A critical look at the role of the Diaspora in Liberia’s development

By Cecil Franweah Frank

The diaspora could be a very important force for good or for evil in any country’s development. In scholarly literature, the paradigm of diaspora is frequently viewed as a transnational community that is inclusive of migrant and ethnic communities.

In short, according to Baubock and Faist (2010, p.86), there are three important conditions for the diaspora to become a participant in development policy: first, national or ethnic origin; second, a capability to contribute to development in the country of origin; and, third, a readiness to do so.

Within the context of what has been said above, the question now is has the diaspora been a positive actor in Liberia’s development policy or a destabilizing factor or element undermining peace in the country of origin? This article in large part tries to address this question, particularly in light of the Liberian diaspora now demanding that government grants it dual citizenship.

Ascendancy of the Liberian Diaspora on the National Scene: 1960-1989

The history of the Liberian diaspora has not been fully chronicled in scholarly research. However, much can be said that the Liberian diaspora fully came of age in the 1960s. This is the period that the number of Liberians leaving the country mostly for studies began to increase. Many of these Liberians particularly traveled to the United States. The choice of the United States as opposed to other countries was informed by the perceived historical ties between the two countries and the deepening of US influence in Liberia.

The period 1960-1971 marked the formation of the diaspora as a participant in Liberia’s political and economic development. In the late 1960s, Liberian students in the United States organized the Liberian Student Union, which eventually was renamed the Union of Liberian Association in the United States (ULAA) (Watkins, 2007, p.130).

Many members of the diaspora at the time did not support anti-Tubman opponents like Tuan Wreh and Albert Porte. In fact, the diaspora was mostly complacent in Tubman’s dictatorial regime since they benefited from his paternalistic policies. Besides, the Liberian diaspora that saw its ranks increasing with indigenous Liberians felt the need to repay President Tubman with loyalty because of his policy of Unification which they taught liberated them from oppression by the Americo-Liberian elite.

The period 1971-1980 saw a new stage in diaspora development and participation in Liberia. This period saw the political radicalization of the Liberian diaspora, and was marked by the establishment of various political movements. The first of these movements was the Movement for Justice in Africa (MOJA).

This organization was created by misguided leftist Liberian educators Togba-Nah Tipoteh, Henry Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr., Amos Sawyer and Dew Mason. These were American educated lecturers who benefited from Tubman’s largesse but were led astray by socialist rhetoric. A year later, in 1974, Gabriel Baccus Matthews created the Progressive Alliance of Liberia (PAL). (Sirleaf, 2005, p.102).

1980-1989 marked the third stage in the participation of the diaspora in the development policy and economic affairs of Liberia. The diaspora at first misguidedly greeted the military coup that toppled the democratic civilian government of Liberia and backed the cancelation of Liberia’s 1847 Constitution. This was Africa’s first republican constitution.

This period also saw the struggle within the diaspora between the socialist and capitalist wings. This situation culminated into the Doe Administration being pushed over the cliff into an era of brutal rule. What is interesting to note is that elements of both wings were educated in the bastion of global capitalism and democratic governance – the United States of America.

The Consequential Outcomes of the Diaspora’s Role in Liberia’s Development

In view of the analysis carried out above, it is safe to conclude that the diaspora, particularly the Liberian diaspora in the United States, has had a largely negative influence on Liberia’s development. Given that throughout Liberia’s 165 years of existence, it has been an under-developed country struggling to solidify its sovereignty. Whatever positive contributions isolated members of the diaspora made to their motherland were effectively drowned out by the collective efforts of the diaspora members in political and economic leadership.

Rather than being a force for socio-economic development and political good governance, the diaspora has mainly been a force that led Liberia to its abyss under the deep cloud of poor governance, reckless economic management and massive corruption. This is the legacy of the diaspora’s role in Liberia’s development.

The diaspora had failed to use its influence in Liberia’s political and economic structure to craft development policies, but instead positioned the country to be a natural resource economically dependent nation. This explains why over the many years of Liberia’s existence, the country’s main revenues came from the export of its natural resources and not from any credible coordinated tax revenue-generating system. As such, a key consequence of the diaspora’s involvement in Liberia was the undermining of the country’s statehood and making Liberia dependent on the“George Haddads” to run its economy.

Liberia is one of two pioneer black countries globally. The other country is Haiti. Both nations share one common trait, even if they are not identical in terms of language and culture. The trait that unites them is that they are both spectacular failures. They have contributed to and consolidated the perception that blacks are not capable of ruling themselves without “white” intervention.

Another negative aspect of the diaspora’s role in Liberia has been the ‘governance crisis.’ The governing elites in Liberia had always considered the diaspora as a source of legitimacy. Thus, successive governments in Liberia had sought to cultivate the loyalties and support of members of the diaspora.

This attitude by the governing elite is not surprising given the belief fact that on the whole, diaspora Liberians tend to be more skilled, better educated and wealthier than Liberians in the homeland. Unfortunately, diaspora Liberians have failed by and large to leverage this power of knowledge and wealth to promote good democratic governance in Liberia.

This situation has affected even Liberians educated on the ground, and has created a culture whereby Liberians as a whole have tended to embrace misrule and discourage any efforts to correct the situation. This explains why Liberians continue to embrace the concept that “might is greater than strength” rather than seek to create a law-abiding society where all citizens are equal before the law.

Another negative aspect of the diaspora’s role has been its impact on public policies, particularly as it relates to the “corruption and poverty crisis.” Many members of the diaspora have served in influential decision-making positions, but they have never been able to develop effective policies to tackle widespread poverty and corruption in Liberia. To the contrary, it actually seems the diaspora has abetted poverty and corruption in Liberia. Poverty and endemic corruption are major obstacles to Liberia’s development (Andrews and Hadjimichael, 2006, p.3).

The issues of poverty and corruption have been underlying themes of the diaspora’s opposition to previous governments, but diaspora members have frequently backed away from these issues when given a chance to serve in the Liberian government. This explains why little progress has been made on poverty and corruption.

The present government, which has a large contingent of diaspora members in its ranks formulated an anti-corruption strategy, as well as declaration of assets, and Code of Conduct. But, Liberian newspapers continue to publish on a daily basis cases of high-profile corruption involving members of the diaspora in government.

Conclusion

The Liberian diaspora, particularly the diaspora groups in the United States, has been highly involved in Liberian economic and political structures. The influence of diaspora groups in the United States on Liberia has been one of historical making starting from the country’s founding in the mid-1800s, to the active surge of US influence in Liberia beginning in the 1940s.

However, there is little if anything positive to show for the diaspora’s involvement in Liberia. Even with diaspora members in leadership positions, Liberia continues to remain a deeply under-developed country whose leadership is stuck in the old ways of doing business.

An illustrative example of this perception is news that the current president appointed her sons and relatives to key positions of trust; from security to banking to the natural resource sectors, even though this runs against standard ethics of governance. Such action would have definitely been difficult if not impossible to carry out if there were functional institutions. Similar actions were widespread prior to the civil war.

In post-conflict Liberia, the diaspora still doesn’t have a positive influence on good governance and development. As events later showed, political and pressure groups that were created by diaspora members to advocate for greater openness and transparency in Liberia were not effective because the members of these organizations sought their own agenda under the pretext of seeking to liberate the populace.

Even when given the opportunity to demonstrate their passion and loyalty to their motherland, many of these diaspora members significantly underperformed in political and economic leadership, and failed to usher in any social change.

This should not be surprising given that the anatomy of the Liberian diaspora’s inability to have a positive impact on its motherland, can be linked to the manner in which diaspora organizations operate. A case in point is the Union of Liberian Associations in the United States (ULAA), which since its inception has been little more than a talking shop and instrument for political power in Liberia. ULAA currently lacks a standard headquarters and its leadership is in complete disarray.

The diaspora still has the ability to play a positive role in the establishment of credible, functional political, social, and economic institutions in Liberia. By leveraging the educational skills and know-how of its members, the diaspora can truly become a force for good.

As a start, the diaspora needs to advocate for improved conditions for downtrodden Liberians against an all-powerful centralized government. The diaspora needs to refocus the collective energies of its members on issues that matter such as good governance and stability in the country’s political environment, by pressing for credible, empowered institutions, accountable economic management; by tightening the screw on corruption and pressing for transparency, and by advocating astutely for post-conflict bread and butter deliverables like pipe-borne drinking water, electrification and speedy construction of infrastructure to improve the living conditions of ordinary Liberians.

A good start will be to pressure members of the diaspora that are in political and economic leadership to walk the walk and not only talk the talk. Besides, the diaspora should push the government to encourage inclusiveness rather than picking and choosing among Liberian intellectuals. These actions will enhance the role of the diaspora in Liberia’s development.

 

REFERENCES

Andrew, D., & Hadjimichael, M. (2006). Liberia: 2006 article IV consultation and staff-monitored program – staff report; public information notice on the executive board discussion; and statement by the authorities of Liberia [Edition illustrated]. International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C..

Baubock, R., & Faist, T. (Ed.). (2010). Diaspora and transnationalism: concepts, theories and methods [Edition illustrated]. Amsterdam University Press.

Dolo, E. (2007). Ethnic tensions in Liberia’s national identity crisis: problems and possibilities [Edition illustrated]. Africana Homestead Legacy Publication.

Sirleaf, A.M.D. (2005). He die before his plans were realized [Edition illustrated]. AuthorHouse.

Watkins, S.R. (2007). Liberia communication [Edition illustrated

Category: Featured Articles, Viewer Articles