|
Until recently, Liberian leaders did not honor national/international laws and conventions. Indigenous people, women, children, the poor and persons with disabilities were not respected equally under the law. These leaders were also not image conscious nor did they care about public opinion. Governance was centralized, top-down and downright oppressive. Corrupt practices extended from cops in the streets to judges, and reached the peaks of the executive branch. Extortion, bribery, and payoffs were the norm. One could only secure rights that you purchased criminally. Harsh repression mobilized various constituencies into urgent action. The society is now transforming from periods of wanton disregard for civil rights to a relatively humane environment. Nonetheless, some Liberians are still being treated as less “Liberian” than others. Rights advocacy is no less important than ever before. We are collectively responsible to continue the human rights activism of previous generations to ensure that all are treated as being equally Liberian – irrespective of ethnicity, gender or social identity.
Many of the people who instigated and catalyzed activism in the pre-war era are presently heavily ingratiated in the ruling power structures. Three and half years into the Sirleaf administration, which has high number of prominent rights activists (critics of past administrations) in its cabinet and other key leadership positions: Samuel Kofi Woods, Tiawon Gongoloe, Amos Sawyer, Commeneh Wesseh, and H. Boimah Fahnbulleh, Jr, to name a few; outcomes are not being reaped in the form of rigorous accountability and greater transparency. The corruption index, however informal and even subjective, is certainly high. Although none of these names have been directly linked to corruption, need exists for an extra nudge; upping the ante and clearly articulating the consequences of their apparent silence in the pervasiveness of conditions that they criticized previously when the culprits were other administrations.
Here is why. The effects of human rights violations, even if they do not involve physical violence are felt disproportionately in some parts of the country than others. Poverty, for example, is not randomly scattered across the country. Poverty and associated socioeconomic inequities in health, education, and other livelihood outcomes are concentrated in very high numbers in specific areas and among distinct populations (with a cluster of demographic and geographic characteristics). The rural sector and para-urban communities (slums) bear a brunt of these disadvantages. Therefore, as times have changed, so should our paradigms, practices, strategies, and tactics. What form of social justice advocacy is apt for the post-war era? I try to answer this question in what follows, although not fully. This is a first step toward a deeper analysis of the changing practice environment in human rights advocacy functions. My intention is to provide a summary that will serve as an orientation to a detailed content that could be evolved. The new task facing human rights advocate is to cultivate a strategy for activism and transformative social change under democratic rule. These are transitional periods and the social justice interventions must be apt for the moment.
It is clear that the state is certainly not fomenting or carrying out physical violence against citizens. This has posed significant challenges for rights advocates. But as outright state repression in the form of physical violence or other overt civil rights abuses have been quelled, the government is still using sinister tactics of old. A blind eye has been turned to covert forms of oppression, requiring new tools of rights advocacy. More so, the state is not involved in deliberate peace building or transitional justice practice. Very few human rights advocates are utilizing these mechanisms.
Suppression of rights has continued unabated under the Sirleaf administration in certain arenas, with different levels of intensity. Human resources management (hiring, firing, and promotions of professionals) and the delivery of basic services to the poor and the poorest of Liberians remain areas where difficulties still linger. Discrimination along variety of parochial lines still exists. Moreover, resources intended for social and economic development, especially geared toward reducing the vast array of vulnerabilities of the poor and middle class continue to be laundered or misapplied by government officials. The intractable nature of challenges facing Liberian society requires a mix of incentives (meaningful praises) and pressures (monitoring and vigorous reporting) of the government’s performance to increase protections for vulnerable citizens. Reforms by the government need to be seen through social justice prisms.
Two points must be underlined here. First, various political functionaries of the Liberian state: government officials and their patrons outside of government (the social elites) are amassing wealth and living with dignity. Second, the middle class, the poor and poorest of Liberians are unemployed, some homeless, and their dignity under severe threat. Indignities are directed at the poor enlarging disparities in well-being between the rich and poor. These factors show why poll results released by the Sirleaf administration indicating very high citizens’ approval might be inadequate. We need rights advocates and institutions that can do independently verifiable polls on the state of affairs in different spheres and geographic locations as counterweights to self-interested polling.
The new context is one that can be described as the “privatization of state repression.” Many experienced and well-known human rights activists are beholden to the government. The Sirleaf administration has done well to evade outside scrutiny and thus elicited the support or merger with known rights advocates, whose understanding of rights advocacy is restricted to a fight against physical repression and perhaps not psychosocial repression. Replacement repressive practices like “blacklisting” or denying of work opportunities to political critics both in government and interfering with merit-based employment in the private sector are not known to draw the ire of activists. Most journalists and media outlets have not learned to norm or underscore these occurrences as matters of critical importance. New monitoring and investigative skills are required in the current climate to expose the shenanigans of the government and its allies who are bent on abusing the dignities of the poor and the poorest of Liberians.
Liberian human rights advocates and organizations have not garner or are still acquiring the sophistication to pursue issues of state-administered discrimination coupled with the social and economic deprivation from a rights-based perspective. The institutionalized elitism, which denied people access to social and economic rights on the basis of political ideology still remain hallmarks. It continues to be reflected in the hiring practices, the lopsided salaries being paid to social and political cronies and labor rights violations that occur in dark alleys. A burgeoning new constitutional order is upon rights advocates, namely, a time to proactively teach tolerance from kindergarten to workplaces. We need a culturally appropriate curriculum that embeds human rights education and norms in daily life. In the aftermath of war, when the psychosocial effects are burdens on citizens across the spectrum, human rights practice should also include strategies for reconciling victims and helping to recuperate vulnerable populations and communities. Utilizing well-honed investigative techniques to uncover past crimes to enable prosecutions or ensure distributive justice, psychosocial interventions that help strengthen and sustain resiliency, building community capacity to address gender-based violence, addressing forces that foster state-led repression (security-sector reform), etc now need to be parts of the arsenal of human rights advocates in the new era.
In other words, all institutions of the state and non-state institutions should be expected to undergo transformation from being used as repressive agents of elite domination to guardians of fair play and merit. We need a holistic approach to human rights advocacy that convenes professionals in health care, social welfare, law, law enforcement, education, and other fields to strengthen capacity and immunity against rights abuses. While punitive approaches are still needed, restorative processes are just as critical.
Massacres and bloodsheds may not be likely in the new era. However, journalists, lawyers, policymakers, and human rights advocates will need to build competencies in new approaches to rights advocacy. The only ways in which we will preserve the memories of victims of the atrocities of the past is by being vigilant to proactively prevent reoccurrence of the war. By increasing people’s consciousness and working with legislators, law enforcement personnel and the courts, we will widen the culture of rights-based advocacy and close the rings on impunity. The problem is not only that perpetrators will do everything to maintain the status quo ante, but also that human rights advocates both in and outside government have very little or no experience in how to police such malpractices. Our human rights organizations need exposure to innovative models of human rights campaign. Our allies abroad: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, The Advocates for Human Rights, International Center for Transitional Justice, etc need to develop culturally-compatible instructional modules to help build new knowledge for the existing pool of rights advocates and the society.
Two rather delicate questions need to be discussed. One must ask: Is once, a human rights advocate always a human rights advocate? Second, how should rights advocates intervene in the high dependence of women on men and the concomitant abuses that follow? Both are frontiers worth exploring when considering the future of rights advocacy. For strong historical reasons, human rights organizations from abroad have tended to align themselves closely with “old-time” rights advocates who are parts of the new elite. This has likely forestalled opportunities for these organizations to broaden their horizons beyond their narrow scope even when glaring evidence exists of this seeming unproductive enmeshment. In addition, in such areas as property rights, employment, healthcare, education, even politics, women still occupy a secondary role to men, although much has changed in terms of consciousness with the election of President Sirleaf.
As we step back and assess the nearly four years since the election of President Sirleaf, it is fair to say that we have made progress in terms of the image of the nation abroad. Unspeakable crimes are not being committed in the country and so Liberia is no longer labeled a pariah. Yet still, domestically the misery index is quite high. Payoffs are still not being reaped from domestic policy. Pockets of prosperity exist, but there remain vast seas of agony. The seeming co-optation of record number of activists by the government is breeding cynicism in some quarters. This is not to say that some of these government officials may not be succeeding in their current roles.
Finally, it is impossible to predict what political developments will deliver in the coming months and years especially since presidential elections are in the wings. Indications are that President Sirleaf will seek re-elections. There is a very weak opposition and the slate of opposition candidates is not promising. No new recipes exist for building effective institutions or building sustainable consensus to repair the disrupted fabric. Business as usual continues to be the practice in many aspects of governance. What will be our reference point for reforms: domestic policy, international policy, the everyday realities of the citizens, or all of the above? There should be no sanctuary for rights abuses in the new Liberia.
|
