Liberia, Its Poverty Recovery Strategies and Failures, and Why Its Pro-Poor Agenda Will Fail If Lacked Future Perspectives

Liberia, its Poverty Recovery Strategies and Failures, and why Its Pro-poor Agenda will Fail if Lacked Future Perspectives

The Quest for Economic Reform and Liberation 1871 - 2017

By Robert Quiminee

Abstract

This article does not in any way strive to condemn any economic recovery plans in Liberia, all have been penned with the hope of restituting poverty with prosperity, but nearly all remain a plan, strategy and a goal yet to take its significance course and effect the ordinary Liberians, rather have only restituted and benefited a few Liberians with the majority striving in poverty, surviving on less a $1US dollar a day. This article is penned not really as a model or an economic recovery policy, but seeks to challenge current policy makers, and make stakeholders cognizance that the struggles to bring economic freedom is not new; even at the height of the dictator Charles G. Taylor and the pearl of the depression of Samuel K. Doe; they both have the greatest economic recovery plan for Liberia than many of the democratic civilian leaders, accept William Richard Tolbert Jr., who was killed with Liberia’s greatest recovery plan. This article seeks to highlight economic recovery and reform policies, particularly the ones concern with the poor Liberians from the 1st Republic of 1869 to the 2nd Republic of 2017; Liberia, its Poverty Recovery Strategies and Failures, and why it Pro-poor Agenda will fail if Lacked Future Perspectives; and it quest for economic recovery and liberation from 1871 – 2017.

Acronyms

NGOs – Non Governmental organizations

ACS - American Colonization Society

CIA – Central Intelligent Agency

PRO – Public Relation Officers

PAL – Progressive Alliance of Liberia

MOJA – Movement of Justice in Africa

U.S. – United States

PRS – Poverty Reduction Strategy

PRSP - Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

NOCAL – National Oil Company of Liberia

IPC - International Poverty Centre

UNDP - United Nations Development Program

UN – United Nation

NTA – National Transit Authority

JFK – John Frederick Kennedy

LD – Liberian Dollar

PRC – People Redemption Council

Contents

Abstract

Acronyms

Table

Introduction 1

History, Democratic Origin and Divisive Policy of Liberia 3

“Road” Roye’s Economic Recovery Policy and failures 5

“Operation Production” Tubman’s Integration Economic Reform Policy and Failures 7

“Mat-to-Mattress Policy” Tolbert’s Economic Reform Policy and Failures 10

“The Green Revolution” Doe’s Economic Reform Policy and Failures 13

“Vision 2024” Taylor’s Ambiguous Economic Reform Policy and Failures 17

”Poverty Reduction Strategy” Ellen’s Economic Reform Policy and failures 21

“Pro-poor Agenda” Weah’s Economic Reform Policy, and why it will Fail if Lacked Future Perspective 26

Reference 38

iii

Introduction

Liberia is a unique country, with a proportional representation of natural resources (rubber, river, rain forest, ocean, island, lake and rich soil) and mineral resources (sand, rock, gold and diamond) are few to mention. It is a nation with a unique significant influence to lobby in the global community and bring aid and capital home as money or equipment. They have done that through strategies and good styles of sampling writers and pursuance of good, relevant and demanding policies in the name of the “poor Liberians”, like the Poverty Reduction Strategy and the Pro-poor Agenda, even though both are not Liberian inventive ideals, but they were, or are borrowed, and penned well to meet our demands and our current economic situations; thus appealing to the Global Community for aid. However, these policies covert with implementation, either with the issue of dishonesty, or the practical aspects these very documents are borrow from are applicable in our society, but may just lack little innovation to stabilized the poverty condition of our nation, and as the result policies seem to be doing nothing at all. This attributes to poor implementation and dishonesty. For example, how can you adopted modern agricultural practices from Pakistan; adopted the people policy paper from their country and bring it here in Liberia, but left the tractors and the working gears in Pakistan and expect such policy to work here? Are you stupid? Another area of attention is that we have also strive to start with what we have, notwithstanding we have not fully been independent as a nation and government in doing that; in fact NGOs have helped us in our endeavors, because our policy implementations have always met practical resistance due to the lack of support from government. But there are just two elements to make a policy work effectively:

❖ Think small and start small, and ❖ Think big and start with big equipment

In it nutshell, you either start with what you have or you do bigger investments in what you already have. The Weah led ‘Pro-poor Agenda’ will be a difficult path, if even

1 notified and acknowledged that it will be a difficult path, and it second facial feature is pending unclear, of course it will fail if it will not observe and understand the factors responsible for the failures of recovery policies toward the poor and why the pro-poor agenda will failed if lack future perspectives, issues that this paper about to address.

History, Democratic Origin and Divisive Policy of Liberia

Liberia was founded in 1822 by free slaves transported and sponsored by American Colonization Society, a leading American sponsored Colonization Organization of the 18th Century. When they arrived, they met no tribal and kingdom resistance, rather a struggle for land which was inherited as family custodian, with no ownership to

individual. They fought two battles, and finally gained independence in 1847. Early before the coming into being of the new ‘Republic” political ideologies were not built JJ Robert: First President of Liberia, on a true national idea, but built on a divisive political leader of the True Liberian policy that will affect every reform policies Party of the nation years later.

Joseph Jenkins Robert, Liberia’s first President hailed from the mulattoes, the highest educated group of the pioneers. Instead of building a state of unified political idea, they established a Party named “True Liberian party” also called Pro-Administration party. Who were the false Liberians? The preferred unifying nationalistic name if I may suggest for this early Liberian party, could have been “the Liberian People’s party” instead of exulting yourself as “True Liberian.” This name suggests a divisive policy that hinders the progress of Liberia. The dark-skinned settlers reacted by forming the Anti- Administration party or the Whig party, later the True Whig party; this means that the ideologies of the two political parties were coins on propagating strategies to undermine and subjugate each other to nothing instead of thinking about carving reforms and taking practical measures to connect the gap between the rich and the poor. The dark-skinned Liberians fought for political power from 1847 – 1877. Why they succeeded?

Well, in 1845 a ship took some Africans from the Congo Basin carrying them to Europe as slaves. The idea for slavery was now condemned and belittle in the eyes of America and England. The ship which was carrying Congolese, it captain was asked to return with the ship back to Africa. With the Congo Basin far away, the ship captain dumped the

3 slaves on the Coast of Liberia since it was a black colony established by free slaves from America. The mulattoes, and also the dark-skinned suppressed by the mulattoes; both from America, rejected the Congolese. They did not give them warm welcome. The Congolese retreated to what is now called Congo Town because of their settlement there, but them high forest at the time. From the high forest, they produced cash crops like pineapple, banana, plantain, palm oil, okra, vegetables and pepper and sold them to the Americo-Liberians; this comprises of both the mulattoes and the dark-skinned. By the 1860s, after nearly 25 years of labors, the Congolese were strong economically. They started serving as middlemen between the indigenous Liberian and the Americo- Liberians. When the mulattoes kept their political suppression strong toward their dark- skinned counterparts, Edward James Roye convened a meeting on Clay Island in 1868, called the Congolese in his party and contested the 1869 elections and truly won the True Liberian party. His loan programs orchestrated him from power in 1871 by the mulattoes, but the significant lesson taught in the course of his dethronement is that few Liberians had placed their self-image above the common good of the people, that they are the best educated that reforms should ordinated from to better nation, once emulating from another source, it means nothing. So it was the case of the mulattoes against the Roye’s loan policy which make him unpopular with the People. This embalm in our early loan history would serve as a warming to Weah whom ‘Pro-poor Agenda’ heavily depends on loan for road construction, so it was with Roye, not anything else, but road construction.

In 1877, the Unification from Clay Island was really a formidable force, it continued until they finally got power from the Mulattoes and held it till 1980 when Master Sergeant Samuel Kanyon Doe took the blame of a CIA’s coordinated coup for which he followed it to the letter by executing the 13 ministers of Tolbert.

Roye’s Economic Recovery Policy and failures Roye has an ambiguous economic recovery plan.

He is the first reputable individual who

understood that Monrovia is not Liberia. He wanted to connect the hinterland to Monrovia

and introduce economic exchange programs between rural Liberians and Americo-Liberians

for economic gains. It is interesting to know that

Roye started life as a barber and he built the community’s largest barber shop in Terre Haute, Edwin James Roye: Liberia’s First Dark president of the Opposition which also had the tallest barber pole in western True Whig Party (1870-1871) Indiana. He trusted the abilities of the locals. He

however, inherited a brooked economic in 1870.

When he took office, the country was in economic crisis. In 1871, accordingly, ‘he directed the Speaker of the House of Representatives, William Spencer Anderson, with negotiating a new loan from British financiers. Anderson secured $500,000 under strict terms from the British consul-general, David Chinery. Chinery was heavily criticized and eventually arrested as a single individual indebting an independent state. William S. Anderson was tried the following year by the British authority for his part in securing the loan. He was found not guilty, but was shot to death while leaving the courthouse.’

Roye has a very good economic recovery policy for Liberia at the time; it was about carrying road to the ‘poor Liberians.’ No economic recovery policy has ever being a major problem in Liberia more than the policy that directly impacts the poor people. For time in memorial since 1847 this policy met resistance because it was directed toward the poor. Few Liberians have always wish to survive as the sacrifices of the masses, not one day willing to make sacrifices to connect the gap between the rich and the poor. There are few factors responsible for the failure of the Roye’s Economic Recovery policy:

1. He was to serve as chief negotiator of the loan and set a committee comprises of British and Liberian citizens to investigate the risk of getting the loan and during this process if there were backfire the committee could have resolved it and show the way forward, instead he risked the speaker life with little, or no backing from the Liberian community and the British Community, 2. He was quick to introduce constitutional reform policy in his economic reform policy. He intends to amend the constitution to extend the tenure of the presidency from two years to four years. The opposition mulattoes transferred this aggression to his loan program, criticizing all good elements of the loan program, 3. The mulattoes who have stay in power with no such innovation fears the progress of this loan programs that he would integrated the people of the hinterland and increase his political will and power and stay in power for life, and; 4. He was to reverse the militia and increase the Congo-descendants from Congo Town in the Militia and equip them with fair benefit, then the mulattoes could have met resistance to overthrow his government.

Even though this economic reform policy by Roye directed toward the poor failed, but it was indented to build a nation which we could have been proud of today. As earlier as that era, he was thinking about connecting our nation, to create an economic platform for the poor through road network, but he met a resistance, which he died in the process, yet people strived to ignore the cardinal reform policy he died for – to carry road to the poor. From the Roye’s episode, when you talk about ‘Pro-poor Agenda’ you should be strong in your action and review your loan agreement well to carry road to the ‘poor people’ who Roye tried connecting in 1871, but failed. Another greater economic reform policy to examine is “Operation Production.”

“Operation Production” Tubman’s Economic Reform Policy and Failures When we think of Tubman in Liberian history, we think of the open-door policy, integration and Liberia longest serving head of state. But there is a little known, but significant policy that he introduced knows as ‘Operation Production,’ also ‘there was a desire to increase rural participation, not only in terms of political participation, but also in the economic mainstream of the country by announcing what was known as’ “Operation

Production.” William V. S. Tubman: Liberia’s longest serving President (1944 – 1971)

Unfortunately, the fears of the mulattoes that Roye would use the progress of his loan program to integrate the people of the hinterland and increase his political will and power and stay in power for life was what began applicable and visible in the Tubman’s Era. As now integrated policy, if the mulattoes have introduced it as a fair democratic premise, it could not have been used as an economic policy, but was since absence in the fundamental basic of our political ideology of the founding fathers of the nation. Accordingly, ‘during activities marking the fourth National Unification Program held at the newly constructed Fairground Hall in the City of Buchanan in 1966, Lofa County won a prize of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for being the county of highest agricultural production that year. This system of awarding sub-national units for performing with excellence in national service was a key approach aimed at motivating the citizenry to self-proficiency in agriculture, particular food production. The former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and the current Liberian President George Manneh Weah had created economic crime by abandoning such reform program and wasting money on ministerial leagues among remunerative personnel of various ministries of government who are well paid from government covers, and worsen with the Weah led administration celebrating pro-poor day while the agricultural sectors lie discarded.

In 1945 President Tubman held Executive Councils in Zwedru from April 3rd to 22nd and in Webbo, from April 29 to May 5. He perfectly understood the demand to put food on the table for every Liberian within 24 hours. Here was a dictator who perfectly understood the power of the poor Liberian people feeding themselves through his motivational economic reform policy.

However, ‘operation production’ did not restitute poverty, Liberians were among the world poorest people, and people live in destitute homes. Climbing the ladder of the 1960s, Tubman was now a relevant politician, he abandoned ‘operation production’, and the opened door policy was now importing tons of rice in the Liberian market and the Liberia’s agriculture sectors went cold in the production of rice, and as the result Liberia was face with the challenge to feed herself when Tubman died in 1971. Few factors are responsible for the failure of the Tubman’s ‘operation production’:

1. Operation production was political, rather then been used as a tool to eliminated poverty, it major aim was unification and also intended to make Tubman stay in power for life, 2. ‘Operation Production’ was a crowd drilling policy, motivating farmers to feed themselves, but not empowering individual farmers to feed the nation, 3. Tubman felt weak about ‘Operation Production’ after integrating his political will in the hinterland, and; 4. Tubman’s opened door policy did not limit the importation of oversea rice in other to prioritize the country rice produced by local Liberian farmers.

‘Operation Production’ was a good economic reform policy, but failed to restitute poverty with prosperity for our people. However, this policy failed economically, but integrated and unified our people who even became comfortable in poverty. Today we think that the only tool of unification is through soccer. We should take a look at ‘Operation Production’ and unify our people through agricultural production again.

We should even go deeper if we are serious with the Pro-poor Agenda, and modify ‘Operation Production’ by adding the following pedigrees:

1. Award individuals of higher production in the agricultural sectors base on the needs of what’s lacking such as mobility, seedling and tool, 2. Loan farmers with decent living bills by building farm’s house to avoid the farmer(s) always rushing to the main town for rest, 3. Connect farms to market roads and create a market, 4. Hire a Team of Research Liberian Expects to educate Liberians about the nutrients the country rice have and its benefits, and; 5. Hire a Team of Liberians Agriculture Chemists and Expects to think about reserving raw and pound cassava leaves in a plastic for 90 days or above to be exported and use for national consumptions instead always pounding and eating at once.

‘Operation Production’ was once the significant policies of Tubman, even though it was political, but unites Liberians and makes Tubman relevant among his people. If the Pro- poor Agenda is intended to help the poor Liberian as it claimed, it need to expel its Pro- poor celebration and reverse ‘Operation Production’ and direct its funding to strengthen and integrated it Pro-poor agenda among the farmers through agricultural programs. If Tubman have guided his ‘Operation Production’ in his open-door policy and took his political motive from the policy and simple implement it to benefit the poor Liberians he could have done better to transform the lives of the poor people in the first republic. Notwithstanding, even though this policy failed economically, but the lesson we can learn from there is to divert our funds for informer celebration into meaningful agricultural programs. As Tubman failed to economically liberate the poor people, Tolbert introduced another ambiguous policy intended to help the poor Liberian people, called “Operation Higher Height, from mat to mattress.”

“Mat-to-Mattress Policy”: Tolbert’s Economic Reform Policy and Failures

‘William R. Tolbert Jr. was a man of

tremendous energy and efficiency.’ He too has a deed sense of the destitute living condition of the ordinary Liberians. He

therefore introduced an ambiguous economic reform policy known as “Mat- to-Mattress Policy.” In Tolbert’s

administration, domestic policies focused on the empowerment of the citizens of Liberia as farmers, laborers and business

owners. The policies carried the hope that William Richard Tolbert Jr.: Liberia’s the economy of Liberia would improve. 19th President 1971 - 1980

Immediately after assuming the Presidency, Tolbert urged the residents of scattered hamlets and villages within proximity to merge into towns in other to easier serve them with roads, schools, health facilities and markets. Tolbert intends to build a nation based on:

❖ Service ❖ Work ❖ Education, and ❖ Capital investment

He improved education and housing facilities, and also introduced a pension scheme which replaced the lay-back, lackadaisical, fiscally-liberal P.R.O. scheme of Tubman. In the area of agriculture, he set an example by being a major rice producer. He also set a scheme allowing Liberians to borrow at least $50 interest free, payable in 7 years if only the Liberian would use the loan towards farmland purchase.

He finally embarked on plans to cease rice importation as a cost -saving measure, and this policy met resistance, resulting to the rice riot of 1979. PAL and MOJA navigated their political ideology, diffused the reform and made Tolbert unpopular, and finally died in a coup in 1980.

When counting the gross placates of people rights for 133 years from 1847-1980 by Americo-Liberians which Tolbert found his identity with, one tends to justify the necessity of Tolbert’s death through frustration, but this does not in any way serve as justifiable applicable reason for Tolbert’s death, for he too has a very economic reform policy known as the “Mat-to-Mattress policy” intended to transform the lives of the poor Liberian people which rest in the very code of the Green Revolution and the Pro-poor Agenda. He made significant marks within 9 years, but yet failed to transform the lives of the poor people. when you say Pro-poor Agenda, be the reason of your call to service by the poor Liberian people to count your accomplishments tomorrow, for we await to pen your successes and failures tomorrow, and let us be cognizant that a man once stood tall, very passionate to transform the lives of the poor Liberian people, yet misunderstood by the same poor people he wished to have liberated from poverty, and died in a coup. It is quit necessary to examine some factors responsible for the failures of Tolbert’s ambiguous “Mat-to-Mattress Policy”:

1. The indigenous Liberians were tire and weary of Americo-Liberian rule. They wanted change, whether good or bad, it was not their concern. 2. 85% of the Liberian population were illiterate looking for indigenous liberator; they categorically put all Americo-Liberians as bad, the same old people 3. Tolbert’s reform policy toward the poor to totally integrate them in government make his Americo-Liberian counter-parts angry, and the poor people he was advocating for did not love him, so he was cut on a lonely field making him visible to the coup of 1980.

4. He apparently reduced spending on the Armed Forces while increased spending on the Police Force. 5. In the area of foreign policy, he erred with the breaking of diplomatic relations with Israel, and 6. He introduced a foreign policy that seriously considered dealing with the East and the West, on the other hand, established links with Communist China, U.S.S.R. and Romania. Some political pundits believe this policy led to West (notably America) to plot his overthrow since the cold war was still active and Liberia was strategically important to the U.S.

Even though the “Mat-to-Mattress Policy” failed, but it driver (William R. Tolbert Jr.) was a passionate and optimistic Liberian. He believed in every Liberian potential to contribute to the Liberian economy through work, service, education and capital investment. These four pillars are the cornerstones of any developing nation no matter which policy it pursues. Tolbert understood this very well. When you say Pro-poor Agenda, do you perfectly understand the individual ability to awaken his potential to serve in your Pro-poor Agenda? When you say Pro-poor agenda, remember that you are not the only one who has seen the need to liberate the suffering destitute Liberian people, people has seeing the demanding needs, but the kind of foreign policy they pursue and the political environment they operated in, covert with the geo-politics of the era cause them to die in the process, like in the case of Tolbert.

In the cause the people, a young military leader arriving the Liberian political arena said the struggle should continue, a policy claiming to liberate the poor was introduced, called “the Green Revolution.” I intend to make these policies visible in this article to remind the current policy implementers of the Pro-poor Agenda and students of government that they are not the only people in the struggles to liberate the poor, rather this is an old idled idea that had meet resistance, with little or no implementation.

“The Green Revolution” Doe’s Economic Reform Policy and Failures

“And so, on assuming the Presidency following the death of Tolbert, President Samuel K. Doe took a policy direction that was much the same as leaders before him (Tolbert), but

launched it in the name “Green Revolution Policy” that had a focus on

local participation in the running of the country.” Was the “Green Revolution” a perfect Doe’s revolutionary idea? I term to examine the path of the “Green Revolution” and it revitalization as a Master Sergeant Samuel Kayon Doe: policy to redeem the poor Liberian PRC Chair Liberia’s 20th President people. 1980 - 1990

According ly, the “Green Revolution” was the notable increase in cereal-grains production in Mexico, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and other developing countries in the 1960s and 1970s. This trend resulted from the introduction of hybrid strains of wheat, rice, and corn (maize) and the adoption of modern agricultural technologies, including irrigation and heavy doses of chemical fertilizer. The “Green Revolution” was launched by research establishments in Mexico and the Philippines that were funded by the governments of those nations, international donor organizations, and the U.S. government.

The leader of a Mexican research term, U.S. agronomist Norman Borlaug, was instrumental in introducing the new wheat to India and Pakistan and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.

So the “Green Revolution” was a borrowed idea that Doe intends to use to build his political legacy and feed his people and makes Liberia a self-sufficiency nation. People in

13 rural communities were being encouraged, as also were urban dwellers, to produce more food to build a strong pillar for sustained national growth across the nation. The “Green Revolution,” in the view of President Doe and his adherents, was intended for maximum food security, with local farm-to-market roads, and highways linking all county capitals to each other and to the nation’s capital, Monrovia. He nearly succeeded to feed the nation under his “Green Revolution Policy,” but instead, he turned to building a strong military state for his own security without investing in equipment and technical research to maintain and sustain the “Green Revolution”, and also failed to expand it from a Liberian scenario since it was a borrowed policy. The Green Revolution relatively help feed Liberians and made the nation stable in food security for a while, but gradually collapsed and failed to exist and left the ordinary Liberians into poverty when Doe met his deadlock in 1990 marking the fulsome of the Liberian civil war in 1989.

Some key factors are responsible for the failures of the Green Revolution Policy:

1. The Green Revolution was a borrowed idea from Mexico, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and as such it modern agricultural technologies, and idea were also to be borrowed, investigated and applied, but instead, it only took the name and ignored the application. The local Liberians were heavily involved with the method of subsistence’s farming during the Green Revolution. 2. Doe, the driver of the Green Revolution did not invest in technical agricultural research, but instead, he was concerned with the art of production in the Green Revolution. 3. The Green Revolution did not invest in young scholars in pursuance of Degree in agriculture to foster their study in Mexico, India, Pakistan, the Philippines since these places were the origin of the Green Revolution; educational sectors of these counties could have helped better educate Liberians about the Green revolution. 4. In his quest to build a strong military, he did not build an agriculture battalion in the army.

5. The Green Revolution was partial, it was not integrating and unifying the Liberian people like ‘Operation Production,’ it abandoned Doe’s oppositional County, Nimba County. 6. Continual and annual celebration of REDEMPTION DAY reminded Americo- Liberians about the death of Tolbert and made them avenge not to participate in the green Revolution. 7. Like ‘Operation Production,’ the “Green Revolution” was crowd drilling; it did not invest and empower individual agricultural cooperation to feed the nation. 8. The Green Revolution failed to look at it model ‘Operation Production” to ratify it in the Green Revolution to integrate the Liberian people, instead the Driver (Doe) of the Green Revolution think it was an messianic idea that have arrive to redeem the poverty stricken Liberian people, he was not cognizance to the mental of ‘Operation Production’ to keep rewarding farmers of higher production, but crowded all productions on government operation.

In it nutshell, the Green Revolution failed to transform the lives of the poor Liberian people, in fact poverty retook it course in the Liberian society, erupted by civil war which worsen the situation when all other functioning infrastructural and agricultural activities collapsed commiserating with the death of Samuel K. Doe in 1990. The Green Revolution did not change the lives of the Liberian people. But it was a good ambiguous policy intended to change Liberia and build a noble state in the 2nd republic. It driver (Doe) was a poor military man merit by military rank upon the coup to take the lead to direct the path of our nation. He came blind, with no platform, yet with a plan to build a noble nation. Depressed to protect his power, he became ataman, radical and aggressive and created the best unworthy hideous crime against the Liberian state and its citizenry, but at the heart of this lackadaisical soldier was a plan for the poor Liberians too, to transform them for better, restitute their stricken poverty with prosperity and build a nation that his origin and indigenous Liberians could be proud of, and give them

15 sufficient reasons to condemn Americo-Liberian rule for 133 years, but failed to transform the lives of the poor Liberian people.

When you say ‘Pro-poor,’ reflect in the corridor of our history, a lackadaisical soldier name Doe, he too has and indigenous ambiguous policy like you with a noble mind to build a proud nation to prove the political elites of the time wrong. So is the case and challenge of this ‘Pro-poor era.’ The Green Revolution ended with a desperate era, and the rest of the story was 7 years civil war which ended in a democratic election, bringing 48 year old revolutionary leader Charles G. Taylor to the presidency, urging us into another ambiguous policy, “vision 2024.”

“Vision 2024” Taylor’s Ambiguous Economic Reform Policy and Failures President Charles Taylor’s “Vision 2024”

also combined much of the elements of operation higher height, “Mat-to-Mattress Policy” and the “Green Revolution”

indented to deliver the economic good of

the suffering Liberian citizenry irrespective of where they resided. His “Vision 2024” Conference sought to ensure national reconciliation and healing

amongst the people. Then, the way would Charles G. Taylor: Liberia’s 21st

be paved for a progressive national President 1997 – August 11, 2003

development effort.

These synopses of accounts reflecting the mindset of our national leaders to bring about participatory governance and economic opportunities for all, were good efforts that if methodologically implemented, would have lifted our country to a higher realm of development and thereby serve as a platform for peaceful co-existence according to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

From the ashes of our years of civil strife, it seems Charles Taylor “Vision 2024” was the source of hope for new Liberia of the 21st Century. In his Presidential Press Paper, Taylor outlines his Vision 2024, and the “made in Liberia” ideology was economic reform champion for self-sustainability and reliance, and ending a global threat on food security in Liberia. His ambiguous policy nearly agriculture oriented anticipated to:

❖ Make flower(Powder) in Liberia through Cassava ❖ Build manufacturing factory and make tea, margarine, peanut butter, coffee and sugar in Liberia ❖ Make rubber dishes and car tiers in Liberia, and later build car

❖ Make juices in Liberia through banana and oranges ❖ Build farm to road market, and ❖ Demands all government officials to make farm

In the heart of the dictator, Charles Taylor; were these visions to transform Liberia, and build a nation we could be proud of, in order to give sufficient reasons for his revolution, for disheveling the Doe’s regime. I intend to acquaint you with these polices that in the very code and dominance of civilian, visionary, soldier, rebel and dictator, emanated good policy, and even better policy have originated from their expenses that would transform this nation to the very peak of prosperity where poverty could not have been our worry. But these policies met resistance and failed as the result of lack of implementations, and dishonesty. “Vision 24” possesses the ability to transform our nation and build a nation we desire, for the vision was totally Liberian center, and indented to give the nation total independence since 1847, but failed. Its’ vision bearer was exiled by aggrieved rebel groups and later excavated to the Hargue for crimes against humanity. When you say ‘Pro-poor,’ in my wisdoms, it does not means you have come with a messianic agenda, it also means examining our path and past of economic recovery and outlines our failures and successes as nation and people and draw a final conclusion from our past to transform the lives of the suffering and poverty stricken Liberians who wait in hope for economic emancipation. Taylor too has a better agenda for the poor people of Liberia. You now tell if you have the best, and if you claimed to have the best, then best without implementation is nothing.

As “vision 2024” finally failed in the summer of August 11, 2003, when Taylor left with tears urging that ‘he will be back one day, God willing,’ in his political and economic symposium, if his tears represented excavation from Liberia, it was not enough, but that his “Vision 2024” came to an end, and left the county in ashes of poverty, with no pave roads and infrastructures.

But he was an embalm of his vision by making farm and bringing his rice on the market. For that, we remember his passion to transform Liberia. Several factors are responsible for the failure of “Vision 2024” and Taylor excavation from his motherland to exile:

1. He created more enemies for himself when he was at the front of the revolution. If he have sat back and support the revolution like the then Former President Ellen Johnson, more Liberian could not have problem with him, his loyalists could have defend his innocent like in the case of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. 2. He has problem with Liberia’s tradition allay and highest donor, America. America was not certain of supporting a revolutionary leader since their first experience with Samuel K. Doe did not materialize. 3. The sub-region fears his ambiguous vision and sees him as agent of Mohammed Kadafi to promote United States of Africa through revolution. 4. After the National Reconciliation Conference introducing his “Vision 2024,” he was not to sit, instead; he was to set up Aggrieved Committee to hold a consultative meetings with aggrieved refugees of the neighboring counties in Guinea, Ivory Coast, and Sierra and to reconcile his regime with these people and slow the path of aggrieved members of the warring factions not to easily use them as rebels. But instead he abandoned them; they were not even represented during the National Reconciliation Conference based on my research. 5. Firestone as the major rubber producing Company fears his “Vision 2024” and therefore undermined it since it mentioned about producing cars’ tiers in Liberia. 6. Early civil war strikes him in 1999 marking the beginning of the second Liberian civil war. 7. His vision was more paper center and ambiguous, ignoring a small start with individual farmers to help him feed the nation, but solemnly took it as government responsible, ignoring relation with main land china and making Taiwan his allay which was not china allay. Since he missed the American relationship, he was not

to afford missing the china relationship which was exercising it potential growing technology and investment in Africa at the time. 8. Most Liberian political elites did not view “Vision 2024” as a national vision, but a vision to perpetuate Taylor in power for life.

Upon the failure of “Vision 2024,” it was in 2005 when Liberians engulfed a new hope in a nation emerging with Madam Sirleaf as head state, and inaugurated in January 16, 2006 as Africa first democratic female elected president. Madam Sirleaf promised to restore the hope of the suffering Liberians, adding that “papa will truly come home.” Vigorously awaiting to ‘see papa come home’ in the mist of criticism, she introduced the Poverty Reduction Strategy, another economic reform policy gearing toward touching the lives of the poor Liberian People.

”Poverty Reduction Strategy” Ellen Economic Reform Policy and failures

Where does the Poverty Reduction

Strategy come from? When Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s Economic policy was

failing, she enacted the ‘Poverty

Reduction Strategy’ in Liberia and borrowed lots of million dollars in the

name of the policy. Let us examine the path of the ‘Poverty Reduction

Strategy.’ Poverty Reduction Strategy is

a global transformative policy that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: Liberia’s first Democratic Elected Female President member counties can subscribe by, so it 2006 - 2017

was in the case of Liberia.

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) are prepared by the member countries through a participatory process involving domestic stakeholders as well as development partners, including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Updated every three years with annual progress reports, PRSPs describe the country's macroeconomic, structural and social policies and programs over a three year or longer horizon to promote broad- based growth and reduce poverty, as well as associated financing needs and major sources of financing.

Richard V. Reeves; Wednesday, September 2, 2015 in his anti-poverty strategies post said there are two strategic approaches to tackling poverty.

Strategy 1: raise the incomes of those with low incomes.

Strategy 2: reduce the knock-on effects of having a low income on housing, schooling, safety, health or health care.

Why then the Liberian Poverty Reduction Strategy was implemented with highest salary in government and people live in ashes’ poverty after years? To answer this question, I intend to analyze Liberia vision on the ‘Poverty Reduction Strategy.’

Here is a press release posted on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008 with The Foreign Minister of Liberia announcing Liberia vision of the ‘Poverty Reduction Strategy:

Liberia’s PRS articulates the government’s overall vision and development strategies. Successfully implementing the PRS will further Government’s central objectives: firmly establish a stable and secure environment across Liberia, to be on an irreversible path towards sustainable, equitable, and inclusive growth and development, to rebuild the capabilities of and provide new opportunities for Liberia’s greatest asset-its people and to have established responsible institutions of justice, human rights, and governance.

The PRS will be implemented between April 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011, a period of critical importance as Liberia shifts from post-conflict stabilization to laying the foundation for sustained and shared growth, poverty reduction, and progressing towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

The PRS is anchored on four pillars:

❖ Consolidating peace and security ❖ Revitalizing the economy ❖ Strengthening governance and the rule of law, and; ❖ Rebuilding infrastructure and delivering basic services.

This is the whole of the PRS which the Harvard Trained Economist (Ellen Johnson Sirleaf) capitalized on to bring some set of transformation to her people. She revamped the educational sector, for nearly 18 years, she again the first time established a pension and payroll system. She increases women participation both in government and the

22 private sectors and for the first time women defined their role and necessity of participating in the economy.

She left a relative well defined mark on the Liberian economy and its people, but failed to transform the lives of the poor people. The Liberian Poverty Reduction Strategy went to bed with poverty re-taken it new course against the very people who was at the pinnacle of the policy. At the latter part of her era, they were finally depressed, not willing to adhere to her if even she had intended recommending her replacement. Economic hardship increased, and the legislature was milky, and was not match to her hard code profile politics. She divided them and made the legislature changed speaker twice and made her friendly bloc of the legislature rich, but suppressed and snagged nationalists and floor fighters in the Legislature. Donors and PRS’ funds were unscrupulously used to consolidate her power in the legislature. She built a solid and strong foreign policy, and she became relevant and love by foreign people more than her own peasant Liberians. As the result the people live in ashes’ poverty; she fueled the International Community and donors with images of mini projects that everything was well, while the people live in poverty in the hinterland, particularly those of the sub-eastern part of the county. At the end results, few infrastructures stand in the nation as evidence of the PRS, but with no trigger effects on the lives of the ordinary people.

Despite of these failures and the failure of PRS to economically emancipate the Liberian people from poverty, she stood as the embalm of political tolerance, and role model for women. She has the best idea where to start solving the problem of a nation broken down for nearly 30 years. She knew it was a long process; but it could not happen overnight. She knew that we have arrived from a turbulent history, and some people wanted quick fit, and in the process of slow economic reform enhancement, frustration could occurred, and some could expressed their anger by insulting in the name of subscribing to democracy. In this light, she was quiet like old dump-grandmother and refused to reciprocate many confrontational activists and campaigners who wanted reciprocal action at the detriment of our democracy. She is the conservative perseverance of our

23 democracy in the 1st Liberian Republic and the civilian custodian of our democracy in the 2nd Liberian Republic. She understood that we Liberians were barricaded from expression of our freedom of speech, so we went to civil war. The much hidden idea to transform this nation was in the corridor of Madam Sirleaf, but she knew it from a difficult perspective. When you say “pro-poor, please note that the very people you want to liberate, you are not the first to anticipate in that endeavor, Madam Sirleaf too understand that language very well, but she knew it could be a long path. She was not ambiguous in her economic reform policy; she was moderate, for this she failed to fight corruption. In her last day of the presidency, she saw the hungry poverty stricken crowds anticipating for new sense of hope and direction, for this she remain astute, and decided to play a neutral role in the October 2017 general elections to watch the masses go any direction they wish, figurative saying “it is not my demn business.” There are however, some factors responsible for the failures of the PRS in Liberia:

1. Ellen is a long international veteran who stays long in the field of opposition wanting the presidency. Her quest has long been supported by many dormant Liberians who were not really care for Liberia. She imported them as ministers who were pay in the range of 15,000 – 30,000 US$. They imported the PRS and donor money back to America and with no form of infrastructural developments here to benefit the poor. 2. Most of the positions in her first term was likely a token for those that stood for her when she was in opposition, than an actual job to serve the state 3. Ellen failed to revise and modify ‘Operation Production’ which could have helped her integrate and unify the poor famers through Agriculture. 4. Liberia’s Poverty Reduction Strategy was cash based, not agriculture based 5. The poverty Reduction Strategy didn’t follow good path to educate the banking system to easily deliver loan to marketers. Bankers created a hash monotonous system and cut actual money from borrowers apart from interest rate. The PRS did not employ financial counselors.

6. Ellen’s son Robert Sirleaf weakens her corruption gasp in her government by not championing transparency at NOCAL. She lack moral pedigree to trial others for corruption. 7. She concentrated on consolidating her power in an opposition legislature; thereby spending lots of million dollars undercover to buy opposition lawmakers and abandoned the poor Liberian people. 8. She developed lots of sitting and investigating committees comprises of her comrades and political allies and give them lot of million dollars annually. 9. Her budget was legislature and executive cooperation and coordinating budget, not reflecting perfect balance in geographical development. 10. She spent more money and energy making polices than implementations.

Today poverty has manure itself as a component in Liberia. Madam Sirleaf left a struggling nation with a task to redefine its agenda to tickle the issue of poverty. Instead of worrying about technology, anticipating for innovation for young people to take grasp of digital technology, our thinking and innovation is shark with poverty and inequality in infrastructural dividend. Post Ellen Liberia is a difficult path, seeking a new sense of economic emancipation in a pro-poor Agenda led by former soccer legend George Manneh Weah which I intend to analyze if it will surely emancipate Liberia and give the suffering Liberian People hope after post Weah Liberia.

“Pro-poor Agenda” Weah’s Economic Reform Policy, and why it will Fail if Lacked Future Perspective When you say ‘Pro-poor’, people likely to believe that a government has come straightly for the suffering Liberian people, and it appears like for the first time, no economic platform has ever surface in the history of Liberia to emancipate the people from poverty. But before driving you to the ‘pro-poor’ agenda I sincerely enlightened you on reforms in the corridor of our history by past leaders that strive to eliminate poverty, but failed. And here we now stand with a ‘Pro-poor agenda.’ Where does the ‘Pro-poor agenda’ come from? George Manneh Weah: Liberia most nd moderate Opposition Leader in the 2 It is a George weah led innovation? Republic and Liberia’s current President

Accordingly, ‘when development studies were born, after decolonization in the middle of

the twentieth century, poverty was not an important concern of policy-makers.’ The

situation changed in the early 1970s, a question of how the interests of the poor could be incorporated in policy-making arrived. ‘New data became available, showing that famine

was still occurring and that a third of the poor were not gaining from growth; inclusive policies were presented as a means of allaying threats to state security within a cold war environment, especially in Asian developing countries; and a big boost was given to these policies by the commitment of donors – especially Robert MacNamara; World Bank president – to reorientate lending policies towards urban poverty and rural development. Under the stress of global crisis, poverty focus among aid donors decayed in the 1980s, but it continued among many recipients, especially in South and South-East Asia. In the 1990s, it was relaunched, first tentatively, as a means of protecting the losers from global adjustment (a process which, with the end of the cold war, now embraced Russia and the

26 former Soviet Union) and then more decisively, a process which culminated in the Millennium Development Goals. In the 2000s, with the decay of the Washington consensus, the idea of pro-poor orientation becomes incorporated into a more state- dominated politics in a number of middle-income, especially Latin American, countries.’

‘Pro-poor’ is not a Liberian idea. The general understandings that can be drawn from “pro-poor policies” are those that directly target poor people, or that are more generally aimed at reducing poverty. There is also a general consensus that pro-poor policy processes are those that allow poor people to be directly involved in the policy process, or that by their nature and structure lead to pro-poor outcomes. The current definition used by the Civil Society Partnership Program is that 'the aim of pro-poor policies is to improve the assets and capabilities of the poor'.

Pro-poor agenda is just another borrowed policy like the Green Revolution and the Poverty Reduction Strategy. ‘A pro-poor government is largely understood as a government driven by the primary objective of reducing poverty. A pro-poor government thus takes direct actions that alleviate the sufferings and reduce the number of its citizens living in poverty through sustainable and long-term interventions managed by both the state and the private sector,’ Liberian scholar Ibrahim Al-Bakri Nyei wrote.

‘Pro-poor, according to a working paper by International Poverty Centre (IPC) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), “Pro-poor growth may be referred as growth that benefits the poor and provides them with opportunities to improve their economic situation, as often cited by international agencies (UN 2000, OECD 2001).”

Therefore Pro-poor Agenda should donate its agenda to Pro-poor Growth. Pro-poor Growth is dubbed in two measures: relative pro-poor growth and absolute pro-poor growth. Without these examinations pro-poor is meaningless.

Relative Pro-poor Growth: economic growth should benefit the poor proportional more than the non-poor. This growth reduces poverty faster and incites inequality. 27

Absolute relative Pro-poor Growth: the poor receive the absolute benefits of growth equal to the absolute benefits received by the non-poor. This pro-poor stimulates equality, but slow in growth.

We stand yet to know which pro-poor growth we are subscribing to. Maybe we are subscribing with the two growths.

Liberians are actually poor people. Poverty is destroying the foundation of the nation. Private schools continue increasing school fees, and the Liberian dollars is depreciating daily. LD$ 600 should be the relative amount to give a nuclear family a daily appreciative meal, not to mention an extended family. In all my research tours in major market places in Liberia, in schools, university campuses, in meetings and public places I have sensed that public trust is wading away and the respect for character is growing cold, and people are getting legally inclined on their right, but morally lack passion for humanity and people are taken character assassination and personal attack as democracy. We live in total confusion and we are becoming selfish with no economic prosperity. Poverty has retaken it course in the Liberian society and people are looking for a new sense of economic emancipation every day. So ‘when President George Weah announced his pro- poor agenda two days after winning the 2017 election, optimism swelled about a well- defined set of policies to address the plight of the intrinsically poor population (Lennart Dodoo, [email protected]).

Weah’s Pro-Poor Projects earmarked with resources allocated under the pro-poor policy include:

• Pay Junior and Senior High School Examination Fees for public and private schools;

• Provision of digital registration system for the University of Liberia and free Wi- Fi internet for students at the main campus;

• Fulfill government obligation by paying the salaries of 400 new teachers and correcting the salaries of 180 underpaid personnel;

• Increase the number of local Liberian experts through professional skills development for key technical positions in government;

• Provide beds, tools, and other medical equipment and facilities upgrades for John F. Kennedy Medical Center;

• Support on-going humanitarian outreach programs by the First Lady;

• Repair and maintain traffic lights in Monrovia and construct 400 new street lights along the Roberts Field Highway;

• Conduct feasibility study for new Military Hospital;

• Finance efforts to issue biometric identification to government employees and rationalize the wage bill through payroll verification;

• Repair and maintain damaged NTA buses;

• Introduce non-discriminatory loan and grant facilities will provide empowerment and support for Liberian-owned businesses.

Two months after launching the ‘Pro-poor Agenda,’ the President Weah, his First Lady, Mrs. Clar Weah, and some members of his Cabinet have lunch in a local ‘low-level’ restaurant, eating with his bare fingers. Few minutes later, photos of the President eating at the local restaurant went viral on social media in an attempt to depict the pro-poor agenda. These photos, most Liberians understood as the beginning of emplacing government of the poor, denigrating the pro-poor agenda. These humanist photos with the President eating with the poor in local cook shop, but with no plan to transform their lives were the early beginning of the failures of the Pro-poor agenda. Pro-poor Agenda is not about identity, is about transformation. Now, here a recommendation to improve the president pro-poor agenda with local cook shops or restaurants in which he strive to identify with, with no transformation:

Introduce a program that empower and make rural women effective of producing and milling country rice and make the urban cook shops’ women to buy the country rice from the rural women for a minimum cost and then sell the food to the ordinary Liberian people in the various cook shops. With such program; you are helping to promote the country rice in Liberia as compare to imported rice. When you say pro-poor, be cognizant that it is a board idea that needs innovation to transform your people.

Before I address the prospects of the Pro-poor agenda, let me corroborate, not legally, but in my conscious mind inject what are NEWS and what are OLDS in the pro-poor projects weah embarking. However, all the pro-poor projects are crucial and significance for the survival of our nation.

What are old in the pro-poor project?

o Pay Junior and Senior High School Examination Fees for public and private schools:

Taylor did this without platform, but when this happens continually, then, it is a new project.

o Fulfill government obligation by paying the salaries of 400 new teachers and correcting the salaries of 180 underpaid personnel;

President Sirleaf fulfill government obligation, pay salaries and give retire benefit and pension bill. Continual implementations of these projects are the problem Mr. President.

o Increase the number of local Liberian experts through professional skills development for key technical positions in government;

President Sirleaf did this by sending young people aboard for study and mentoring young people and later entrusted them with ministry. An example was Augustine Ngufua who Ellen assigned as deputy to Anthontee saydee and later become Liberia’s youngest Finance Minister. o Provide beds, tools, and other medical equipment and facilities upgrades for John F. Kennedy Medical Center;

Not new, when Ellen took over in 2003, JFK was practical empty with equipment, bed and human resource capacity. It was Ellen who revamped JFK since 15 years. o Support on-going humanitarian outreach programs by the First Lady;

Not new, President Doe support lots of humanitarian works of his wife and then Charles Taylor, who support lots of local project in His wife Jowel name, thus, gave her some political preference in Liberia. o Repair and maintain traffic lights in Monrovia and construct 400 new street lights along the Roberts Field Highway;

Not new, Ellen was always maintaining road and repairing traffic and street light and she had plan to extend street lights to kakata and Robert Field highway. o Repair and maintain damaged NTA buses;

Not new, Madam Sirleaf introduced a system reserving fund for maintenance and repairing of NTA buses, but the system collapsed in early 2016, two years after the Ebola crisis hit the nation. o Introduce non-discriminatory loan and grant facilities will provide empowerment and support for Liberian-owned businesses.

Not new, Madam Sirleaf did this through the 4th pillar of the TRC recommendation. Community dialogue and empowerment through Macro loan through the Central Bank of Liberia, a program which Dr. Mills Jones intended using for his own political relevance to integrate his political will among the rural and urban Liberians.

What are New in the pro-poor project?

o Conduct feasibility study for new Military Hospital;

New indeed. This will add value to the military, and transform them from a warlike human figure to humanitarian.

o Finance efforts to issue biometric identification to government employees and rationalize the wage bill through payroll verification;

New in height of technological but old as just database. This is the beginning of improving security and transparency in government

• Provision of digital registration system for the University of Liberia and free Wi-Fi internet for students at the main campus;

New, and a very proud project. Not that it touches students, but that it is an incentive of modern technology that should have been introduced 10 years back, but failed to deliver.

All the pro-poor projects the President intends to embark on are genuine and crucial for the survival of the nation.

You are likely to wonder why I analyzed some projects as NEW and some as OLD. I antedate to tell you that some of these projects have existed in the course of our reform process, but failed to materialize due to the lack of implementation. These projects are

32 done once and for all, but they are project to be carefully monitored and maintained, with no future prospect to maintain the life cycle of these projects to foster national growth and development, the pro-poor agenda will fail if lacked future perspectives.

The building of new Military Hospital, issuing biometric identification to government employees and rationalize the wage bill through payroll verification and providing digital registration system for the University of Liberia and free Wi-Fi internet for students at the main campus are new projects under the pro-poor agenda. But former President of the University of Liberia; Dr. Emmitt Dennis was always annoyed when you referred to Capitol Hill campus as main Campus of the University of Liberia. He preferred directing the University of Liberia activities on Fendell campus, for he indents to shape the student population to Fendell. This is exactly what President Tolbert intends to do. A pro-poor project to provide free Wi-fi internet for students at the main campus without mentioning Fendell Campus which now carries the highest density of the students’ population tends to contradict a pro-poor agenda project. Maybe, not to jump the gum, it’s Fendell Campus that the President is referring to as Main Campus; not Capitol Hill Campus.

All the pro-poor projects are welcoming, demanding and appealing as threat against poverty, but do not in any way adequately stand to fight poverty and reduce it to the lowest to match the courage of the suffering Liberian people. But they are good start for a political soccer patriot who believes that he can transform the lives of the suffering Liberian people, make them proud as the best carrier of the Lone Star of Liberia, and bring hope and relief to his people through a borrowed pro-poor agenda that I believe if not properly Liberalized, will fail. No one should be convinced by politicians and critics that he does not have plan for Liberia. Yes he has, but he is faced with dilemma to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and also remain a strong friend and confidante of the rich whom his pro-poor agenda intend to narrow some of their benefits and give them to the poor. The process is ongoing now! The cutting of some luxuries, benefits and

33 salaries of some cabinets and members of the executive branch was, however the beginning of implementing a pro-poor agenda.

On the other hand, pro-poor agenda also narrow-net and reduce government spending on high cost vehicles and introduces strong and affordable vehicles and motor bikes to government agencies with the basic concern to carry them to jobs to carry-on governmental functions with the focus to narrow the gap between the rich and poor. Your government officials are riding the best of vehicles which is also a contradiction to a pro- poor agenda. This element of the pro-poor will not take its course in Liberia?

Another element of pro-poor should be continuant of, is the aspects that improve the living condition of the people through government credit loan programs. In this element of pro-poor policy, Government provides portable homes for poor people living in slum communities, but not really free houses, rather maybe, tells each head of a poor family residing in the house to pay a house tax of $200 LD per month. Base on the quality of the house, some generation pay for five decades, through cash, works and services. When you say Pro-poor policy, please look its elements; and imply them in your certain with innovation. This is why the Green revolution failed. This is why the Poverty reduction Strategy failed. When you say pro-poor, it is not all about including poor people in your government, its main concern is about innovation and program to transform their lives and release them from poverty since you will never be able to employ all. I am not only talking about the condition of all poor men and poor women in Liberia. When they say poverty, sometimes the person does not even understand that he or she has anything to offer to desire his or her lives a better life. When you say pro-poor is likely that you are playing fool out poor people if you do not look beyond the ladder behind the poor people I am addressing their plat to your pro-poor agenda. If your pro-poor agenda does not understand the underlining factors beyond the poor, it will fail, and it will be a mare policy which will leave, with this country stay subscribing to poverty after post pro-poor era. When you say pro-poor, you better understand the elements of pro-poor. It is a policy

34 that you have borrowed with an intend to transform your counties, and you must observed the elements that made it succeed for other counties and then apply it from a Liberian perspective to deliver our poor people, but without these future prospects, the pro-poor agenda will fail.

When you say pro-poor, do not think you have come with a highest realm of government’s policy to liberate the poor people and ignore the private sectors. You should develop programs to empower the private sectors. All policies before the Pro-poor too, were appealing, all claimed to have the greatest economic platform to deliver Liberia from the sin of poverty, but none was able. All met resistance, and moreover, faced the problems of lack implementation and dishonesty. When you say pro-poor, be honest to yourself, and make all progressive efforts to implement whatsoever plans you have to make the Pro-poor plans materialize. You will fail not because of the lack of plans, rather because of the lack of implementation and dishonesty. Few factors could be responsible for the failure of the pro-poor agenda if lacked future perspectives to underline and right the frauds and errs which are responsible for the failures of past economic reform policies, and what might hinder the pro-poor policy in Liberia:

❖ Lack of implementation ❖ Dishonesty ❖ Lack of monitory system ❖ Using millions of dollar undercover to buy opposition law-makers ❖ Suppressing nationalists and truth floor fighters in the legislature ❖ Celebrating pro-poor day or pro-poor government ❖ Hosting ministerial leagues ❖ Indecisive of pro-poor growth between the rich and poor, who to befriend while implementing a Pro-poor Policy? The poor are the ones you wish to transform, while the rich are the political elites and warlord?

❖ Managing conflicts of interests with law-makers; they hope to increase their salary and get benefits from every national barrowed loans under a pro-poor government ❖ Loyalists: they defend the pro-poor policy more than listening to their mistakes, not adhering to suggestions that may yield to transformation ❖ Loyalists: another tendency of loyalist is the hit back tendency on social medias to tease oppositions and aggrieved Liberians ❖ Lack of plan to measure the pro-poor in education, agriculture and technology in a new dimension. But its dimension on road is clear. ❖ Lack of pro-poor policy advisors to narrow Pro-poor vision to befit an individual Liberian road in a nation building process; as the result, individual squarely see pro-poor agenda as government business

Pro-poor agenda is a good policy with the ability to transform this nation better for the common good of every Liberians. It driver (George Manneh weah) is a nationalist who refused to donate his pride as a French citizen when he was emerging as a super star in soccer. With this, there are some sorts of truth values and loves of this nation relatively defined in him more than some thousands that look for opportunity with no regard for origin. He too, can transform this nation, but also with no warranty to failure if he does not revise his pro-poor plans and look at it future perspectives and challenges as discussed above. Here come the pro-poor; it is a long road that requires a new definition for better success! It is an old policy, but new in Liberia.

Conclusion

Whatsoever policy it might be to help the suffering Liberian people, after analyzing policies of past Liberian leaders; from Edwin J. Roye to George Weah, I have come to the final conclusion: that the resurrection of this nation from poverty lies in education, road and agriculture. All the patriots, revolutionaries, dictators and visionaries of the past realized this, and tried doing something to help rescue this nation from the sin of poverty, but failed. Some were truly heroes, and my last female, madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is just a heroine and a radical who I sometime hate and love.

There are lots of evidences that people tried transforming this nation, with better mind of economic reforms more than pro-poor policy. But today we are with pro-poor, which for it very cause, I analyzed the Roye’s Road policy and Failures, Tubman’s Operation Production policy and Failures, Tolbert Operation higher Height, Mat-to-mattress Policy and Failures, Doe’s Green Revolution Policy and Failures, Taylor’s Vision 2024 and Ellen’s Poverty Reduction Strategies and Failures to compare their weaknesses and strengths with the Pro-poor policy in order to make a comparative dynamic analysis for the Pro-poor Policy to take its rational and transformative course to truly affect the poor people if the policy adhere to the commendations I have made in this article, which I think is one of my least, but greatest contribution to the Pro-poor agenda. In my final last word, the best way forward to economic emancipation and self-sustainability is through education, road and agriculture. Let the sound of their words go down deed in your heart: for Roye said ‘Road’, Tubman and Ellen said ‘Education’, and Doe, Tolbert and Taylor said ‘Agriculture.’

Reference Jones, Jae, June 8, 2017 - BLACK MEN, BLACK POLITICS, Edward James Roye: The Fifth President of Liberia

Mosley, Paul, A short history of ‘pro-poor policy’ 1970–2010

Dodoo, Lennart, April 5, 2018, Frorntpage Africa Liberia: Weah’s Government Misconstruing ‘Pro-Poor’ Agenda; Policies Shy of Lasting Solutions

Quarbo, Octavius, MA: (Article) Published on March 16, 2018: What should Pro-poor Governance mean for Liberia?

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) Wednesday, December 28, 2016, Unknown Post

Reeves, Richard V., Anti-poverty strategies: (Post) Wednesday, September 2, 2015

The Foreign Minister of Liberia, IT/Public Affairs Bureau- MFA: Liberia Vision of Poverty Reduction Strategies

Wilson, Richard: (Article) William Tolbert Jr.’s Triple Legacy to Liberia: Sub-Title: May 13, 2014, would have been the 101st birthday of William Richard Tolbert Jr.

Walsh, Renford E. A., (Article) Brief Analysis of Tolbert’s Administration 1971 – 1980

Oxford University Press, A short history of ‘pro-poor policy’ 1970–2010

Agriculture and Rural Development Research II Public Policy II: International Monetary Fund: Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). Last updated: Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Ellen Johnson Recovery Policy: Decentralization in Liberia: A giant leap into the future: Posted by admin on Saturday, February 21, 2015

Robbert Quiminee is a Liberian writer and activist. This article is his insight on Liberia’s struggle toward Economic Recovery.

Live in Monrovia, Liberia

Email: [email protected]/ [email protected]