By Peter Quaqua
Some Liberians are positive that the country will never go back to war. I applaud their optimism because a lot more Liberians have seen the benefits of peace, including some of those who executed the war. Thank God for the international community. But please leave some room to be wrong because the factors and conditions for a relapse into a full scale conflict are manifesting.
Forgive me, I am not a doomsayer. But my concern is anchored on the rowdy and militant politics that have taken over our new found political landscape. I am not alone in my anxiety. There is a consensus among most Liberians and foreigners that the country is tense and there is need to tone down the rhetoric. But a segment of the population believes that tension is the right way to send a message to the ruling government about the economic and governance deficits.
So, the planned protest – dubbed “#savethestate,” has admittedly sent chills among the population and in the neighborhood. The Americans and the Europeans have voiced their own concerns. There are fears that Liberians are sliding downhill again.
The Conflict Trap
Studies show that once a country experiences one civil war, it is significantly more likely to experience additional episodes of violence. [See the ‘Conflict Trap by Collier and Sambanis -2002]. It is revealing that civil wars have been visited upon 103 countries from 1945 – 2009. Of that number, only 44 have escaped another civil war during this period. See the Armed Conflict Dataset, vol. 4 of 2009, also quoted by political science professor, Barber Walters in her article: Conflict Relapse and the Sustainability of Post-Conflict peace).
A separate study by Collier et al (2003, ch. 4), suggests that diaspora communities have in several cases contributed to the continuation of conflict through financing of extremist groups in their homelands.
Are these scholarly forewarnings resonating to Liberia? The guess could be anybody’s. Now, the research also cites the “human factor,” observing that “a post-conflict society is often marked by anger and hate among victims and perpetrators and among veterans. In our case, the political opposition and the government appear to be enlisting ‘war veterans’ to run the show, thereby putting fear in the population. The connection can be made with referenced literature.
Given the indicators above, coupled with the triggers of conflict: the high unemployment rate, the hardened criminals ruling the streets, the poverty, the economic hardship, the governance shortfalls and the prevalence of corruption in the country, can anybody convince me that Liberia is not on the brink of another violent conflict? Can Liberia therefore escape the conflict trap? As we ponder these troubling questions and retrospect, my prayers are that we will not fall into this trap.
Essentially, the Liberian civil war ended 16 years ago in 2003, credit to the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission in Liberia, which physically ended only eleven months ago in June 2018. As though we were only waiting for the withdrawal of the peacekeepers, the country has soon degenerated into another hot spot. We appear to be are studying war again.
See how edgy the country is occasioned by the flashes of violence we have seen already. Don’t tell me you have forgotten about the disruptions in Maryland, Nimba, Montserrado, Margibi among other places. Those violent standoffs may have been brought under control, but not without causalities and the destruction of infrastructures. There is conflict waiting to happen, my friends. Like Dr. Henry Fahnbulleh said at the TRC, ‘even a small misunderstanding at a football match will lead to crisis.’ And yes, while there remain fears for June 7, the Montserrado by-elections in July should be another scary moment to watch out for, considering the recent electoral violence in District #13 in Montserrado county.
The political showmanship
“Leadership is not about the next elections, it’s about the next generation,” observes Professor and author Simon Sinek. But in Liberia, the preoccupation largely centers on the next elections. The ruling party and opposition have been campaigning for votes since the President delivered his first state of the Nation’s address in January of 2018. The CDC has since been preaching the 12-year sermon, while the opposition bloc has launched a crusade to discredit the government.
Politicians need to rethink their style of politicking because there are signs and symptoms of student politics taking over our national political discourse. My apologies, but our political actors appear to have even lost some of their sense of humanity that they would fight over the dead, for instance. Peace be to the ashes of representative Adolph Lawrence – his body did not deserve all that political showmanship that attended his funeral. If feasting on the dead body politically was part of your strategy, it was too low. American actress Mary Louise Cecilia must have been right when she observed that, “A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.”
The Running Cycles
Shamefully, we are a people locked in contradictions and running in cycles: one group of slaves turning into slave masters; a group of so-called marginalized and country-people graduating into fortune hunters – “this is our time”; and a class of political elites rendering themselves as self-righteous; all engaged in self-styled liberation struggles to undo the other. This is the sad state of our being as a country. Let’s not fly in the face of the reality, there is a clear and present danger of a looming crisis here. Do you want evidence? Again, check in all the political setups – from the ruling party to the political opposition, you will notice former combatants and/or perpetrators of the violence and rape. They are not ordinary party members behind the scenes; they are on camera participants. This means our national conversation is being driven or influenced by war-like people. If they themselves are not politicians yet, they are being used by one of our politicians who claimed to be promoters of rule of law. But you will also see the new breed of “radicals, comrade militants and revolutionaries” clamoring for attention. Make no mistake we are headed for trouble and could sooner, rather than later, fall into the “conflict trap.”
The right to speak
Without attempting to question citizens’ rights to freely express themselves, there is a difference between freedom of expression and hate speech. In an ideal situation, the exercise of one’s freedom should not go as far as inhibiting another. As a campaigner for free expression and media rights, I suggest to you that freedom of expression, is not only a fundamental human rights, but it is the lifeblood of a democracy. But when a people indulge into extremism or hate speech in the name of democracy on one hand and the government attempts to hinder the rights of the people to speak on the other hand, democracy is thus thrown out of the window – and that has always proven to be counter-productive. A catch 22, isn’t it? In spite of our difference, we all have a shared responsibility to protect the democratic space.
You see, there cannot be debate over citizens’ right to ‘peacefully assemble’ to petition their government. But when we the people professed a peaceful protest and at the same time make threats, threats that point to short-circuiting the democratic process, we throw the intentions in the air. Already, there are varying interpretations of the objectives of the protest, which should make it difficult for the organizers to guarantee that the outcome will be peaceful. This scares the public because it could be exploited. And it becomes scarier when there are talks of a counter-protest and threats from government supporters. This politics of fear and militancy cannot bear the standard of our democracy; it could boil over any moment.
So many of us condemned the CDC’s approach when they were in opposition, but it looks like today’s opposition is following in the same path. Where is the difference? Where is the point of departure? I submit to you that democracy is not a religious service, but it is also not about frightening people into submission. We are all talking today and must talk. But when guns start talking again, we all will not have the opportunity to express ourselves. History is the most effective early warning system; to ignore it is to self-destruct. The scars and memories of our rebel past are still refreshingly new, especially when some of the perpetrators are influencing the politics of the day.
Government has the greatest responsibility
I cannot agree more with former Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan when he said in his concession speech in 2015 that “Nobody’s political ambition is worth the blood of any Nigerian.” This should be true for Liberia also. I know the ruling class will disagree with me, but it should be politically illiterate to assume that you can lead or achieve your political dreams in chaos [and that also goes for those wanting to assume state power]. Even celebrated rebels leaders who rule by martial laws, depend on a measure of stability to manage their rebel camps – needless to talk of the entire country. The tension also scares investors away to the detriment of the larger society. And that too is manifesting and seems to be biting already.
So the government has the greatest responsibility to fine-tune the national discourse in order to stabilize and foster an enabling environment for growth and development. State actors and especially those serving at the information dissemination and management level, ought to be image builders, not propagandists. That is why I think there is a compelling need to reform the PRC Decree #46 creating the Ministry of Information. For the last 13 years or so, the Ministry of Information has been used by the Sirleaf and Weah administrations to talk down at citizens with critical opinions. This fuels tension and does not help the national cause.
I initially thought the Ministry under the government of Mr. Weah would not fall into the trap of denigrating critics because of the number of media literate colleagues appointed to the Ministry, but unfortunately no. We have heard more fireworks and bombs from the Ministry of Information. You must tell the government’s story, but you must also appeal to the reasoning of those outside the government. How can you start a fight in your own living room? How do you encourage citizens to participate in the governance process, when you have agents waiting to cry them down? This is not helpful – there must be reorientation of the way government communicates with its people.
Meanwhile, I should commend the government again for the huge step taken to abolish criminal defamation laws on our books. This was a strong statement that should go a long way in consolidating our democracy, but this repeal must be backed by actions elsewhere including and especially in the courts system.
Is the Media setting the agenda?
Critically still, the media appears to have been dispossessed of its agenda setting character. The public seems to be setting agenda and mode of the conversation. This is not to gloss over the critical few that have remained true to their callings and the demand for excellence. In times of heightened political tensions, media actors must beware of media manipulators – they are ever present. Do not follow the crowd/popular opinions; garner courage to stand alone and do your own critical thinking. Do not change your personality. Be the journalists you are even on social media. I suggest to you that journalists are not innocent spectators, but they have ethical standards that should operate in favor of the public. This is the public trust, comrades.
Whenever violent conflict looms, the media have a crucial role to play. They can inflame the situation, or they can use their power to defuse tension. In other words, they can be part of the problem or they can be part of the solution.
No my friends, journalists cannot afford to be a part of the problem – stop being bitter and angry in the performance of your work. Your audience can see the anger in your writings; they can feel it in your voices. You should listen to yourselves. Don’t let your emotions get the better of you. You have a right to choose between being a journalist or a politician. Don’t mix the two – it is an aggression on our trade. Your smallest action can erode your credibility and put you and colleagues into harms’ way; and it could also incite your audience into violence.
The exchanges among Liberians on the various channels/outlets are too belligerent. Too many of our countrymen [young and old] are being radicalized through the media – they say whatever comes to mind. Mainstream and social media are inflammatory. Facebook for example is littered with invectives, there are revolutionary and/or war quotations; there are pictures of our wicked war past; undoubtedly, the messages summed up a rallying call for combat readiness. Do you care if our country were to relapse into conflict? You better care!
It is good to reflect on our experiences/lessons of the past, but if those reflections are intended to mobilize people into violent action, I am afraid we too shall be guilty. Make no mistake, regardless of your persuasion we all have a collective responsibility to manage the peace and stability of the country. Majority of the population can only operate or survive in a peaceful environment – they are our clients.
In the face of the national debacle, let me humbly suggest a national media accountability conference with all media stakeholders under the auspices of the Press Union of Liberia. We must never stop talking about the perennial ethical issues that militate against our profession. Of course, we must insist on, and strengthen our self-regulatory regime to get journalists take responsibility for their missteps. The National Media Council is too good a framework to let it die. We must keep the professional light burning in order to lift the spirit of public as ‘guarantors’ of our democracy. Our job is too huge to leave it unattended. No, let’s not leave it to chance, my friends. We must find time in between our busy schedules to remind ourselves of our responsibilities.
Thanks for your attention; in solidarity, I remain.
The author of this article is current head of the West African Journalists Association, former president of the Press Union of Liberia and media rights campaigner and a Chevening Fellow. Contact: pqua31@yahoo.com/0886529611