|
The President’s Code of Conduct submitted to the Legislature has suffered a significant blow with the slicing of the assets seizure portion from the Act.
Opponents contend that this deletion of assets seizure enfeebles the Act, rendering it as a toothless bulldog.
But the Legislature’s decision on the Code of Conduct as the dreamy panacea should have been expected for many reasons.
First, this is, by many counts, the most non-reformist Legislature in recent history. It has taken the country backwards, refusing to pass the Threshold Bill because many legislators think it is against their personal and collective interest. It has dumped UN Resolution 1532 ordering all nations to freeze the assets of Mr. Charles Taylor and his most ardent loyalties because a sizable number of them, as partners and investors in war, would be affected.
In the concept of separation of powers, a reformist Legislature would have forced the hands of the other two branches of government in carving and pushing reforms because the Constitution gives the Legislature the power to do so.
A reformist Legislature would have been the torchbearer for far-reaching, much needed fundamental changes that a non-reformist president would be compelled to adopt or faces the consequences.
But unfortunately, this Legislature, overwhelmingly composed or ordinary people expected to see the need for change, looked the other way, preoccupied with mundane issues that address the narrow desires of its members against the interest of the population in need of alternatives. It has been obsessed with the parochial struggles for the material benefits of its members, not the larger society. It carries a heavy chunk of the budget without any defendable evidence of its worth in reforming the country and championing justice. When the president stood before and threatened to “move against” those in the media and elsewhere bringing disrepute to country because of concentration on corruption-related issues, they widely applauded in agreement instead of asking questions.
But we disagree that the President’s-drafted Code of Conduct requiring the Legislature’s collective approval is necessary for undertaking severe changes required on the politico-economic spectrum. We also disagree that because of this legislature’s rejection of this key portion of the Code of Conduct –property seizure—the label being “ruled by thieves” now is defensible, except it can be extended beyond the Legislature alone to include all others. If this is the rule of thieves, then this country has been ruled by thieves from its inception for several factors.
One is that from independence in 1847, the foundations for transparency were rejected, replaced by an entrenched system of patronage and conflict of interests within the orbit of organized crimes. This explains why the notion of audits, in whatever form, aimed at creating the pillars of transparency, is so vehemently resisted at all levels.
For decades, financial and economic institutions designed to checkmate the vices of those in power have been lacking or destroyed. Conflict of interests—the open and accepted act of politicians using their positions to create or enhance their economic interests and those of their allies and families—has become an integral part of political rule. A Code of Conduct, with fluid platform of implementation where double standards cover the political system, we believe, is not the lonely solution. Moreover, there are several laws on the books that would justify the seizure of property where evidence of stealing public money is available. It is easy to conclude that an official earning US3500 monthly cannot, without other provable incomes, build a US100, 000 house with a US200, 000 bank account.
But if the solution is reliance on this legislature to reform the system, then the solution is unlikely to come. But the fact is that the thieves have been in power for decades, and to claim that it is now that thieves have made it to the top is not the entire story. |
