Liberia's Integrity Institutions: Prone to Interference, Acute Tragedy - Research Paper

Introduction

Liberia's Integrity institutions happen to be a victim of a lack of independence. This situation happens in Liberia despite there being regulations that require impartial independence and fair management within the integrity institutions. The lack of independence, therefore, means that the integrity institutions such as the judiciary are prone to interference by other government bodies such as the executive and the legislature. This interference has become a source of acute tragedy on account of transparency. Undermining the independence of integrity institutions in Liberia has caused the acceleration of corruption, a condition which in turn derails the efforts that the government puts towards development agendas. The executive is not the only body that undermines the independence of the integrity institutions in Liberia (Genyi, 2019). Prominent individuals caught with graft cases also take a very active role in compromising the integrity of these bodies, and the effects are the same. Corruption takes deeper roots and development takes a very slow toll such that it appears as if there is no development all in the country. This research paper explores the issue of lack of independence in the integrity bodies in Liberia and the effects that it has brought to the country. The paper investigates a situation where there was a call to dissolve the tenure of office of the integrity institutions in Liberia and discusses the effects of this move to the country's economy. Dissolving the tenure of office for these institutions was an autocratic move by the president, and with no doubt, it would have put the country in a weak political and economic position.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Key Issues

In May this year, the Liberian president had moved a bill to the parliament seeking to restrict the tenure of office for the integrity institutions in the country. It has always been in the interest of the Liberian legislature to give tenure of office to government entities (Outram, 2016). However, the bill by the president went against this code and responsibilities, posing a threat to so many government bodies. The lower house supported this bill and was moving to terminate the tenure of office of government entities with the inclusion of the integrity institutions in the country (Ghosh, 2019). One integrity institution that was to be affected is the Liberian Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC).

The situation to dissolve the tenure of office of these institutions as proposed by the president was reversed when the Senate refused to collaborate with the house of representative in passing the bill. The house of representative had earlier passed the bill with the argument that the independent institutions were not subject to interference by the executive, thereby limiting the presidential powers (Ghosh, 2019). As it is, any institution made or established by the legislature in Liberia is subject to check by the president; hence, it was vital to revoke the power to act independently by these institutions and their heads.

Situational Analysis

The proposal by the president to dissolve the tenure of office of the integrity institutions is a grave mistake. If anything, the public sharply criticized the public. The general feeling among the public was that there need to be independent integrity institutions in the executive arm of the government to keep a close check on the powers of the presidency. The action of the president to propose dissolving the tenure of these institutions is an openly evident desire of the president to attain excessive presidential powers. In this case, the president would have the powers to exercise the law in full potential to ensure and realize effectiveness and efficiency in the administration of the office of the president.

The tenure positions that were at stake of being dissolved were an enactment by the former Liberian president. The current Liberian president, however, noted that in the past few years, the legislature took the action of securing tenure of office for institutions as provided in the Liberian statutes. Levitative actions had been taken to establish or amend government bodies to limit executive interference as well as provide independence to the heads of those institutions. The president, therefore, moved that the tenure secured to those institutional heads and the institutions themselves be dissolved by legislation.

While debating on the motion, the house of representatives argued that some of the tenure provided to the institutions was meant to protect their heads rather than giving independence to these government bodies. Therefore, these institutional heads were using their tenure to work against the presidential will, hence the need to revoke their autonomy and put them under check (Wiebusch & Murray, 2019). The motion was passed in the house of representatives and forwarded to the Senate for approval. At the Senate, there arose a conflict of interest as some senators rejected the motion. The lead senator on rejecting the motion went entirely against the proposal to allow a debate on which the presidential bill would be amended instead of rejecting it. The lead senate on rejecting the bill moved that the Senate had already made its decision and there was no way in which they were going back. The bill, therefore, failed in the Senate and the communication made to the president.

Dissolving the tenure of office of integrity institutions in Liberia would prove fatal to the country's economy. First, this move interferes with the institutions' independence, making them unable to control and fight corruption in full capacity. With corruption finding a ground to thrive in the country, development agendas will be challenging to implement. Many resources are likely to be misappropriated since the institutions that are responsible for fighting corruption would have their powers stripped since they will be answerable to the president. In this case, many perpetrators will seek to embezzle funds meant for development, stripping the country of the chance to develop economically.

Problems for Public Sector Reform

It is a significant concern to the public if the government continues to propose and make such amendments. To start with, undermining the autonomy of the integrity institutions is a way of creating a loophole to pave in corruption. Impartial presidential powers translate to dictatorship, which is no doubt an excellent surviving ground from corruption. When the office of the president cannot be questioned, it means that the president can do anything he wants. This freedom would include appointing people to power who his close allies. This is favoritism and nepotism.

Secondly, the government would be spending a lot of resources and time in discussing bills and motions that may not be approved in the end. This is a wastage of taxpayers' money. Thirdly, with impartial presidential powers, it means that the executive will amass many powers above the legislature and the judiciary (Rodman, 2019). This will allow it and the president to infiltrate any institution in the country, bending them to their will irrespective of whether it is in the interest of the public or not. In such a government, it is challenging to carry out development agendas as there will always be dissatisfactions among different groups of people and individuals.

Problems for Governance Reforms

Reforms to dissolve the tenure of office of integrity institutions and to interfere with their independence can have a lot of adverse effects on governance. The fact that the president will have impartial powers on the country's entire administration is inevitable. Secondly, independent institutions are used to run independently. However, with their tenure of office dissolved, it implies that they are going to be answerable to the president on all their operations. This is a situation that may delay the decision-making process of these institutions. Slow decisions will, in turn, lead to delayed justice. Lastly, integrity institutions may not meet all their goals and objectives. Since they will no longer be independent, their dependence on other government bodies is likely to undermine their operations on a significantly large scale.

Policy Recommendations, Strategy for Fight Against Corruption

To avoid problems likely to arise, there need to be several reforms in the system. First, the government should realize and acknowledge that there cannot be a point in time where we do not have independent institutions in the country (Heupel, Hirschmann, & Zurn, 2018). To realize this, the Liberian constitution should be amended to state that all the integrity institutions are autonomous and are not subject to interference. Secondly, the independence of these institutions should be monitored from within themselves. According to Olson (2015), there should be committees within these institutions that monitor the operations of their leaders so that they do not abuse the powers bestowed on them. Lastly, if any amendment is to be done the integrity institutions, a pole should be held to seek the opinion of the public on the matter. This move will ensure that if any interference has been made, the interests of the public have been taken care of and it is their desire that a particular action is taken on the institutions.

Challenges

The above policy recommendations cannot come without some drawbacks. First, seeking public opinion on any matter is a costly process as polls require much money to hold. Apart from cost, the process is also timely, and this cannot apply to matters of urgency. Secondly, the policy of having internal committees monitoring independent integrity institutions may fail to prove efficient in some cases. The leaders of these institutions may use their powers to bend the committees to their will. In the end, it will be their interests that are protected and not the interests of the institutions and the public. Lastly, the office of the president may fail to command respect if many institutions monitor its activities. This situation may provoke the executive to work against the constitution and cause chaos within the government.

Conclusion

The bid by the current Liberian president to dissolve the tenure of office of integrity institutions was a wrong move on account of democracy. It was a move towards autocracy, which is not an excellent form of governance. A good leader should be open to corrections by the institutions put in place by the constitution as watchdogs. Moreover, if corruption has to end, these institutions should be left to operate autonomously without interference. Consequently, if development has to be realized, integrity institutions should operate independently to oversee transparency and enact justice within the country.

References

Genyi, G. (2019). Democratic consolidation in Africa: a comparative analysis of the challenges of elections in Liberia and Kenya. African Renaissance, 16(2), 55-74. Retrieved from https://journals.co.za/content/journal/10520/EJC-1684410f3b

Ghosh, S. Central Vigilance Commission-An Instrument against Corruption. EDITOR'S DESK, 5. Retrieved from http://hmmcollege.ac.in/uploads/scotopia_full_version.pdf#page=4

Heupel, M., Hirschmann, G., & Zurn, M. (2018). International organizations and human rights: What direct authority needs for its legitimation. Review of International Studies, 44(2), 343-366. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/international-organisations-and-human-rights-what-direct-authority-needs-for-its-legitimation/5C605ECBAA1E2667D07BBFB3EACDA3CA

Olson, D. M. (2015). Democratic Legislative Institutions: A Comparative View: A Comparative View. Routledge. Retrieved from https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2014-0-39678-2&isbn=9781317473152&format=googlePre...