Contribution to Anti Corruption Commission Symposium:
Bribery in Sierra Leone – The Causes, Effects & Solutions in the Agenda for Prosperity.
Miatta Conference Centre, Freetown. 12 Sept 2013.
Presentation by Dr. Omodele R. N. Jones, Founding Promoter, TINC Sierra Leone
Six questions inform any effective planning process.
1. Where are we coming from?
2. Where are we now?
3. Where are we heading?
4. Why do we want to be?
5. By when do we want to be there?
6. How do we get there?
1. Where are we coming from?
“...here the black man rules. The municipality and many of the principal public offices are in his hands. He is represented in the Legislative Assembly....More ships call at Sierra Leone than any other West African port. Accessibility to the shore, facilities for coaling, and the possession of an excellent water supply give it this pre-eminence....There is no...extortionate charge. The black boys are all licensed, and the Government has fixed the charge at one shilling. Compare this with other ports on the Coast, at Accra [Ghana], for example, where it costs nearly ten shillings to land....The...population of the colony...[is] about 78,000, and that of the protectorate about 1,500,000.” Newland (1916: 10-13).
Bribery was clearly not a serious problem. There was a clear and respected order in society. This contrasts, starkly, with a report on SL commissioned by The Independent in 2007:
“...the Port of Freetown is Sierra Leone’s economic hub...War damage, neglect and a lack of investment - combined with poor management and plain theft - had given the port a reputation for being one of the most expensive and inefficient in West Africa. Impressed by the highly successful port operations in nearby Ghana, President Kabbah turned to his near neighbour for help. The task of overseeing Freetown’s improvement and expansion was subsequently given to Nestor Galley, the Director of Ghana’s Takoradi Port.” World Report International Ltd (2007, July 21: 3).
The process of transition from a disciplined society to disorder was possibly identified in 1968 by eminent national and international scholars (Fyfe & Jones, 1968: xii) who, after a symposium on the capital, Freetown, priescently noted that:
“...The warning was clearly given – planning imposed from above can only be effective if understood and accepted willingly by those whose lives are being planned. Otherwise it generates new and worse problems... Mr S. R. Dixon-Fyle put one unanswered question into clear focus...- how are society’s rules to be enforced in the absence of an accepted sanction?...what are the society’s rules?...the organised sanctions of the past have lost their hold. Neither the strict norms of old-fashioned Krio conduct, nor the cohesive traditional bonds of the tribal communities are any longer generally accepted. It is not clear what is replacing them...”
The National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2008-2012 reported that:
“Corruption has been an established disorder, cutting across all sectors of society. People of integrity fighting to revamp uprightness are often treated as societal deviants and subjected to mockery. In fact the saying, “this man nor cam for beteh ,” has often been used to cry down men of relative integrity in society”. Anti-Corruption Commission of Sierra Leone, 2007: 4.
and, in reporting the harmful effects on social values of widespread “non-exemplary behaviour and utterance of politicians”:
“Much would normally be expected from political figures in terms of exemplary progressive views and attitudes. However, in Sierra Leone, the word “politics” is associated with not telling the truth, dodging and making promises that do not get fulfilled. Our politicians are aware of this image but they are yet to demonstrate the examples as opinion leaders that can inspire optimum public confidence. The following are examples of utterances by some high level politicians over the years reflecting their views and attitudes which are blatant endorsements and legitimization of corruption in the country:
“Den say Bailor Barrie, you say Davidson Nicol ”
“Wusai den tie cow na dae ee dae eat”
“How you buy na so you dae sell”
“Chap you chap mek you fut coba””
Anti-Corruption Commission of Sierra Leone, 2007: 13.
A final extract makes a telling conclusion on the prevalent “collapse” of contemporary “moral values”:
"Sierra Leone is experiencing a rapid erosion of ethical values. There are hardly any morally sound examples in public life to emulate especially for the present generation of young people. Dishonesty, insincerity, un-fairness, disregard for the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would want them do unto you), grabbing public property, greed and cheating are common place. Such combination of vices constitutes a negative value system that generates general apathy and self-serving attitudes and breeds corruption".
Anti-Corruption Commission of Sierra Leone, 2007: 14.
This is the base from which, in 2007, President Koroma called for ABC – Attitudinal and Behavioural Change. The Transparency International Barometer indicates that we, as a society, have not been successful in making the change demanded by the President.
2. Where are we now?
Research (Jones, 2012) indicates that we have evolved a non-civil society. The dominant political, social and economic contract that binds us all together is indicative of a form of societal madness called “Societal Cynicism” which appears to tap a cultural syndrome associated with a general mistrust of social systems and other people.
At the individual level, Social Cynicism refers to:
“a negative view of human nature, a view that life produces unhappiness, that people exploit others, and a mistrust of social institutions” (Bond, Leung et al (2004a: 553)).
At the collective level, Societal Cynicism relates to:
“a lower emphasis on striving for high performance”, which is unsurprising “if there is a general suspicion of the social system and a general expectation of negative outcomes” (Bond, Leung et al (2004a: 559)).
The problem is that this is not something that can be tackled by targeting individuals. It is a social problem that is kept in place by mutually reinforcing negative expectations. If I choose not to take a bribe, I can expect someone else to demand it. It is likely that my colleagues will not condemn the bribe taker as we are all in it together. So, if I don’t take a bribe, I will lose out. But if we all take bribes and thereby fail to collect our taxes or fail to stop wrongdoers who damage our living habitat or fail to give good education because we sell fake exam results, we all lose in the long run. The civil war did not discriminate between rich and poor. All suffered.
A society with no moral limits on what it does for money cannot sustainably develop as it cannot set and enforce standards that are necessary for development. I am locked into what scientists call a multi-person prisoners’ dilemma, where the rational individual pursuit of self interest results in disaster for all.
The water supply crisis, poor sanitation, poor health services, disastrous educational outcomes, cataclysmic deforestation, bridge collapses, cholera epidemics, slum prevalence, youth unemployability etc can all be linked to our preference for short term money gain to the individual over long term national gain to everyone.
Google: “Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons” and look around you to seek it busily at work destroying the future of our mother Sierra Leone.
President Koroma has tried to bring ABC change, but there is no evidence of systemic, cultural change or improvement.
3. Where are we heading?
The stakes are getting bigger.
When we were desperately poor with few resources to export, a sort of bad equilibrium had settled. We were not getting anywhere, but we were not getting much worse either. Now, with China’s demand for our natural resources and the expectation of Oil, the resource available and the value of potential bribes is getting much bigger. The competition for access to these bribes will get fiercer. Ask the Kenyans, the Ivorians and the Zimbabweans! Julius Malema is just getting started in South Africa.
For all our sakes, and for the sakes of our children, we must put in place radically new systems - informed by solid research evidence - that will prevent the Fire that may Come.
4. Where do we want to be?
(a) We must not wait for international research to tell us how we are doing in making the change. We must develop and administer our own research instruments for scientifically measuring how well we are doing on our goals and related key performance indicators for breaking Societal Cynicism. As a minimum, we need to track measures of dishonesty and alienation (see Jones, 2012). We will then be able to take timely decisions to guide our strategy for culture change.
(b) We must decisively break the respect that bribery has acquired, starting from clear examples from the top of our society. Transparency in everything must be respected – from mining contracts to the basis for court judgements. A serious Freedom of Information Bill and judiciary accountability must be at the heart of that transparency. Siaka Stevens Street must be renamed to remove the undue respect accorded to one of the most morally destructive leaders that Sierra Leone has had.
(c) The Audit Service of Sierra Leone, the Government Internal Audit, the ACC, the NPPA and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sierra Leone (the 5 Fingers of Accountability) must be fully funded to provide robust and timely checks on all public accounts and on the procurement and implementation of contracts. The resources allocated should be budgeted on a multi-year (at least 5 year) basis and funding must be at least quadrupled (increased four-fold). A smartly designed and robustly funded Five Fingers will pay for themselves multiple times through the money saved by curbing bribery and wastage of national resources. This is not rocket science. It can be done if we take our national development seriously.
(d) The judicial assumption of innocence until proven guilty must be changed to that of guilty until you prove your innocence, for economic and social crimes that perpetuate Societal Cynicism. Public servants and private persons must be randomly selected by the Five Fingers and Professional Institutions (see below) for audit and investigation and they must be able to prove that their sources of wealth are legally obtained – otherwise the unexplained element must be seized by the State.
(e) Professional Institutions – lawyers, engineers, doctors, procurement specialists, nurses etc - must be fully funded and appropriately structured to transparently set and control standards of conduct by their members. Professional regulation must be backed up by legislation that makes it an economic crime for a professional or trade institution or its members to act in a manner that leads to loss of resources by the public purse. They will be the first level of accountability police with the ACC and ASSL being a second level.
(f) Political parties must be required to transparently account for the sources and application of their funding in accordance with internationally accepted accounting and auditing standards. Funding from foreign sources and/or foreign citizens must be banned to deter State Capture.
(g) The unprincipled competition for state resources by our various nations and ethnicities must be prevented by the serious devolution of power to the regions, with the central government being weaker than the regions. Taxes must be raised by the regions and a minority of the collection sent to the central government for common services. True accountability and strong institutions have cultural roots. That is why Britain does not need a written constitution. In a multi-cultural society, power must be focussed within the culturally homogenous regions, within which accountable institutions can take their roots. The failure to develop a common culture of accountability was spotted by Dixon-Fyle in 1968. Forty years later, it is much worse. No amount of trying to fix our over-centralised power structure which promotes bad moral values in a state of nations can work.
We are not One Country and One People. We are One Country with Several Nations with often conflicting values and priorities. Badly managed, we end up with Societal Cynicism.
5. By when do we want to be there?
These reforms must be in place by 2017 in time for the next elections and the oil and mining windfall to be successfully managed. Failing which, it will be business as usual.
6. How do we get there?
The will to change must come from all of us.
I am not optimistic. But I am convinced that Sierra Leone has the seeds of greatness locked deep within us, if only we get our governance structures and our economic and social relations to fit our realities. We were once famously great. We can be great again, leading the African Renaissance, if we look beyond our foolish, short-sighted, interests and embrace our reciprocal responsibility to our fellow citizens and to future generations. We will all be better off in a well run Sierra Leone.
President Koroma made the clarion call in 2007; and did so again in 2012 when he called for constitutional reform to deal with the challenges of ethnic division. He has correctly identified the problem and the solution. We must all support him to develop the Devolution, Accountability, Integrity and National Pride Agenda (DAINPA) that must be the foundation of the Agenda for Prosperity
.
Without DAINPA, the Agenda for Prosperity will remain a mirage.
Omodele R.N. Jones
Freetown, Province of Freedom
Sierra Leone
www.tincsalone.weebly.com
Sunday, 15 September 2013
Saturday, 13 July 2013
What would a Confederal Sierra Leone look like? (updated 27 July 2013)
In December
2012, President Koroma called for a Constitutional review that would overcome “the
challenges of ethnic divide in the political life of the country”.
100 years ago, the Englishman H.O. Newlands observed the following:
In today’s world, there is no longer any place for imperial rule. Evidently, the problems of Sierra Leone in the last 52 years - which led to President Koroma’s clarion call for Attitudinal & Behavioural Change in 2007 and to his desire for a constitutional review to reduce ethnic tensions – have deep historical roots.
They are not unique to Sierra Leone and have been conclusively shown by scientific research to be a feature of multi-ethnic societies worldwide. They cannot be solved, sustainably, within a Unitary State with centralised power. In the absence of a dominant power/culture to act as accepted mediator – as with the British during imperialism - ethnic tension can only be solved by devolution of power through confederalism.
150 years ago, Sierra Leone was a collection of self-governing communities, with similarities to Confederalism. The Unitary State is an alien import of Imperialism that creates instability and divisive resource conflict.
The Belgians, Swiss and the UAE have made it work. Countless African conflicts, including our own civil war, show that the Unitary State does not work for us. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union collapsed due to over-centralisation of power in multi-ethnic States. We must seek Unity in Diversity. Sierra Leone has a historic opportunity to learn from our mistakes and those of others and lead the 21st Century African Renaissance.
The Inclusive National Conversation wants Sierra Leoneans to have a Referendum Choice between adjusting the existing Winner Takes All Politics or switching to a Confederal Economy.
TINC believes that the international research evidence clearly shows that the minimisation of harmful ethnic competition for state resources, in the Sierra Leone context, requires a Confederal Solution. The existing Unitary State serves to accentuate conflict through a winner-takes-all mechanism and is, thus, a key part of the development problems that have beset Sierra Leone.
Confederalism would deliver relatively homogenous jurisdictions in which the nations of Sierra Leone would be free to autonomously develop their unique cultural and economic potentials whilst still coming together, where necessary, for socio-economic investments that serve the common good.
The key features of a Confederal Sierra Leone are outlined below:
Revenue - Taxation & Re-distribution
Parliament & the Executive
The Law
Judiciary & Accountability
Evenly spread development
Building Human Capacity
Security
For more, join our Facebook group: The Inclusive National Conversation.
Download the research evidence base for TINC from:
Visit our website:
www.tincsalone.weebly.com
100 years ago, the Englishman H.O. Newlands observed the following:
“…I believe very strongly in British supremacy in
this part of the globe. West Africa must be worked by the African, but guided
and ruled by the European. There are too many differences between the various tribes,
in customs, traditions, beliefs, habits, and ideas for any one tribe to accept
the sovereignty of another, or to form – at any rate for many centuries – a
homogeneous self-governing community. In Sierra Leone, for example, the Temne
would not recognize the rule of the Mendi or the Susu, still less would any of
the three acknowledge the authority of the Creole”.
HO Newlands, “Sierra Leone: Its People, Products
and Secret Societies” 1916. Reprinted by BiblioBazaar
In today’s world, there is no longer any place for imperial rule. Evidently, the problems of Sierra Leone in the last 52 years - which led to President Koroma’s clarion call for Attitudinal & Behavioural Change in 2007 and to his desire for a constitutional review to reduce ethnic tensions – have deep historical roots.
They are not unique to Sierra Leone and have been conclusively shown by scientific research to be a feature of multi-ethnic societies worldwide. They cannot be solved, sustainably, within a Unitary State with centralised power. In the absence of a dominant power/culture to act as accepted mediator – as with the British during imperialism - ethnic tension can only be solved by devolution of power through confederalism.
150 years ago, Sierra Leone was a collection of self-governing communities, with similarities to Confederalism. The Unitary State is an alien import of Imperialism that creates instability and divisive resource conflict.
The Belgians, Swiss and the UAE have made it work. Countless African conflicts, including our own civil war, show that the Unitary State does not work for us. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union collapsed due to over-centralisation of power in multi-ethnic States. We must seek Unity in Diversity. Sierra Leone has a historic opportunity to learn from our mistakes and those of others and lead the 21st Century African Renaissance.
The Inclusive National Conversation wants Sierra Leoneans to have a Referendum Choice between adjusting the existing Winner Takes All Politics or switching to a Confederal Economy.
TINC believes that the international research evidence clearly shows that the minimisation of harmful ethnic competition for state resources, in the Sierra Leone context, requires a Confederal Solution. The existing Unitary State serves to accentuate conflict through a winner-takes-all mechanism and is, thus, a key part of the development problems that have beset Sierra Leone.
Confederalism would deliver relatively homogenous jurisdictions in which the nations of Sierra Leone would be free to autonomously develop their unique cultural and economic potentials whilst still coming together, where necessary, for socio-economic investments that serve the common good.
The key features of a Confederal Sierra Leone are outlined below:
Revenue - Taxation & Re-distribution
- Only Districts will raise taxes; keeping two-thirds to develop their own areas. They can lend to other Districts. The National Revenue Authority (NRA) will move to the Districts before the 2017 elections i.e. there will be District -controlled Revenue Authorities (DRAs).
- A proportion of the mandatory District remittances to the Confederal level will be utilised to finance a Confederal Development Bank from which weaker Districts can compete, on merit, for financing of development infrastructures. It will also finance inter-district infrastructures on which the affected Districts agree. Districts can also enter into direct bilateral or multilateral investment schemes on mutually agreed terms.
- Only District Assemblies will have universal suffrage elections. Voting will be open to residents who have been located in the District for at least 67% of the time since the last election. Residents who do not meet this criterion will be able to vote in the District in which they last exercised a vote.
- Parliament will come from the District Assemblies acting as electoral colleges i.e.the MDAs (Member of District Assembly) will elect among their number to represent them at the Confederal level. Cabinet and the President will come from the Confederal Parliament acting as an electoral college. In this way, we will not need Aid to run elections - thus avoiding the routine humiliation of having to beg for international aid to finance our current -unaffordable and conflict prone - system of multi-tier elections. A country that cannot afford to finance its own governance mechanism cannot claim dignity or sovereignty.
- Power will be concentrated in the District Governors i.e. 19 political leaders with local accountabilities instead of 1 remote leader in Freetown. Elections will be free from tension as district populations will be relatively homogenous and malign cross ethnic competition for resources will be minimised . Free from distracting ethnic competition for state resources, Development will be Number 1.
- “Basic” laws, including Freedom of Information, will apply to all and cannot be amended by District Assemblies. They will be passed by the Confederal Parliament and may be policed by a Constitutional Court.
- Accountability will be independent of Districts; including a State Audit Service; the Appeal and higher Courts, Confederal Police, Anti-Corruption. High Courts and below will be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Districts.
- There will be 19 Freetowns country-wide i.e. each district will have an incentive to develop socio-economic infrastructure in its district capital. The socially and environmentally crushing overpopulation and the over-centralisation of development in Freetown will be relieved.
- Confederalism will accelerate the building of human capacity in historically disadvantaged Districts. They will rely, in the short term, on human technical assistance from other Districts and from outside the country. In the medium to long term, they will invest to build their local human capacity to administer their affairs.
- District police will not have guns. They will rely on Confederal forces for non-routine security.
- School
leavers will serve compulsory Confederal military service. It will be a meeting
place for our diverse nations. It will instill discipline, honesty and
patriotism among youths and develop vocational job skills.
For more, join our Facebook group: The Inclusive National Conversation.
Download the research evidence base for TINC from:
Visit our website:
www.tincsalone.weebly.com
Thursday, 11 July 2013
Open Letter - Why was The Inclusive National Conversation (TINC) Sierra Leone established?
Dear Reader,
Introducing: The Inclusive National Conversation (TINC)
for Constitutional,
Economic & Cultural Competitiveness
To examine this matter in adequate depth, I enrolled for relevant
DBA research at Heriot-Watt University, which was satisfactorily concluded last
year. In examining the African situation, I found myself developing a
potentially paradigm-shifting economic sociology of national competitiveness
which has wider implications, including for the derivation of the global
financial crisis and its implications for the international accounting and
auditing professions.
On the national level, the research came to an interesting
conclusion. The primary development
challenge facing Africa and Sierra Leone in particular is a mismatch between
the dominant Unitary State governance model and the underlying multi-ethnic
diversities of most African countries. The literature clearly indicates that
diversity is correlated with development challenges – you will have observed
the perennial struggles of Europe’s diverse Balkans. Diversity increases the
risk of dissonances in group values and social axioms. This can undermine the Social Trust that is critical
to ensuring adequate levels of investments in public goods that are the
foundation of economic competitiveness. Interestingly,
the literature suggests that doing nothing is not an option. As the Swiss
found to their reward, you have to take firm and reasoned action to mitigate
the inevitable frictions that arise in a diverse society.
The Unitary model in Africa fails to deliver such essential
society-building services. By offering “winner-takes-all” rewards
in diverse societies, it accentuates social frictions. Even where some
countries may have attained economic gains through the suppressive actions of a
strongman, these gains prove fleeting as they simply dam up the social
frictions. When the dam inevitably bursts: as with Cote D’Ivoire after H-Boigny,
Yugoslavia after Tito and more recently in Kenya, Libya & Syria, the gains
risk being lost.
The research suggests that Sierra Leone, a polarised
collective of minority ethnicities, suffers from the Societal Cynicism dimension, identified in Leung’s 2002 studies of social
axioms. This confirms the validity of President
Koroma’s focus on Attitudinal Change.
Societal Cynicism is linked to low interpersonal trust, weaker cooperation, lower performance and lower productivity. It is associated
with a general mistrust of social systems and other people. At the individual level, Social Cynicism refers to “a negative view of human nature, a view
that life produces unhappiness, that people exploit others, and a mistrust of
social institutions”. At the collective level, Societal Cynicism relates to “a lower emphasis on striving for high
performance”, which is unsurprising “if there is a general suspicion of the
social system and a general expectation of negative outcomes”. If unresolved, Societal Cynicism guarantees
perpetual under-development. Crucially, the research indicates that
Societal Cynicism is a symptom and not an originating cause
of our under-development i.e. it may be a product of the over-centralised
Unitary structure imposed on a polarised collective of minority
ethnicities.
In other words, for Sierra
Leone’s context and history, Attitudinal Change cannot be effectively tackled
within the Unitary State.
The evidence appears clear. In the absence of a dominant cultural
group that can be freely accepted as the cultural leader of the country (as
with the WASPs in the USA until recently), a diverse society must deploy a
confederal constitution for sustainable progress. This is more than
decentralisation. In the Sierra Leone context, a critical-success-factor is
that tax raising powers must lie with the districts, who then remit an
appropriate, minority, proportion of revenues to the centre. This is the
opposite of the Unitary model. Even where it seeks to deploy decentralisation,
the Unitary State tends to generate discord. The objective of confederation is
to remedy Societal Cynicism through a political economy that builds Social
Trust by minimising opportunities for malign ethnic competition for scarce
resources.
TINC has emerged to advocate for Confederalism to be one of the
two constitutional options to be available to the people of Sierra Leone at the
Referendum that is being planned by the Government of Sierra Leone. I have been
gratified by the widespread interest in the concept since I commenced
dissemination of this aspect of my research findings in December 2012.
You may wish to download a copy of the research evidence basis of
TINC for your Library from:
I look forward to your robust participation in this National
Conversation that will determine the path of our beloved country for
generations to come, likely beyond our remaining lifetimes.
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Press Release from the Campaign for Good Governance & TINC Sierra Leone
The Inclusive National Conversation (TINC)
and the Campaign for Good Governance (CGG) announce their partnership to
support Sierra Leoneans in making informed choices as we undertake a constitutional
review process.
The Government of Sierra Leone intends to
hold a Referendum for the people of Sierra Leone to decide on a new
Constitution. President Koroma called
in December 2012, for a Constitution that overcomes “the challenges of ethnic divide in the political life of the country”.
TINC wants Sierra Leoneans to be given two Constitutions to choose
from at the Referendum i.e. a reviewed Unitary Constitution and an alternative
Confederal Constitution. TINC exists to
advance the case for Confederalism. The procedures of the Constitution Reform
Commission should follow best international practices for transparent,
effective and efficient consultation on both constitutions.
CGG exists to increase citizen participation in governance through
advocacy, capacity building and civic education in order to build a more
informed civil populace and a democratic state. CGG is convinced that the case
for a Referendum Choice between a Confederation and a revised Unitary
Constitution is strong. CGG intends to actively support the process of
information, education and communication of the merits and demerits of a
Confederation relative to the existing Unitary constitution to the Government,
Parliament, Judiciary, any Constitutional Reform Commission and the general
citizenry of Sierra Leone.
CGG and TINC share a Common Interest in the advocacy for Sierra
Leoneans to have an informed Referendum Choice, between adjusting the existing
Unitary Constitution or switching to a Confederal Constitution at the 2017 elections.
Under the agreement, CGG will be
responsible for managing the finances and the activities of their joint
programme which will seek to inform decision makers and the general public
about the objective evidence in favour of retaining the existing Unitary
constitution and the evidence that supports a change to a Confederation.
Dr Omodele Jones, Founding Promoter of
TINC, expresses his satisfaction that CGG, a highly reputable governance
advocate, will be working to communicate both sides of the argument for the
existing style of Constitution and for a Confederation. “It is important that our people understand the choice that is
available to them, which will affect the lives of generations to come”, he
concluded.
Valnora Edwin, National Coordinator of
CGG, asserts that her organisations’ interest is in having our people hear the
case for both systems, without bias or prejudice “to enable us all make informed choices as to the best workable system
that would support the nation into becoming a middle income economy”.
Joe Abass Bangura,
Co-Promoter of TINC, expresses his confidence that the partnership will serve
the national interest of our country.
Released
28 June 2013
End
of Document.
“MY Rights” versus “OUR Rights” – when individual rights can result in national poverty (Transcript of Speech: Sierra Leone Grammar School Foundation Day. 25 March 2013)
MY Rights” versus “OUR Rights” –
when individual rights can result in national poverty
|
Transcript
of Speech: SLGS Foundation Day. 25 March 2013
Dr. Omodele Jones (DBA, National
Competitive Strategy, Heriot-Watt), FCA(SL). Class of 1979
|
 |
1. What is this boring sounding speech about?
I have mixed
feelings.
I am
intensely proud that you chose to attend The Grammar School and will benefit
from one of the few remaining citadels of a quality education in Sierra Leone.
Forty years ago, I fulfilled our family tradition and experienced my first
Foundation Day in the first secondary school in Africa.
At the same
time, I am deeply saddened that our beloved school has become such an island in
a national sea of underachievement and failure. You cannot hope to evade the
consequences of the poor education that is being inflicted on your brothers and
sisters who have had to endure the misfortune of the collapse of quality in the
Sierra Leonean educational system. In this way, my generation has failed you.
Our failure has been a dereliction of DUTY.
Today, I
wish to discuss the idea of DUTY and how it can help you, when you get to
address Foundation Day forty years from now, to avoid the sadness that I feel
today. If you apply these principles in your lives, I will be singing your
praises from whatever position I find myself – probably in the next world - in
forty years time! More importantly, your children, all the children of Sierra
Leone, will be singing your praises.
2. Why should you care?
You are receiving a quality
education that will see you survive anywhere in the world. So, why should you
care about those, the vast majority, who do not receive a quality education?
The simple answer is that
it is your duty to think about the people with whom you must share your
country. It is in your enlightened self interest so to do. I will explain.
Almost one hundred years
ago, an Englishman named Newland visited Sierra Leone. He spent some time
touring our country and wrote a book about his travels entitled “Sierra Leone:
Its People, Products and Secret Societies”. This was published in 1916. He
spoke glowingly of having met very cultured Africans, including one who had
studied Law, medicine and philosophy in London after a preliminary education at
FBC. He noted that the city was blessed with a water supply that is exceptional
in West Africa. He observed that the forests on the hillsides were essential to
the maintenance of that water supply; and commended the government and people
of the day for ensuring that the forested hillsides were sustained. People had
learnt to look beyond their own narrow self interest and recognised that if one
of them took to cutting down the mountain forests, others would follow suit. If
all others followed suit, the forests would be destroyed. If the mountain
forests were destroyed, the water supply would be seriously damaged. People,
then, had learnt that the relentless pursuit of what is right for the
individual, if copied by all, would
result in disaster for all.
Fast forward 100 years.
Look around you. The Mountain Forests have gone. What little is left will be
gone within five years. The Government, once knowledgeable and wise, has been
wantonly allocating the lands on the hillsides for settlements, either as slums
or as luxury residences. We have a water supply crisis in our land. Everyone
will be the loser in this game. You included. Me, as well. Scientists call this
a Prisoners’ Dilemma i.e. when the relentless pursuit of individual self
interest results in disaster for all. The lack of clean drinking water is also
a health risk, linked to cholera. Last year, you were all scared by the
outbreak of cholera. It did not just affect the people who did not attend the
Grammar School. It affected us all. We
all had to take extra care not to be infected by the crisis of insanitary
living in our capital city and countrywide.
You have to care. You have
a duty to care if your brothers and sisters do not receive a quality education.
The consequences of our forefathers’ not caring enough is that many of the
advances that were once recorded in our beloved country have been lost. Today,
as we face the stark reality of a country that is less developed in 2013 than
it was in 1961, we realise that we have to care about what happens to those who
are less fortunate than us. We have to live together. If too many lose out from
a quality education, we will all suffer the consequences. We have a duty to
care about others and to consider whether your instinct for self gratification
“go bon good pikin” if everyone
copies you.
The historian AP Kup noted
that, in the late 19th Century, in almost every walk of life, we had
trained and qualified Africans. Our People. He noted that the English Governor,
in 1872, considered that the two most intelligent men, in what was then the
Parliament, were African. So was the best scholar on the West Coast. As were
the most intelligent priests and the best clerks in the civil service. He
observed that the local newspapers compared very favourably with British
newspapers of the day. Indeed, Kup declared, “their world news coverage was
often better” than that of British papers of the time. Many of these people
were educated at the Grammar School. This was Sierra Leone in the late 19th
Century, well over one hundred years ago. The envy of West Africa.
Those days are long gone.
Something has gone dreadfully wrong. On all of the areas noted above, we have
deteriorated to an alarming extent. Far from being the envy of West Africa, we
are now often embarrassed when people, who are conversant with our history and
heritage, visit our country and ask “what happened?”.
Somewhere along the last
one hundred years, we changed from an “US” society, where enlightened citizens
and an equally enlightened government knew that there are certain common
interests that can never be subjugated to selfish individual interests. We are
now a “ME” society that considers that what is right for the individual is
right for everyone.
So, the right of the
wealthy man to build on Mount Sugarloaf is being championed above the
collective right to a decent water supply for all. The right of the individual
to dump his waste, uncontrolled, in the many streams and rivers of the city is
championed above our collective interest in avoiding the contamination of our
water supply which threatens the health of all of us. The individual rights of
children are being championed above the society’s right to expect YOU to grow
up into disciplined citizens who will contribute to the development of our
country.
Why does YOUR RIGHT stop
and why does OUR RIGHT begin? My generation has answered this very badly. We
have elevated hedonism i.e. the
relentless pursuit of individual pleasure at all costs. We have elevated dishonesty – where we tell lies to
achieve our (often monetary) ends.
We have championed the cynical exploitation
of our positions in companies and in public offices to satisfy our individual
ends. “Oosy den tie cow…”. We have seldom stopped to ask one simple
question: If everyone copies what I am doing “EE GO BON GOOD PIKIN?”.
The simple answer is NO. “EE NOR GO BON GOOD PIKIN”. We will, all
of us, suffer the consequences when the majority of our brethren practice
behaviours that destroy our prospects for work and a decent life.
3. So, what can be done?
You have been fortunate to
enter one of the few remaining citadels of a quality education in Sierra Leone.
You have a DUTY to yourself and to your children, once you leave this esteemed
institution to learn from my mistakes and that of my generation. We, adults,
must now commence a NATIONAL CONVERSATION that will pave the way for you to
avoid our disastrous errors. You have heard of the famous TV programme, “Life By Design”. Well, I call this
National Conversation “NATION BY DESIGN”.
The prosperous countries of
this world, where many of my generation have run away to live – and where many
of you probably aspire to live - achieved their success based on virtues that
strike a right balance between “ME” rights and “OUR” rights. We who remain in
this country seem to think that we can invent a new way to national prosperity
– based purely on selfishness, laziness, greed and hedonism. I am sorry. It has
never been done before and we will not be the first to do it.
You must GO BACK TO GO TO
THE FUTURE. You must relearn our forefathers’ virtues of service to others above self. To relearn their virtues of social discipline and self sacrifice in
your interests and in the interests of others. To relearn their virtues of a content spirit that is satisfied with
what it can earn honestly and does
not spend its time envying the next man’s possessions. “Thou shalt not covet” is one of the most practically important of
the ten Christian commandments. Above all, you must learn to take pride in your
country, OUR COUNTRY i.e. to nurture
its natural beauty and live your life in a way that makes foreigners respect
the fact that you are a Sierra Leonean.
Just think. If you do this,
and everyone copies you! Before you know it, Sierra Leone will be a first world
country.
End
of speech.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
What do Rioting English Youth, Bankers and Journalists have in Common?
A failure to distinguish between right and wrong, otherwise known as amorality.
England, in recent days, has experienced wanton looting and vandalism from significant proportions of its youth. Rebels without a cause, they revel in the opportunity to disrupt the lives of others and to acquire ill-gotten gains. But that's the point. They do not see these gains as "ill-gotten", for they do not see right or wrong, only opportunity.
In this regard, they are no different from the recklessness of the bankers who generated the global financial crisis that continues to this day; nor from the transgressions of the UK press who gained illegal access to private phone calls in order to sell newspapers and make a profit. That is because much of the Anglo-Saxon world is dealing with a systemic cultural crisis of values i.e. two to three generations who have grown up with no moral compass. A human tsunami, overwhelming all that lies in its path.
Why does this matter? Well, evidence suggests that it matters greatly for the long run economic competitive advantage of countries. Simply put, pervasive amorality means that the average businessman or woman is (relative to his counterpart in a society with business-friendly moral codes) less certain about whether his business partner will fulfil his side of the deal. The relative risk of doing business grows with this increasing uncertainty, which - if untreated - can spin, exponentially, out of control. Ernst Fehr and Jean-Robert Tyran showed, in 2005, how a few irrational crazies can damage the economy for us all.
All other things being constant, the volume of business being done in the amoral society drops, relative to that being done in the country with business-friendly morals. A vicious cycle of falling confidence, lower economic activity, increasingly desperate opportunism, greater falls in confidence etc etc can be set in motion. The late Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) complained endlessly about the false distance between sociology and economics, effectively noting that "social exchange" and "economic exchange" were Siamese twins sharing a single heart. The Anglo-Saxon world gave him short shrift.
The fact that there is less real wealth being produced in the amoral society can be hidden for a while, as we learnt during the heady days of the technology sector boom - when obvious flaws were swept aside by insane talk of a "new economics"; and when even the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve was blithely ignored when he warned of "irrational exhuberance" in the financial sector. In those days, people ignored the implications of the much talked about distinction between the "real economy" and stock market valuations.
In the end, as all well trained accountants know, substance must prevail over form. That future is well and truly here and now.
In recent decades, Sierra Leone has experienced what must be close to a worst case scenario of the ill-effects of pervasive amorality on the economy and society. As our society begins the hard task of pulling ourselves out of the mess, world events since 2008 have clearly shown that no country - no matter how powerful today - can afford to be complacent about their socio-economic distance from Sierra Leone.
The tough message, from recent research carried out in Sierra Leone by this writer, is that correcting cultural lapses is a long haul project for which there is no quick fix. Thankfully, there are tools, techniques and experiences available for a road map. Ironically, one of the best reviews of such tools and experiences was compiled by the British Prime Ministers' Strategy Unit in early 2008! It was an answer looking for a question. It need look no longer.
Culture is a powerful driver of long term economic competitiveness and relative national prosperity. Poorly managed, it can act like a neutron bomb, leaving familiar structures intact, whilst wiping out the vital life forces of a sound economy. Discipline and morality - the eternally double-edged sword - are not just issues for the pulpit. Their effects are ultimately felt in the boardrooms, on the editors' desks and, as England has painfully discovered, on the burning streets.
England, in recent days, has experienced wanton looting and vandalism from significant proportions of its youth. Rebels without a cause, they revel in the opportunity to disrupt the lives of others and to acquire ill-gotten gains. But that's the point. They do not see these gains as "ill-gotten", for they do not see right or wrong, only opportunity.
In this regard, they are no different from the recklessness of the bankers who generated the global financial crisis that continues to this day; nor from the transgressions of the UK press who gained illegal access to private phone calls in order to sell newspapers and make a profit. That is because much of the Anglo-Saxon world is dealing with a systemic cultural crisis of values i.e. two to three generations who have grown up with no moral compass. A human tsunami, overwhelming all that lies in its path.
Why does this matter? Well, evidence suggests that it matters greatly for the long run economic competitive advantage of countries. Simply put, pervasive amorality means that the average businessman or woman is (relative to his counterpart in a society with business-friendly moral codes) less certain about whether his business partner will fulfil his side of the deal. The relative risk of doing business grows with this increasing uncertainty, which - if untreated - can spin, exponentially, out of control. Ernst Fehr and Jean-Robert Tyran showed, in 2005, how a few irrational crazies can damage the economy for us all.
All other things being constant, the volume of business being done in the amoral society drops, relative to that being done in the country with business-friendly morals. A vicious cycle of falling confidence, lower economic activity, increasingly desperate opportunism, greater falls in confidence etc etc can be set in motion. The late Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) complained endlessly about the false distance between sociology and economics, effectively noting that "social exchange" and "economic exchange" were Siamese twins sharing a single heart. The Anglo-Saxon world gave him short shrift.
The fact that there is less real wealth being produced in the amoral society can be hidden for a while, as we learnt during the heady days of the technology sector boom - when obvious flaws were swept aside by insane talk of a "new economics"; and when even the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve was blithely ignored when he warned of "irrational exhuberance" in the financial sector. In those days, people ignored the implications of the much talked about distinction between the "real economy" and stock market valuations.
In the end, as all well trained accountants know, substance must prevail over form. That future is well and truly here and now.
In recent decades, Sierra Leone has experienced what must be close to a worst case scenario of the ill-effects of pervasive amorality on the economy and society. As our society begins the hard task of pulling ourselves out of the mess, world events since 2008 have clearly shown that no country - no matter how powerful today - can afford to be complacent about their socio-economic distance from Sierra Leone.
The tough message, from recent research carried out in Sierra Leone by this writer, is that correcting cultural lapses is a long haul project for which there is no quick fix. Thankfully, there are tools, techniques and experiences available for a road map. Ironically, one of the best reviews of such tools and experiences was compiled by the British Prime Ministers' Strategy Unit in early 2008! It was an answer looking for a question. It need look no longer.
Culture is a powerful driver of long term economic competitiveness and relative national prosperity. Poorly managed, it can act like a neutron bomb, leaving familiar structures intact, whilst wiping out the vital life forces of a sound economy. Discipline and morality - the eternally double-edged sword - are not just issues for the pulpit. Their effects are ultimately felt in the boardrooms, on the editors' desks and, as England has painfully discovered, on the burning streets.
Sunday, 31 July 2011
America’s Debt Ceiling Crisis & the emergence of Virtual Ethnic Groups
The Editor
The Economist NewspaperLondon
31 July 2011
The evidence is clear. Typically, multi-ethnic societies are at a competitive disadvantage relative to their homogeneous peers. Diversity can result in malign ethnic competition for control of state power and resources. Ethnicities may seek their interests in a manner that results in adverse social and economic outcomes for the State as a whole; leading to multi-person prisoners’ dilemmas as described by Robert J. Aumman (cited by Vivian Walsh in 1994):
“The universal fascination... is due to its representing, in very stark and transparent form, the bitter fact that when individuals act for their own benefit, the result may well be disaster for all.”
In 2005, Alberto Alesina and Eliana La Ferrara indicated how this can happen. First, individuals may attribute positive utility to the well being of members of their group and negative utility to that of members of other groups. Second, it may be more efficient for individuals to “transact preferentially with members of one’s own type…”. Third, diversity can impact on the “production function” e.g. through an inability to agree on common public goods and public policies. Fourth, whilst the production of pure public goods may be lower in a fragmented society, the public provision of private goods (PPPG) – targeted to benefit specific individuals and groups – may be higher.
Martti Siisiäinen, writing in 2000, hinted at the solution i.e. a multi-ethnic social contract:
“Well-functioning modern societies have to have a value basis that is based on the voluntary regulation of social relations between persons who are foreigners to each other”.
Failing such societal trust, they risk the creation of vicious cycles featuring:
“…distrust, breaking of the norms of reciprocity, avoiding one's duties, isolation, disorder and stagnation. The result is the development of a “non-civic community” ”.
We have long struggled with these challenges in multi-ethnic Sierra Leone. America, diverse from its foundations, had an effective social contract founded on the experience that the historically dominant WASP culture would serve the economic well-being of all groups.
In recent decades, and sharply since 2000, that societal trust has been eroded. We have seen astonishing levels of PPPG in cleverly legal disguises; contributing to the financial crisis of 2008 et seq. Now, America is characterised by virtual ethnic groups (tea party vs liberals, pro-lifers vs pro-choicers etc) who define themselves by their implacable distrust of other groups. The sense of common purpose has vanished. The debacle over the raising of the debt ceiling, no matter how it is resolved, is unlikely to be the last symptom of the decline of Pax Americana.
Yours faithfully,
Omodele R. N. Jones
CEO, FJP Development & Management ConsultantsFreetown, Sierra Leone.
Note: WASP – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)