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:

“…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 21^st 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.

 

Parliament & the Executive

• 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.

 

•  A National Planning Ministry will help the preparation of District and Confederal Development Plans - a form of technical assistance for weaker Districts. Implementation will be evaluated by a Confederal Research Ministry.

 

The Law

• “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.

 

• “Framework” laws, including Existing pre-2017 Laws, will NOT be binding on District Assemblies but can be adapted as District Law. Passed by the Confederal Parliament, they will effectively provide recommendations of best legal practice for District Assemblies to consider. They will be a form of technical assistance for the weaker District Assemblies but can be amended or improved upon by the stronger District Assemblies.

 

Judiciary & Accountability

• 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.

 

Evenly spread development

• 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.

 

 Building Human Capacity

• 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. 

 

Security

• 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:

 

http://hdl.handle.net/10399/2565

 
Visit our website:

www.tincsalone.weebly.com

 

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

 

Greetings. At FJP, we take our social responsibility particularly seriously. Over a long period of time, and increasingly in the last decade and a half, we have been perturbed by the persistent lack of competitiveness in Africa as a whole and Sierra Leone in particular. We have sought, in our client and voluntary work, to contribute to strategies, systems, policies and actions that may result in sustainable improvements in development outcomes. We have not been satisfied with the observed results.

 

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:

 

http://hdl.handle.net/10399/2565

 

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.

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 19^th 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 19^th 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.