|
|
|
From Defeat of a Bogus Referendum to Victory in October: CDC Salutes The Liberian People
(Sep 1, 2011) By: Samuel D. Tweah, Jr.
 In both heeding the CDC’s call for a boycott and defeating a controversial referendum, the Liberian people have yet again rejected the governing Unity Party as a prelude to its eventual defeat in October.
The referendum results show the U.P. has no sway over the electorate. Usually, the advantage of incumbency means the visibility a president commands translates into impact. Presidential preference has historically trickled down easily among Liberian voters, since presidents have normally wielded vast powers within our system. People speak in terms of ‘what the president wants’ and frame their support or opposition to causes or issues around this cornerstone of preference. Yet we do see that despite its pronounced visibility over the past six years and its massive campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote, the Unity Party, fielding President Sirleaf on numerous campaign stunts, was only able to move a paltry 292,318 voters, out of 1.8 million registered voters. When we factor in the ‘Yes’ campaign waged by the Liberty Party, it means the incumbent and her party only managed about 200,000 voters. This is as dismal a performance as we ever get from a sitting president touting a 'YES' vote in a referendum. It amounts to a presidential approval of about 12%, 3 points higher than the Unity Party's showing in 1997, and 7 points below its first round performance in 2005, with Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf as standard bearer in both elections. If we attribute all of the ‘Yes’ votes to the Unity party, it nets a 16% approval, just a few points above the average of its 1997 and 2005 numbers. These results show why the Unity Party needs to desperately advertise its “development programs” via billboards: Liberians have never felt the impact of its governance, which explains its miserable referendum performance. Of course, when you stand at 16% approval as a governing party, “Development by Advertisement” is probably your only option.
CDC Called the Shots during the Referendum
The last referendum held in 1984 boasted a turnout of 82%, which is 7 points higher than the turnout in 2005. We do have evidence that turnouts in Liberian referenda track those in presidential elections. In fact, we are showing a one to one tracking between the 1984 referendum and the 2005 presidential election, with the latter drawing 75%. So we know Liberians do turn out massively for referenda if Liberians perceive them to be legitimate, if referenda issue from a robust national consensus as in 1984 and if a major opposition party such as the CDC does not call for a boycott. That turnout in the 2011 referendum hovered around 34%, 49 points below the 1984 number, means an outside factor has to explain the huge difference. Our people cannot change their voting pattern by 49 points: that runs very contrary to the Iron Law of statistics. The CDC boycott, among other contending factors, impacted turnout the most.
These results also show that had CDC mobilized its gigantic base to vote ‘NO’, the referendum would have been crushed. A huge chunk of the ‘No’ votes came from CDC partisans who wanted to show their vehement opposition to the Unity Party, but the majority of our partisans stayed home. To have urged a ‘No’ vote would have lent legitimacy to the referendum. Either way, the referendum was doomed: through a massive CDC showing or through the fact that 615,703 voters is at least not two-thirds of 1.8 million registered voters as required by the Liberian Constitution. NEC’s calculation of percentage based on 615,703 voters, 34 % of registered voters, is mere after-the-fact bluffing and would have met with a stiff Supreme Court challenge – yet another reason you don’t hold referendum in the same year as a presidential election. Samuel Doe was the last President to get this right: we held a referendum in 1984 and an election in 1985. How could the very person who undid him get it so wrong?
Ten-Year Residency Clause should not prevent any Candidate from Contesting
As Cllr. Winston Tubman argued and our people listened, this referendum was never about the residency clause. It was more about undermining our national peace. The U.P. chose 5 years so that the President would be covered during attempts to deny other presidential candidates 'who would not qualify' under a 5-year clause, though there is no substantive difference between a 5-year residency requirement as defined in the referendum and the existing 10-year constitutional requirement. They only differ in the number of years but the substance of ambiguity remains unresolved. Both are ambiguous since the meaning of residency – continuous or cumulative – is open to interpretation. The Ellen appointed Supreme court, knowing the president is protected under the new law in case it had passed, would have ruled against presidential candidates perceived to be in ‘violation’ of the 10-year clause if the case had made it to the Supreme Court with passage of the referendum. This ruling might have had the most tragic consequence for our already fragile peace, raising political tension and dividing our people further. But we now know the Supreme Court would rule otherwise, if a challenge ensues, since the President is ‘in the hole’ with many other candidates. We are now hearing Unity Party surrogates argue the ‘referendum would not have mattered anyway.’ Had it gone their way, they would have hurled the country into a massive inferno of confusion, mischief and instability.
When Presidents and Legislatures Fail, the People Correct Them.
The Liberian people have now given the world an excellent model for undoing legislative excesses and failures. That such a bogus referendum could pass the National Legislature raises questions about the quality of leadership issuing form the House and Senate. As a matter of full disclosure, some members of the CDC legislative caucus may have voted for the referendum but even had ALL CDC lawmakers opposed it, the referendum motion would still have carried because both Houses are now effectively under the control of the Unity Party. Why would a sitting president canvass for a legislative vote that would undermine the very peace she is purportedly building? Who among our legislators asked the question ‘why the rush’? Who among them made that Daniel Webster type inspiring speech from the Senate floor that ‘this motion if it carries might be the albatross about the neck of our peace and I urge my colleagues from all sides of the political divide to join me in defeating it’? Well, we know speeches and leadership like that didn’t happen but we gratefully also know that our people would slam the brakes on any legislative actions or fiat that endangers their national wellbeing.
We Remain Focused on Facts, not on Sentimental Distractions.
In the wake of the results, we have seen attempts by Unity Party surrogates and other elements to drag the CDC away from its substance-based campaign. For us, these elections are not a ‘cussing or swearing contest. ’ Our augments are grounded in facts and and we have little time for elements dealing in insults and those writing fiction about the CDC. When we tell the Liberian people as we did more than a week ago that the Unity Party government says ‘Liberians lack the capacity to clean garbage’ for which a $US4.0 million dollar loan was awarded to a Ghanaian sanitation company, that was a fact. According to U.P. there are no Liberia-owned companies capable of cleaning garbage in the country. Granted this is true, -- we know it isn’t-- that begs the question what has the Unity Party done for Liberian private sector capacity ? Ghanaians are benefiting from a loan that Liberians would have to repay. When we argue that the Unity Party leadership under President Sirleaf has ‘squandered the peace dividend’ we are backed by the International Crisis Group, which, in its latest report “How Sustainable is the Recovery” writes: “If the six years of President Johnson Sirleaf’s government has proved anything, it is that the best reform plans cannot work without national ownership.” When we argue that corruption is endemic under the Unity Party, this same report states that although the government has taken several initiatives to fight corruption – Anti-Corruption Commission, Whistle Blower Act, Freedom of Information Act and Public Financial Management Act-, “none [of these] has translated into tangible action, apparently because the political will is not strong enough.” The report goes on to say that “possibly as a way to keep the peace in what is a tense country, the president appears to have adopted a slap-on-the-wrist approach, especially in cases involving allies. For example, Harry Greaves, a confidant of the president and former head of LPRC, was sacked for allegedly taking bribes but never tried.” These are peer reviewed international assessments of conditions in our country. They are NOT the fictions concocted by the CDC; they are the painful reality lived by our people who have paid such a high national price to see the dawn of a new day. To our detractors, it is on this richer plane we aim to do battle.
We are Humble in Victory
We are humbled by the support the Liberian people continue to show the CDC, as evidenced by the massive turnout we continue to experience during our political rallies and by the overwhelming response to our call for a boycott. During the course of this campaign we return the favor by fighting for all Liberians. We unveil an agenda that contrasts sharply from the mockery of governance we have seen over the past six years. We accelerate the glacial pace of reforms in governance and anti-corruption management, as well as reforms in a whole host of policy and program areas. We make the Liberian people the fulcrum of public policy, offering real hard-thought solutions, not mere criticisms. We take these campaigns to be important teachable, reflective moments in the life our democracy and condemn surrogates and other Unity Party elements looking to turn them into boisterous after-party brawls.
Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. is the national campaign spokesman of CDC.
|
