By Christian Lawrence
To
say I am disappointed because the planned 29th
October 2012 Sierra Leone Presidential Debate did not hold is
certainly an understatement! I am inwardly angry and disillusioned at
this tormenting reality for a number of reasons that are enumerated
below.
Considering
that political campaigning is currently in full throttle in the
country, let me hasten to state before I am misconstrued that this
article was not motivated by partisan sentiments. It will be good
therefore if readers can objectively and, where applicable,
nationalistically read and make sense out of this piece of work.
I
am happy for democracy which gives me the right to my opinions! You
do not have to agree with my viewpoints. I am just a lone
professional who made up his mind to share his thoughts on what he
sees as a very pertinent national issue that got trivialized.
In
a bid to create a space for the electorate to assess their supposed
topmost Presidential aspirants in preparation for the November 2012
public elections, a Presidential Debate Committee comprising credible
institutions from the fourth estate, civil society, National and
International Non-Governmental Organizations put a lot of resources
and time into planning a Presidential debate. Based on well
thought-out and democratically-agreed criteria, the Presidential
Debate Committee initially settled to bring President Ernest Koroma
of the All People’s Congress (APC) Party, and Rtd. Brig. Julius
Maada Bio of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) to a panel to
dilate on, among other things, their plans to develop the country if
elected on 17 November. Due to unfolding developments and further
considerations, Charles Margai of the People’s Movement for
Democratic Change (PMDC) Party was subsequently invited to
participate in the debate.
Ernest
Koroma, Charles Margai and Maada Bio gave their consent at some
point, directly or indirectly, to participate in the debate, which
correspondingly gave impetus to the planning process. You can imagine
the disappointment that hit members of the Presidential Debate
Committee and a significant section of the wider Sierra Leonean
populace when they heard from the President’s office that contrary
to his earlier promise and assurance, he would not be participating
in the debate because of the traffic incident at Goderich Street in
Freetown on 12th
October 2012. News had it that the President’s official motorcade
coincidentally met head-to-head
with that of Rtd. Brig. Bio's resulting in a momentary tension
especially between their supporters.
I
am not interested in making a judgement about who was right or wrong
on the issue since both sides have given varying accounts! The
President decided to pull out of the planned debate he had graciously
accepted to participate in because of this ugly street episode. His
decision to withdraw is what triggered my concern to write.
The
centrepiece of this write-up is to elucidate on the ramifications the
aborted debate
will
have on the 17th
November general elections, and by extension, the country’s
fledgling democracy. It seriously bothers me that the President can
so boldly pull out of the planned debate without a moment’s thought
of how his action or inaction would affect the democratic process.
As
a person that believes in the democratic credo of individual
choice,
something tells me to accept the President’s decision to pull out
of the debate as and when he chose. The other side of me however is
wary. How
I wish President Koroma were just an ordinary Sierra Leonean citizen
instead; in which case, I would not have been bothered if he had
decided to back out of a planned debate.
The
Ernest Koroma I am referring to here is the sitting President of the
country! As President he is a public figure serving the interests of
citizens associating with not only the APC party, but other political
parties and even those not directly affiliated to any political party
in the country at all. President Koroma undeniably is answerable to
the wider citizenry by virtue of the fact that he owes his legitimacy
to them since he was democratically elected into office in 2007. Even
Rtd. Brig. Maada Bio and Mr Margai who are yet to become President
need to be assessed by citizens because they are working towards
occupying the highest political office in the country.
Ordinary
citizens have very little room during the on-going political
campaigning to constructively engage their Presidential candidates
since ideal
campaign meetings are hardly held. What you commonly see during this
period is political party rallies in which especially the APC and
SLPP are to some degree bent on displaying the large numbers of their
supporters along the streets of big towns and cities. Because of this
gap, the debate would have been the ideal platform to assess the key
Presidential candidates before the elections.
The
debate was meant to enable the electorate make better/informed
choices in the polling booths on 17th
November. What better way for these candidates to have demonstrated
good statesmanship and leadership, than to have participated in the
debate. Under the current campaign atmosphere, anyone may be tempted
to hastily say anything that is music to the ears of the public even
if misleadingly, just to serve their parochial political interests
and hoodwink the voters into casting their ballots for them. It is
insufficient therefore, like I earlier stated, to only hold political
rallies which seem to have taken over constructive community
meetings. Even if the political campaigns were to be punctuated with
productive community meetings to get citizens buy-in of the
manifestos, the effect would still have been incomparable to a
well-informed debate for the following reasons:
Firstly,
a wide range of the electorate and other stakeholders from Freetown,
the provinces and outside the country because of the live broadcast
and the honest and independent handling of questions. They would also
have been challenged by an impartial moderator. Organizing street
rallies in the name of campaigning will undoubtedly not offer the
same outcome.
Secondly,
for the Presidential candidates to know that the audience to the
debate was going to be diverse and largely well-informed, that would
likely have gone to make them choose their answers to questions posed
very carefully. It goes without saying that they would have tried to
present realistic plans because they would have known that the
electorate and other stakeholders within and outside of the country
would later hold the winner accountable to their promises.
Thirdly,
the debate would have aptly tested the intellectual strength and also
the level of tolerance and maturity of the candidates in front of a
wide audience.
It
will be worthwhile if politicians try in the future to treat the
electorate with respect and as important pieces of the puzzle in the
electioneering equation. If the right
of the voter to make informed choices in an election was something
the Presidential candidates had considered first, they certainly
would have worked on their seemingly inflamed
egos
after
the Goderich Street saga
and
do the debate.
Now
that the debate has been cancelled, the main losers are the
electorate. If the respective candidates are content
with the truth that most of the electorate will be going to the polls
on 17th
November without a comparative knowledge of their development
programmes, personalities, moral uprightness etc., then I make bold
to question their intentions to develop the country if elected.
I
wish you all peaceful elections!
Christian
Lawrence is the Governance Coordinator of ActionAid International
Sierra Leone, and also a member of the Presidential Debate Committee.
His views expressed in this article are solely those of the author,
and not the institution he is working.
