African Affairs Advance Access originally published online on December 5, 2005
African Affairs 2006 105(418):27-49; doi:10.1093/afraf/adi091
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On the limits of liberal peace: Chiefs and democratic decentralization in post-war Sierra Leone
Richard Fanthorpe (rfanthorpe{at}blueyonder.co.uk) is an independent consultant and visiting research fellow at the Department of Anthropology, University of Sussex.
Liberal peace, the explicit merging of international security and development policy, has arrived fairly late on the scene in Sierra Leone. One of its primary foci is regimes of customary governance and sociality associated with chiefdom administration. Many international agencies consider these regimes irredeemably oppressive towards the rural poor and a root cause of the recent civil war. While the present government of Sierra Leone remains supportive of chieftaincy, international donors are supporting a fast-track decentralization programme that, it is hoped, will supply a new system of democratic governance to a rural populace already straining against the leash of ‘custom’. This article, drawing upon the author’s recent fieldwork in Sierra Leone, undertakes a critical examination of this policy. It is argued that, popular grievances notwithstanding, chieftaincy is the historic focus of struggles for political control over the Sierra Leonean countryside. Both the national elite and the rural poor remain deeply engaged in these struggles, and many among the latter continue to value customary authority as a defence against the abuse of bureaucratic power. Fast-tracking decentralization in the war-ravaged countryside may therefore only succeed in shifting the balance of political power away from the poor.
This article is an output from a research project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.
1. The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool: An information document (DFID, London, 2004), p. iii. See also A More Secure World: Our shared responsibility. Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (United Nations, New York, 2004); Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized violence in a global era (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2001).
2. Michael Dillon and Julian Reid, ‘Global liberal governance: biopolitics, security and war’, Millennium Journal of International Studies 30, 1 (2001), pp. 41–66; Mark Duffield, Global Governance and the New Wars: The merging of development and security (Zed Books, London, 2001).
3. Duffield, Global Governance, p. 123.
4. Paul Richards, ‘Rebellion in Liberia and Sierra Leone: a crisis of youth?’, in O.W. Furley (ed.), Conflict in Africa (I.B. Tauris, London, 1995), pp. 134–70; Paul Richards, Fighting for the Rainforest: War, youth and resources in Sierra Leone (The International African Institute in association with James Currey, Oxford, 1996); Ibrahim Abdullah and Patrick Muana, ‘The Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone: a revolt of the lumpenproletariat’, in Christopher Clapham (ed.), African Guerrillas (James Currey, Oxford, 1998), pp. 172–201; Jimmy Kandeh, ‘Ransoming the state: elite origins of subaltern terror in Sierra Leone’, Review of African Political Economy 81 (1999), pp. 349–66; Thandika Makandawire, ‘The terrible toll of post-colonial "rebel movements" in Africa: towards an explanation of violence against the peasantry’, Journal of Modern African Studies 40, 1 (2002), pp. 181–215.
5. TRC Report, ‘Findings’, in The Final Report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone, Vol. 2 (2004), paras 95–7 (http://trcsierraleone.org/drwebsite/publish/v2c2.shtml, 25 October 2005).
7. Karen Moore, Chris Squire, and Foday MacBailey, Sierra Leone National Recovery Strategy Assessment, Final Report (United Nations Office fot the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), United Nations Mission to Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in Cooperation with the Government of Sierra Leone, Freetown, 2003).
8. Initial reports and analyses of these grievances can be found in Steven Archibald and Paul Richards, ‘Seeds and rights: new approaches to agricultural rehabilitation in Sierra Leone’, Disasters 26, 4 (2002), pp. 356–67 and ‘Converts to human rights? Popular debate about war and justice in rural central Sierra Leone’, Africa 72, 3 (2002), pp. 339–67; Richard Fanthorpe, ‘Humanitarian aid in post-war Sierra Leone: the politics of moral economy’, in Sarah Collinson (ed.), Power, Livelihoods and Conflict: Case studies in political economy analysis for humanitarian action. Humanitarian Policy Group Report No. 13 (Overseas Development Institute, London, 2003), pp. 53–65; Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP), Agency Self-Assessment About Transparency and Accountability in Sierra Leone: A HAP survey (Humanitarian Accountability Project, Geneva, 2002).
9. Conciliation Resources, Report on Bumpeh Chiefdom (Moyamba District) Consultation, 19th-20th January 2000 (Paramount Chiefs Restoration Unit, Governance Reform Secretariat, Ministry of Presidential Affairs [PRU/GRS/MPA], Freetown, 2000), p. 5.
10. Conciliation Resources, Summary Report: Observations and recommendations on the pilot project (PRU/GRS/MPA, Freetown, 2000), p. 3.
11. This programme was renamed the Chiefdom Governance Reform Programme in its second and final year, although its operational components remained unchanged. See Richard Fanthorpe, Alice Jay, and Victor Kalie Kamara, Sierra Leone: A review of the Chiefdom Governance Reform Programme, incorporating an analysis of chiefdom administration in Sierra Leone (DFID, London, 2002).
12. Speech by AFRC Chairman Major Johnny Paul Koroma, 30 July 1997 (http://www.sierra-leone.org/koroma073097.html, 21 March 2005).
13. Paramount Chiefs Restoration Programme, Sierra Leone, Project Memorandum (DFID, London, 2000), p. 18.
14. See, e.g., Speeches Delivered by his Excellency the President at Kenema, Bo, Makeni and Port Loko to the Newly Elected Paramount Chiefs, From 26th-30th January, 2003 (http://www.statehouse-sl.org/speeches/speeches-bo-makeni.html). This view is strongly reflected in the TRC Report, Vol. 2, Ch. 2, paras 47–8.
15. Paul Richards, ‘To fight or to farm: agrarian dimensions of the Mano River conflicts (Liberia and Sierra Leone)’, African Affairs 104, 417 (2005), pp. 571–90. See also Richards, Controversy over Recent West African Wars: An agrarian question? Occasional Paper (Centre of West African Studies, University of Copenhagen, 2004).
16. This analysis bears a close resemblance to the neo-Marxist ‘lineage mode of production’ model developed by Claude Meillassoux and others in the 1960s and 1970s. That model defined slavery as a condition of unrelieved domestic subordination: while most youths would acquire ‘elder’ status in the course of time, that transition could be delayed indefinitely if they were denied access to marriageable women. See Joel Kahn, ‘Marxist anthropology and segmentary societies: a review of the literature’, in Joel Kahn and Josep Llobera (eds), The Anthropology of Pre-Capitalist Societies (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1981), pp. 57–88.
17. Richards, ‘To fight or to farm’, p. 525.
18. Paul Richards, Khadija Bah, and James Vincent, Social Capital and Survival: Prospects for community driven development in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Social Development Paper No. 12 (World Bank, Washington DC, 2004); Richards, Controversy, p. 21.
19. Joseph Hanlon, ‘Is the international community helping to recreate the pre-conditions for war in Sierra Leone?’, Paper presented at the WIDER Conference Making Peace Work, Helsinki, Finland, 4–5 June, 2004. See also International Crisis Group, Liberia and Sierra Leone: Rebuilding failed states (Dakar, Brussels, 2004), pp. 23–4.
20. Alice Jay and Momoh Taziff Koroma, From ‘Crying and Clientelism to Rights and Responsibilities (Republic of Sierra Leone and the European Union, 2004).
21. Karen Moore et al., Sierra Leone National Recovery Strategy Assessment, p. v.
22. Garth Glentworth, Non-Project Concept Note: Sierra Leone Chiefdom Governance Reform Programme phase 2 (DFID, London, 2003).
23. World Bank, Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant in the Amount of SDR 16.8 Million (USD 25.12 Million Equivalent) to the Government of Sierra Leone for an Institutional Reform and Capacity Building Project. Report No. 28315-SL (World Bank, Washington DC, 2004), p. 17.
24. World Bank, Sierra Leone: Strategic options for public sector reform. Report No. 25110-SL (World Bank, Washington DC, 2003), pp. 43–4.
25. Republic of Sierra Leone, Local Government Act, 2004 (Government Printing Department, Freetown, 2004), para 28.
26. H.W. Davidson, Report on the Functions and Finances of District Councils in Sierra Leone (Government Printer, Freetown, 1953).
27. DFID is committed to further support for chiefdom administration but has yet to decide on a specific programme. Other agencies have also supported piecemeal reconstruction of local court enclosures (barris) and chiefdom administration offices.
28. Some recent commentators, prompted by Richards’s analysis, have claimed that the colonial Forced Labour Ordinance of 1932 is still in force. The central provision of this Ordinance was to guarantee the right of chiefs to call upon their subjects to work on their farms for a set number of days each year. In fact, this legislation was superseded by the Chiefdom Treasuries Ordinance of 1937 and formally repealed in 1956. See Richards et al., Social Capital and Survival, p. 14; Moore et al., Sierra Leone National Recovery Strategy Assessment, p. 22, and Hanlon, ‘Is the international community helping to recreate the pre-conditions for war in Sierra Leone?’, p. 4. See also Sierra Leone, Legislative Council Debates, Volume VIII, Session 1955-56 (Government Printing Department, Freetown, Sierra Leone, 1958).
29. Kris Hardin, The Aesthetics of Action: Continuity and change in a West African town (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1993), p. 69.
30. Mariane Ferme, The Underneath of Things: Violence, history and the everyday in Sierra Leone (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2001), pp. 81–111.
31. Paul Collier, Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and Implications for Policy (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2000); Mkandawire, ‘The terrible toll’.
32. It must be noted, however, that some of the interview materials cited by Richards in his latest article are not in fact excerpts from the transcriptions of focus group consultations but edited quotations from the written observations of consultation facilitators.
33. It has not gone unnoticed among rural civilians that ex-combatants were among the first to receive post-war ‘development’ support (i.e. education and training) in the shape of DDR and associated schemes. Many have taken note that fighting, or the threat thereof, captures the attention of aid agencies and can bring rewards. See also Danny Hoffman, ‘The civilian target in Sierra Leone and Liberia: political power, military strategy, and humanitarian intervention’, African Affairs 103, 411 (2004), pp. 211–26.
34. For further information on these consultations and the facilitators’ reports cited in this article, see Richard Fanthorpe, Chiefdom Governance Reform Programme Public Workshops: An analysis of the facilitators’ reports. Research report (DFID, London, 2004).
35. See John Cartwright, Politics in Sierra Leone, 1947-67 (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1970); Victor Minikin, ‘Indirect political participation in two Sierra Leone chiefdoms’, Journal of Modern African Studies 11, 1 (1973), pp. 129–35; Walter Barrows, Grassroots Politics in an African State: Integration and development in Sierra Leone (Africana Publishing Company, New York, and London, 1976), pp. 143–242; Roger Tangri, ‘Central-local politics in contemporary Sierra Leone’, African Affairs 77, 307 (1978), pp. 165–73.
36. Action For Peace, Consultative Meeting on the Restoration of Paramount Chiefs Project in Dodo Chiefdom, Kenema District, 15th-16th September 2000 (PRU/GRS/MPA, Freetown, 2000).
37. Sections are administrative subdivisions of chiefdoms and may have anything from a few hundred to tens of thousands of inhabitants. Section chiefs occupy the middle tier in the chieftaincy hierarchy above village/town chiefs and below the paramount chief and speaker.
38. Ndegbormei Development Association, Consultative Workshops held in Kori Chiefdom, Moyamba District, Southern Province, May 2000 (PRU/GRS/MPA, Freetown, 2000).
39. Conflict Management and Peace Building (CMPB), Report on Gorama Mende Chiefdom (Kenema District) Consultation, 10th-11th July 2000 (PRU/GRS/MPA, Freetown, 2000).
40. Conciliation Resources, Report on Baiima (Gbo Chiefdom) Consultation, 25th-26th May, 2000 (PRU/GRS/MPA, Freetown, 2000).
41. Wunde, a secret society specializing in military training, was fundamental to the organization of the pre-colonial Kpa–Mende confederacy. This polity was later divided into several colonial chiefdoms, but Wunde initiation remains a key marker of local identity and belonging in the Kpa–Mende area.
42. Richard Fanthorpe, Tax Administration and Representative Authority in the Chiefdoms of Sierra Leone. Research Report (DFID, London, 2004).
43. The chiefdom committee is the executive arm of the chiefdom council. According to the Tribal Authorities (Amendment) Act of 1964, the chiefdom committee consists of the paramount chief (chairman), senior speaker (vice-chairman), second speaker (if any), two members from each district council ward elected by the chiefdom councillors, and a literate councillor nominated by the local government minister. Present day chiefdom committees include a women’s leader (Mammy Queen) and youth’s representative.
44. Campaign for Peace and Reconciliation, Consultative Workshop on Paramount Chiefs Restoration in Kowa Chiefdom, Moyamba District, 14th and 15th June 2000 (PRU/GRS/MPA, Freetown, 2000).
45. CMPB, Report on Ngelehun Badijia Chiefdom Consultation Workshop, Bo District, 3rd-4th June 2000 (PRU/GRS/MPA, Freetown, 2000), p. 6.
46. Roger Tangri, ‘Local government institutions in Sierra Leone, part 1: district councils 1951-71’, Journal of Administration Overseas XVII, 1 (1978), pp. 17–27; ‘Local government institutions in Sierra Leone, part 2: contemporary chiefdom administration’, Journal of Administration Overseas XVII, 2 (1978), pp. 118–28.
47. ‘Controversy looms over local government revenue collection’, Standard Times, 13 August 2004.
48. ‘Bo traders angry over taxation’, Standard Times, 17 August 2004.
49. Government of Sierra Leone, Task Force on Decentralisation and Local Governance, District Level Consultations, Final Report (Government of Sierra Leone, UNDP and DFID, Freetown, 2003).
50. Address by his Excellency the President, During the Inauguration of Newly Elected Councillors of the Local Government Councils, 29th June 2004 (http://www.statehouse-sl.org/speeches/loc-coun-june29.html, 21 March 2005).
51. ‘NEC officers in trouble’, Standard Times, 31 May 2004; ‘NEC boss resigns due to political interference’, Concord Times, 2 September 2004.
52. ‘Paramount Chief Humiliated in Makeni’, Standard Times, Freetown, Sierra Leone, June 1 2004; ‘Standard Point’, Standard Times, Freetown, Sierra Leone, September 10 2004.
53. ‘Tension in Diang chiefdom’, Standard Times, 26 October 2004.
54. ‘Provincial Secretary East says councillors are full of ego’, Concord Times, 30 August 2004.