Sierra Leone’s Regime Types from Milton Margai to Valentine Strasser

By Dr.Abdul Karim Bangura,USA.

Introduction

That Sierra Leonean political processes have been complex, heterogeneous, and frequently both perplexing and uncertain is hardly an exaggeration. Together, political procedures and patterns of change paint a diverse picture of politics. The images portray cases of mismanagement and gross inhumanity, of irresponsibility and official pillaging, alongside those of experimentation, disappointment, vacillation, and ongoing confrontation.

Furthermore, they convey instances of inefficient management and responsiveness, of the making of widely accepted notions of political behavior, and sometimes of allied organizations for their maintenance. In each of these instances, political processes have taken definite shapes and possessed recognizable dynamics. As Chazan et al. (1988:131-132) point out, the criteria for classifying regime types have varied widely. The crudest distinction and the least helpful is the civilian-military typology, highlighting a confusion between means of regime change and their outcomes. Using a similar conceptual framework, some classifications have been based on the differentiation of leadership styles: mobilizing, conciliatory, coercive, autocratic. Others have favored categories based on ideology or policy orientations: Marxist, socialist, capitalist, etc. More sophisticated distinctions have been drawn on the basis of degrees of competition, participation, and control. Like Chazan and her partners, the typology of Sierra Leonean regimes used in this essay is based on the dynamic interactions between rulers and the ruled and the norms governing these exchanges.

The choice of this typology hinges on the fact that, as Chazan and her colleagues again suggest, if the concept of regime indeed refers to the rules of the political game and its concomitant institutions, to the ways in which society is linked to the apparatus of the state, then regime types should be defined in these terms. Thus, in this study, the intent of Sierra Leonean rulers is far less important than the latent principles that have guided their exercise of power.

Chazan and her colleagues classify African regime types into seven categories: (1) Administrative-hegemonial, (2) Pluralist, (3) Party-mobilizing, (4) Party-centrist, (5) Personal-coercive, (6) Populist, and (7) Ambiguous. A discussion of all these regime types is beyond the scope of this essay. It suffices to discuss the four regime types that have emerged in independent Sierra Leone as various experiments were attempted and lessons gleaned from past experiences. The conduct of politics has also undergone a process of localization, accounting for further heterogeneity. The four kinds of regimes presented in Table 1 and outlined in the following pages have themselves, therefore, been relatively fluid. Nonetheless, as Bailey (1994) observes, a typology is generally multidimensional and conceptual, and it involves minimizing within-group variance while maximizing between-group variance. This means that a researcher arranges a set of entitles into groups, so that each group is as different as possible from all other groups, but each group is internally as homogeneous as possible. My maximizing both within-group homogeneity and between-group heterogeneity, the researcher delineates groups that are as distinct (non-overlapping) as possible, with all members within a group being as alike as possible.

Table 1: Typology of Sierra Leonean Regimes

Regime Type Ruler Duration

Pluralist
Milton Margai: 1961-1964

Administrative-hegemonial
Albert Margai:1964-1967
Andrew Juxon-Smith:1967-1968
Siaka Stevens: 1968-1985

Party-mobilizing
Joseph Momoh:1985-1992

Ambiguous
Valentine Strasser: 1992-1995

Pluralist Regime

This regime type, which characterized the rule of Sir Milton Augustus Strieby Margai, was based on the notion of separation of powers, with multiparty political institutions and fairly vibrant representative structures. In this regime, an effort was made not only to pursue interest-group involvement but also to allow for a fair amount of autonomous non-governmental activity. At least some notion of checks and balances was introduced and, thus, the very centralized political structures apparent in administrative regimes were not present in this more loosely organized context.

Nevertheless, the regime possessed a strong elitist strain. Although internal disagreement between civil servants and parliamentarians were noted, the position of the dominant group was protected through the judicious use of resource allocation. ABig men@ in government were dependent on their constituencies and, hence, subjected to some popular scrutiny at regular intervals. The principles which guided Milton Margai=s pluralist-regime activities comprised a mixture of bargaining, compromise, and reciprocity.

Milton Margai, a conservative ideologue, used ethnic arithmetic to lead Sierra Leone without much strife. He appointed government officials with a clear eye to satisfy competing interest groups. He successfully built coalitions from the 1950s to attain independence without bloodshed. With his genteel nature, he employed a brokerage style of politics with paramount chiefs and political groups (Musa 1993:40).

Administrative-Hegemonial Regimes

The regimes of Sir Albert Michael Margai, Brigadier Andrew T. Juxon-Smith and Siaka Probyn Stevens were Administrative-hegemonial in the sense that the three key institutions were the executive, the administration, and the coercive apparatus (at times with a one-party dominant auxiliary organ subordinated to the ruler). The main policy decisions were centralized around the leader and his close advisors. Specific technical and professional decision making was carried out in the bureaucracy (sometimes with foreign advice), and the military was generally controlled. More significant, the bureaucratic structures and the judiciary maintained a certain autonomy vis-à-vis each other. Political operations, however, were strictly guided by the executive.

Albert Margai=s tenure started amidst controversy in the Sierra Leone People=s Party (SLPP). His political rivals, especially Rev. Dr. John Karefa-Smart, questioned his succession to the premiership after the death of his brother, Milton Margai. But Albert Margai had more support and political muscle than his opponents. He soon sought to introduce a one-party system in his effort to emulate Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana in dealing with political opposition. With very little support for a one-party state in Parliament and a law suit brought by the opposition All People=s Congress (APC) party under Siaka Stevens, the matter was abandoned. Albert Margai subsequently lost the 1967 general elections to Siaka Stevens (Musa 1993:40). Juxon-Smith possessed an arbitrary behavior in his enjoyment of power, and he was insincere on his commitment to return the country to civilian rule.

The National Reformation Council (NRC) headed by Juxon-Smith operated as an eight-man cabinet. The council elaborated its procedural rules in early April 1967 through the untiring efforts of its first Secretary General, Peter Tucker. However, the procedure for taking votes was rarely used, as Juxon-Smith often expressed the sense of the meetings. The Brigadier was Arather neurotic, mentally immature, sometimes erratic and quarrelsome, and in a way cunning@ (Bebler 1973:74). After the Dove-Edwin Commission of Inquiry published its report on November 29, 1967, challenging the foundations of NRC rule and urged for the immediate return to civilian rule, Juxon-Smith adopted a delaying tactic by inaugurating the Civilian Rule Committee (CRC) as a pro tem constituent assembly. His arbitrary behavior and patent insincerity led the founding members of the NRC to overthrow the Brigadier in order to restore Sierra Leone to civilian rule (Cox 1976:196).

Stevens assumed power with a great deal of promise and ambition. Much trust was placed upon him as he was then champion of multi-party politics. Upon taking power from the military, however, he soon strove to drive the SLPP from competitive politics in various general elections, using violence and intimidation. With a pliant Parliament, Stevens was able to rule under a one-party state. Two major attempts were made to overthrow his regime, but the alleged confederates were captured and executed (Musa 1993:40).

Party-Mobilizing Regime

The regime of Joseph Saidu Momoh can be classified as party-mobilizing in that it bore the imprint of some of the participatory elements of a pluralist regime together with the monopolistic tendencies of an administrative-hegemonial regime. The ordering of public institutions rested on a combination of strong one-party domination coupled with bureaucratic expansion firmly under the control of Momoh. Unlike administrative-hegemonial regimes, the center of gravity of Momoh=s party-mobilizing regime was an ideological party. Hailed as the man who would deliver Sierra Leone from previous political malaise and instill accountability,

Momoh introduced a political philosophy called Constructive Nationalism. According to this philosophy, Sierra Leoneans were to put their country first in every endeavor. However, his own ministers never practiced this amorphous philosophy. Instead, they formed an intra-party political club called Ekutay to advance their own interests. Although he first argued that one-party systems were useful in societies with ethnic cleavages, Momoh soon prepared the way for multi-party democracy by signing a new constitution in September 1991 as democracy became fashionable around the world. A deteriorating economy and flagrant corruption at all levels of society marked Momoh=s presidency (Musa 1993:40-41).

Ambiguous Regime

The National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC) headed by Captain Valentine E. M. Strasser at the age of 27 can be characterized as an ambiguous regime. It is the result of the inability of previous regimes to meet and overcome the crisis that afflicted public agencies at the close of the third decade of independence and to establish a modicum of sociopolitical exchange. Also, the institutions in the public arena had ceased to function in a familiar or identifiable manner. In this grim case, chaos, as opposed to order, prevailed. Although the picture was grim, the citizens were not without hope. With no organized public arena, with little or no social links, without a recognizable governing elite and, hence, no rules of interaction and defined spheres of activity, it was difficult to speak of specific regime principles.

Strasser’s regime was welcomed by many Sierra Leoneans as a relief from the APC. The conspiracy theory that Momoh=s regime at the time it was overthrown was conspiring to thwart the democratic process by massive use of force contributed greatly to the initial goodwill many citizens showed the NPRC. Almost two years after the overthrow of Momoh=s regime, some were still sanguine. However, others did not see the Strasser regime taking clear steps to restore the democratic process which its immediate predecessors suppressed (Musa 1993:41). This prompted his second in command, Julius Maada Bio, to orchestrate a bloodless coup in January of 1996 to remove Strasser from power and supervise elections that led to civilian rule under the current President, Ahmed Tejan Kabbah (Synge 2007).

Conclusion

The various regime types that have emerged in Sierra Leone have reflected both the many constraints and the variegated options open to Sierra Leonean citizens and leaders since independence. Close analysis of regime forms and of their mutations assists in linking the government with its purpose, the political process with the state and the dominant modes of social organization, and the theory of politics with the Sierra Leonean setting in which it unfolds. Indeed, the study of political processes in Sierra Leone through the lens of these relatively fluid regime forms requires not only the unraveling of the ways decisions are made and implemented and what responses these actions evoke (although this is an essential part of such an undertaking), it also draws attention to the fundamentals of politics: (a) how centers are constructed and legitimated, (b) how their political visions are crystallized and authority conceived, (c) how a civil society forms and breaks down, and (d) how transformations take root and why.

References

Bailey, Kenneth D. 1994. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Technique. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bebler, Anton, ed. 1973. Military Rule in Africa: Dahomey, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Mali. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.

Chazan, Naomi et al. 1988. Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa. Boulder, CO: Lynne Riener Publishers.

Cox, Thomas S. 1976. Civil-Military Relations in Sierra Leone. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Musa, Sorie. 1993. Sierra Leone Digest. Washington, DC: Sierra Leone Institute for Public Policy.

Synge, Richard. 2007. ASierra Leone: Recent History.@ Africa South of the Sahara. Europa Publications Yearbook.

Photo: Captain Valentine Strasser.