Tuesday, March 19, 2024
24.8 C
Freetown
24.8 C
Freetown
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
Home Blog Page 2

Exiting the Matrix with Today’s Politicians in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone Matrix
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
Exiting the Matrix with Today's Politicians in Sierra Leone
Loading
/

Exiting the Matrix with Today’s Politicians in Sierra Leone

By Mahmud Tim Kargbo

In the heart of Freetown, as the gentle breeze from the Atlantic whispers tales of yore, there’s an unsettling question that lingers in the minds of Sierra Leoneans: Is there something amiss in our reality of governance? This query, deeply etched in our collective consciousness, reflects a gnawing suspicion about the essence of our political landscape. It’s as if we’re on the cusp of unveiling a crucial secret, one that could redefine our understanding of governance and societal roles.

The predicament of Sierra Leone’s governance today can be likened to a scene straight out of the Matrix. Neo, the film’s protagonist, symbolises that part of us who intuitively knows there’s more to this intricate game of life than what meets the eye. This sensation isn’t new; it’s a sentiment that has been silently brewing in the heart of our nation, passed down from generation to generation. Our ancestors, who navigated through the turbulent waters of colonialism and post-independence disillusionment, unwittingly sowed seeds of disempowering beliefs in our societal fabric.

Today, we find ourselves enshrouded in a fog of convoluted perceptions. Unbeknownst to many, we have been leading lives akin to those of a society in chains—though not by actual physical chains, but by the expertly crafted shackles of disempowerment. Most, sadly, seem adept only at making decisions that further their interests at the expense of the suffering masses. Sierra Leone, a land lush with natural beauty and resources, appears to be under a spell, one that has cast a shadow of disempowerment over its people.

This spell, I argue, is the root cause of a plethora of national and personal issues plaguing our country today. From the pervasive poverty that grips our communities to the diseases that ravage our populace; from the loneliness that haunts our elderly to the depression that clouds our youth’s future—we can trace all these back to a singular source: disempowerment.

Yet, in a strange twist of fate, we believe ourselves to be free. This belief stems from the absence of tangible prison bars. But make no mistake, the bars erected by our rogue politicians are all too real, albeit invisible to the naked eye. They constrain us in ways we barely recognise. As we go about our daily lives, we seldom realise that we are behaving like inmates conditioned to fear. We are at the mercy of a system riddled with rules and laws designed to disempower us and make us afraid of losing the little that we have.

In Sierra Leone, living in a perpetual state of low-grade fear that there is ‘not enough’ has become the norm. Under the current regime, Sierra Leoneans, almost unconsciously, have been giving away both the quality and quantity of their lives, merely to eke out a living and care for their families. This state of affairs, though it seems normal because of its longevity and prevalence, is not how life was lived. It’s a far cry from the ideals of our forebears, who envisioned a Sierra Leone where communal bonds and shared values underpinned our societal structure.

But this realisation is not a cause for alarm. Rather, it’s a clarion call for awakening. The question then becomes: How do you awaken when you are ensnared in the illusion of a political matrix with no visible exit in sight?

The answer may lie in the very fabric of our society, in the rich tapestry of our culture and history. Sierra Leone’s narrative is replete with stories of resilience and fortitude. Our history, which is characterised by the fight for independence, tenacity during the civil war, and the ongoing struggle for democracy, serves as a potent reminder of our collective strength and capacity to overcome adversity. This historical context, when viewed through the lens of our current political landscape, offers insightful parallels that can guide us in navigating the complex web of governance and societal issues.

Our rich folklore, brimming with morals and wisdom, provides a unique lens through which we can examine and understand the intricacies of our political environment. These stories, passed down through generations, offer profound insights into the human condition, governance, and societal dynamics. They remind us that there’s more to the convoluted game of life than what’s immediately apparent.

In this journey of awakening, nature too plays a pivotal role. The lush landscapes of Sierra Leone, from the rolling hills of the provinces to the bustling streets of Freetown, hold within them the inherent ability to jolt us out of our collective slumber. They remind us of who we really are and what we can achieve as a nation. We can heal personal wounds, overcome disempowerment, and even come up with ground-breaking solutions to the problems that face our country in these moments of altered consciousness, whether brought on by the breathtaking beauty of our natural surroundings or the profound depth of our cultural heritage.

Certainly, the idea of thinking outside the box and challenging the oppressive leadership styles of our politicians is not for the faint-hearted. It’s a path laden with challenges and uncertainties. But, as the popular saying goes, “The bigger the challenge, the bigger the opportunity for growth.” This holds especially true for our beloved Sierra Leone. For over half a century since independence, despite being blessed with abundant natural resources, we have found ourselves ensnared in the throes of poverty.

My quest for answers to this conundrum led me down various paths. I delved into books, explored many philosophies, sought wisdom from teachers far and wide, and even ventured across the globe. A relentless desire to understand why most of our politicians seemed solely fixated on exploiting ordinary people fueled my search. Despite uncovering a wealth of knowledge about their lack of godliness, their propensity for deceit, and their almost systematic exploitation, my quest remained unfulfilled.

To awaken from this matrix, I did the unthinkable—I consulted a soothsayer. This decision shook my world to its core. It challenged my long-held beliefs, exposed my deepest fears, and revealed the shadows that lurked within. The journey was tumultuous and brutal, but the result was precisely what I had been seeking. It propelled me on a journey of self-discovery and awakening that was worth every bump and bruise along the way.

Sierra Leoneans, it’s time to remember our mission. We came into this world knowing that a certain number of people on Earth would need to awaken to reach a threshold where awakening would spread like a pandemic and change the course of our nation. I am here to remind you that you chose to be a part of this monumental task.

Your unique role in our national awakening involves taking the personal journey from feeling powerless to becoming empowered, from being unconscious to becoming conscious, from being asleep to fully awake. Living in a dense third-world country, we knew we would forget our mission, and we needed to wake ourselves up. Pain and suffering, as harsh as they may sound, are effective wake-up calls. But let’s face it, there are few effective modalities of healing or waking up from this reality. We needed to leave ourselves a way to awaken and remember why we came here.

Certainly, some make the journey from unconscious to conscious without external help, but many more do need the help of others. This article is intended to plant the seed of possibility—to remind you that there are alternative methods that facilitate healing and have the potential to reunite you with your true self and the memory of your mission on this journey of life.

Mind-altering methods are not suitable for everyone, but if you feel a calling, take ample time to prepare. Learn everything you can about the styles you are considering, create a ceremonious space for your journey, and ensure that you are in a positive and safe setting, preferably with an experienced guide who can help you navigate any challenging aspects of the experience. Because the post-integration process can be confusing or challenging, it is extremely beneficial to work with an experienced guide or mentor who can support your post-journey integration.

What would it be like to live outside the matrix of reality? Imagine living in a conscious and awake Sierra Leone, where each of us plays our unique part in a thriving civilization. Imagine replacing the more than half-century-old wicked leadership styles of the majority in our social positions of trust with enjoyable contributions that empower us to express our gifts and talents, with ample time for family, friends, and personal wellbeing.

Sierra Leoneans, we are meant to be creative beings who innovate solutions for sustainable living, brilliant inventors who collaborate for the advancement of humanity, and fearless explorers who travel the planet harmoniously as brothers and sisters, reuniting as one family. We are meant to be free!

Enhancing Presidential Governance in Sierra Leone: A Call for Simplification

Maada Bio
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
Enhancing Presidential Governance in Sierra Leone: A Call for Simplification
Loading
/

Enhancing Presidential Governance in Sierra Leone: A Call for Simplification

By Mahmud Tim Kargbo

Even if his State House operation is navigating the intricacies of Sierra Leone’s diverse landscape, a president cannot singularly dictate every decision from the Oval Office. The framers of our nation’s governance were clear in their vision of how the presidency should operate. This requires reforming the activities of the presidency to ensure that President Bio recognises the profound impact of his actions, setting precedents for future leaders. It’s a responsibility of stewardship.

In today’s Sierra Leonean executive branch, this means granting cabinet ministers greater autonomy. President Bio must avoid centralising all decision-making within the State House. The trend of consolidating decision-making and operational responsibilities in the State House should be curbed.

However, for such delegations to thrive, Sierra Leoneans must shift their perception of where ultimate responsibility lies. If a cabinet minister makes an ill-advised decision, the President should rectify it, and the system should adapt accordingly. Yet, the president should not be held accountable for every decision made across every corner of his administration. Such an expectation would burden him with an insurmountable workload, akin to previous presidents who attempted to micromanage every aspect of governance—an impossible feat.

Delegation around President Bio, while necessary, may not suffice. I propose that a significant reduction in its scope can only resolve the overwhelming demands of the presidential role. This could make it clearer what the president’s official duties are (like protecting the country and getting people to agree on important laws, which require the president’s special skills) and what its official duties are (like visiting historical sites, pandemic-related events, or hosting diplomatic guests). The latter category might be outsourced to the vice president.

President Bio could redefine the role of the First Lady, entrusting her with more ceremonial duties and diplomatic engagements. The Chief Minister could also assume some responsibilities currently on the President’s desk. Given our current circumstances, President Bio can only succeed if he concentrates relentlessly on a few well-defined objectives. He needs to emphasise that his time and energy are finite resources, and the nation faces significant challenges. While he deeply cares, certain tasks are better suited for others. Sierra Leoneans hired him for a distinct purpose.

It may be challenging to envision a Sierra Leonean president expressing such a candid message to the public. This could be an opportunity for Bio, albeit unintentionally, to address a long-standing issue. Some of President Bio’s unorthodox actions have garnered criticism, but they have also shown his willingness to defy norms. Perhaps this can inspire Sierra Leoneans to appreciate his transparency, humility, and commitment to essential work.

Critics in the media may be sceptical, and opposition parties might accuse the president of evading his duties. However, the Sierra Leonean people could welcome this candid approach, valuing the president’s dedication to meaningful work.

Another aspect President Bio could consider relinquishing is his perceived hands-on role in the legislative process. This task was not part of the framers’ intentions, and it may undermine rather than enhance his effectiveness as a catalyst for cabinet action. The legislative process often puts the president in a precarious position. Initially, he started in the executive branch, but this distances him from the legislative center. If he tries to engage solely in the ‘process’ without delving into the specifics of the legislation, members of Parliament may express discontent. As the bill progresses through the executive branch, it becomes more moderate, leading to accusations that the president lacks principles.

If the President refrains from intervening at every juncture, it would compel the Executive Branch to take the lead in legislation. This would ease pressure on the president and align with the framers’ original intent for the Constitution. The president could then reserve his political capital for the final stages of the process, where many of the contentious issues have been resolved. He would no longer engage as one of many negotiators, but would keep his stature as the voice of the nation.

Bio’s presidency is currently facing significant challenges. Like their predecessors, Sierra Leonean presidents often struggle when they fail to fully grasp the complexities of the government they inherit. There is a propensity to emphasise a president’s communication skills in an era of nonstop media coverage, sometimes at the expense of governance proficiency. However, presidential failure ultimately hinges on the ability to address real challenges, not just on rhetoric, regardless of how inspiring or offensive it may be.

Modern presidents, driven by mass communication, often mistake spin for reality. They are chosen not by experienced elected officials but by enthusiastic activists and party electorates who prioritise inspiration and entertainment. The prevalence of mass communication makes presidents believe that the same strategies that got them elected will work in governance—more rallies, speeches, social media, and television advertising.

Yet, reality remains paramount, and spin has its limitations, even in the era of social media. Sierra Leoneans, particularly those facing economic hardships, demand tangible results from their government. When poverty is rampant, even staunch government supporters question, “Where is the government?” For most Sierra Leoneans, the president embodies the government.

Bio’s government has faced criticism for its response to economic challenges and its inability to fulfill promises of economic improvement. His popularity has suffered, and his “New Direction” agenda, including significant changes to law enforcement institutions, has faced setbacks.

One area where Bio’s government has fallen short is its inability to handle criticism and protests with courage. This failure reflects a broader pattern of inadequacy in the administration, and it’s a lesson that should have been learned from past administrations.

President Bio should expect the reactions to his actions more effectively. His administration has struggled since its inception.

In conclusion, enhancing Sierra Leonean presidential governance involves simplifying the presidency’s role, fostering collaboration, and focusing on critical tasks that directly benefit the nation. While Bio’s Presidency faces challenges, it has the potential to address long-standing issues and steer the country towards a more prosperous future. The reality, not just words, should guide presidential actions, and the Sierra Leonean people deserve effective governance that prioritises their well-being and aspirations.

Political Analysis of Market Sales in Sierra Leone

Strengthening the Financial Sector. Bank of Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone News at Sierra Leone Live
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
Political Analysis of Market Sales in Sierra Leone
Loading
/

Political Analysis of Market Sales in Sierra Leone

By Mahmud Tim Kargbo

Some commentators have rushed to describe the recent national market turmoil as “historic” and “unprecedented,” yet its evolution has been quite traditional so far.

What may be different this time, however, is whether long-term stability can be restored with the policy tools that were available in the past.

The selloff started as a reflection of national growth prospects. Mounting evidence of economic weakness in the emerging Sierra Leone economy, along with persistent low growth in other sectors of the economy, made it hard for our market to ignore the impact on earnings and profitability of a national slowdown.

The selloff sped up as fears spread that our policymakers may not respond sufficiently quickly and efficiently. Part of this worry has to do with the extent to which our central bank has depleted its ammunition store after years of carrying the bulk of the policy burden. But a more significant concern arises from the correct realisation that the primary response would have to come from our political leaders, who are the source of growth and financial concerns this time, and not from the professionals in these sectors.

As is often the case In Sierra Leone, the selloff further gathered steam when traders realised that policy circuit breakers would not materialise immediately. The market became disorderly for a short while when classic deleveraging technical forces, including forced generalised selling by volatility-sensitive market investors and overextended portfolios, took hold of the markets. This result was the conventional mix of price air pockets, valuation overshoots, and contagion.

Those are the typical stages of a generalised national market self-off by politicians. This cycle exhausts itself once prices come down sufficiently to create compelling bargains for sidelined investable funds. This happens first for the best-managed companies with resilient balance sheets, and then it spreads to the market. And there is a lot of dry powder out there, including cash in the hands of households and companies that can be deployed in investment purchases or funds parked in bonds whose yields have fallen and that will look for higher return opportunities.

Long-term asset price stabilisation could also come from a reinforcement of the markets’ economic and policy underpinnings. But with Sierra Leone economic growth consistently failing to take off in the hands of our two major political parties (SLPP and APC), this responsibility has fallen in the recent past mainly to our central bank, led by our politicians, the traditional core of the system. This time, however, genuine and durable stabilisation will require that a good part of the Sierra Leone economic solution come from our emerging young politicians, as nearly all our old politicians continue to fail us.

Given the economic and political challenges in many of the systemically important sectors of our economy, it will take time for growth to come back strongly and for comprehensive policy solutions to emerge. This could include the deepening of structural reforms without recycling people, the balancing of aggregate, or the lifting of pockets of over leverage and overindebtedness. Or we must start holding our politicians responsible for living a flamboyant lifestyle. The ACC has already set the pace in this drive by prosecuting for possession of unexplained wealth! And the judiciary must continue by convicting for such an offence.

As a result, the best that can be hoped for right now in Sierra Leone is short-term market stabilisation through another series of liquidity-driven band aids. This approach will provide much-needed immediate relief, but it wouldn’t deliver the longer-term anchor of stability that the Sierra Leone financial system is searching for.

DEFEATING IRRATIONALITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION

Investigating the SLPP's Fight Against Corruption
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
DEFEATING IRRATIONALITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION
Loading
/

DEFEATING IRRATIONALITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION

by Mahmud Tim Kargbo

Humans are irrational. This is something I have known and even liked about the human condition; our irrationality makes life unpredictable, and there are things about others and even ourselves that evade logical explanation. This can be fascinating; irrationality adds an uncertainty to our lives that can be charming. It can, however, also lead us to develop destructive habits, where we become irrationally comfortable doing things that hurt us, and the habit defies the logical need to change these destructive tendencies.

This phenomenon manifests itself in so many ways, from people comparing themselves unhealthily to others to people dwelling on problems without being able to approach them positively. While irrational emotional responses are common all around us, I would like to discuss today a far-reaching irrationality that I believe is overlooked, albeit important: our irrational approach to the fight against corruption. There is so much we do that adds to encouraging corruption to sustain its destruction in Sierra Leone, from politicising the fight against corruption to selecting people we prosecute for prosecution offences. The patriotic movement of most of our educated elites still represents a minority viewpoint, and I question constantly why it remains that way when the risks are so high to the general economic development of our country. Many are saying corruption must take a top-to-bottom approach. Yes, I respect their views, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that these people must also understand that the fight against corruption is a process that paves the way for the Anticorruption Commissioner to learn and design robust and appropriate strategies as he gets along with the process.

Non-sequiturs aside, many criticising the Anticorruption Commissioner said something of infinite wisdom.
The way Sierra Leone is, positive people with a nationalistic sense of purpose will not keep working for long, ignoring the quick gains of the Anticorruption Commissioner and referring to his naming and shaming action of teachers who admitted guilt of aiding school-going pupils to cheat in public exams as “jungle justice.” In a society where the Judiciary is fantastically corrupt, this is dangerous in all fronts for our contraption. Am sure these people need to ask themselves when last our judiciary reached a verdict in matters charged to court by the Anticorruption Commission? Are those currently banging the drums of criticism unaware of the saying “Justice delayed is justice denied”? Had this been a film about old sages in the time of Jesus, people with a bear-like look of seriousness would have glowed to the rhythmic strains of a lute.

Something the commissioner has to give.
And it is true. The existence of national destruction via corruption makes me angry about how we, as rationally minded nationals, act irresponsibly in combating this corruption that’s now a national crisis. Despite all rational indicators that we should increase the fight against corruption on all fronts, we cannot. Certainly, so much of the problem is systemic. Look at Sierra Leone, for example: the failure that our Parliament cannot protect tax payers monies with their so-called oversight committees;that the judiciary is always very willing to dish out injustice to the suffering majority; and the wretched styles the main political parties are using to gain votes by turning blind eyes to the laws of the land. From these discrete pieces of evidence, one can understand how corruption exploitation becomes a necessity and how developing a robust corruption strategy for the benefit of all becomes difficult for the Anticorruption Commission.

Personally, I despair at these systemic problems. They suggest that a top-down change is necessary and emphasises the powerlessness of individual impact. It causes us to think of the short-term, insurmountable difficulties of confronting the corruption problem. In the short run, these difficulties are high while the costs are low. What we lack, however, is the ability to look rationally into the long run, where net outcomes are bound to be terrible for most of the potential human resources if we do not change our current habits.

Individuals bonding together, however, can change a system. In the past few years, I have talked to various people impassioned by the need for robust change in fighting corruption and who are working to change the way institutions work.

What makes me feel even more hopeful is the fact that corruption consciousness can be mobilised into action outside of these very corrupt critics that keep on benefiting from corruption.

The few changes made by the Anticorruption Commissioner I witness around me make me feel motivated to change my behaviour patterns. I will recycle more and encourage many to understand that corruption only benefits the selected few, while the majority remains poor. This, however, is far from a conclusion; I am just beginning to open a can of worms and learning about shifting individual action to a group- or system-level change to better the fight against corruption for a better Sierra Leone for the good of all nationals. How can one fix national myopia for combating corruption? How can we make people act more rationally and responsibly? These are questions I am just beginning to muddle through, and I am wondering if those demonising the Anticorruption Commissioner’s naming and shaming strategy could answer.

 

WORRYING SIGNS: WILL THE SIERRA LEONE GOVERNMENT REVIEW ITS WORLD BANK APPROACH?

Sierra Leone - World Bank
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
WORRYING SIGNS: WILL THE SIERRA LEONE GOVERNMENT REVIEW ITS WORLD BANK APPROACH?
Loading
/

WORRYING SIGNS: WILL THE SIERRA LEONE GOVERNMENT REVIEW ITS WORLD BANK APPROACH?

by Mahmud Tim Kargbo

The swift departure of Penny Goldberg from the Chief Economist role at the World Bank is a good example of what can happen when the worlds of public officialdom and academia combine. Or, in this case, clash.

Initially, the relationship is mutually beneficial—the institution’s reputation is raised through its union with top-drawer talent, while the academic has a chance to shape policy. The academic typically refuses to follow the party line and claims that the institution’s work is flawed, which results in an eye-catching way of breaking up after the honeymoon.

Now it’s very clear: poverty in the developing world is intractable because the World Bank trained its employees on how to partner with local elites to syphon money meant to tackle poverty and promote genuine democracy in the developing world. Maybe these are worrying signs for Sierra Leone having many people in our social positions of trust trained by neo-colonialist and imperialist organisations. Many harbour no doubt, seeing the country’s economy drop to four percent after blocking all leakages by the Bio-led government.

Before we’ve seen it—most notoriously between Joseph Stiglitz, another former World Bank Chief Economist, and the Bank’s sister organisation, the IMF.
The specifics of the chief economist’s departure are not known, with Goldberg herself saying nothing ahead of her return to Yale. However, the article makes a connection between the departure and research into bank aid getting into the wrong hands that her department had reviewed but that higher-ups allegedly blocked from publication:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2020/02/20/corrupt-elites-siphen-aid-money-intended-for-worlds-poorest/

After aid to a country spike, money departs for offshore havens. And after a sensitive paper is spiked, Penny departs for New Haven.

The work is the fruit of three economists. Two—Jørgen Juel Andersen of BI Norwegian Business School and Niels Johannesen of the University of Copenhagen and CEBI—have in recent years looked at where monies meant for the poor in developing nations go (surprise: usually into bank accounts in financial havens). The final contributor is the World Bank’s Bob Rijkers.
The paper shows that monies as aid flow well—into the pockets of the elites in the recipient country and not to those that it is meant to help. Ironically, this finding is reached through the use of the World Bank’s project database.

The study uses quarterly data on aid payments from the World Bank, which includes information on the 22 most aid-dependent countries, such as Sierra Leone. It also uses banking statistics from the Bank for International Settlements, which show how money moves between the aid-receiving country and safe havens like Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, and Singapore, where privacy and protecting assets are very important. For comparison, the research also looks at flows between the recipient country and Germany, France, and Sweden—places not as vaunted for their banking secrecy. Scenarios that you would expect to lead to higher inflows and outflows, such as wars or financial crises, are excluded.

In a quarter where a country receives aid equivalent to 1 percent of GDP, its deposits in havens increase by over 3 percent relative to a country receiving no aid; there is no increase in deposits held in non-havens. This, on average, means 7.5 percent of aid is “leaked”.

There is compelling evidence too to support the idea that the higher the aid contribution and the more reliant a country is on aid, the more is syphoned off by elites, with the leakage figure for the most aid-dependent nations rising to 15 percent.
The economists acknowledge that the research has its limitations. For instance, it is impossible for them to tell who is moving the funds out of the country, with the BIS statistics only counting the total flows per quarter between countries.
Yet their argument that the results offer “salient and plausible” evidence that elites in several of the world’s poorest countries are syphoning off aid is compelling.

The very rich hold most accounts in havens, according to recent research from data leaks and tax amnesty documents. The fact that most of the outflows occur at more or less exactly the same time as the inflows strengthens their case too. And if it is businesses shifting the funds they gain from aid projects, then why are we not seeing a rise in deposits held by non-havens?

So what’s the case for the World Bank to withhold publication of the research? Well, it is clearly highly embarrassing that an organisation that aims to do good in developing countries may exacerbate the already wide chasm between the haves and have-nots. What the research also reveals is the World Bank’s futility: there is no way around the problem. In most countries, their presence is small, and the chances of the local staff being able to police corruption are limited.
To me, that is a scant reason to keep the research from public view.

While there is always a chance of embarrassment, in the long run, it is better for the reputation of public institutions to encourage differences of opinion than to allow groupthink to stymie their work.
If top economists fear that their work will be toned down and remain in academia, they will lose out too. Would the World Bank have been so willing to part with its data if the academics had not been working in collaboration with someone within the bank?
If public institutions don’t allow for research independence within their structures, bad policies will continue to be in place, unchallenged by those who worry that doing so will jeopardise their careers. And that is in the interests of no one, especially the world’s poorest.

Will Bio’s government reconsider its development commitments?

Maada Bio
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
Will Bio’s government reconsider its development commitments?
Loading
/

Will Bio’s government reconsider its development commitments?

By Mahmud Tim Kargbo

I embarked on writing this article with a personal subscription and signature to rethink development commitments in order to create a better and more sustainable Sierra Leone dialogue for an equal partnership. In reflexivity, I am tempted to view this notion as a wishful thought in the utopia of eighteenth-century Marxism in relation to our current and modern reality. Nevertheless, I believe in “change” for a “better” life in a “better” world on a global scale.

Herein lies the argument that I would like to stretch my argument further to include emancipation from global, regional, and national structures of oppression and repression in all their forms and manifestations.

It is a solid and valid point of fact that aid is also usually and always “tied to procurement from donor countries.”

Recent statistics suggest that in 2018, approximately 75% of British food aid was channelled through NGOs; 40% of emergency aid from Sweden was channelled through Swedish NGOs; and about 65% of US aid (excluding food aid) was channelled similarly. The author admits that food aid may be necessary under certain conditions, but if the factors that created such emergencies are not addressed fully, such aid can be counterproductive.
• “Development is a process of self-empowerment and an integral part of the overall process of the struggle for liberation from the global structures of dominance and control in terms of both ‘mental constructs and use of language’.”
• “Aid being tied to the purchase of goods and services by the donor country increases overall costs by 25%. Moreover, most donors channel aid through NGOs from within their own countries.”
• Neoliberals think of development as growth (open markets, foreign investments, and good governance as defined by donors) and wealth accumulation (making sure the rich get richer). But from the point of view of developed countries, development is also about social factors (people’s well-being) plus the democratic factor (people’s right to take part in decision-making) minus the imperial factor (people’s right to self-determination).

Thus, dependency theory, which often leads to the suspicion of “conspiracy”, is vital and indeed becomes a tool necessary for critical evaluation and assessment.

A fascinating aspect of “ending dependency” is the hypothesis that the dissection of development and aid packages provides an insight into the provision of taxonomies (classifications) of aid to the developing world.

In view of dependency theories, Yash Tandon characterises development aid as including red aid (ideological aid), orange aid (commercial aid or non-developmental development aid), yellow aid (military and political aid), green or blue aid (provision of global public goods), and last but not least, purple aid (solidarity).

Ideally, it would be interesting and enlightening to start and engage in a discussion on the different aid dependency theories as characterised by Yash Tandon in his book “Ending Aid Dependence “. Development aid is a highly controversial topic in the relationship between Sierra Leone and advanced countries and is the subject of critical scrutiny and evaluation.

In this manner, I believe that Sierra Leone and our counterparts in the advanced countries, together with the bulk of African civil societies in the Diaspora, can concomitantly rethink global development strategies on aid issues towards a better and equal partnership.

As I try to make my case against the pro-neoliberal idea of “volunteerism as a development tool,” I support the idea that we need to deal with sustainable development and the long-term effects of development strategies right away in order to have a big impact on how growth and development are thought about, planned, carried out, and evaluated in Sierra Leone and the rest of Africa.

We must rightfully understand and acknowledge that it is a continuous strategy and tendency for donors to dictate the prioritisation of development projects in all their totality and implementation processes. This is the wrong approach and, in fact, does not sufficiently facilitate capacity building and knowledge transfer. This tendency, which has an adverse effect on development goals, is counterproductive and dysfunctional in meeting expected objectives.
In retrospect to “making poverty history” and the current series of global “poverty reduction strategies”, we still find that poverty as an endemic ill in societies has quadrupled in Sierra Leone and many developing economies. This is because local resources are very often sidelined for expatriates, specialists, and/or consultants from donor countries for “sky-rocket” salaries and compensations far from the reality of actual need. On the contrary, wise locals can and could be effectively used for and/or in similar drives.

Thus, by elevating competence and upgrading the capabilities and levels of local social capital, available resources can be utilised to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in sustainable development. Otherwise, we in Sierra Leone and the rest of Africa can say “to hell with good intentions”, if they do not and are not structured based on a new sustainable focus and approach for an equitable level “playing field” of global development initiatives.

If poverty reduction strategies are channelled equitably across the board without stringent categorisation and procrastinating prioritisation policies, the epidemic will remain with humanity forever. Hence, the household phrase “sustainable development will transform into a stagnant state of talk and talk with no ado”.

THE ETHICAL QUANDARY OF FINANCIAL BARRIERS IN SIERRA LEONE’S EDUCATION

Map of Sierra Leone

SHAME ON OUR UNIVERSITIES

THE ETHICAL QUANDARY OF FINANCIAL BARRIERS IN SIERRA LEONE’S EDUCATION SYSTEM

By Chez Winakabs

In Sierra Leone, pursuing higher education should be a path paved with merit and opportunity, not hindered by financial barriers and undue burdens. Yet, the alarming trend of demanding payments for university application forms, interview fees, and other expenses has cast a shadow on the integrity of our education system. This systematic practice not only deepens the divide between the privileged and the marginalised but also undermines the fundamental principles of fairness and equal opportunity that should define our educational landscape.

Higher education serves as a beacon of hope for aspiring students, a gateway to new horizons and limitless possibilities. However, when universities prioritise monetary gains over the merit-based selection process, they perpetuate a cycle of inequality and exclusion. By demanding payments for application forms and interviews, our institutions of higher learning are effectively shutting the door to the dreams and aspirations of many promising students. These payments go as high as 900 new Leons.

This practice disproportionately affects students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, who are already grappling with many challenges on their educational journey. Forcing these students to bear additional financial burdens is not just an inconvenience; it is a gross injustice that robs them of the opportunities they rightfully deserve.

The implications of these unethical practices extend beyond the individual students. They reflect a systemic failure that erodes the very foundations of our educational ethos. They speak of a culture that prioritises profit over principles and convenience over conscience. As a society, we must question the moral implications of a system that places financial barriers on the path to knowledge and self-improvement.

It is time for our universities to reflect on their role as custodians of knowledge and social mobility. They must reevaluate their priorities and commit to creating an educational environment that is inclusive, accessible, and fair. The duty of our academic institutions should be to nurture talent, foster intellectual growth, and cultivate a culture of meritocracy.

To achieve this, our universities must implement transparent and equitable admission processes that do not discriminate based on financial means. Fee waivers, scholarship programs, and other support mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that no deserving student is denied the opportunity to pursue higher education because of financial constraints.

Sierra Leone’s educational system has the potential to be a catalyst for positive change, social mobility, and national development. Let us not taint this potential with the stain of inequality and injustice. Let us instead strive for a future where every young mind can flourish and contribute to the betterment of our nation. It is time for our universities to rise above the shame and pave the way for a more fair and ethical educational landscape.

SLPP MORE VALUE CREATION – HOW FIRMLY GROUNDED ARE OUR ECONOMIC PROCESSES?

SLPP
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
SLPP MORE VALUE CREATION - HOW FIRMLY GROUNDED ARE OUR ECONOMIC PROCESSES?
Loading
/

First published August 30, 2022

By Mahmud Tim Kargbo

The national financial crisis, which began in 2016 which the current SLPP regime promised to fix when they were in opposition, and whose repercussions will continue to echo in Sierra Leone for years to come, has triggered myriad criticisms of our capitalist system: it is too ‘speculative’; it rewards ‘rent-seekers’ over true ‘wealth creators’; and it has permitted the rampant growth of finance for the selected few at the expense of the suffering majority, allowing speculative exchanges of financial assets to be compensated more than investments that lead to new physical assets and job creation.

Debates about unsustainable growth have become louder, with concerns about the rate of growth the regime inherited and its direction. Recipes for serious reforms of this ‘dysfunctional’ system include making the financial sector more focused on long-run investments; changing the governance structures of corporations, so they are less focussed on their share prices and quarterly returns; taxing quick speculative trades more heavily; legally blocking financial leakages and curbing the excesses of the wage bill.

I have argued that such critiques are important but will remain powerless – in their ability to bring about real reform of our economic system – until they become firmly grounded in a discussion about the processes by which economic value is created. It is not enough to argue for less value extraction and more value creation. First, ‘value’, a term that once lay at the heart of economic thinking, must be revived and better understood.

In Sierra Leone, value has gone from being a category at the core of the economic theory, tied to the dynamics of production (the division of labour, changing costs of production), to a subjective category tied to the ‘preferences’ of economic agents. Many ills, such as stagnant real wages, are interpreted in terms of the ‘choices’ that particular agents in the system make; for example, unemployment is seen as related to workers’ choice between working and leisure. And entrepreneurship – the praised motor of capitalism – is seen as a result of individualised choices rather than the productive system surrounding entrepreneurs – or, to put it another way, the fruit of a collective effort. At the same time, the price has become the indicator of value: as long as a good is bought and sold in the market, it must have value. So rather than a theory of value determining price, it is the theory of price that determines value.

Along with this fundamental shift in the idea of value, a different narrative has taken hold. Focused on wealth creators, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, this narrative now seeped into political and public discourse. It is now so rampant that even ‘nationalists’ critiquing the system sometimes unintentionally espouse it. When the APC lost the 2018 election, certain leaders of the party secretly claimed they had lost because they had not embraced the “wealth creators”. And who did they think the wealth creators were? Businesses and the entrepreneurs leading them. Feeding the idea that value is created in the private sector and redistributed by the public sector. But how can a party that has the words “All People’s Congress” in its title not see workers and the state as equally vital parts of the wealth creation process?

Such assumptions about the generation of wealth have become entrenched and have gone unchallenged. As a result, those who claim to be wealth creators have monopolised the attention of past and current governments with the now well-worn mantra of; Give us less tax, less regulation, less state, and more market. By losing our ability to recognise the difference between value creation and value extraction, past and current governments have made it easier for some to call themselves value creators and, in the process, extract value. Understanding how the stories about value creation are around us everywhere – even though the category itself is not – is essential for the future viability of our economy.

To offer real change, we must go beyond fixing isolated problems and develop a framework that allows us to shape a new type of economy that will work for the common good. The change has to be profound. It is not enough to redefine GDP to encompass quality-of-life indicators, including measures of happiness, the imputed value of unpaid ‘caring’ labour, and free information, education, and communication via the Internet. It is also not enough to tax wealth. While such measures are important in themselves, they do not address the greatest challenge: defining and measuring the collective contribution to wealth creation so that value extraction is less able to pass for value creation. As we have seen, the idea that price determines the value and that markets are best at determining prices has all sorts of nefarious consequences.

This narrative emboldens value extractors in finance and other sectors of our economy. Here, the crucial questions – which kinds of activities add value to the economy and which simply extract value for the sellers – are never asked. In the current way of thinking, financial trading, rapacious lending, and funding property price bubbles are all value-added by definition because price determines value: if there is a deal to be done, then there is value. By the same token, if a pharmacy can sell a drug at a hundred or a thousand times more than it costs to produce, there is no problem: the market has determined the value. The same goes for Ministers, other political appointments, and professionals who earn 100 times more than the average worker. The market has decided the value of their services – there is nothing more to be said. Our economists must be aware that some markets are not fair.

Price-equals-value thinking encourages rogues in the investment world to put financial markets and shareholders first and to offer as little as possible to other stakeholders. This ignores the reality of value creation – as a collective process. In truth, everything concerning an investor business – is intimately interwoven with decisions made by our elected governments, investments made by schools, universities, public agencies, and even movements by not-for-profit institutions. Corporate heads in Sierra Leone are not telling the whole truth when they say that shareholders are the only real risk-takers and hence deserve the lion’s share of the gains from doing business.

This market story confuses policymakers. By and large, policymakers of all stripes want to help their communities and their country, and they think the way to do so is to put more trust in market mechanisms. Step back and let the market magic work; this has become the slogan of our governments in Sierra Leone. The crucial thing is to be seen to be business-friendly. As a result, Sierra Leone politicians and all too many government employees are like putty in the hands of those who claim to be value creators. Regulators end up being lobbied by businesses and induced to endorse policies that make incumbents even richer. Examples include ways in which our governments have been persuaded by the World Bank and other rogue neocolonial institutions to reduce capital gains tax, even though there is no reason to do so if the aim is to promote long-term investments rather than short-term ones.

And lobbyists, with their innovation stories, have pushed through with rogue policies, which reduce tax on the profits generated – even though the policy’s main impact has been merely to reduce government revenue rather than increasing the types of investments that led to strengthening the economy. All of these serve only to subtract value from the economy and make for a less attractive future for almost everyone. Not having a clear view of the collective value creation process, the public sector is thus ‘captured’ – entranced by stories about wealth creation which have led to regressive tax policies that increase inequality.

The confusion between profits and rents appears in how we measure growth: GDP. Indeed, it is here that the production boundary comes back to haunt us; if anything fetches price values, then the way our national accounting is done won’t be able to distinguish value creation from value extraction, and thus policies aimed at the former might simply lead to the latter. This is not only true for the environment where picking up the mess of disasters will definitely decrease GDP (due to various services paid for) while a cleaner environment won’t necessarily (indeed, if it leads to no disaster, it could increase GDP), but also as we saw to the world of finance in our contraption where the distinction between financial services that feed industry’s need for long-term credit versus those financial services that simply feed other parts of the financial sector are not distinguished.

Only with a clear debate about value can rent-extracting activities in every sector, including the public one, be better identified and deprived of political and ideological strength.

Sierra Leone’s Struggle: When Political Turmoil Overshadows COVID-19

Sierra Leone Politics and COVID
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
Sierra Leone's Struggle: When Political Turmoil Overshadows COVID-19
Loading
/

Sierra Leone’s Struggle: When Political Turmoil Overshadows COVID-19

by Mahmud Tim Kargbo

If the coronavirus is the crucible, then politics is the forge. If novel COVID-19 is the mortar in which humankind finds itself, politics is the pestle. If the outbreak in Wuhan, quickly spreading to the rest of the world, was the trigger, then politics was the finger on it—pulling over and over and over again.

In a period of public health crisis, scholars and policymakers are often quick to ask the following question: What has the new public health threat revealed about a government’s health care system and its ability to respond in a timely and effective manner? Does the government have the infrastructure, resources, and technology needed to curtail the spread of disease? While focusing on health systems is important, this can often lead us to overlook what viruses reveal about the role, nature, and consequences of a country’s political environment. During the coronavirus in Sierra Leone, politics was exacerbating a public health issue, making the virus much more deadly than it should be. Politics can literally kill us.

Therefore, perhaps a more important question we should ask is: What have we learned about politics and the coronavirus in Sierra Leone? When can politics help, and when can it hurt our response? And what positive lessons can we learn going forward?

The coronavirus reveals both the good and bad of Sierra Leone politics: partisan division has marginalised certain segments of the population, contributing to a potentially worse health outcome for the suffering majority. Ongoing division along SLPP and APC party lines made it nearly impossible to achieve a swift compromise on key policy issues delaying the overall national response. Add to this the politics of nationalism and the sharing of responsibility between the SLPP, APC, and local health responders, further hampering state-level responses in a period of crisis and despair.

The Politics of Consignment to an Inferior Position.

Politics is ultimately about the allocation of people and resources, deciding about where to invest and where not to, and creating better societies. In democratic societies, those who are elected to governments, which reflects, in some ways, the will of the majority or a plurality of people in the population, hold the power to allocate resources. This leads, perhaps naturally, to an inclination to privilege resources to help those in power, thus representing most of the population. While there is ample reason to respect this approach because, on some level, political decisions that reflect the majority perspective ultimately respect the fundamental tenets of a democratic society, there is also reason to scrutinise this winner-take-all approach. Abiding only by the will of the majority also, by definition, sets aside the needs and aspirations of young political parties that failed to elect a government that reflected their vision for the country.

The politics of exclusion, rather than inclusion (which responds to the needs of all), has coloured Sierra Leonean life for the past several years. President Beo was elected on a platform that was inclusive, stoking political success in a furnace fueled by explicit targeting of alleged corrupt opposition members in the previous regime and inexplicit criticism of the main opposition party. Whether this was a successful strategy for President Beo is debatable. In a time of national crisis, it becomes abundantly clear that this strategy is dangerous. Creating groups that are relegated to a lower or outer edge and excluded during normal times fractures social cohesion and limits our ability to move forward collectively. In a time of crisis, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, marginalised groups who have been systematically excluded challenged our ability to respond in three ways.

First, groups that are accustomed to being marginalised are much less likely to trust government decisions or actions, making it harder for the government to bring about rapid collective action that can address national crises. During the coronavirus, when national appeals to physical distancing rely on general group adherence to national recommendations, this becomes a matter of national security, threatening the politics of marginalisation.

Second, and practically, the existence of groups that are marginalised and disconnected from the larger population creates reservoirs of disease if people in these groups are not treated. That undermined efforts to address the pandemic on a population level, which depended on entire groups behaving cohesively. We have previously seen examples of this where groups are saying COVID-19 does not exist in Sierra Leone, leading to an increase in the number of victims. During the coronavirus, a politics of exclusion leads to the likelihood of dramatic and poor outcomes because of these groups not being part of the greater whole.
A politics of exclusion threatens the health of the entire population, reaping consequences from divisive policies.

Third, excluded groups almost inevitably have an unpredictable interaction with established health care and social service systems, likely avoiding them as long as possible but then potentially using them en masse when fear or disease spreads. This represented an extraordinary challenge in the face of a pandemic where the greatest threat to health systems is a rise in the number of cases requiring more hospital beds, for example, than are available. These points to the harms incurred by a politics of exclusion, threatening the health of the entire population and reaping consequences from divisive policies before the crisis.

When What Doesn’t strengthen You May Kill You.

Crises do not tell us anything new—they reveal what was true to begin with. In this global pandemic, what is revealed is a political system characterised by the politics of marginalisation and bitter partisan divisions, at the expense of achieving what should be the goal of politics—creating a better society. While the country has moved along despite these political limitations through these times of coronavirus, this political dysfunction, literally, can kill us. How do we fix this? How do we fix our politics so that they serve us well, not poorly, in a time of public health crisis?

I suggest three solutions. First, we cannot allow a powerful majority and their interests to marginalise the few.

Politicians need to focus on marginalised groups and ensure they receive the support. Support for the few has become a partisan issue, with the APC casting themselves as the party of the marginalised and the SLPP, almost in reaction, resolutely avoiding any efforts that seem to pay attention to these groups. But this pandemic clarified that the problems of the few quickly become the problems of the many. A marginalised group can become a viral reservoir, threatening the health of all. Health ultimately has to be seen as a common good, supported by our collective investment, for the benefit of all.

Second, we cannot let partisan divisions and elections keep us from following the science and providing the truth. Science should not be green or red—or even a purple mix of the two. It needs to be a neutral green, white, and blue. Several public opinions have shown extraordinary partisan divides in how the science surrounding this pandemic has been perceived. Identifying how we can elevate the science to transcend these divisions seems to be a central challenge in the coming years.

Third, we should not let political nationalism get in the way. It wasn’t the time for the President to reflect on his nationalistic role during the Ebola outbreak and blame the former leader and chairman of the APC for waiting for a specific invitation to join the fight against the pandemic. In a time of crisis, presidents need to set their political differences aside and show leadership immediately by helping all national stakeholders, no matter the price.

Bipartisan support for rational actions informed by science can be achieved—and it is happening. But we cannot rely on crises and fear mending our political differences and find policy solutions. Solutions to the next crisis have to be sown when we do not have a crisis in our hands. Investing in public health infrastructure and in the science that will guide us during the next crisis should be bipartisan issues of utmost urgency. Whether we can get there may ultimately determine whether politics kills more of us in Sierra Leone than the coronavirus will.

SIERRA LEONE STILL FACING THE IMF/WORLD BANK ECONOMIC TERROR AXE

IMF and World Bank
SLL Audio News
SLL Audio News
SIERRA LEONE STILL FACING THE IMF/WORLD BANK ECONOMIC TERROR AXE
Loading
/

SIERRA LEONE STILL FACING THE IMF/WORLD BANK ECONOMIC TERROR AXE

By Mahmud Tim Kargbo

Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt: “Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other people’s raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms”.

Is it right for our rulers to surrender the daily activities of running the government to financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank we never voted for to govern us? The IMF does not represent anyone other than their country. What this means in practice is that the United States runs our country. So don’t be surprised if you’re walking around a white man’s land and you’re referred to as one of their neat modern slaves.

Interestingly, looking at Sierra Leone today, you would find that the figures are swinging down. Education standards are going down, chances of getting a daily bread are going down, health standards are going down, and checks and balances are literally breaking up.

Hypocritically, while the IMF and World Bank are telling us to cut down expenditures on social amenities through their so-called “Structural Adjustment Policies” programme, back in the United States, their government is pushing ahead concretely with the need to improve spending in social amenities for their nationals. This casts serious doubt on the leadership qualities of most of our leaders. To many, it’s a lack of vision and a sense of unpatriotism from those we elect to rule us. To date, one can reliably say with all sense of objectivity that our politicians keep on failing us by not putting their egos aside and doing what is right for the general good of the people and the country.

World Bank and IMF representatives inside Sierra Leone and other developing countries are living in subsidised housing, complete with free furniture and an extended assignment, a mobility premium to defeat the cost of child education. Salaries are tax-free and averaged $86,000 back in 1995, according to a General Accounting Office report to Congress. And no structural adjustments for this privilege coterie of bankers and policy analysts.

Meanwhile, here in Sierra Leone, although the IMF/ World Bank claimed to be here to fight and eradicate poverty in partnership with our politicians, with all our huge mineral resources, small population coupled with high percentage of youth which the IMF/World Bank should have capitalised on with concrete technological skills, electricity and other means of education to process our resources internally and create employment facilities to efficiently boost our economy, a hidden genocide lays waste the country via their so called Structural Adjustments Policies which our leaders are well prepared to endorse each time immediately the IMF/World Bank knocks their door with a paper in their hands to sign any part of it.

The IMF is supposed to seek consultations with civil society organisations and other pressure groups to allow the people to have their own say in running their country before concluding any salient decisions that have to do with the lives of the people. Here in Sierra Leone, we aren’t seeing this at all, and this continues to cast doubts in the minds of objective nationals about whether the IMF/World Bank and the current government are really genuinely representing the interests of the people or whether the IMF/World Bank are in Sierra Leone to partner with corrupt state officials to make money at the expense of the country and its people.

It will be remembered that the IMF and World Bank have been accused in many quarters around the globe of partnering with corrupt leaders in third-world countries to exploit countries and their citizens. For instance, the IMF’s “structural adjustment policy” which states that they should lend enough to prevent default on international loans that are about to come due and otherwise would be unpayable”. This is nonsensical, to say the least.
This is supposed to be a careful country-by-country investigation to ensure that the money loaned is spent wisely, or at least in the interest of the people or country. And there are punitive measures when a country cannot meet the laid-down standards. Why are they brushing the laid-down rules and regulations aside and keeping on lending governments that failed to meet their set standards? It sounds highly suspicious, doesn’t it? Common sense is needed to break out of this whole IMF/World Bank frequent excuses in our country.

This further raises doubt about whether structural and adjustment policies are the correct reforms our country needs to grow in the first place. It’s now evident that the key issue with these structural adjustment policies, however, is whether they build the capacity to recover and whether they promote long-term development. So far, the adjustments the World Bank, Sierra Leone Government, and IMF are bluffing with have nothing to write home about regarding real development that has to do with the genuine good of the country and its people.

From what we are experiencing here in Sierra Leone, the so-called structural adjustment policies are currently undermining democracy and democratic accountability of the IMF and World Bank, who of course have no one to be accountable to but also the Sierra Leone government, as corrupt government officials can use structural adjustment policies as an excuse not to cater for the majority although their cabal members are living in flamboyant lifestyles beyond their normal earning powers.

They must be ghosts.

Sometimes, we are made to understand that corrupt governments have borrowed money from these institutions and/or directly from various donor nations and ended up using that money to pursue personal interests or divert resources away from their people. So we have every reason to be concerned about the level at which IMF and World Bank names are playing in the current deplorable economic situation in our country.

We are told by Joseph Stieglitz, a one-time Economics Noble Price Winner, economic adviser to the Clinton administration in the United States, currently a professor at Columbia University, and former top worker of the IMF, that “in most cases, the IMF/World Bank corruption is done knowingly with the support of various rogue leaders and top officials of the mentioned institution due to their own personal interests.

Quoting Oxfam, it would be wrong to hold civilians to ransom by placing stringent conditions on the basic necessities of life because of the way their government spends its money”.

Further, it’s been argued and established that structural adjustment policies encourage corruption and undermine democracy. As Ann Petitfor and Joseph Hanlon note, top-down “conditionality has undermined democracy by making elected governments accountable to Washington-based institutions instead of to their own people”. The potential for unaccountability and corruption therefore increases, as we are currently experiencing in this government.

Where are the leadership qualities of our present-day leaders in signing a document that asked them to drastically cut down on essential investments in health, education, and other essentials of life? Why have our leaders failed to understand that we need these investments before we can compete internationally? Why are they dancing to the IMF’s intention of pushing the weak Sierra Leone economy into the market by agreeing with the World Bank and the IMF to reduce state support and protection for social and economic sectors?

Freetown
haze
24.8 ° C
24.8 °
24.8 °
94 %
2.6kmh
20 %
Tue
29 °
Wed
29 °
Thu
30 °
Fri
30 °
Sat
30 °
0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe