|
 Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh Jr. indicated that the poor and the elites
would always fight each other to capture political power. He made the
remarks at the hearing of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
(TRC). Such a fight for economic dividends also occurred in Italy,
France, Russia, Great Britain, the United States of America, etc, but
receded only after political leaders reached deals, which allowed
governments to allocate money for education, etc.
Therefore, our discussion of atrocities inflicted upon the poor beginning in 1822 or the debate that more unemployed people are now eating dog meat as the main source of protein, etc, due to our policies, might not end the fight if our elites pocket profits from our resources.
However, to increase our government's share of the profits requires electing poor-people's advocates to national offices and not electing friends or agents of big business. Policies, including privatization of our current government would allow the elites to accumulate more wealth, a recipe for breeding the conflict. More so, the fact that those who profited from the failed policies feel blameless indicates that the politics of vengeance will continue. Further, our elites have an illusion that God blesses their accumulation of enormous wealth; and that majority of the population deserved poverty. Mistakenly, our elites also believe that even if the poor thought that God did not preordain their economic status and poverty is reversible, their international partners and military institution will shield them from the disgruntled citizens of the society.
Our country’s economic policies, which favor citizens with money and exclude those other citizens without money, are embedded in the philosophy of individualism (i.e., capitalism) as described by David Brooks. (NY Times, 8/12/08). For instance our government did not consider the social problems when it did downsize hundreds of poor workers who were making US $75.00 a month, and, at the same time, negotiated for a few advisors to receive US $15,000.00 per month. Or instead of appropriating funds for the production of food, it paid $210,000.00 arrears in rent to a few Monrovia landlords and also abated taxes for some of the same landlords.
David Brook presented a narrative of how the individualistic system and collective system work. He said people in country with individualistic mentality focus on individuals’ properties, rights and tends to overvalue their skills and overestimate their importance to any group’s effort. Within a country with collective mentality, officials see context in which individuals work and tend to value harmony and duty. Certainly, had Liberian officials focused on the community, they would have educated the youth, built health centers and hospitals, farm to market roads, produced food, etc.
Even the failure of the individualistic (capitalism) policies from Mexico in 1994, to Indonesia in 1997 did not encourage our officials to seek more answers of the ills of capitalism. In addition, why Liberia is still hooked onto the lies of big business, leaders from the Caspian Sea to South America are re-negotiating contracts for favorable results and are winning battles for states to take control of oil companies. (NY Times, 8/19/08). More so, now as Wall Street begins to shift from experimenting with privatization and globalization to governments’ regulations, (NY Times, 8/16/08), our leaders have yet to embrace policies that generate more dividends for public programs.
Liberian officials believe that de facto owners of our resources, including logging operations or diamond industry will pay higher taxes in lieu of dividends. Unfortunately, companies including two-thirds of US corporations pay zero taxes according to the US General Government Auditing investigative findings. (NY Times 8/18/08). Other countries, aware of big business’ shenanigan, and their desire to reduce the politics of vengeance, have developed new strategies.
Botswana, for example, went beyond the Kimberly Policy-an international policy that Liberia is relying on to gain reasonable share of the profits from the diamond industry. Owning fifty percent of the shares of the diamond industry was not enough. It encouraged De Beers which did not only employ local citizens at managerial positions, but also to close De Beers’ diamond sorting complex facility in London and open the most technologically advanced diamond sorting facility in the world in Gaborone, Botswana. (NY Times, 8/9/08). Can our officials entice Firestone to operate a tire factory in Liberia?
Proponents of individualism (privatization) continue to argue that good concessionary agreements signed between government and investors usually bring into the government’s coffers a larger share of dividends. That view is now losing support, not only on Wall Street, but also from Liberia’s recent agreements. For instance, although the World Bank in its current report lauded Liberia for fighting corruption, evidence from concessionary agreements suggest otherwise. Critics see sweet hearts for Firestone, Buchanan Renewable Energies Inc. (BRE); Broadway Inc.; Wester Iron; and Leonard Kragness. In fact the 100% tax waiver for BRE was so embarrassing that President Sirleaf nullified the BRE US $150 million dollar investment. (Frontpage Africa, 8/6/08).
Is the idea that individuals, and not a government, are efficient in fighting the war on corruption true? Or why are our external consultants who are assigned to key ministries and public corporations to deter, prevent and reduce corruption seemed to be blameless on the sweet heart deals, including the BRE’s saga? It was propagated that corruption would be minimized if external experts were responsible to manage cash and negotiate concessionary agreements at key ministries and public corporations. Such an arrangement was stipulated within the Agreement called Governance Economic Management Program (GEMAP) signed in September in 2004 between the Liberian government and its international partners. Further, our international partners provided between US $5,000.00 to $15,000.00 per month as salary allowance for key economic advisors to encourage them to reject kickbacks.
To reduce the continuous fight for political power does not end with asking for apologies from Liberians, including elites and profiteers who made the Liberian civil war inevitable, or collecting reasonable dividends from our resources. We should address our appetite for material wealth. Liberians’ penchant for expensive goods and services is very unreasonable and counterproductive. For instance, our government is expensing limited resources on expensive vehicles, while almost half of the population of Danes in Copenhagen, Demark uses bicycles to go to and from work or school everyday. (NY Times, 8/9/08). Demark is a rich country. In fact it provided US $22 million dollars for Liberia. (AfricaLiberia.com Web Site, 4/17/08).
Another problem is the issue of disparity in salary, whether earned legally or illegally. Again, Liberia’s current economic system, similar to the US economic system, promotes disparity in wages due largely to the concept of capitalism. As profiteers raise their prices for goods and services, skilled or connected personnel such as our elected lawmakers seek for additional wages. Other employees also seek for more money. Procurement personnel allocates money for two items instead of one, comptroller keeps more names on the payroll than required, and tax officer collects minimal taxes, all in exchange for kickbacks. For instance, if profiteers did not inflate the price of oil from about US $68.00 in 2003 to US $145.00 in 2008, cost of living would not increase, and employees would not be in need of an additional paid check.
Hopefully, Liberia can reduce the politics of vengeance. However it should reform its economic policies, encourage its elites to accept the idea that poverty is reversible through the principles of collectivism. Most importantly, it should promote self-reliance and institute programs gears toward reducing our taste for expensive goods and services.
|
The government has met the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (the common European currency — the Euro) of the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), but Denmark, in a September 2000 referendum, rejected The Monetary Union. The Government of Fogh Rasmussen, re-elected in November 2007, announced a new referendum on the euro for 2008 or 2009 at the latest.[40] 