By David K. Dahn
The imbroglio at Capitol Hill at the level of the House of Representatives continues to stimulate debates within the Liberian democratic space. For some critical thinkers, the battle to remove Speaker Jonathan Fonati Koffa is a battle between “perceived good and evil.”
Without venturing into the weight of what is actually behind the veil for the attempted removal of Speaker Koffa, I’ve heard the voices of ex-legislators specifically weighing in on the removal of previous speakers; Edwin M. Snowe and Alex J. Tyler.
The summary of the many voices, in my settled consideration, points to one thing, and one thing only: “The House of Representatives is a House of’ number which derives from politics and not from law.” When the Highest Court(Supreme Court) of Liberia was approached in either case, the Court ruled on “a matter of law” and not on a matter of politics.”
The conclusion drawn from all the veteran legislators is that then-Speaker Snowe didn’t survive it and the result was no different for then-Speaker Tyler” as well.
Mind you, time has changed and the characters are different but the Capitol Hill environment and some of the previous actors remain the same. Will Speaker Koffa spin the number in his favor to change the narrative of removing a speaker? This is where we are watching the game at the Capitol from the sidelines. One thing remains certain, no matter where the chip falls, the historical actors of the era will be remembered by the electorates at the polls for the problem they create or the problem they solve.
No matter how the ‘political binocular’ is adjusted in making a critical analysis of the situation at the level of the House of Representatives, it’s only the REPRESENTATIVES themselves who, in the end, will determine the future of the situation at hand. From the sidelines, I am not sure who has the might to sustain the battle, but the contentious parties must hearken to this Portuguese proverb which says “Where there is no might, right loses itself.”
Now that tone is set, I recollect that when electorates are convinced to cast votes for politicians of their choice at the polls, they enter into an informed contract. In order words, the politician tells the voters please elect me and I will do this, that, and the other. In a reciprocal relation, the electorates too, say we are electing you, your political constituency, we want this, that, and the other.
So the victory achieved by any elected official reflects a congruence of ideas projected by the politician and accepted by the voters.
Within the context of Public Sector Management, the aforementioned political contract reflects what is referred to as relational or obligatorial contracts. Now when the victory is won, do politicians often fulfill their promises? I dare make a blanket conclusion, but when you consult logic, you come to the conclusion that relations between the elected officials and the electorates usually end up in an adversarial manner. This is when a politician reneged on promises made and the expectations of the electorates are perceived to be short-landed. What goes amok in the adversarial relations is that each side craves after its interests.
It now appears that the battle at the Capitol presents a struggle for political interest or survival.
What is intriguing to learn from the battle at the Capitol is the admittance by some individuals at the House that money has changed hands. And that has become the pushing factor for the removal of the Speaker. I’ve read that the Speaker can be removed for a cause. Here, the emphasis is on the keyword “cause”. In this instant case, what is the compelling reason for Speaker Koffa’s removal? Is Speaker Koffa incapacitated? Did he breach any legislative norm? Did he take a bribe?
The answer to the rhetorical question unfolded on October 17, 2024. On this date, news broke out that 47 out of 74 had signed a resolution to remove Speaker Koffa on an allegation of what was described as wrongful proceedings and conflict of interest. The resolution, among other things states, …” Now therefore, as a consequence of our signatures as herein affixed constituting two-thirds of majority members of the House of Representatives, we at this moment agree, affirm and reaffirm our resolve that immediately upon our approbation as the below signatures that the speaker of the House of Resolution, Counselor Jonathan Fonati Koffa be relieved of his post to restore peace, harmony, honor, and dignity to the House of Representatives.”
On the other hand, those supporting embattled Speaker Koffa, have levied a damning allegation of bribe-taking to remove the Speaker. Interestingly, the adversarial parties have all denied any wrongdoing. Who or which side then can come out clean in promoting the ethos of public integrity in the House at the Capitol?
As the battle rages at the Capitol, the signal is becoming clearer by the day that the analogy that can be drawn is that the battle at the Capitol sprouts out as a result of a stance against accountability, transparency, and a battle in favor of corruption.
Let us forget that accountability is a fundamental concept in public administration that relates to the effective operation of democratic governance, the integrity of public officers and organizations, and the delivery of public sector performance (Flynn and Asquer, 2017).
On the concept of transparency, again Flynn and Asquer(2017) quoting den Boer et al(1998), describe transparency as the ability to look clearly through the windows of an institution.
Corruption consists of dishonest or fraudulent conduct by public officers, typically in exchange for bribes or other forms of advantages(ibid).
As the debates are getting louder, personal interest in political survival has become paramount. The verbal exchanges are releasing deeper information that the House has earlier kept secret. Strange accusations are popping out. The Speaker is now “spilling the beans” by accusing some colleagues seeking his removal of upright budget tampering in time past. His supporters are harshly speaking and throwing jabs at the “majority members” On the Other hand, there is an equal reciprocal action from the “majority block.”
The actions of these actors from either divide of the battle is that it only complicates and strengthens the grounds for either side because of fear of retribution should the “attempted removal fail”. From experiences in times past, the politics at Capitol Hill is not a politics of LAW but a politics of NUMBER.
In submission, the pictures inadvertently presented to the citizens out of the claims and counter-claims from the minority and majority blocks at the House of Representatives show that every side has engaged in some form of flaws by actions or inactions. Flynn and Asquer (2017) point out that “When transparency provides plenty of evidence that public officers infringe the rules, citizens are more inclined to believe that the public sector works through bribes and clientelistic exchanges.”
How then can these public actors redeem themselves and re-cultivate the ethical principles required of them? On this question, Niccolo Machiavelli’s Prince (1532) advised the monarch (leader) about maintaining authority and power even if sometimes decisions conflict with ordinary canons of morality.
No matter which side the chip falls at the House of Representatives, the political actors must ensure in the end that the HOUSE maintains authority and power in order to carry out the business of the Liberian people. At the polls, the electorates are waiting to reward elected officers for the problem they create or the problem they solve.