Spokane, Washington

November 2, 2009

I am a Liberian.  Like other Liberians who go to bed and awake with Liberia on their minds, I want our country to make progress and to work for all of its citizens irrespective of tribal origin, religion, or economic status.  I am hopeful about the future of Liberia; yet three issues concern me greatly.  These include (1) the mismatch between Liberia’s vast natural and human resources and the lack of commensurate progress and development; (2) pervasive and perennial corruption; and (3) the resort to violence as a means of problem-solving.  This paper is an attempt to begin a deeper conversation about these three crippling issues.

To these worrisome issues, I have a suspicion that a functioning democracy might provide an enduring answer.  By democracy, I mean something more than the familiar definitions that we have come to be accustomed to: “a form of government in which leaders are elected by popular suffrage” or “a government of the people, by the people for the people.”  By democracy, I mean John Dewey’s deeper meaning which I think provides nuances for tackling and overcoming the problems of lack of progress and development, corruption, and the penchant for violence in Liberia. 

Dewey calls democracy something “more than a form of government.”  In fact, he says democracy is “primarily a form of associated living; of conjoint communicated experience” (Dewey, 1916, p. 87).  By “associated living” or “conjoint communicated experience,” Dewey advances two ideas that are critical to addressing the lack of progress and development, corruption, and the predilection for violence in Liberia.  First, he describes democracy as a form of social life.  And, second, he argues that “associated living”—democracy or social life—breaks down tribal, class, or racial barriers. 

Dewey contends that interaction and cooperative intercourse can cause the disintegration of tribal, class, or racial barriers.  When individuals have a common interest, he argues, each individual has to consider the actions of others “to give point and direction to his own” in the pursuit of that interest.  Knowing that tribal and class barriers feed corruption and conflicts and, in part, stubbornly impede progress and development in Liberia, such a positive effect of democracy cannot be overemphasized. 

The thrust of Dewey’s argument is that citizens’ interests, interactions, and cooperative intercourse determine the severity of lack of progress and development, corruption, and the inclination for violence.  In other words, wherever citizens have more interests in common, wherever they have numerous interactions with varied points of contact, there is less concern about progress and development, corruption, and the desire for violence and vice versa.  The effect of contacts with individuals of different backgrounds is two-fold: first, one is forced not only to vary one’s actions, but also to think critically prior to one’s action in response and, second, powers one possesses that might otherwise remain hidden if one were in an exclusive group are liberated. 

On the basis of Dewey’s arguments, we can conclude that when citizens have common interests and when they engage in cooperative intercourse across tribal and class lines, three things are likely to happen: (1) they achieve progress and development, (2) they experience less corruption, and (3) they have less desire to turn to violence to solve problems. 

In light of the foregoing conclusion and assuming all things equal, what role has association or the lack thereof played in the creation of Liberia’s current reality—lack of progress and development, endemic corruption, and the resort to violence?  By association, I mean the question of whether Liberians consider themselves as one people with one destiny.  I am also referring to the schisms including the age-old Americo-Liberian-Country, tribal, educated-uneducated, exiled-in country, etc.  I am wondering whether these, in concert, have had corrosive effects on common interests, interactions, and cooperative intercourse.   

Starkly put, what conditions might help create common values/interests in order to minimize the divisions in our country which have, in part, contributed to the lack of commensurate progress and development, pervasive corruption, and the proclivity for violence?  I think having an “equable opportunity to receive and to take from others” and having a “large variety of shared undertakings and experiences” (p. 84) as Dewey suggests might be one way to proceed. 

The idea of having an “equable opportunity to receive and to take from others” and having a “large variety of shared undertakings and experiences” is nothing new.  It is essentially a recast of the vision America’s revolutionary leaders including Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. crafted in support of the development of public education in the United States (Sharpes, 1987; Tyack, James, & Benavot, 1987).  

On the one hand, Franklin and Rush, for example, saw the need for education primarily in economic and immediate practical terms (Kraft & Haas, 1979, p. 11).  On the other hand, Jefferson thought of education first and foremost as the necessary condition for a “truly viable democracy” and an “inescapable prerequisite” for any “intelligent popular rule" (Sharpes, 1987, pp. 25-26).  Washington also wanted an enlightened population but, more importantly, he thought education would help lessen “jealousies and prejudices” that had the potential to weaken and disrupt the harmony of the Union (Letter to Jefferson, 1795). 

Indeed each of America’s founding fathers had his own idiosyncratic views about how education should be structured.  However, in general, they supported public education because they thought it was an effective tool for securing liberty and unity in the society.  Through public education, America’s revolutionary leaders set out to accomplish two goals: first, to inform the citizens of their rights, liberties, and responsibilities and, second, to transform people of diverse loyalty to a new community of citizens (Tyack et al., 1987, p. 24).    

Besides Dewey’s work on democracy and education in the early 20^th century, Richard Henry Tawney, the widely acclaimed British economic historian and social critic, built on the same idea of unifying the nation in 1931 and called it a "common culture."  Tawney believed that a common culture is built upon "economic foundations" and, therefore, cannot exist where there is a vast contrast between the economic standards and educational opportunities available to the different classes of people in the society.  Where such a contrast exists, not only is it difficult to build a common culture but also there is "servility or resentment, on the one hand, and patronage or arrogance, on the other" (Tawney, 1931, pp. 50-51).   

Often there is a sense of wonderment among Liberians about why the United States is politically stable; why it is so developed; why does democracy work in the United States and does not seem to work in Liberia.  Some Liberians even go as far as thinking that perhaps Americans are “cut” out of a different material or perhaps the democracy “thing” is in their genes. 

Well, the answer to that bewilderment lies in the vision of public education that America’s revolutionary leaders crafted.  Public education in the United States is not just the construction of schools here and there around the country.  It is deliberate and systematic.  Public education provides “equable opportunity” for students to “receive and to take from others.”  It provides opportunities for a “large variety of shared undertakings and experiences.” 

During their K-12 or 13-year educational journey, students come together, grow up together, and play together.  They share classrooms, have common lunches, are exposed generally to the same curriculum, and generally have the same reading lists.  As a result, they graduate from high school not only with the same general frame of reference but also with a strong sense of themselves as Americans in spite of their diverse ethnic backgrounds. 

To add to the point that the differences in levels of democracy and development between Liberia and the United States lie in the priority education holds in each society, let us look at and compare the budget allocations for education in the State of Washington and Liberia.  I selected the State of Washington, first, because, in the United States, public education is the number one responsibility of the states and, second, because I live in the State of Washington.  Just so that nothing takes away from the big picture, the dollar figures are not the focus here but the percentage of total budget spent on education.   

State of Washington 2008-2009 Budget

Source: Office of Financial Management, State of Washington

Liberia 2009-2010 Budget

Source: Liberia Corruption Watch.org/Ministry of Finance

Comparing the percentage of total budget spent on K-12 education, the State of Washington spends six times what Liberia spends on K-12 education.  Since the focus is not on the dollar figures but on the percentage of budget spent on K-12 education, the comparison means that for the people of the State of Washington, K-12 education is six times more important to them than it is for the government of Liberia.  This comparison underscores the saying “show me your budget and I’ll show you your priorities.”  When K-12 and higher education spending as a percentage of total budget is considered, the ratio is still the same 6:1.  Again, by the numbers, this comparison shows how much more the people of the State of Washington value education than the government of Liberia.

This idea of common values/interests or common culture is not an abstract phenomenon.  I have seen evidence of it on a limited basis in Liberia.  In the past, association and cooperative intercourse—having a “large variety of shared undertakings and experiences”—broke down walls of isolation and separation and unified Liberians, although there may not have been any deliberate effort at creating a national consciousness.  For example, when Lamco was operational, it drew its employees from all sections of Liberia and the children of these employees were brought together within the LAMCO school system and educated.  During their educational career in Yekepa, these children developed relationships and created memories that endure to this day, their different ethnicities and backgrounds notwithstanding.  In spite of their ethnicities, they all developed an affinity for Nimba County. 

The University of Liberia is another example.  Having studied, lived, and struggled together, students from all sections of the country who attended the University of Liberia also developed permanent bonds of friendships that endure to this day.  It is not by accident that overwhelmingly they tend to have a preference for a particular candidate in political contests.  In the canceled mayoral race between Dr. Amos Sawyer and Mr. Francis “Chu Chu” Horton in 1979, for example, the students saw Dr. Sawyer as their own and supported him enthusiastically.   

Still further, by drawing its employees from all sections of the country, Firestone Natural Rubber Company, too, achieved the same results of “associated living” that Lamco and the University of Liberia accomplished.  Within the Firestone Education System, Firestone employees’ children were brought together and educated.  In the process, they developed bonds of friendship that have proven to be stronger than those of their tribal affiliations.  The same applies to all those who were educated in different sections of the country where the predominant ethnic group was not their own.  The common denominator in all of these examples is education.  The experiences of all of these students were a result of education.

By ‘associated living” or “conjoint communicated experience,” I mean opportunities like those for education that the University of Liberia, Lamco, and Firestone provided.  These opportunities break down stereotypical images that often lead to bigotry and the creation of walls of separation.   One goal in this conversation is to help Liberians regard such opportunities as the rule and not as the exceptions.  I think to achieve the desired effect of democracy—“associated living”—institutions and civil society groups—nurses’ association, teachers’ associations, student associations, market women association, human rights organizations, etc.—within and without the country must adopt as their mantra the goal of breaking down barriers and developing common values/interests—common culture. 

Like charity, democracy—“associated living”—must begin at home. Institutions, professional organizations, and other civil society groups must demand responsible and accountable leadership and followership.  If they engage in “conjoint communicated experience” and not only breakdown walls of isolation and division but also develop a common culture, the walls of division in the nation will similarly crumble because the nation is made up of all of us, our organizations, groups, and institutions.  Moreover, we will begin to see more progress and development, less corruption, and violence as the wrong way to solve our problems.  These institutions and groups can make demands on the government only when they have the moral authority arising from responsible and accountable leadership and followership. 

The common culture—culture of oneness and cooperation—that develops overtime among students at institutions such as the University of Liberia must be replicated in professional associations and in workplaces everywhere so that an exit from these institutions to the real world does not end this enabling culture.  It is this state of affairs that will enhance the prospects of a functioning democracy in Liberia.

Associated living and the common interests it engenders matter in making progress, minimizing corruption, and turning away from a culture of violence because this enabling culture—associated living—reduces the likelihood of potentially harmful episodes.  Episodes matter because they help form character which, in turn, is a critical aspect of associated living—democracy.  The difference in values between people who were born well before the Liberian Civil War and for the most part did not experience it firsthand and those who grew up during the war and witnessed it firsthand aptly illustrates this point.  The war indeed reinforced some of the divisions in Liberia and in other instances it debunked the falsehood that one’s security lies only in the hands of one’s own ethnic group.  On the whole, the effect of the former may be more pronounced than that of the latter.

Notwithstanding my call for action, in the past, some Liberians considered associated living as inimical to their status, political survival, and goal of perpetual domination.  In light of this, they maintained themselves as an exclusive group with interests “of its own.”  Essentially, they shut out from full interaction with other groups.  Even to this day, some continue this line of division expressly to protect what they have instead of what Dewey calls “reorganization and progress through wider relationships.”  Few capture the essence of their ideology better than former Vice President Clarence L. Simpson, Sr. who, in his memoir, as quoted in the recently released Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, said:

Two courses were open to us: one was to merge at the outset the comparatively small advanced elements of the population into the mass of those who, for various reasons, were at a more primitive stage of development and to hope that in due course all would progress homogeneously and simultaneously.  The other was to preserve the ideal of western democracy on however small and imperfect a scale and to direct our efforts at gradually improving the system and extending it to broader section of the population.  We adopted the latter course. (TRC Report, 2009)

In any case, we know from Liberian history that associated living was not fostered from the founding of the nation up to now.  As a result, the influences which educated some into becoming the “haves” also educated others—the downtrodden—into becoming the “haves-not.”  

The issue now is not what happened in the past because, in Liberia, we know firsthand what happens in a society where rigid class and tribal lines do not allow people to come together in order to pursue common goals: the “haves” become more capricious; less progress and development is achieved; corruption spins out of control; and the citizens turn to violence as an answer.  Rather, the issue is: will all Liberians forgo exclusivity, breakdown walls of separation and isolation and engage in democracy in order to solve the problems of lack of progress and development, corruption, and the inclination for violence? 

Interaction, cooperative intercourse, and having common interests are critical to democracy.  Aside from helping in achieving progress and development, minimizing corruption, and turning away from violence, mutual interest, in particular, is a vital tool in social control.  No one harms someone with whom he shares a common interest.  On the other hand, interaction and cooperative intercourse promote freer exchanges between social groups and foster unity. 

We must not only engage in democracy to achieve progress and development, minimize corruption, and turn away from violence but also make the transmission of the enabling culture that makes democracy happen to continue through a deliberate and systematic process. Unless we make this happen, as it has been shown in Liberia, the nation can relapse into barbarism. 

At this juncture, I turn to those who support Liberia and also want to see progress and development, less corruption, and a turn away from violence.  I do not believe that there is one single silver bullet in the efforts to achieve progress and development, minimize corruption, and to dissuade Liberians from turning to violence as an answer.  I commend the international community’s support for Liberia’s reconstruction and pressure for accountability on the part of Liberian leaders and citizens.

By the same token, I believe they will enhance the prospects of a functioning democracy in Liberia by redirecting some of the resources that the international community expends in Liberia toward building an enabling culture for democracy—efforts aimed at breaking down walls of isolation and separation, building common interests, building leadership and accountability in schools and in professional organizations, etc.  This call comes against the background of efforts at achieving progress and development, minimizing corruption, and discouraging violence that resemble the repeated rescuing of babies floating in a river from upstream.  I think it is about time to find out who is throwing the babies in the river. 

In summary, first, I identified lack of progress and development, endemic corruption, and the inclination for violence as a way to solve problems as sources of concern for the future of Liberia.  I offered “associated living” or “conjoint communicated experience”—democracy—as one way to deal with the worrisome problems I identified.  Aside from breaking down walls of separation and isolation and creating an enabling culture, associated living also serves as a vital tool for social control.  To ensure that Liberia continues to experience progress and development, minimizes corruption, and turns away from violence as an answer—to avoid the carnage of the Liberian Civil War,—I called for an investment in education to develop/strengthen an enabling culture for democracy. 

Recommendations

In order to build a common culture, an enabling culture that supports democracy which, in turn, addresses the three problems I identified, I recommend the following:

1. Support education in the following ways
   1. Professionalization and incentivization of the teaching career;
   2. Modernization and strong support for the teacher training institutions in Liberia;
   3. Introduction of human rights as part of the primary and secondary education curriculum;
   4. Putting equal emphasis on curricular items such as science, mathematics, liberal arts, and vocational education;
   5. Implementing a step-by-step transition from a centralized educational bureaucracy and planning to local control while maintaining a national curriculum that serves as the minimum guide but not only what should be taught;
   6. Developing a focus on the education of girls;

2. Support leadership development at the following levels
   1. Student leadership development at the high school level;
   2. Leadership development in professional organizations including labor unions;

3. Support the construction of all-weather road networks to enable rural inhabitants to participate in the economy as well as access services such as education and healthcare that they may not have in their communities.

4. All of these recommendations must be contained in legislation in order to make them binding.

References

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation “Facts about Washington’s K-12 Public Schools”

            Retrieved October 31, 2009 from http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/educationfacts.pdf

Haas, J. D. & Kraft, R. J. (1979). Foundations of education: Social issues. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

Liberia Corruption Watch.org “‘Chopping Under Scrutiny in Liberia: US$27M Unjustified

Expenses in Budget” Retrieved October 31, 2009 from http://www.liberiacorruptionwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=254:chopping-under-scrutiny-in-liberia-us27m-unjustified-expenses-in-budget-&catid=1:latest&Itemid=1T

Ministry of Education “Republic of Liberia Draft 2009-2010 Budget” Retrieved October 31,

            2009 from http://www.mof.gov.lr/content.php?sub=67&related=21&res=67&third=67

Office of Financial Management, State of Washington “Washington State Budget

Process”/”Proposed Budget Expenditures” Retrieved October 31, 2009 from http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget08/highlights/assets/pdf/expenditures.pdf
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/reports/budgetprocess.pdf

Peden, W. H. (Eds.) (1954). Notes on the state of Virginia. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Sharpes, D. K. (1987). Education and the US Government. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Tawney, R. H. (1931). Equality. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Tyack, D., James, T., & Benavot, A. (1987). Law and the shaping of public education, 1785-1954. The University of Wisconsin Press.

Washington State Budget and Policy Center “Progress Index” Retrieved October 31, 2009 from

            http://www.budgetandpolicy.org/progressindex/