Five Principles of Good Governance
By Harry A. Greaves, Jr.
The Perspective
July 2, 2001
Where Liberia is today?
Liberia today is a country with all the superficial trappings
of a nation state. It has a flag; a national anthem; a constitution
guaranteeing all the familiar rights and freedoms typical of a
modern, democratic state; a republican form of government patterned
after the United States, with an Executive headed by a popularly
elected president, a bicameral Legislature, and a Supreme Court,
each branch of government designed to provide a check on the other.
It is a member of many international organizations, including
ECOWAS, the OAU the United Nations.
But strip away this thin veneer and what you find is a classic,
failed state, with the all-too-familiar characteristics of dysfunction
common to much of sub-Saharan Africa today. Democratic institutions
and the rule of law are replaced by arbitrary, one-man rule. Military
and paramilitary groups proliferate. Human rights violations abound.
The physical infrastructure of the country barely works. Health
and social services are sparse and function only sporadically.
Corruption permeates every facet of life. Civil servants work
for long periods of time without pay and survive by dint of their
creativity in making anyone who wants the most simple task done
pay a bribe for that service. Much of the country's trained manpower
has long since fled to the safety of foreign climes where life
is more predictable. Such of the work force as is still at home
is handicapped by a high level of illiteracy and few job skills.
In a nutshell, what we have is a situation where the people have
lost faith in their government. They feel helpless, frustrated,
discouraged and are groping for answers. So, what can be done
to break this seemingly endless downward spiral?
Principle No. 1 - Replace one-man rule with the rule of law
The entire construct of national institutions in Liberia today
is geared towards creating and perpetuating a personality cult
around the president. Charles Brumskine, a former Liberian senator,
has written an incisive paper about Liberia's imperial presidency,
tracing its roots well beyond the current incumbent, Charles Taylor.
Mr. Taylor just happens to be the most extreme manifestation of
a tendency that has been gathering momentum since the second half
of the last century.
The modern-day Liberian president has become accustomed to behaving
like a medieval monarch. His word is supposed to be law and gospel,
and he feels he has the power of life and death over everybody
and everything. The sharing of power with an elected legislature
and a co-equal independent judiciary, which our republican Constitution
demands, is to him an entirely foreign concept----something to
be promoted for its propagandistic value but not be taken terribly
seriously, and certainly not to be practised. Mr. Taylor has even
gone so far as to have huge billboards erected in Monrovia with
the slogan, "This is a country of laws, not men", in
a cruel mockery of the true intent behind those words, because
everyone knows that if there is anyone in Liberia whose actions
repeatedly contradict those words, it is Charles Taylor. As a
rebel leader, Taylor got used to taking what was not his through
force of arms. It's the law of the jungle, which he presumably
rationalised in his mind as the necessity of war. But now he is
supposed to be a civilian president operating within the confines
of the nation's Constitution and its laws. Yet, he behaves as
though he believes he is still a bona fide warlord, albeit with
a bigger playing field and more marbles to play with. Thus he
speaks of the nation's resources as his "pepper bush"
and treats both the legislature and the judiciary with utter disdain.
The granting to Charles Taylor last year of the sole and unrestrained
right to grant mineral concessions is perhaps the most egregious
example in modern times of the abdication by the Liberian Legislature
of its constitutional oversight responsibilities. It is difficult
to imagine an act of greater cowardice than this. Every legislator
who voted in favour should be walking with head bowed in shame.
So, what do we mean by the rule of law? Very simply, it is a situation
in which everyone, those in positions of authority as well as
those whom they govern, respect the law and the rights of others
under the law. Perhaps a concrete example will illustrate the
point. Under our laws, a person cannot be arrested and imprisoned
for any appreciable length of time without first being charged,
then given an opportunity to defend himself/herself against the
charge in a court of law. And even then, only an officer of the
court is authorized to commit that person to prison. Yet, the
president, his ministers, even junior ministers, legislators,
and just about anyone who can corral a police office for a dime
feels it within their power to take away the liberty of their
countrymen with impunity. I speak from experience.
In 1983, I was thrown into the post stockade at the Barclay Training
Center (BTC is a military prison in Monrovia) because of a letter
I wrote to the editor of the Daily Observer, which was
published and upset our fearless leader at the time, Master Sergeant
Samuel K. Doe. My sin was criticizing the master sergeant and
some of the more venal members of his cabinet for trumping up
charges against an eminent Liberian banker. I knew the letter
would get me in trouble, but I felt so strongly about the issue
I decided to apply pen to paper anyway. I was packed and ready
when Doe's security detail came trundling down the road to pick
me up. Fortunately for me, I spent only two weeks "inside"
because the BBC, the U.S. embassy, and the Liberian public made
such a lot of noise that the government was shamed into letting
me go (the title of one of the Observer editorials was,
"Let Harry Go!").
I was released as unceremoniously as I had been imprisoned: no
charge, no explanation. But while in prison I met a number of
other inmates who were not as fortunate as I was to have people
go to bat for them and who had been in prison in some cases of
one or two years like forgotten people, for offenses as trivial
as passing the car of a PRC luminary on the open highway (apparently
some PRC members of the time felt they owned the highways as well
as everything else in the republic).
Why is observance of the rule of law so important? The rule of
law is the most fundamental requirement for a stable, civil society.
The dramatic breakdown of Liberian society over the last 20 years
can be traced to the breakdown of the rule of law. When you have
a situation where someone in a position of authority can make
up the rules as he goes along, or can disregard a rule simply
because he does not like the way it affects him, you have anarchy.
Nothing any future administration does will be as important as
restoring the rule of law.
The future stability of Liberia depends on creating an environment
in which people with capital to invest and create jobs will want
to risk that capital. And they will only risk that capital if
they feel they are operating in a country where rules of human
behaviour, i.e. laws, exist and are observed, especially by those
who are clothed with the authority to enforce those laws.
Over the past 20 years, tens of thousands of Liberians have fled
the country in large measure because of fears for their personal
safety. This represents a massive drain on the country's pool
of talent. The silver lining is that during this period of exile
many of these people have acquired skills, experience and savings
which can be harnessed for the reconstruction of the country.
Liberians generally are a patriotic lot, and many of those now
living in Europe and America want to return home. They will do
so only if they feel that their person is secure from arbitrary
treatment by authority figures. They will not subject themselves
and their children to an environment where their personal security
is not assured.
So, how do you turn a country where lawlessness is the order of
the day to one in which a tradition of respect for the rule of
law is nurtured? In the case of Liberia, where we have a Constitution
which clearly states where responsibility for enforcing the law
lies, you start with the Executive. The president, being the highest
official of the Executive branch, and the symbol of law and order,
has to lead by example and can do so in small and big ways. For
starters, the president can refrain from interfering in judicial
decisions. The president can also resist the temptation to issue
orders which have the effect of undermining the law. The president
can go one step further, loudly and consistently disciplining
anyone under his/her authority found to be breaking the law or
violating people's civil rights. A few well publicized cases is
probably all it would take to set a new tone.
Principle No. 2 - Allow more self-government at the local
level
There is too much concentration of political power in Monrovia.
In addition to ambassadors, ministers, heads of autonomous bureaux
and judges (and lesser officeholders, even though the Constitution
does not provide for that), the president also appoints the chief
executives of counties: county superintendents. This practice
gives the president enormous power. The downside is that authority
figures in local government do not feel answerable to their constituents,
only to the president. Local government is at the heart of democracy.
As the old saying goes, "all politics is local". We
need to arrive at a position where people can feel some ownership
over decisions which immediately impact their lives. If I am a
resident of Botota, Bong County, the national government in Monrovia
is too far removed from me to be entrusted with decisions that
immediately affect my community. I should have some say in the
deciding who will represent my interests---at the local level
as well as at the national level. To accomplish this, we need
a constitutional amendment to have county superintendents elected,
rather than appointed by the president.
There is presently no legislative process at the local level.
An elected superintendent should be answerable to some kind of
local assembly, with elected representation from the various elements
which make up the county body politic. This would serve several
useful purposes. First, it would prevent too much power becoming
concentrated in one set of hands. Secondly, it would provide a
forum for the various constituencies within the county to negotiate
priorities and determine the means to fund those priorities. Lastly,
it would serve as a training ground for local legislators with
aspirations to serve at the national level. As things stand right
now, people going into the Senate and House of Representatives
for the first time have little or no legislative experience. Is
it any wonder, then, that they don't know what to do other than
picket for their per diem allowances?
The devolution of power suggested in the preceding paragraphs
have other implications beyond shifting political power to the
counties. There are economic consequences as well. Much of the
central government's purchasing power is concentrated in Monrovia
because that is where all the revenue generation takes place.
Allowing local authorities the right to determine local priorities
will require providing those same local authorities with the means
to fund their priorities. In other words, Monrovia will have to
cede some of its taxing authority to local governments. There
are many potential candidates. Real estate taxes, vehicle registration
are ones that readily come to mind. Whatever the case, Monrovia
would negotiate with the counties where the lines of demarcation
of the fiscal boundaries should be. The win for local economies
is that along with local funding will come increased local purchasing
power, which means local economic development independent of decision-making
in Monrovia. A novel idea indeed! And its time has come.
Principle No. 3 - Require increased financial accountability
of those holding public office
Whatever those who hold office in Charles Taylor's Liberia
feel, the one thing they make no pretence of is any sense of accountability---not
to the consuming public for whom they are supposed to provide
services, not to the taxpayer whose exactions pay their salaries
and perks, not even to the constituents who nominally voted them
into office. The only person they feel accountable to is that
medieval, absolute ruler known as the president, who can, with
but a furrow on his brow, signal a swift cessation of the life-giving
flow of graft and corruption which sustains them in splendid opulence.
Fiscal discipline is not the hallmark of this Liberian president.
Charles Taylor follows in a well worn tradition of leaders who
have had singular difficulty balancing the nation's books. In
1926, Firestone, the company, was appointed receiver of the republic
because some American bankers were skittish about the capacity
of the Liberian government to properly service a loan it was contracting.
Some at least have tried; Taylor has made absolutely no effort.
Instead, he resorts to fanciful conspiracy theories to explain
his own inadequacies. That the country has only recently emerged
from a destructive civil war, which incidentally he launched,
is not disputed. But Liberia is not the first country in the history
of the world to have been visited by war and pestilence. Leadership
is not about making excuses. It is about taking the hand you have
been dealt with and making something of it. If he was not up to
the task, he, Taylor, should not have gone to the Liberian people
in July 1997 and sought their mandate to lead them in the rebuilding
their broken nation. The fact is the little that he has he has
lavished on mistresses, material accoutrements and other such
misplaced priorities, whilst the nation languishes.
The first step in creating an awareness of the need for public
accountability is to require public disclosure of government spending.
Next, there needs to be strong budgetary oversight by our elected
Legislature, involving negotiating, as an equal partner with the
Executive, the nation's economic and other priorities and holding
the Executive accountable for implementation of those priorities.
Finally, laws need to be enacted which distinguish between what
is allowable use of public funds and what should be considered
private expenditure. Such laws must apply to everyone holding
public office, starting with the president. The national treasury
should not continue to be viewed as a sort of presidential piggy
bank, with the president allowed to disburse public treasure on
private pursuits.
One cannot leave the issue of fiscal accountability without touching
on the issue of corruption. It is a pernicious canker ripping
at the heart of our public service which has for too long been
considered an unavoidable, indeed normal, function of public life.
Corruption distorts and destroys. It breeds cynicism and undermines
the faith of the people in their government and their public institutions.
It must be faced head on by our nation's next set of leaders.
And once again, the call is for presidential leadership. Just
as bad presidential example has spawned this disease. So too
will it take good presidential example to proffer a cure.
There needs to be clear guidelines provided as to what is acceptable
and unacceptable practices for those holding public office. There
needs to be a distinction between the pursuit of personal gain,
which is an entirely legitimate objective of life in the private
sector, and public service, which is about service, just that.
And people must be made to choose. While a minister of government
should not be expected to become a pauper as a consequence of
government service, by the same token he should not be allowed
to use the extraordinary power which public office confers to
enrich himself through bribery and extortion. And the only way
to bring this odious behaviour to an end is a stringent code of
conduct, enforced at all levels of the bureaucracy, consistently
and indiscriminately applied against those in high places as well
as those at the bottom of the totem pole. Again, the way forward
is to set a few well-publicised examples of offenders at the top.
The people further down the food chain will get the message and
fall in line.
Principle No. 4 - Vigorously uphold freedom of speech and
freedom of the press
No matter how well written laws are, no matter how well intentioned
we may be, the fact is we are still human. And it is a fact of
human life that power tends to corrupt. That is part of the human
condition. There is a natural human tendency to rationalise mistakes
and cover up failure. When that tendency is combined with a concentration
of power, you have a lethal concoction. Competition is one way
to keep power in check. That's why competitive, multi-party politics
is so important to the health of our society. And the spawning
of a democratic tradition cannot occur in the absence of vigorous
public debate on issues of public interest. The Press, the Fourth
Estate, has a very special role to play in this process. A free
press is the conscience of society. It's job is to question, to
educate and to bring into the shining light of public scrutiny
matters which people in authority might prefer, through fear or
embarrassment, to sweep under the rug.
Often we hear Liberian government officials bleating plaintively
about how they are not against freedom of speech or freedom of
the press. All they want is "responsible" journalism.
The obvious question is how does one define "responsible"
journalism and who should do the defining? In the mouths of government
officials, "responsible" journalism is code for journalism
that extols or praises. To proponents of this view, journalism
that is critical is "irresponsible" journalism, which
should be stamped out, crushed, not allowed to germinate, lest
the foibles and indiscretions of those in authority be brought
to the public's attention.
News organs should not be shut down or their personnel harassed
or incarcerated because of criticism of government officials,
even when such criticism is deemed to be unjustified. There are
civil remedies available through the courts for libel and slander.
Those who feel aggrieved should seek redress in that forum, not
set themselves up as judge and jury over their critics. A free
press is an invaluable asset to good governance. It is the torch
that brings abuses to light and forces accountability. It assists
in counteracting a natural human tendency to abuse power. And
those whose skins are so thin that they cannot take criticism
have no business in public service. For, even in the most enlightened
democracies, sometimes the press takes its liberties to the extreme,
invading the privacy of public servants. But such is the price
of freedom, and in a competitive environment where press power
is not concentrated in a few hands, the normal give-and-take of
commentary and repartee provides for everyone to be heard. The
salutary effects of a free press are well worth the cost of occasional
abuse.
Principle No. 5 - Promote free enterprise as the primary
engine of economic development
The principal obligation of a government is to produce healthy,
educated citizens and to provide a free and secure environment
in which each citizen can pursue happiness as he/she defines it.
Over the last 35-40 years, successive Liberian governments, like
many Second and Third World governments, have ventured beyond
these simple verities into the uncharted waters of trying to be
all things to all people. In the economic realm, some of these
governments have flirted with a strange and undefined ideology
quaintly referred to as "African socialism". And even
in societies anxious not to be tainted with that noxious connotation,
there has been adoption of its equally pernicious cousin: state
capitalism.
With the connivance or even encouragement of some of the world's
most pristine international financial institutions, such governments
have channeled large sums of money (a lot of it borrowed, for
which they are now seeking forgiveness) into establishing large
parastatal sectors. The results have been an unmitigated disaster.
In Liberia, we refer to these entities as "public corporations",
which is really a misnomer because public corporations they are
not. AT&T is a public corporation. It's stock is quoted on
a public exchange. You and I can buy the stock or sell it at our
leisure. The Liberia Telecommunications Corporation, by contrast,
is owned by the Liberian government. The only thing "public"
about it is that we, members of the tax-paying public, have to
suffer its poor service and are burdened with repaying its government-guaranteed
debt. Its stock is not quoted on any public exchange and we cannot
buy into it, even if we were foolish enough to want to do so.
These "public corporations" should be renamed forthwith
"government-owned corporations". That would more accurately
reflect their character. Call it to truth in advertising! But
the more important point is, the government has no business being
in the business of business. Doing so is a classic example of
the sin of "doing those things which it ought not to have
done". By their very nature governments are unsuited to operating
a business. They are slow, bureaucratic and decisions are often
the result of political compromise or expediency. Job selection
here tends to have less to do with talent than repaying political
favours. In the context of government decision-making, that may
be benign, but applying those same principles in a business environment
can be lethal, because in business speed of response, efficiency,
and job selection based on experience and competence can mean
the difference between success and bankruptcy. Governments don't
go into Chapter 11.
Any new administration will be faced with very limited resources.
Under these circumstances, resource allocation and setting the
right priorities will be critical to success. Rebuilding Liberia
will require the mobilization of enormous amounts of human and
financial capital. The government cannot, and should not even
try to, do it all. If it makes the attempt, it will fail. The
best approach for the government is to focus on the basics---the
physical infrastructure of roads, ports, electricity, water,
sanitation, telecommunications, together with health, education
and agriculture. In some of these areas, such as education and
health care, its role can be direct, i.e. to provide the needed
services itself. In other case, such as the provision of electricity,
water and telecommunications services, construction, its role
should be either to pay for the services or incent others---private
capital---to make the necessary investments.
What is proposed is nothing short of a radical departure from
the role of government as we have come to know it. Government
should form a truly meaningful partnership with the private sector,
with a natural division labour. The private sector should be the
primary engine of job growth and wealth creation. Government's
role, by contrast, should be that of an enabler, a regulator
(where that is appropriate) and a referee (promoting competition
so that the free market interaction of buyers and sellers determines
the proper allocation of resources and prices). Government's objective
should be to create a low-tax, minimally-regulated, uncommonly
business-friendly climate that will serve as a magnet for investment
capital, enabling Liberia to effectively compete for investment
dollars with any country on the African continent, yea in the
Third World. Its focus should be on creating a well trained, healthy
workforce so that when investors come ready to risk their capital,
the country has manpower with the requisite skills to fill the
jobs that will be created. And the infrastructure should function
flawlessly. When you flip the light switch, the lights should
come on, not some of the time, but all of the time. When you pick
up the phone, you should get dial tone, not some of the time,
but all of the time. If we follow this prescription, within 5
-10 years Liberia will become a booming mecca for business and
Liberians will be living well. We will look back on this period
of our history and wonder what all the fuss was about and why
it took our leaders so long to figure it out.