various chapters of the document with data probably from existing poverty and development-related work on Sierra Leone. These are the pillars and respective mostly-government ministries and agencies and Technical Committee (TC) Coordinators taking leads in writing the chapters: for Economic Diversification, Alimamy Bangura (EPRU) superintended by Ministry of Finance and Economic Development leads; for Managing Natural Resources, Herbert M’cleod (State House) under the auspices of the Office of the President leads; for Human Development, Dr. Kamara of Strategic Policy Unit (SPU) leads; for International Competitiveness, Morlai Bangura Bank of Sierra Leone (BSL) with the supervision of the Ministry of Trade and Industry leads; for Employment and Labor Strategy, Samuel Braima (Fourah Bay College) under the auspices of Ministry of Labour and Social Security leads; for Social protection, Abu Bakarr Turay (Statistis Sierra Leone) with the supervisory role of NaCSA leads; for Public Sector Reform/Governance, Franklin Bendu (EPRU) under the management of the PSRU leads; for Climate Change & Biodiversity Risks, EPA as an institution leads; for Gender, Hawa Musa (CPM&E), under the auspices of MSWGCA leads; for M&E (and results frameworks), Jam Jalloh (CPM&E) with the supervision of MOFED leads; for Financing, MOFED leads; and lastly for Poverty profile, Abu Bakarr Turay (SSL) under the auspices of MOFED leads. All the pillars above, save for the Employment and Labour Strategy that is being done by an Economics Lecturer at FBC, are technically led by individuals working directly for government. There are Composite Institutions, and Development Partner Representatives that do participate in the process, but the TC Coordinators and the Lead Institutions are the ones in charge of the final products.
What is so enervating is that the government decides to give the draft report only to a cluster of mostly international organisations to make inputs. Is this supposed to mean that the few handpicked NGOs are in a better position than the wider civil society and people of this country to FIRST contribute to the draft document on poverty and development issues? I leave it at that!
What has precipitated this writing is my strong conviction that the government’s method to get mainly its institutions/ministries to start the process of writing the document before venturing to obtain the views of citizens in regional consultations later is not only questionable but also unacceptable by democratic and demand-driven standards. I have been watching with trepidation as the government goes ahead with its grand plan to develop the PRSP III (Agenda for Prosperity). The plan to hold regional consultations after the chapters of the document would have been written would mean citizens’ participation will be lopsided at best. Many of us know all too well that once a document of such importance is drafted by mainly government workers with the hope of drumming up citizens’ views thereafter, very little if any, changes will be made to it. My grave fear is that either the consultation process will be skewed such that citizens will not have the time and/or knowhow to identify lacunae in the document and make requisite propositions, or the organizers of the consultations will deliberately ignore the good inputs from citizens when writing the final report.
Forgive my candour but the government is not too smart in its move to rob citizens of meaningful participation in the preparation of this PRSP III document. If the government’s intention is to follow development partners’ dictates to involve ordinary people (but is really inwardly unwilling to do so), a smart way to do it without attracting criticism is to organize the regional consultations first, and then at the point of compiling the report minor dilution can take place that will be inconspicuous to many. But for the government to be so flagrant in starting the process by getting individuals mostly in its ministries and agencies to do the write-up first begs a burning question: are ordinary citizens not knowledgeable enough about their socio-economic problems to be able to bring them out first during consultations before the mainly government workers do the desk review later and compile a holistic report?
I am genuinely really disappointed and heart-broken in the way the government plans to make mockery of citizens’ participation in one of the most important development processes of the country. At this age with the mantra of bottom-top approach to development, I am stunned that the government can still chose the straightjacketed top-bottom approach. My anger is on government, and to a lesser degree too on civil society! Civil society groups are currently busy doing their thing in their small corners while the government is preparing the PRSP III menu in offices in Freetown. I am surprised that Civil Society is not raising the red-card at government for moving on with a top-bottom approach. Are they just content that after-all citizens will later participate somehow? Why can’t they at this holy hour put on their moral and thinking hats to question the top-bottom configuration of the process? Many civil society groups, particularly those based in Freetown are in the know of this hiatus in the process. Unfortunately, all they do is casually talk on it in their small meetings in offices, instead of mounting intensive advocacy with good media coverage to compel, as it were, government to make a screeching halt on its top-bottom approach.
Is it that some civil society groups have the secret intentions of taking up the issue openly, but are afraid of the government putting the bull eyes at their backs? If civil society is afraid to take the appropriate action on this issue because of fear of reprisals from government, then what are they to say about their pledge to be the voice of the voiceless? The near deafening silence of civil society on such national issue is unhelpful to the very people they are getting their legitimacy from. My teacher at the university would say, a lone tree cannot make a forest. This is a fact! That is why we need more than just one or two civil society organisations to challenge government on the flawed process! As many civil society groups with good conscience and integrity will need to mobilize and take the necessary actions. Even if they do not succeed in getting the government to reverse the process, at the very least it will be known far and wide that civil society did something that was JUST on behalf of the people; and such brave actions will certainly be later footnoted in the annals of Sierra Leone’s development history!
In concluding, technically, one can argue that citizens’ participation is all that matters – meaning, it makes no difference whether their views are garnered first before mainly government workers have their take, or vice-versa. From where I sit, the stage and manner in which citizens views are generated matters a lot. Bottom-top approach to the development of a PRSP is the best. It gives an empirical up-to-date picture of the poverty dynamics; get inputs from the very poor people about how their poverty can be reduced or taken away; and most importantly, guarantees citizens’ ownership of the process.
Now my few recommendations: As a matter of principle and practice, the government should first obtain the views of ordinary citizens when taking BIG decisions or developing national documents that will affect people’s lives before ushering in its mostly technical personnel to lend their knowledge and experience. Civil society should be more alert in watching the space government provides for citizens’ participation in the development of not only PRSPs, but other developmental processes as well. Civil society should be pro-active in crying foul repeatedly and loudly when such loopholes in national developmental processes surface so that they do not graduate into unmanageable portholes. Failure to manage participatory processes well has the propensity to throw Sierra Leone’s burgeoning democracy into a spin! I stop here. Have a great day.
Christian Lawrence is Governance Coordinator for ActionAid International Sierra Leone. The views expressed in this article are his only and not reflective of those of the institution he works for.
