The Pro-Poor Agenda – Give Us A Comprehensive Blueprint
The Perspective
Atlanta, Georgia
June 17, 2018
In a show of a bombastic display of PowerPoint presentation in a spacious room packed with curious Liberians in Philadelphia earlier this spring, President Weah's finance minister Samuel Tweah implicitly hinted that the much-heralded pro-poor policy agenda of the Weah administration was an ad hoc one in that it was scarcely conceptualized or put on paper. The Finance Minister was responding to a question from the Philadelphia audience regarding the policy agenda. He then said the administration would be issuing a comprehensive concept paper or a white paper that would contain explanations of what the agenda is all about--in June this year.
That means when Minister Tweah was speaking in Philadelphia, there hadn't been a blueprint of the pro-poor agenda. It had been only on the lips of officials of administration - including the president. Hence, as it appeared then and now, the pro-poor agenda existed only in the head of the loquacious finance minister, his boss and the inner circle of the president.
Samuel Tweah is President Weah's principal advisor on finance, development, and planning. In fact, Tweah is a ‘distinguished’ CDC ideologue. The postwar University of Liberia -educated young men and women who for more than 12 years built a mass movement, instinctively around the soccer stardom and personality of George Manneh Weah, thereby capturing the aspirations of the downtrodden masses of the Liberian people.
Voluble, Tweah was one of the "CDC revolutionaries" who in grandiloquent speeches articulated the deplorable state of our nation under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. But now they are in power they are making a lot of public statements can the phases without concrete pro-poor strategic planning help the hapless people of Liberia? The Liberian people are anxiously waiting!
It was Tweah and comrades who convincingly made the case for presidential candidate George Manneh Weah, nicknamed the "country giant" for whom elite politicians (or the educated elites?) reduced to mosquitoes had to clear the way during the 2017 presidential election. It was he and his comrades who effectively presented Weah in a grandiose way to the people of Liberia thereby leading to Weah’s election. It is needless to state that President Weah counts on Samuel Tweah's purported knowledge and skills-set by appointing him minister of finance, development, and planning. The President looks up to him not only for guidance but also for the conceptualization of development initiatives. He is the planner who also controls the purse of Liberia.
The pro-poor initiatives are several months over-due! By now, it should have been written in black and white because, during the campaign, The Perspectiverequested for costed out platforms from most of the political parties in the country; but to no avail. So, the pro-poor slogan seems to be a precipitated slogan aimed at telling our people not to expect too much because the government is on their side; except the lack of the pro-poor agenda signifies that the “master planner” has not been able to put a plan together for the country during these past five months. We wonder why the President’s righthand “Book Boy” has not fulfilled the visionary task entrusted to him to carve the much-talked-about ‘famous pro-poor policy agenda’. Perhaps, he may lack the requisite experience, exposure and credentials beyond class room education.
It is mindboggling that a grassroots party that has campaigned for about 12 years to take state power is unable to find the compass to navigate the inherent problems of the nation. Mr. Tweah’s statement presented in Philadelphia came three months after President Weah had made the declaration that his government was indeed a pro-poor government. This was a fixture in the president’s inaugural address, essentially his first speech outlining his intention and what was in store for the people who elected him to take state power. Characteristically, an inaugural address embodies the initiatives of an incoming administration; and such initiatives are not simply articulated on a podium during an inauguration ceremony. They are always thoughtfully crafted into what might be called a blueprint or a white paper, explaining to the nation the practical issues and ramifications thereof.
Following the colossal failure of the corrupt Sirleaf administration to reduce the abject poverty in the nation, the pro-poor declaration naturally resonated with the impoverished masses of our people--the mainstay of President Weah's support during the 2017 presidential election. The president was basking in the unprecedented legitimacy that these downtrodden masses of young people had lent him in a landslide victory when he used the phrase on that historic date of January 22, 2018.
Not surprisingly, the slogan, as it went viral on the Internet and at market stalls around the country, the masses perceived it as a major policy agenda for the Weah Government. Yet, five months later, the masses are still eager to pinpoint what the pro-poor agenda really is. Its use in the president's inaugural speech invariably implied that the CDC administration had laid out an elaborate plan for the much-cherished and anticipated reduction of poverty. Liberians, especially the impoverished masses were eagerly waiting to see what "papa who na come" had in the plastic bag for them. But as it appears, this papa who na come has nothing but rum in the bag. What really is in the bag? Is there anything for the family - the impoverished masses of the Liberian people? As we at The Perspective can see, there is apparently nothing in the bag for the impoverished masses.
The trouble is - the usage of the phrase is so widespread that it has taken on a pejorative connotation by both supporters and detractors of the Weah administration in peddling it. Indeed, the now trivialized "pro-poor" phrase is losing traction and its practical meaning ONLY remains on the lips, if not in the head of Samuel Tweah and George Weah. In other words, ordinary Liberians can't come to terms with the practical meaning of the phrase, pro-poor. What is it, a policy agenda or a gimmick by George Weah who the hapless people of Liberia consider t their Redeemer?
The use of political phrases like pro-poor is not peculiar to the Weah administration. In fact, our contemporary history is replete with such phrases as proclaimed and propagated by previous administrations. In 1944, for example, the Tubman administration proclaimed its “Unification” and “Open Door” policies after conceptualizing them in a clear, direct, and concise language. Liberians did not have to guess, as we do now for the pro-poor agenda, the practical meanings of the Unification policy which spurred national integration and that of the “Open Door Policy” which translated into foreign investments and economic growth in the 1940's and 1950s.
On the other, there was Willie Tolbert's “Total Involvement” and “Mat -To-Mattress” policies of the 1970s--the most elaborate and articulated development initiatives of his administration. These policy agendas were both in print and in words, clearly providing a roadmap of the administration's development objectives. Samuel Doe’s Green Revolution was also contained in an articulated national agenda. But as for the Pro-Poor, Liberians are still guessing! What is the color of the pro-poor? How tall is it? How much will it cost? How much hut taxes the poor masses will have to pay now? Is it a female or a male or the other in between? PRO-POOR!!! This is the level to which the unplanned pro-poor has brought us. Well, as Minister Tweah stated, we are still on the lookout. We at The Perspective have no reason not to give President Weah--a lumpen offspring whose rags-to-stardom story has resonated with the majority of our people--the benefit of the doubt. Nor are we naive to expect his administration to solve the nation's chronic problems overnight.
We sincerely believe that posterity will judge us if we do not hold the Weah administration accountable. We are aware that just like during the beginning of the Sirleaf Administration, her well-wishers and groupies were asking for more time: “Give ma Ellen a time,” they would say. Every Liberian knows where that has led us. We are also aware that President Weah has a popular mandate that we have never seen before, but with that mandate, come the demand for good governance and sound fiscal responsibilities. Yet, we hold him in high esteem as a larger-than-life political figure in our contemporary history, knowing very well that “larger than life’ personalities usually do not deliver because they feel that the world owes them something.
In other words, the Weah presidency is essentially a huge symbol of our postwar reconciliation and our most cherished national unity. It spurs on the faith of the Liberian masses and their fervent hope for change. Like the case of Madame Sirleaf; some of Weah’s supporters encourage all Liberians to bear with President Weah. Yet, during the past few months, the activities and utterances from the “Redeemer” are alarming. For example:
A Pro-Poor Government should have nothing to do with the likes of Emmanuel Shaw who now has the ears of President Weah and is calling the shots. It is laughable when you hear the names of the people like him.
The Perspective has over the years observed Mr. Shaw as a thoroughgoing crook who has no love for Liberia, whatsoever.
Several years ago, the late veteran journalist Tom Kamara had this to write about Mr. Shaw: “A South African paper, in an article "His Occupation is Crime", said Shaw's passport was found on the body of a South African drug dealer, Mark Wolmann, who was found shot gang-style in Cape Town. Shaw said that "Wolman's Liberian diplomatic passport had run out of space, and he (Shaw) lent Wolman his own (passport) to use some pages. He said it was no secret he and Wolman had been good friends" [MAIL & GUARDIAN].”
The people want to know! Are we talking about pro-poor or pro-crimes when our so-called pro-government has placed a harden criminal at the helm of power? Even President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf appointed Shaw as the Chairman of the Board of Liberia Airport Authority in 2012 but had to withdraw the appointment because of his criminal records.
The Perspective and majority of the Liberian people believe a pro-poor government should have an agenda for sound fiscal governance, quality education and technology deployment. But the current budget that is considered a pro-poor budget is mute and indifferent to education. In this 21st Century, Internet connectivity for all public schools is the way to go. Yet, we are not seeing any movement in that direction. Pro-poor Government should be able to provide clean drinking water for all of the people; instead, our pro-poor government is levying taxes on contaminated water fetched from bored-holes and shallow wells.
A pro-poor government should break away from the criminal past of the country, where the Masonic lodge members fueled corruption and some of them were even accused and found guilty of being involved in ritualistic killings. But, as we pen this Editorial, Liberia is being run by the Masonic lodge members. A beloved leader of his people would not give away his functions to others; yet, our pro-poor president has done exactly that by giving his functions to Mr. Charles Bright, who served as Charles Taylor’s minister of finance. Mr. Bright and even the president are not small potatoes within the Masonic Lodge in the country.
President Weah has also left in place a key member of the erstwhile Sirleaf’s government in critical position, even though some of them stand accused in various corruption reports. The current configuration of the key members of Weah’s cabinet and inner circle would give any reasonable person a pulse, with the serious question with these same old players “can anything good come of his administration.”
Moreover, a pro-poor president should not be concentrating on building a “New Monrovia” within a Riparian area, while there are present urgent needs like JFK, rehabilitation of road repair works, electricity, drinking water, etc. left undone. Our pro-poor president does not know that the wetland is a habitat for several endangered species. More besides, constructing the “New Monrovia” in this area would introduce impervious surfaces which could lead to unprecedented increases in the amount of run-off rainwater and the attendant contaminants entering our creeks/rivers thereby creating problems in the form of flooding and diseases within the nearby slums.
Has this pro-poor government forgotten that the Ebola epidemic killed about 5000 poor Liberians owing to the fact that our healthcare delivery system is substandard, inadequate and in disarray? Is there any pro-poor solution in place should Ebola or Ebola-like epidemic occur? How does building a new city rank in priority to preventing another repeat of such a healthcare epidemic? Beyond the promise by the Indian Government to build a conference center for Liberia, the cost to build even the most basic infrastructure for such a new city could run into billions of dollars. Many would contend that while it is noteworthy for a leader to have a big dream, but such a desire could be viewed as a “pipe dream” in a country with many pressing needs; a country at the bottom of the UNDP Human Development Index, Transparency International Corruption Index; and country dubbed as the third poorest and the most miserable place to live.
Economic stagnation, backbreaking interest rates that is preventing Liberians for getting credit to start businesses, escalating inflation rate and downward spiraling exchange rate are all critical economic hardships that should be at the center of the pro poor agenda.
If these problems are not addressed, how can the president in his clear conscience talk about constructing coastal high; a railroad network is a better approach because it would benefit all the poor people around the country. For example, Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria are doing this by forming a partnership with China. But when Liberian leaders go to China, instead of going there with a strategic plan, they go there to request for “peanuts.” America’s economic boom was made possible by Cornelius Vanderbilt’s rail road, not an expensive coastal highway. Rail road or such common carriers can connect Liberia faster and cheaper, carrying mass goods and people across the land. These are the out of the box thinking that we can expect from a pro poor government.
The pro-poor government is now talking about an agenda that is anti-poor: the hut tax. Does the pro-poor need a jet plane and the attendant conflict of interest? So, let Mr. Weah and his point man come out to tell us what the government direction is. Let the president and his people develop and use some conceptual leadership skills.
Is Liberia still a sick country?
An American journalist John Gunther once wrote, “Liberia is a sick country, it may some day get well (Inside Africa).” That was in 1955, and yet Liberian leaders have not started making plans for the sick Mama Liberia to see a doctor. A nation reconciled and united under a symbol must have sustainable agenda to achieve genuine change. She should be able to go beyond mere symbolism and slogans and contemplate the tangibles by setting realizable goals constituting a plausible blueprint for governance. This, we suppose, ought to be the lot of the CDC revolutionaries.
We expect President Weah and his Pro-Poor CDC government to give clear signals and the direction the downtrodden nation is taking. They should rally to the cause of effecting the change they campaigned so hard for. They must thoroughly think through development initiatives and formulate them into readable materials before the president goes out to declare them in the public arena.
President Weah said he is a man of action rather than words. He may not have the sort of outburst rhetoric that the likes of Tweah ostensibly have. No president can do everything. That is why we look up to the likes of Samuel Tweah who have articulated the promises of the Weah presidency and are now cabinet ministers to put in more time on the drawing board--strategizing, conceptualizing and producing documents. The show for podium-lashing is over. It is now time to govern. Give us a blueprint for your pro-poor policy agenda.
As we pen this editorial, there are several opportunists who see the election of Mr. Weah to the presidency of the country as a goal mine. They perambulate the web to see anything that is critical of Mr. Weah to attack it for jobs from the president. We saw this during the Samuel Doe regime, and this is a Deja vu.
Bread and circuses were the emperor of Rome way if tempering down public anger and frustration. Feel good promises are the methods used by failed leaders in Africa to damper public anger and despair. But neither “feel good” nor “bread and circuses” has built any impoverished nation. It requires sound policies, programs carefully and purposely implemented as the only ingredients to build a nation that caters to its downtrodden mases, we are waiting!