2005: Quick Elections or Credible Elections?
By  J. Yanqui Zaza

14 May 04

As 2005 draws nearer, reports of alliances amongst various parties in the current regime are emerging. The simple objective is a coalition of the old wine in new bottles in 2005. The schemes have begun, raising the question of how credible the elections will be and whether they are the final solution to the political crisis.

Some democratic enthusiasts at home and elsewhere say warring factions, in an unholy alliance with key members of the interim government would sweep elections in 2005 as the National Patriotic Party did in the 1997 elections, if peacekeepers do not simultaneously disarm and demobilize child soldiers. In addition, if we fail in conducting a reasonable census, anti-democratic forces would rig the results of the elections. Or third parties and warring factions, who engineered and selected Bryant, and abandoned better candidates, would promote and protect their personal interest, they added.

One does not have to think hard in imagining the fear of these individuals. The saying, "politics makes strange bed fellows" has permeated the Liberian political arena, especially so since most individuals struggle for personal interest and less for principles and national interest. For example, General Prince Y. Johnson, leader of the break away warring faction of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), called Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) joined with his rival (NPLF) and launched the "October Octopus" in 1992 and killed thousand of innocent people. Later in 1996, Al Hajji V.G. Kromah, leader of ULIMO-K joined with his archrival leader, Charles Taylor of (NPFL) and declared war on the leader, Roosevelt Johnson, of its sister warring faction (ULIMO-J) and destroyed Monrovia. Individual Liberians are not different either. In 1997, they voter for the murderer and gave him a landslide victory over candidates with impeccable characters.

Most of these enthusiasts say Liberians should host a national conference before 2005 where delegates could determine the pre-requisites for conducting free and fair elections. They argue that it is difficult to conduct free and fair elections anywhere when there exits no environment that is conducive for holding free and fair elections. Do we, for example, disarm and demobilize the warring factions? Do we repatriate and resettle significant number of refugees into villages and towns as a prerequisite for free and fair elections? Will holding elections in 2005 without conducting a reasonable census help in restoring peace and stability? Is postponing the elections for few months beyond 2005 dissipate our will and impede our commitment in establishing the principles of democracy and the ingredients for a prosperous economy?

On the other hand there are also many democratic enthusiasts who want elections in 2005. They have enunciated many compelling reasons for holding elections in 2005 beside the idea of honouring and upholding the Ghana Accord. They say retaining many incompetent officials in pivotal decision-making positions would certainly hurt the country economically, politically and socially. Evidence indicates that no number of appeasements to the warlords, whether through delay of elections, or additional positions offered to them would deter them from manipulating the political process.

Further, the latter group has uttered a litany of complaints against the current interim government as part of the reasons why elections should be held now and not later. They say the interim government has not only outlived its usefulness, it is creating problems for future governments. Unlike other interim governments that were under the constant threat of coups from one or more warring factions, it has failed in using the presence of peace-enforcers in introducing needed discipline within the psychic of government officials and the general public at large. Instead the chair and his core of advisors are having more fun than just doing business as usual. Frankly, no one expects the chair to change the attitude of those in government overnight, but he and his core advisors can set some demonstrative examples. Instead of saving money for 30 persons, the chair carried with him 40 plus persons on a trip to the United States for a conference that required not more ten persons. He has continued to spend significant amount of resources in appeasing members of the Interim Legislative Assembly, and pushing the program of disarmament and demobilization on the back burner.

The chair has not explained why, for example, he has not reprimanded his cabinet minister for disbursing more than half of $1 million dollars for purchasing vehicles without his (interim chairman’s) knowledge and approval? Why is the chair refusing to help in removing this cancerous warlord, Charles Taylor from the region of West Africa? The reason he has given that the Ghana Accord does not authorize him to recommend Charles Taylor to the Courts of Sierra Leone is quite interesting. Amazingly, he finds no problem with signing agreements to explore oil and diamond, even though the international community bans all diamond business. Why has he (chair) allowed his sister to become the prosecutor, juror and judge, in driving residents from around the neighbourhood of his house under renovation? Why did the chair (i.e., the one responsible for disbursing cash) allowed members of the legislature to pay themselves US $12,000.00 for resettlement? How did he Bryant square with his call to ordinary Liberians to tighten their belts, and on the other hand allowed Elie Sealeeby to receive US $13,000.00 monthly for doing nothing?

Those who want a postponement of the 2005 elections say the price for a repeat of the 1997 rush to election scenario is too deadly. The two decade and plus year civil war has destroyed many traditional institutions and made responsible and honest residents vulnerable to political manipulation, deceit, and trickery. It is obvious that displaced, war-weary, and unemployed people will be less objective in separating politicians seeking for jobs and those capable of creating jobs? Money worked in 1997, in Ghana, and it will work again.

Most importantly, should we conduct national elections while warlords are still serving as local authorities? Would they not use their state positions (and resources such as cars, money) to influence already intimidated voters? In rural towns and villages, local authorities, including town chiefs determine who are residents as well as non-residents. Additionally, local authorities provide services to visitors as well government officials, including elections commissioners and electoral monitors. Therefore if we don’t elect or appoint neutral local authorities before national elections, warlords, with little efforts, would decide how voters would select their choice of candidates. Is it possible that a local authority could get out of town residents and increase the voters? I hope not. Please let's not rush for quick elections that others might use the outcome to create more chaos. Even with the rumours that chairman Bryant and his core advisors are grooming and financing a successor, let's be patient.

_____________________