This County Development Fund Thing….

LIBERIANS, AS THE editorial title put it in their parlance, have the way of expressing grave outrage about issues which they know have far-reaching implication and connotation but ignored by many, particularly those who have the resolution power. In such situations, Liberians would say, for instance, “This county development fund thing…” If it is said this way, it means the issue is not only grave; but that it also carries fatal implications.

WHEN TASK PAYERS' money was committed for 100 communities in all counties for various development projects to be identified and implemented by the local themselves, the rhetoric was that it would break the traditional urban-rural barrier and take Liberia out of Monrovia . Then, and then only, Liberians celebrated. Both the policymakers and policy-beneficiaries might have been unanimous in the view that the time had come for the long neglected majority of the countryside to be mainstreamed not only in the decision-making process that determines who gets what, when and how, but in the actual dividends of national development and progress.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT was widely considered UHURUU or freedom and liberation from the shackles of poverty, disease and illiteracy quickly began infested by the cold hands of graft, which has kept the oldest African Republic in the abyss of underdevelopment. The people for whom the money was escrowed for development were totally denied participation in the way and manner disbursement of these funds as well as the selection and implementation of projects was carried out. But not only that. Several communities selected by the custodian of the fund did not even know that they were beneficiaries. Not only were their names and causes used for project identification, no project ever took root in their soils. For some who were lucky to get and see foundations started or to hear the mere news of a project coming, everything simply went down the drain. In reporting on the fund by its users, most of the communities simply saw their names on paper, and projects implemented by private organizations were cited as projects of the County Development Fund.

AS THE MINISTRY of Internal Affairs, chief implementer of the Fund was completing its reports, a pro-democracy group, Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI), released an independent finding that the US$1,000,000 provided for community-driven projects was a give-away--a “pocket change”--for officials of the Sirleaf government. Describing the implementation process as a façade, LDI reported case-by-case instances of perversion, misrepresentation and lies that characterized the implementation of the County Development Fund.

WHILE ONE WOULD have thought that the somewhat empirical findings of the independent civil society group would galvanize President Sirleaf or her government to take serious stance against such a demonstrated perfidy against its professed commitment to decentralization and devolution of political power and economic resources, the government has since remained mute on the matter.

CURRENTLY, THERE ARE signs backing the LDI reports. The General Auditing Commission is releasing reports that corroborate LDI findings as to the massive fraud and siphoning characterizing the County Development Fund. Again, the public is poised to see what Sirleaf who declares Corruption as Public Enemy Number One would do; whether she would bring punitive action to bear upon the overseers and implementers of the Fund or whether she would visit her usual grandmother pampering upon them.

WHETHER SHE DOES something or not, one thing is undisputable: This County Development Fund Thing constitutes a prism that largely reflects the extent and sincerity of Sirleaf and her government about decentralization and the fight against corruption. And this County Development Thing, if left unattended could cripple the desire of the majority of Liberians living in the hinterland from equally benefit from state resources and national decision-making.