Tuesday, 22 July 2014
Sunday, 20 July 2014
Talking Corruption in Africa
Talking
Corruption in Africa
By Thomas Kaydor/ 20 July 2014
According to Transparency International (2013) @ www.transparency.org, the perceived levels of public
sector corruption in 177 countries and territories around the world ( http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results)
Liberia ranks 83 globally, and 15th place amongst all African
states. This is good news for Liberians to celebrate, though so much is still
required to reach the best mark so that Liberia can become the most corruption free
State in Africa.
In order of
ranking for African states:
State
|
Rank
|
Botswana
|
30
|
Cape Verde
|
41
|
Seychelles
|
47
|
Rwanda
|
49
|
Mauritius
|
52
|
Lesotho
|
55
|
Namibia
|
57
|
Ghana
|
63
|
Sao Tome and Principe
|
72
|
South Africa
|
72
|
Senegal
|
77
|
Tunisia
|
77
|
Swaziland
|
82
|
Burkina Faso
|
83
|
Liberia
|
83
|
According to Transparency International (2013) ‘every effort has
been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report.
All information was believed to be correct as of November 2013. Nevertheless,
Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of
its use for other purposes or in other contexts’.
Saturday, 19 July 2014
Friday, 4 July 2014
Development, Governance and Public Policy: Reflecting on Anti-Corruption Efforts in Liberia
Development, Governance and Public Policy: Reflecting on Anti-Corruption Efforts in Liberia: Reflecting on anti-corruption efforts in Liberia, West Africa: By Thomas Kaydor/ 29 June 2014 (thkaydor@gmail.com) Corruption is one...
Development, Governance and Public Policy: Need for equal access to quality tertiary educatio...
Development, Governance and Public Policy: Need for equal access to quality tertiary educatio...: Report on blog post by John Quiggin Thomas Kaydor/5 July 2-14 < http://johnquiggin.com/2014/04/28/stratification-in-tertiary-educat...
Need for equal access to quality tertiary education
Report on blog post
by John Quiggin
Thomas Kaydor/5 July 2-14
This essay
reports on John Quiggin’s blog (http://johnquiggin.com/)
where, on 28 April 2014, he posted ‘stratification in tertiary education’. In
this post, Quiggin (2014) argues that those calling for Australia’s adoption of
the US’ highly stratified tertiary educational system are advocating for
increased stratification in Australia’s tertiary educational system. He notes
that the Ivy League universities (like Harvard and Princeton) in the US provide
undergraduate education to only a tiny proportion of young Americans (about one
per cent). Hence, should Australia adopt similar system, each ‘Australian Ivy
League’ would only absorb about a thousand students annually, and this could
deny thousands of students the opportunity to obtain university education from
institutions of their choice. Quiggin points out that tertiary education
systems reflect and reconstruct the society to which they belong; as a result,
the highly stratified systems in the US and UK, signify and strengthen ‘a
class-bound society in which the best thing one can do is to choose the right
parents’. Although Quiggin acknowledges
Australia’s less stratified education system, he opposes increased
stratification, which could widen the gap between the group of eight and the
rest of the universities in the country. He therefore recommends that the
country should reduce stratification in the education system, and calls on
policymakers to consider tertiary education like other public services provided
to all.
Indeed,
university education should be treated like other social services that a state
must provide to its citizens without discrimination. According to Jeffrey Haynes (2008), ‘the
people are the real wealth of a nation’, hence the achievement of the basic
objective of their development requires the creation of an enabling environment
for them to live longer, healthier and creative lives (p. 12). Equal access to
quality education creates that enabling environment and breeds a more productive
society. Support for quality education like other social services is therefore
an investment in the human capital of a country (Gans et al. 2013). This
increases productivity of the labour force and its income, thereby leading to
economic growth and prosperity. Consequently, countries should not stratify
educational systems, because this hinders citizens’ access to equitable education.
The ability of a citizen to get quality university education should depend on
his or her ability to enrol and complete a university.
Stratified
tertiary education is not unique to the US, UK and other developed countries.
It also exists in developing countries.
In Liberia, for example, the free American slaves who founded the nation
set up the then singular state owned Liberia College in 1862, which later
became University of Liberia (UL) in 1951, to train state elites and their
children. Indigenous Liberians (95
percent of the population) were not allowed to enrol at the University of
Liberia up to the 1960s, unless they were servants of the elites, and changed
their indigenous names to western ones (Wreh 1976). Graduates from the UL were
given preferential employment in the public and private sectors. This
stratified educational system perpetuated illiteracy amongst the majority
indigenous tribes. Lack of tertiary education meant lack of employment
opportunities for the majority. This also meant that 95 per cent of the
country’s population remained illiterate and could only engage in subsistence farming
to feed themselves, but could not promote economically beneficial
ventures. This system entrenched a
minority elitist aristocracy in Liberia for 133 unbroken years, undermined
productivity and stalled economic growth amidst enormous natural resources,
thereby increasing poverty (Sawyer 1991). Suppression of the indigenous
majority led to the over throw of the Liberian oligarchy on 12 April 1980 by 17
illiterate non-commissioned army officers from the indigenous tribes; thus the
beginning of the two decades civil unrest in Liberia (Youboty 2004).
Tertiary
education is linked with one of the ten lessons from economics, ‘a country’s
standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services’ (Gans
et al. 2013, p. 13). The variation in
the standard of living across countries is a function of divergent levels of
productivity. Educational standards and productivity are fundamentally linked.
The better educated a country’s population, the more productive its citizens,
and the better living standard they enjoy. Therefore, making tertiary education
equitable means affording all citizens equal access and opportunity to quality
education. Quality education will improve living standard, hence policymakers
need to raise productivity by ensuring that workers are well educated and
equipped with the requisite tools and technology required to produce goods and
services.
References
Gans, J, King, S, Stonecash, R &
Mankiw, G 2013, Principles of Economics,
China Translation and Printing Services, Beijing, China.
Haynes, J 2008, Development studies: short introductions, Polity Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Sawyer, A 1992, The emergence of autocracy in Liberia: tragedy
and challenge, ICS, San Francisco, California.
Wreh, T 1976, The love of liberty … the rule of President William V.S. Tubman in
Liberia 1944-1971, C Hurst and Company, London, UK.
Youboty, J 2004, A nation in terror: the true story of the Liberian Civil War, USA.
<http://johnquiggin.com/2014/04/28/stratification-in-tertiary-education/>.
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Reflecting on Anti-Corruption Efforts in Liberia
Reflecting on anti-corruption efforts in Liberia, West Africa:
By Thomas
Kaydor/ 29 June 2014 (thkaydor@gmail.com)
Corruption is one of the biggest themes on the lips of Liberians today.
This issue has become prominent in the national debate because President Ellen
Johnson Sirleaf, during her inaugural address on 16 January
2006, said ‘corruption will be public enemy number one’. Today, the President’s
critics are judging her by this statement claiming that ‘not much is being done
to prosecute corrupt government officials’. Besides newspapers’ reports and
talk show callers, one of the groups of Liberians holding the President
accountable to this promise is the Liberia Institute for
Public Integrity (LIPI), which alleges that President Sirleaf spent over
two million US Dollars without accountability. While advocacy against
corruption is laudable and that the people must hold the President accountable,
it seems that some critics tend to ignore or forget the enormous efforts put in
the fight against corruption in Liberia, efforts for which perhaps corruption
has become topical today compared to the days of previous autocratic regimes
that endorsed corruption as a modus operandi. For instance, Former President
Taylor once asserted that ‘the civil servants are not being paid, yet they are
not complaining because they go to work every day, pay themselves, and remain
shinning’. Yet under Taylor’s regime, and the ones prior to, corruption in the
public sector did not become a ubiquitous thematic debate as is today in the
post-conflict country.
Why corruption remains intrinsic in Liberia, there are currently
more avenues through which this societal vice can be brutally dealt with in the
interest of the people of Liberia and the state at large. Most of these integrity
institutional frameworks can be credited to the Sirleaf lead government, and
for this, she needs to be commended. First, Liberia has an independent General Auditing Commission (GAC)
that reports to the National Legislature. Though the GAC was founded during the
leadership of Chairman Charles G. Bryant, Madam Sirleaf was its key proponent when
she headed the Good Governance Commission as Chair. The commissioners and staff
members of the GAC are being paid handsome salaries from the resources of
Liberia. The GAC has submitted several reports to the National Legislature. The
World Bank is funding the Legislature’s
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Secretariat, which supports the legislative
Public Accounts Committee in scrutinizing audit reports sent to the Legislature
to allow the first branch of government recommend remedial actions to the
Executive for prosecution of those who may be implicated for misuse, abuse and
plunder of public resources.
To what extent has the Legislature done its part of the job in
fighting corruption by speedily passing on these audit recommendations to the
Executive for prosecution? Can the media, civil society and the people begin to
pressure the National Legislature (the direct representatives of the people) to
do its part of the job as opposed to solely blaming the Executive for not
clamping down on corruption? In the same vein, can the National Legislature
allow its financial system and processes to be audited by the GAC? How can the
Legislature come with clean hands to recommend prosecution against would be
corrupt officials when the entity itself does not want to be audited? The failure
of the Legislature to allow audit in its backyard for the past nine years
brings the so called first branch of government’s integrity under dark cloud. Can
the Legislature allow an audit of its records?
Second, there exists the Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission which
should serve as a watch dog and hold corrupt officials accountable. The LACC
was ‘was established in August 2008 to directly
investigate, recommend for prosecution all acts of corruption in all sectors of
government including the private sector and to institute measures aimed at
eradicating the practice and its impact’. This body, according to some
critics, is yet to show its actual powers. The commissioners and staff members
are also being paid handsome salaries from the resources of Liberia. Can the
LACC therefore become a robust entity rather than sitting in offices waiting for
corrupt cases? What mechanisms are there at the LACC to aggressively pursue
corrupt officials and corrupt public servants? Can this Commission become an
efficient and effective integrity institution? Some critics are not convinced
that the LACC stands out in using the powers given it under its statutory
mandate. In public policy, statutory entities are to enhance national agenda
setting and implementation. In this case, the LACC has to play a lead and
robust role in setting and implementing the agenda for curbing, if not eliminating,
corruption in Liberia. Arguably, the LACC is yet to step up to its mandate. Can
the public, media and civil society begin to push the LACC to do its work
rather than solely blame the President for corruption in Liberia?
Third, there is the Freedom
of Information Act under which the public, civil society and interested
parties can demand information and documentations from any government entity in
the event such information is needed. The commissioner and staff members are equally
being paid handsome salaries from the resources of Liberia. Under this law, all
Liberians have the right to demand documents and reports from their public
institutions if they feel there is an abuse and misuse of government resources.
Can the media, the civil society and ordinary citizens take advantage of this
law to bring corrupt practices to the public glare for possible prosecution such
that this menace is curbed or eliminated?
Last, there is the Public
Procurement and Concession Commission (PPCC). This Commission was set up to
amongst other things streamline public procurement process. An ACT ‘establishes the Public Procurement
and Concessions Commission (PPCC) with oversight responsibility to regulate and
monitor all forms of public procurement and concessions practices in Liberia.
The PPCC has the elaborate mandate of monitoring procurement entities to comply
with the Act of 2005 for all public procurement and awarding concessions, in
order to ensure economy, efficiency, transparency and to promote competition so
that Government gets “value for money” in using public funds’. The
commissioners and staff of this commission are, like other commissions, receiving
handsome salaries from the taxes of Liberia. This Commission was instituted to
serve as a hedge against corrupt practices in the procurement sector of our
public sector. Can the public therefore focus on ensuring that the PPCC processes are religiously followed
rather than solely blaming the President for failure to fight corruption?
Arguably, all these institutions serve as a quantum and laudable
public policy hedge against corruption. They could take Liberia forward in
winning the battle against corruption, but this can only happen if the people
(public) hold them accountable to their mandates. The fight against a century
old systemic corruption in Africa’s first Republic would not end within a
decade. It requires concerted efforts by the people of Liberia, the government
and civil society to ensure that this fight is advanced in the best interest of
the state now and in the future. Blaming the President alone does not solve the
deep seated problem of corruption. The public, Legislature, Executive and Judiciary
must each do their part, and collaborate, to ensure that the fight against
corruption is taken to a logical conclusion.
Corruption is not unique to Liberia, but this does not mean that Liberia
should remain one of the countries rated with high corruption levels. Corruption
is widespread in western and developed countries. For example, reporting on a corrupt
syndicate at the Sydney Airport, the Australia’s Integrity Commissioner, Philip
Moss (2003) concluded that ‘an enduring lesson is that corruption risk will
follow opportunity for illicit profit. Policy designers, and those responsible
for governance of high-risk operating environments, must expect this situation
to be the case, and plan accordingly’. Can Liberians use the existing integrity
institutions to push policy designers and those working in high-risk operating
environments to become accountable and transparent?
Least you get me wrong, the President, as Head of State, is under
obligation to fight corruption under her regime, but without the support of the
existing integrity institutional frameworks (GAC, LACC, PPCC, FOIA, et al.), Liberia
may linger in corruption at the hands of public servants, and the country may
remain underdeveloped due to the lack of accountability and transparency, and abuse
and misuse of public resources. The time is now for all to unite against
corruption rather than blame a single individual (the President) who alone cannot
address systemic corruption in the Republic of Liberia. The debate about corruption
has become prominent today because the democratic space exists now than before.
Let Liberians therefore take advantage of such space and the integrity institutional
frameworks to fight corruption in all its forms and manners, no matter who is
involved in Liberia, a fragile state still
recovering from 14 years fratricidal civil conflict. This is the challenge.
Liberia First!
Profile:
Thomas Kaydor
Thomas
Kaydor is Representative of the College of Asia and the Pacific (CAP), Member
of the CAP Board, and Member of the Permanent Representative Council (PRC) of
PARSA. Mr Kaydor, a Liberian, is a postgraduate student at the Crawford School
of Economics and Government, ANU, reading Master of Public Policy, and Master
of Diplomacy. He holds M.A (High Distinction) in International Relations, University
of Liberia, where he served as President of the Postgraduate Students
Association; and B.A (Magna Cum Laude) in Political Science, the University of
Liberia. He also holds a Diploma in Management and Development of NGOs, Galilee
College, Israel; Certificate in Human Rights & Results
Based Management, UN System Staff College, Turin, Italy, and Postgraduate
Diploma in Diplomacy and Negotiation, Islamabad Foreign Service Academy,
Pakistan.
He
served as Assistant Minister for Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Republic of Liberia, and coordinated Liberia’s diplomatic
relations with all Afro Asian and the Pacific states. He was also UN
Coordination Services Adviser, UNDP Ethiopia; and UN Coordination Analyst, UNDP
Liberia. He provided effective coordination support to the UN Country Teams, promoting
UN reform, Joint Programming, Delivering as One, et al. He was Chief of Office
Staff, Liberian National Legislature; Field Supervisor, USAID Social-Reintegration
Programme; Psychosocial Officer, World Vision International; and Part-Time
Instructor, University of Liberia, and
the AME University, Liberia.
He
has published several articles including, but not limited to the following:
“The
obstacles to achieving MDG2 in post-conflict Liberia”.
“The
impact of poor infrastructure on poverty reduction in post-conflict countries:
the case of Liberia”.
“Cash
transfers are not sufficient for poverty reduction: this must be complemented
by other basic social services to lift the poor out of poverty”.
He
is also publishing a book at the Authorhouse: “Liberian Democracy: a Critique
of Checks and Balances”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)