Two serious historical blames have often been dished out by several of Sierra Leone’s political discussants against, Siaka Probyn Stevens and Sir Albert Margai; two prominent political leaders of Sierra Leone.
While some have accused Siaka Stevens of having militarized the politics of Sierra Leone, others have accused Sir Albert Margai of ever investing in the tribalization of the country’s politics. After Sir Albert’s stint with national politics in the early 60s, the All People’s Congress party cohorts described his Sierra Leone People’s Party rule as intolerant and heavily laden with tribal juice; especially from the southeastern parts of the country.
This, depending, who is talking, has made many to accuse and ascribe tribal hints to the SLPP.
Recent example, was when Dr. Shekuba Saccoh, a hitherto very important SLPP stalwart said in Makeni that he was leaving the political family, the SLPP because it was “a Mende man party”. It was sad to have heard this and those who believed him gave the excuse that this was no new allegation against the party and for such people; it was an allegation of fait-a-compli.
Wasn’t this what the APC said of the great Sir Albert in the 60s?
But watching the party during Sir Albert’s time, those who were aware of the regional background and hegemony of the key participants might be in better position to tell whether this was actually the case. Many a SLPP historian would not agree with this allegation against the man they came to canonize as “Sir Albert of Africa”; but conscientious generalist historians may give it a second thought, though not in its entirety.
What is however known is that, proponents of Sir Albert have continued to excuse his ethnocentric mistakes as mere exaggerations by his detractors. They explain that the SLPP, in its infant days had founders from the northern and western parts of the country. This is one undeniable ethno-political fact when you consider earlier SLPP northern members such as Yumkela, Bai Sama and Tas of Kambia.
“After all, if appointing too many political participants from the same region can be construed as tribalism, then what would you say about Ernest Koroma’s cabinet” an SLPP big von queried. But if history be adjudged rightly, Sir Albert would be defended, though he might have already been found guilty of tribalism as maintained by his detractors, basing such defense on the exigencies of the times. Or rather, while charges of tribalism could hold against Sir Albert, what about the other heinous charge of the politicization of the security forces by Siaka Probyn Stevens?
The allegation that Siaka Stevens politicized the country’s security forces (while marginalizing the military specifically), has an uncomfortable background, while at the same time, one can posit that this allegation is actually and factually the basis of he subsequent allegation, namely; that the APC is a party that ever invested in anarchy and vandalism. Those who have accused the APC of being a party of vandals have strenuously tried to base this allegation on the rule and game plan of Siaka Stevens’ politics.
When Siaka Stevens won the 1967 elections and was over thrown by men in military uniform, Juxon Smith did not only over turn the coup, but set up the Dove Edwin commission to investigate as to whether the APC actually won the elections. The commission found out that the elections were democratically won by the APC of Siaka Stevens.
The sad reality that many socio-political historians of Sierra Leone have glossed over, is that Juxon Smith, contrary to his earlier good intentions, refused to hand over power to the then exiled Siaka Stevens. This led to another coup by junior officers who, upon succeeding, brought in Brigadier Bangura, who in turn invited Siaka Stevens from Guinea to come take back power. All this happened thirteen months after the 1967 elections. The role and subsequent activities of the infamous State Security Department, SSD, as well as sour relationship between Siaka Stevens, Brig. Bangura and the entire army echelon were later to create the political impression that Siaka Stevens had no trust anymore in the country’s conventional army; hence the supreme notoriety of the SSD. Any historical accounts of the 1973 general elections will be incomplete without the disgraceful role of the SSD, which was by now fully under the command of Stevens.
Considering the role played by the SSD in bringing Stevens back to power, the intimidation of political opponents and college students, as well as subsequent establishment of the one-party democracy by Stevens, many have come to agree with the allegation that he, indeed, militarized politics during his era while at the same time, denigrating the army and putting less professionals at the highest hem of our security under an exclusively northern dominion. Some accounts of Stevens’ era show that under him, there may have been more northerners in the army as compared to southeasterners and westerners put together. At the moment, it is no secret that, for example, there are more south easterners in the service of the country’s Office of National security, as compared to north-westerners. Perhaps this is the main reason, and mindful of stories of ethno-political infusions among service men, that authorities have begun preaching and advocating apolitical stance of personnel. And even though there may be more southeasterners within the cabinet secretariat of the Ernest Bai koroma government, this might not be compared with the northern over burdened cabinet of the present system.
In the light of historical comparism, history is beginning to reckon that for many Sierra Leoneans, in assessing their leaders since Independence, Stevens was probably one of the greatest in many ways.
From above, you would have by now realized that the two allegations against the two main political parties; that of tribalism and confusionism, have had historical precedence and have erroneously been carried forward to present day generations, for obvious political gains.How do we disentangle these two political parties from these two histo-political realities?Can the present good-meaning leaders of the two parties do anything to correct the bad histories of their two parties? See next issue.
Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Wikio
Export PDF
Print