Liberian Senate in Error

The Liberian Senate is in Error to Introduce Amendment in the Elections Law Increasing Registration Fees for Legislative Candidates:

Illiteracy, greed and ignorance are few of the chronic diseases affecting our country, Liberia. Many people normally agree with decisions of public servants (legislature, executive appointees, judicial workers, civil servants, et al.) because they do not quite understand the implications or legal vicissitudes of actions taken by these people each and every moment in our national history.

One simple issue that has drawn my attention is the move by the Liberian Senate to amend the Elections Law of Liberia by increasing the fees to be paid by would be contestants for Representative and Senate seats in future elections. Without going deep into the merits and demerits of this diabolical and unconstitutional law (something I would venture in sooner than later), I thought to first showcase a simple, but important constitutional clause that the Senate has bridged either knowingly or unknowingly. 

In Article 34, the Legislature, amongst others, shall have the power:

d): to levy taxes, duties, imports, exercise and other revenues, to borrow money, issue currency, mint coins, and to make appropriations for the fiscal governance of the Republic, subject to the following qualifications:

(i): all revenue bills, whether subsidies, charges, imports, duties or taxes, and other financial bills, shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. No other financial charge shall be established, fixed, laid or levied on any individual, community or locality under any pretext whatsoever except by the expressed consent of the individual, community or locality. In all such cases, a true and correct account of funds collected shall be made to the community or locality, et al.

If the above must be the final word from our constitution, the organic laws of the State, one can safely assume that the fees levied on would be legislative contenders would fall in the category of charges, if not taxes or duties. And as clearly indicated in (i), ‘all revenue bills, whether subsidies, charges, etc. shall originate in the House of Representatives’…, “but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments on other bills”. Unfortunately, the proposed amendment in the elections law incorporating increment in charges of fees on legislative candidates originates with the Senate, thus amounting to a constitutional bridge (if this part is a new law at all), or if one may argue that they have the right to propose amendment in line with the Constitution, then “No other financial charge shall be established, fixed, laid or levied on any individual, community or locality under any pretext whatsoever except by the expressed consent of the individual, community or locality”, and in this case the individual, community or locality is the people of Liberia represented by the House of Representatives under the Representative Democratic system. 

So the question now is will the Representatives concur with the Senate’s ill-conceived bill or defend the interest of the poor people against whose interest the Senate has issued such amendment? Who is advising the Senate?  Do they have legal advisers or political advisers?  What is the House of Representatives saying?  How can such a bill be proposed when the current poverty rate in Liberia is 74.6% in rural areas, 47.7% in urban sectors and 61.5% average at the national level (LISGIS 2008)? Should we not assume that this action is a demonstration of the fact that these lawmakers want to keep Liberians poorer in the interest of their selfish benefits?  Can our people read the signs on the board or will they be blinded by party loyalty, ethnicity, et al.?

The House of Representatives has got a chance to redeem the image of the Legislature in this instance, though doubts abound that they will not concur based on previous bogus passages of criminal laws against the people of Liberia. Can they ratify a law that from its start contravenes the constitution especially Article 30: indicating that “Citizens of Liberia who meet the following qualifications are eligible to become members of the Legislature.

a)      for the Senate, have attained the age of 30 years and for the House of Representatives, have attained the age of 25 years;

b)      be domiciled in the country or constituency to be represented not less than one year prior to the time of the election and be a taxpayer”.

Let us wait and see, but my best bet is that we have a group of ignorant lawmakers who do not care about the spirit and intent of the Organic Laws of the Republic of Liberia, least to talk about the interest of the people of Liberia. Alternatively, they have been obsessed by power and would do anything to deny the poor, and hardworking citizens (teachers, advocates, students, market women, farmers, community workers, etc.) the right to compete in national elections against them (current legislators).  It would not be a surprise that should this amendment succeed, tomorrow could bring another amendment putting the fees at 100 thousand USD or more beyond the current proposal of increasing from $750 USD to $7000 for the Senate, and from $500USD to $5000 USD for Representatives. And in such situation, those with the deepest pockets will contest and win, and keep the poor poorer while the rich would get richer. Liberians, have your say, else, it may get too late.

Just thinking aloud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8s me Tom Kaydor

The Crimea Debate: Who benefits

The Crimea Debate and Assets Freeze: Who Benefits?

The freezing of assets belonging to some key allies of the Russian President by the European Union is of concern to me because of one simple question. When assets are frozen, who benefits?  Russia is being accused of ‘land grab’ as the US Vice President, Joe Biden, puts it. Are the European Union and the United States engaged in “assets grab”?  It is important to underscore that freezing assets will not reverse the situation in Crimea. The people of Crimea have voted to join Russia just as the people of South Sudan voted to become an Independent Republic. This is history in the making. The right to self-determination by the people of Crimea should be respected. The EU and the US need to regard the universal principles of human rights especially the right to freedom of association.  Let sobriety overcome emotions in the Crimea debate.  Are the people not allowed to determine their destiny? 

On the question of assets freeze, who really benefits? After freezing the assets of Former President Taylor of Liberia and some of his allies, for instance, only the West knows exactly how much assets have been frozen, where those assets are, and who is benefiting from the assets currently. Hope the frozen assets of the Russians will not end up in the same corner where those of Taylor and allies ended up. It appears as though American and European banks are the beneficiaries of frozen assets. May be for the 'good reason'-bailouts.

Just my thoughts on the issues for today.

-Tom Kaydor’s reelections 22 March 2014

Critiquing John Ravenhill on Ease Asain Regionalism...

Critiquing John Ravenhill’s Article:

“East Asian Regionalism: Much Ado About Nothing?

22 March 2014

By: Thomas Kaydor       

In his article, “East Asian Regionalism: Much Ado About Nothing?”, Ravenhill (2009) argues that, in East Asia, negotiation and inter-governmental collaboration have increased primarily in trade and financial cooperation.  He asserts that the region’s economic agreements are largely motivated by diplomatic and strategic interests; hence ‘aggregate benefits from them are likely to be limited given the low levels of tariffs, et al.’ (Ravenhill 2009). I think the article is good because of Ravenhill’s clarity and logic, the merits and criticisms of regionalism discussed in the article, and factors militating against East Asian viable regionalism. Despite these positive elements, Ravenhill failed to provide concrete recommendations for building effective East Asian regional institutions. He also failed to appraise the impact of the US involvement in East Asia regionalism especially in the security sector.

East Asian regionalism is traceable to the 1967 formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Ravenhill 2009). ASEAN became a genuine region-wide inter-governmental institution in 1999 when China, Japan and Korea where coopted, thus transforming it into the ASAEN Plus Three grouping. This transformation transcended handling of the aftermath of 1997-98 financial crisis to increasing intra-regional cooperation on trade, finance, disaster management, tourism, and energy. ASEAN has attracted admirers and critics. Admirers believe that East Asian regionalism thrives on respect for sovereignty and commitment to peacefully resolving disputes. They argue that ‘East Asia has created a diplomatic community, and laid the foundation for regional security architecture’ (Ravenhill 2009), although there is no substantive regional security institution, as the region is driven by individualistic interests of member states-some maintaining security cooperation with the US (Park 2001). I think the region needs a viable security cooperation. Contrarily, ASEAN’s critics believe that some gains ascribed to the institution are overstated. For instance, they contend that the late 1980s peaceful resolution of the Cambodia-Vietnam conflict was not an achievement of ASEAN, but rather an outcome of international negotiation. I disagree here because an international intervention without regional support would not have brought lasting peace between the two countries. 

On challenges confronting East Asian regionalism, regional governments fail to comply with commitments in economic agreements. They practice protectionism, and lack effective dispute settlement mechanisms. For example, East Asian states signed agreements with non-Asian WTO members and uphold those agreements, but fail to uphold agreements amongst ASEAN members (Ravenhill 2009). As a booming global economic region, I think the governments need to overcome mistrust, eschew protectionism and fulfill their obligations under regional cooperation agreements. ASEAN member states should price effective regional cooperation over national self-interests. This will allow them benefit more from regional and international trade especially when the region is strongly bonded under an effective regional institution.

To conclude, John Ravenhill’s article provides a comprehensive account of the status of East Asian regionalism, which is viewed as a shallow consultative cooperation fora where governments conduct public diplomacy while protecting their autonomy against effective regional integration (Ravenhill 2009). Despite the article’s good attributes, Ravenhill failed to proffer concrete recommendations to mitigate the challenges militating against effective East Asian regionalism. He also failed to comment on the impact of the US’ cooperation with Japan, Korea, Australia, Indonesia, etc. I think these cooperations undermine building of effective regional institutions because the US alliances provide less incentives for East Asian regionalism.

References

Park, J 2001, ‘The US-led Alliances in the Asia-Pacific: hedge against potential threats or an undesirable multilateral security order?’, The Pacific Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 137-158.

Ravenhill J 2009, ‘East Asian Regionalism: Much Ado About Nothing?’, Review of International Studies, vol. 35, pp. 215-235.