Chance to live in peace again
 

Understanding Johnson-Morris’ Election 2005 Edicts 
 
By Nat Galarea Gbessagee

4 May 04

Former Liberian chief justice Frances Johnson-Morris raised eyebrows in Liberian social and political cycles late April 2004 when she publicly advocated for reduction in the number of political parties in Liberia in time for the 2005 Liberian general elections, even if achieving such reductions meant contravening the 1986 Liberian constitution. Mrs. Johnson-Morris, also a former head of the church-sponsored Liberian human rights group, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission, is the newly appointed chairman of the National Elections Commission of Liberia (NEC), the body charged with planning and supervising the 2005 Liberian general elections

Says Mrs. Johnson-Morris, “The Liberian Constitution unequivocally provides for multi-party democracy. Under the circumstance, it would have amounted to a breach of the Constitution had the erstwhile Elections Commission (ECOM) attempted to limit the number of political parties. However, with the suspension of relevant provisions of the Constitution in the context of the CPA (Liberian comprehensive peace agreement), and the subsequent empowerment of the NEC to undertake electoral reform, we wish to assure our fellow Liberians and our partners in this business of our determination to take advantage of this window of opportunity to lay a new foundation upon which Liberia’s new electoral system will be built.” (Inaugural Address by Cllr. Frances Johnson-Morris, National Elections Commission Chair, The Perspective, April 2004).

Mrs. Johnson-Morris also says, “At this juncture, we (the elections commission) wish to address ourselves to one of the election-related issues which of late have generated so much concern in many quarters. The question of the proliferation of political parties as we approach the 2005 post-war elections seems to bother many Liberians. Already, there are 18 registered political parties in the country with strong indications that more are to follow later. Most Liberians are of the conviction that the current multiplicity of political parties is unhealthy for a country with a population of less than three million people. They argue that the situation has the potential to confuse the electorate as to who the best candidates are.”

Well, does Mrs. Johnson-Morris’ assurance to “fellow Liberians and our partners in this business,” relative to reduction in the number of Liberian political parties, override the constitution of Liberia? Is Mrs. Johnson-Morris suggesting that the Liberian national elections commission under her leadership would abrogate the constitutional rights of Liberians to free assembly and affiliation by denying registration to any new political parties beyond the existing 18 registered parties, even if such new parties met the legal thresholds for registration? Could the national elections commission legally force duly registered political parties in Liberia to disband and merge? Are the Liberian nation and people so traumatized, fragile, and in such dire need of electoral reforms that appointed commissioners on a single public commission can with impunity usurp the powers of the national legislature and the national government, and restrict the rights of Liberians to form and affiliate with political parties of their choice? I sincerely think not, unless Liberians at large are not serious about attaining the desired national goal of promoting democracy, rule of law, and public accountability in Liberia.

Now, granted that Mrs. Johnson-Morris strongly believes that electoral reforms are the key ingredients for national unity, peace, reconciliation, national stability, good governance, genuine democracy, and political pluralism in Liberia, then reducing the number of political parties in Liberia for the 2005 general elections can hardly be the best remedy. At least by any measures of Liberian electoral history, four political parties participated in the 1985 general elections, and 13 political parties participated in the 1997 special general elections. And, according to Mrs. Johnson-Morris and others, the 1997 special elections, which fielded 13 political parties, were “free and fair” in comparison to the 1985 elections, which fielded only four political parties. Therefore, if we believe Mrs. Johnson-Morris ‘ categorization of the 1985 and 1997 elections relative to “fairness,” then the number of political parties did not “confuse the electorates” in 1997, and the number of political parties will certainly not have the “potential to confuse the electorates as to who the best candidates are” in 2005. And I am certainly not amongst the “most Liberians” who think “current multiplicity of political parties is unhealthy” for Liberia, although I would very much be interested in seeing a copy of the research study or statistical report that derived such conclusions.

Moreover, Mrs. Johnson-Morris’ declared “fairness metrics” regarding the 1985 and 1997 elections shattered her very premise that the number of Liberian political parties ought to be reduced so as not to “confuse the electorates” in 2005. For if “The 1997 election, characterized as free and fair by the international community, demonstrated the will of the Liberian people to reinstate democracy in their land ” as Mrs. Johnson-Morris has eloquently stated, then there must be more tangible reasons for which an elections commission under a transitional government thinks it has the statutory authority to effect electoral reforms in contravention of the Liberian constitution. After all, the mushrooming of political parties and presidential candidates in the 1997 special elections did not “deter” or “confuse” the Liberian people in choosing a candidate of their choice, even if we later believe the choice had nothing to do with the public service record and leadership quality of the person chosen. And I foresee no elections that would guarantee that only persons with impeccable public service record and leadership quality are elected, even if political parties and presidential candidates were reduced to two each.

Under Article XXXVI of the Liberian comprehensive peace agreement, which brought to power the transitional government that appointed Mrs. Johnson-Morris as chairman of the national elections of commission, “Any dispute within the NTGL, arising out of the application or interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement shall be settled through a process of mediation to be organized by ECOWAS in collaboration with the UN, the AU and the ICGL.” Yet Mrs. Johnson-Morris thinks her commission—an electoral organ of the transitional government—has the statutory rights to interpret what she sees as a conflict between Article XIX (4a) and Article XVIII (1 & 2a) of the peace agreement; notwithstanding, the all-inclusive phrase, “ANY DISPUTE (emphasis by author)…arising out of the application or interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement…,” vis-à-vis Mrs. Johnson-Morris’ own description of the Articles XIX (4a) and XVIII (1 & 2a) as “fundamentally ambiguous.”

Says Mrs. Johnson-Morris in her inaugural address, “Unfortunately, certain provisions of this piece of document (the peace agreement), regarded as the road map to peace in Liberia, are fundamentally ambiguous and, therefore, controversial. One of such provisions is the role the CPA ascribes to the NEC (in Article XIX (4a)) in the conduct of the 2005 elections…In their attempt to unravel the ambiguity attending this provision of the accord, there are those who argue simplistically that the only role of the NEC in the 2005 elections will be to organize voter’s education and registration programs in collaboration with other national and international organizations under the supervision of the United Nations.”

She also argues, “While this provision of the document delegates to the UN, AU, ECOWAS and other members of the International Community the responsibility of jointly conducting, monitoring and supervising the 2005 elections as stipulated under Article XIX (4a), in the same vein, this provision ignores the other key roles assigned the NEC under the Agreement. For instance, under Article XVIII (1 & 2a), the NEC is charged with the onerous and Herculean task of reforming the present electoral system in order to ensure that the rights and interests of Liberians are guaranteed and that the elections are organized in a manner that is acceptable to all. These responsibilities, ladies and gentlemen, are inconsistent with the view that the NEC has only a limited role in the 2005 elections.” But whose interpretations of the statutes are better? Isn’t this one of those areas in which Article XXXVI may be invoked relative to the settlement of “any dispute…arising out of the application or interpretation of the provisions of this (peace) Agreement”? I surely think so.

I also think the provisions cited by Mrs. Johnson-Morris in support of her arguments for wanting to reduce the number of political parties in Liberia are grossly inadequate because Article XVIII (1 & 2a) did not exactly mandate the National Elections Commission with the “onerous and Herculean task of reforming the present electoral system” in Liberia. Article XVIII (1) reads, “The Parties (signatories to the peace agreement and not the NEC) agree that the present electoral system in Liberia shall be reformed,” and (2a) reads, “In this regard and amongst other measures that may be undertaken, the National Elections Commission (NEC) shall be reconstituted and shall be independent. It shall operate in conformity with UN standards, in order to ensure that the rights and interests of Liberians are guaranteed, and that the elections are organized in a manner that is acceptable to all.” Here, Article XVIII (2a) is, perhaps, not as “ambiguous” as one may think, considering the clause, “amongst other measures that may be undertaken,” which, by implication, extends the business of “electoral reforms” beyond the confines of the elections commission.

Another keyword in Article XVIII (2a), relative to the elections commission, is “reconstituted,” as the apparent assumption of the provision is that once reconstituted, the elections commission will inherit the statutory powers and authority of the independent national elections commission provided for in the 1986 Liberian constitution and associated elections laws of Liberia. A second assumption of the provision is that the sitting national legislature would retain the final authority as in the past for any changes to the electoral laws of Liberia, and not the chairman and members of the national elections commission, no matter how good-intentioned the commissioners might be. Again, I might be wrong here, but I think not.

Next, I think it is unnecessary for anyone to dismiss as “simplistic arguments,” assertions that the primary roles of the present elections commission in the 2005 elections will be to organize voter’s education and registration programs. Article XIX (3) states, “In order to create appropriate conditions for elections, a re-demarcation of constituencies shall be carried out in order to take account of newly created Counties,” while Article XIX (4b) specifically states, “Voters education and registration programs shall be organized by the newly reconstituted NEC, in collaboration with other national and International organizations under the supervision of the United Nations.” But more to that, Article XXXV of the peace agreement prescribes the manner and extent to which provisions of the 1986 Liberian constitution are suspended, and clearly states in Article XXXV (d), “All other provisions of the 1986 Constitution of the Republic of Liberia shall remain in force.” And, unless stated otherwise, the national elections commission is not immune from the requirements of Article XXXV (d) of the peace agreement.

In essence, Mrs. Johnson-Morris and members of the national elections commission do not have the statutory authority under the 1986 Liberian constitution or the Liberian comprehensive peace agreement to force duly-constituted and registered political parties to merge. The best the commission could do is to encourage heads of political parties to merge. But even as Mrs. Johnson-Morris admitted earlier in regard to the “fairness” of the 1985 and 1997 elections and the number of political parties that participated in each election, the proliferation of political parties in Liberia has never been the reasons for the lack of good governance, the lack of socio-economic and political accountability, and the lack of a flourishing pluralistic democracy in Liberia today. I think personal ambitions, greed, and a general lack of national consciousness have been the key culprits.

In fact, Liberia has never been a “democracy” in the truest sense of the word. From 1822 to 2004, I have yet to find a Liberian in leadership position in Liberian government service who really believes in democracy and rule of law. The Liberians I have encountered have mostly engaged in lip-service or political rhetoric about democracy and rule of law, as the least Liberian head of a social organization to the most prominent Liberian in government service generally have no inclinations to abide by existing laws, worst more new ones. So I think it is unnecessary for anyone to speculate that somehow the success of the 1997 special elections “demonstrated the will of the Liberian people to reinstate democracy in their land,” because one cannot “reinstate” something he or she never had. Besides, I have never subscribed to the notion that an election can be “free and fair” only because the “international community” says so, even if local realities indicate otherwise. I have, however, made my views clear about the 1985 and 1997 elections in an earlier article, The 1985 Liberian Elections and Lessons for 2005 (New Democrat, January 2004), so I wouldn’t want to waste time on the issue in this article.

Now, to the extent that Liberians have been given a “window of opportunity” for serious reforms in society, I agree with Mrs. Johnson-Morris that “electoral reforms” are overdue in Liberia. But so too are social reforms, economic reforms, cultural reforms, political reforms, and leadership reforms in Liberia. Therefore, I do not agree with her that suspension of certain relevant provisions of the 1986 Liberian Constitution empowered the national elections commission to undertake “electoral reforms” in contravention of the constitution. I believe the elections commission under Mrs. Johnson-Morris could still “take advantage of this window of opportunity to lay a new foundation upon which Liberia’s new electoral system will be built” without necessarily abridging the constitution. Such reforms could be attained through dialogue with the relevant political parties or through national persuasion involving the Liberian citizenry, but not through coercion. After all, we cannot hope for democracy, rule of law, and good governance in Liberia in 2005 and beyond by building supranational bureaucratic structures with extra-judicial powers to coerce Liberians to give up their rights to free _expression, free assembly, and political affiliation in the name of “electoral reforms.”

I do, however, agree with Mrs. Johnson-Morris when she says, “The Comprehensive Accra Peace Agreement represents the way forward for Liberia following nearly two decades of civil conflict, which rocked the very foundation of our nation-state on account of a perennial governance crisis.” Here, I think those who have followed my writings will know that I strongly believe the peace agreement presents the best opportunity for lasting peace, unity, and national stability in Liberia, if, and only if, all Liberians interacted with each other more sincerely in implementation of provisions of the agreement and stopped the ongoing fights for political advantage. I have repeatedly said that international peacekeepers and other friends of Liberia currently engaged in peace initiatives and reconstruction efforts in Liberia can only help in the rebuilding of Liberia in so far as Liberians will permit them.

And this is why I think after two brutal civil wars in Liberia in the last 15 years alone, Liberians in positions of public trust must endeavor to undertake meaningful reforms that will benefit all Liberians without exception. We cannot succeed in the process of national unity, peace, and reconciliation if we continued to concentrate our efforts on cosmetic reforms that have the effects of prolonging the suffering of the Liberian people and impeding the socio-economic development goals of the Liberian nation and people. In other words, if it is okay for 19 human rights groups, 12-plus civil society groups, and dozens of NGOs to operate freely in Liberia, then it must also be okay for 18 political parties to operate freely in Liberia.

If it is not okay for Liberia to have 18 political parties due to population size, then it must not be okay for Liberia to have 19 human rights groups. So if we truly want to create social and political institutions that do not overwhelm our paltry population, then we ought to debate the issues publicly and find a common solution to the problem. But we cannot afford to have a public commission playing the role of judge, jury, and executioner, in contravention of the constitution of Liberia. Therefore, I believe the decision to merge political parties, human rights groups, civil society groups, and NGOs in Liberia must either occur naturally through lack of support by the Liberian people or through direct negotiations with all parties concerned.

In the legal world, the common cliché is that a people should never permit their constitutional rights to be violated with impunity due to governmental fiat or internal emergencies. The same legal cliché holds true in regard to the rights of the Liberian people to free _expression, free social assembly, and free political affiliation. No “window of opportunity” should ever be good enough for these basic constitutional rights to be violated by governmental fiat or the moral proclivities of an appointed group of elections commissioners. After two recent senseless and devastating civil wars in Liberia for political power and prestige, Liberians must now learn to inquire of proof of their leaders regarding any impending actions, and never again must Liberians rely on political rhetoric, intellectual misrepresentations, and vaguely defined moral imperatives.

Mrs. Johnson-Morris presented statistics about the “rigged” elections of 1927 in support of her arguments for reduced political parties in Liberia. Yet in the absence of similar statistics for the 1985 elections, she implied that the 1985 elections were “rigged” because “In the past, some of our past elections commissioners are known to have consciously given in to threats and intimidation, most often than not from the incumbent national leaders and swayed from the normal course of standardized election conduct to one only satisfactory to the incumbent. A classic example of this type of situation in the electoral history of Liberia is the 1985 National Elections …” (Johnson-Morris Inaugural Speech, The Perspective, April 2004).

Clearly, Mrs. Johnson-Morris’ concerns are legitimate, and I don’t know many Liberians who would wish that she and fellow election commissioners followed the footsteps of the election commissioners she alluded to. For if the 1985 elections and election commissioners were bad as she says, then the 1927 elections and election commissioners might have been worst, given the statistical outcome of the two elections in question. And I think she effectively made the case for urgent electoral reforms based on these examples alone. But I don’t know many Liberians who would want their rights to free assembly and political affiliation violated to facilitate “electoral reforms” by another government bureaucracy. Liberians know all too well the outcome of reform initiatives and declarations by government bureaucrats in the past to leave electoral reforms to a reconstituted but highly ambitious bureaucracy, without the direct input of the people.

Besides, while the controversies of the 1927 and 1985 elections make interesting reading, I have yet to find the connection or relevancy of the two “rigged elections” relative to Mrs. Johnson-Morris’ core arguments for reducing the number of political parties in Liberia. Did the two “rigged elections” of 1927 and 1985 occur because of multiple political parties, or did the “riggings” occur as a direct result of an inefficient electoral system and a politically passive citizenry? Were election commissioners in the 1869 and 1927 elections cited subject to the same forms of manipulations by the national leaders as in 1985, since only the election of 1985 was cited as “A classic example of this type of situation (incumbent manipulations) in the electoral history of Liberia…?” I guess these are the kinds of inquiries we ought to demand of our public officials in the new Liberia regarding the issues of fairness and accuracy, if we desire to be heard in the planning, formulation, and implementation of national policies in Liberia after 2005.

The Liberian people must be encouraged and empowered to actively participate in debates about national issues. We are entering a new day in Liberia and it will be highly regrettable if we continued to look to our politicians, national leaders, and bureaucrats to spoon-feed us regarding the socio-economic and politico-cultural life of Liberia. We must therefore mandate the national elections commission to apply the existing laws of Liberia to serve our best interests, not to create new laws against our best interests. We need to unseal our national fate by understanding our rights, responsibilities, and limitations in a democracy. We need to get away from the “if it feels good and smells good, it must be good” attitude to inquire of the policy decisions of our national leaders. From now on, we need to weigh the pros and cons of an issue before we act, if we no longer desire rebel leaders and politicians to take our interests and cooperation for granted. And we will all do well as Liberians if we evaluate and understand the logic behind Johnson-Morris’ election 2005 edicts or declarations!