By Umaru Fofana
As President Ernest Bai Koroma travels this week to Guinea it is but fitting that we put that strategic neighbour into some perspective. Political speak. We do not yet know the detail of the purpose of his visit but a time nevertheless to raise some concerns over what obtains there.
It was a country that helped more than most in the fight against our rebel menace, even if they also had some self-serving reason to do so – namely not to allow the inferno to extend to their neck of the wood. But that assistance led to the occupation of a portion of land that had hitherto been Sierra Leonean territory – the eastern town of YENGA which still has Guinean troop presence with weaponry.
The history of Guinea is replete with Pan-Africanism, regrets, disappointments and human rights violations of the people of this proud nation whose influence on Sierra Leone is immeasurable. From the West African power house it once was to a near pariah where democracy is losing ground at a time it seemed it would make its biggest gain.
Guinea, for 54 years, has known only three leaders, barring the bogeymen who called themselves a junta. The third came to power under circumstances that were as murky and muddy as those under which the soldiers had shot their way to power. At a time just when all thought democracy had finally arrived in a country it had long eluded.
What looked very promising in the mid to late 1950s was in the offing. A fellow African country came to the aid of another after France had withdrawn all its resources from a nation which believed in self-determination and not a continuation of being in the apron string of its colonial master.
Ghana gave US$ 10 million as loan to Guinea to replace the plugs pulled by France. As at the last check the loan was yet to be repaid. Sekou Toure remained the towering iconic figure over the country from 1958 until his death in 1984. His regime was a mixed bag. He presided over a regime that prioritised the liberation of the rest of the African continent from the yolk of colonialism and one that was brutal against its own people. Guineans had never tasted a government of their own choosing under him.
After his demise, Lansana Conte emerged from the military on 3 April 1984 and established himself as the successor. His regime brought about infrastructural expansion in especially the capital Conakry. Like the regime before his, Conte became a despot under a fig leafy arrangement with his Unity and Progress Party being pretty much like the Politburo in the former USSR. Truth is there were hardly any genuine elections held under him. Brutality was the hallmark of his regime as he ruled with an iron fist. That was immortalised by the events of 2005/6 when peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators were murdered by security forces in cold blood.
As it had happened when Sekou Toure died, Conte's death on 22 December 2008 was followed by the military again taking over the reins of power. A stop-start-stop-start eclectic transition finally pulled through after many a failed attempt to kill the junta leader led to him being flown abroad for medical treatment. His return was to Burkina Faso and not Guinea if only to have a transition to a civilian rule. That transition ended in a disastrous mess. Guineans were confronted again with people who at different times were members of the old regimes even if they had fallen out with them at some point – Alpha Conde and Cellou Dalein Diallo.
In a somewhat twist of fate, or was it, Diallo won more than 40% – around 44% actually – of the votes at the first ballot. It still remains a mystery to many how those frail fortunes of Conde's who'd polled only 18% of the votes to come a distant second sky-rocketed to make him become president. I believe, very strongly, that Conde did not genuinely win that election. He could not possibly have risen from those paltry votes to win on second ballot.
What obtains in Guinea currently strengthens my conviction. How can an elected government continue to rule for two years without a parliament. Clearly the president is reluctant to hold legislative elections which have been postponed more times than the septuagenarian Conde was arrested and jailed by Guinea's first two presidents when he was an opposition figure. And it is shocking what the opposition are undergoing under him.
Under Conde, hardly have any serious efforts been made to bridge the divide left in the wake of that December 2010 election in which people voted clearly along the lines of ethnicity with the two main tribes Fullahs voting Diallo and Mandingoes voting Conde. This perhaps explains Conde's discomfort and reluctance to hold parliamentary elections. His Rally of the Guinean People party will definitely be beaten into the minority and his government will be held to account in a way he would not like, even if that is what is good for the people of Guinea. I would not be surprised if president Conde reneged on holding presidential election on time.
Sierra Leone is on a strong footing in the Mano River Union region to discuss issues of human rights and democratic good governance. I appreciate the fact that Sierra Leone has an unfinished business with Guinea over the disputed border town which clearly should form a huge part of bilateral talks between Koroma and Conde. But Koroma should also attempt to discuss good governance with his Guinean opposite number.
Sierra Leone and Guinea depend on each other for trade. Many are of the view that we depend on them more than the reverse. I disagree. If the volume of trade from Guinea into Sierra Leone is higher than the reverse, then it makes Guinean traders also equally dependent on our traders. Without one the other is adversely affected.
There can be no explanation let alone excuses for such. A deficit of democracy in Guinea could impact our democracy. “After all Guinea did it or it happened in Guinea” will be the excuse.
Guinea cannot afford to continue like this – without a parliament and with the two main political parties dug in their heels. The country probably has the largest number of Sierra Leoneans anywhere on the continent. What goes wrong there should be of concern to us. Even their election in December 2012 reverberated here to the extent some violence erupted in parts of the country.
President Koroma may not be a very good example in healing an ethnic divide, after all he has not made good of himself as president in achieving that in his own country, but there is a lot he can lecture the Guinean leader on about democracy. He could offer to mediate between the two divides. A breakdown in peace and stability in Guinea will ineluctably affect peace and stability in Sierra Leone. As he goes, even if it is to thank the Sierra Leoneans there who crossed over to vote for him, he should think of another visit to address issues of democratic good governance and peaceful coexistence, or the lack thereof, in that country. I can make bold to renew my call made two years ago, or so, to urge Koroma to consider appointing former president Ahmad Tejan Kabbah as his envoy to Guinea. He could serve both the Yenga purpose and that of the emasculating of democracy going on in that country.
