The Putin Way-An Alternative

Something is going rotten.  A fairly big one too, framed around a strident campaign for the current president of Sierra Leone, Ernest Bai Koroma, now in his second consecutive term, to be allowed a follow-on third. Mr. President himself has been coyly silent about the matter (sort of), whilst the clamour of his friends thickens the air.

            Not surprisingly, there are others who oppose the idea, whether or not the constitution is amended to accommodate him. I am among these. Ernest Bai Koroma has done a lot to help lift Sierra Leone from where it was seven years ago, although some might see things differently. I believe, they too, are misguided. But that is neither here nor there. What is important is that the country be given a break from the Koroma brand of government, so that “his custom is not allowed to corrupt”.

Mr. Koroma himself has not said that he wants to run for another term. Indeed, at what now seems a distant past, he had declared that he was most definitely a two-term man and at the end of his second, if he was accorded one, he would leave office and revert to another life. What is worrying now, though, is that he has been quite mealy-mouthed about the antics of those who would see him run again. “It is their democratic right, in a free country, to express their views on any subject”, he declares. That right evidently extends, ultimately, to the freedom to tinker with the constitution to permit a run for a third consecutive term. But perhaps we are all getting excited about nothing, because it is by no means certain that Mr. Koroma will necessarily win a third term if he runs. Or is it?

            Anyway, the President’s friends wonder aloud why so much fuss is being made, when Tony Blair, for example and Margaret Thatcher for another, ran and ran and won the premiership of their country for more than two consecutive terms. And now, they say, Angela Merkel is getting set up for a fourth term. They declare that what is good for the European goose must be good for the African gander too. Of course they are missing the point. The constitutions under which these European politicians get to rule for more than two consecutive terms are of the parliamentary type and were not created just so that an incumbent could get their way.

Koroma's apologists should accept that it is technically impossible for him to utilize constitutional means to give himself a further presidential term.  I’m no constitutional expert but, as I understand it, the present constitution (the 1991 Constitution, to give it its technical name) does allow a change in an entrenched clause, such as the term limit for an incumbent. But such a change can only take place legally after the life of the parliament in which the change was proposed, buttressed by a two-thirds approval of the members sitting not only in that parliament but in its successor as well and, furthermore, by an equal quantum of approval in a national referendum. So there is no way that Ernest Bai Koroma can lawfully benefit this time round from a change in the constitution. The obstacles are too many. For him to run again it would require the constitution to be refashioned with a blunt instrument. And that will not do.

Ernest Bai Koroma is a fine man and president, and were it possible I, for one, would not mind being ruled for an extended period by someone like him. But changing the constitution to permit more than two terms (three, four, five, six…?) could, in due time serve up someone else whose style of government is oppressive and tyrannical. Even the most ardent of Koroma’s supporters would not want to bequeath such a constitutional monstrosity, the consequences of which we might come to regret. However, if we think this thing through carefully, we may not have to change the constitution at all.

What about the Putin way? While cynical, it could provide periodic respite from an awful leader or even from the tedium of one who is too bloody goody-goody. The Putin way proceeds thus: Vladimir goes first, for his two terms, followed by Dimitri Medvedev for his one, and then, Vlad follows for a further two... and so on. The constitution is not violated, everyone is more or less happy and Putin’s detractors are silenced. Question for us is who would be EBK’s Dmitri?  He or she can be found, I am sure, but I would suggest that when discussions are held to select him (her), caucus members should be frisked for knives before they enter the room. It could turn out quite bloody, otherwise.

I hope I have not treated the matter with too much levity but, if we do not concentrate on the issues, this thing could go really nasty and set us back decades. None of us would want that, would we?

Tell Fren Tru