Content uploaded by Clotilde Asangna
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Clotilde Asangna on May 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)
Volume 26, Issue 5, Series 7 (May. 2021) 56-63
e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
www.iosrjournals.org
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 56 |Page
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and
how it Failed the Sierra Leonean State Structure
Clotilde Asangna
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 08-05-2021 Date of Acceptance: 23-05-2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of independence, Sierra Leone was one of the countries that suffered severe political
disorder, ethnic fragmentation and civil war. Institutional corruption and income redistribution within members
of the bureaucracy became the new normal in the absence of the colonial administration resulting in state
weakness, failure and eventual collapse. Several academics (Rodney 1972 and Young 1997) attribute
institutional weakness of the postcolonial state to the colonial powers while others like Collier, Hoeffler and
Rohner (2009) point to the diamond curse as the driving force behind the failure of the Sierra Leonean state.
Nonetheless, there are authors like Richards (1996), who maintain that the Sierra Leone war was the result of
excluded intellectuals and economic refugees who resided in Liberia. This essay maintains that the patron-client
system of administering presidential authority adopted by Siaka Stevens was oppressive and ill-equipped to
handle the challenges of the newly independent state resulting in state failure and eventual civil war.
Clientelist politics is a longstanding and increasingly complex corrupt system of administration, that
involves an uneven exchange between the patron and the client. The success of patron-client relationships is
dependent on the client’s agreement to provide political support to the patron in exchange for patronage. In
Stevens’ Sierra Leone, patronage took the form of the recruitment of clients into the APC. Solomon Berewa
argues that the APC unlike the SLPP did not depend on support of the chiefs. Rather Stevens and his APC
cronies “used ruse and political chicanery and extravagant promises to garner the support of especially the
unemployed youth around and the illiterate traders” (Berewa 2011, p. 55). Begging the question, why did
clientelism emerge and become the form of government in Sierra Leone? The body of Literature on clientelism
suggests that patron-client relations thrive in regions where there is abundance of raw material and absence of
the rule of law and accountability. Although the civil war in Sierra Leone ended over a decade ago, it is
imperative to comprehend its fundamental motivations.
Political Background of Sierra Leone
At independence, political institutions, infrastructural and economic management, internal defense
strategies, and all other functions of the state were handed down to the elite nationalist leaders. The transfer of
power entailed little conflict between the African elite, the grassroots indigenes and the expatriate officials;
relative to the nationalist demands and unrests that had been ignited in other parts of the continent.1 The exiting
imperialists negotiated and transferred some2 amount of executive power to the African elite in an attempt to
ensure continuity. A cleavage was, however, noticeable after 1961, with the repeated coups that threatened to
tear the country apart. Sierra Leone suffered numerous political upheavals from the time it attained autonomous
status from the British in 1961 to Siaka Stevens’ reign as Prime minister and later President.
The Second World War (WWII) ended with the British making constitutional amendments for a
gradual transfer of political power to the urban elite. A vast number of reasons motivated the move toward the
preparation for self-rule. One possible reason was the rise of nationalism from the grassroots in the 1940s, when
Chief Caulker stated: “We want the government to give us a free hand in our own affairs…if we are not fit for
self-government, let the government give us a trial…There is something going on in the protectorate which is
not known down here and probably may not [be] known even to the secretary for Protectorate Affairs…I would
ask that Your Excellency should make it known to His Majesty’s representatives in the person of District
1 Some African countries fought violently for independent status, South Africa under the African National Congress (ANC)
and Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union.
2 Complete power was not handed down to the African leaders, as Great Britain remained a salient figure in Sierra Leone’s
politics. Sierra Leone only became a republic in 1978, until then, it still functioned with a British representative, Governor
General within the country.
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and how it Failed the Sierra ..
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 57 |Page
Commissioners to give due respect to paramount chiefs” (Kilson 1966).3 Another reason was perhaps the
absence of representative government for the protectorate groups in the 1924 constitution. This constitution gave
greater representation to the Krio descendants, and the indigenous people were not accepting of this constitution,
and as such, demanded through Milton Margai that the imperial masters draw up a new constitution, which will
give them increased representation.
Sierra Leone, which has been the foremost of all West African Colonies, is still saddled with an archaic
constitution with official majority. The reason for this backwardness is evidently due to the fact that our
forefathers, I regret very much to say, had given shelter to a handful of foreigners (i.e., Creoles) who have no
will to cooperate with us and imagine themselves to be our superiors because they are aping the Western mode
of living, and have never breathed the true spirit of independence…if they would have their way, they will prefer
the old constitution to continue indefinitely because they have five men to represent them…We mean to push
ahead and we are in no way prepared to allow a handful of foreigners to impede our progress. (Seventh
Assembly Proceedings)
These demands amongst others,4 were arguably the first stages of the birth of a sense of nationalism
among Sierra Leoneans. The British eventually started making preparations to revisit the 1924 constitution,
which was finally completed and implemented in November 1951. This constitution was centered on the
principles of representative government; and the formation of political parties (Fyle 2006). Krio descendants,
however, felt slighted by the 1951 constitutional results, which afforded more seats in the Legislative Council to
the protectorate people, and consequently, formed the National Council of Sierra Leone (NCSL), aimed at
“pursuing a partisan stance against the new constitution (Fyle 2006). Fyle (2006) further states that it was the
Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), formed by Lamina Sankoh that won the November 1951 elections, and
formed a new government, headed by Dr. Milton Margai as Chief Minister.5
The first indication of future political discrepancies came in 1959 when all political parties in Sierra
Leone convened in the Lancaster House in London to deliberate the constitutional agreement. At this meeting,
Stevens “denounced the independence agreement” under the pretext that the “Margai government was still
British controlled” (Gberie 2005),6 rather choosing to return to Freetown and set up the Elections-Before
Independence Movement (EBIM) which was later transformed to the All People’s Congress (APC) party.
Stevens’ party won about a third of the seats and emerged as the main opposition party in Sierra Leone.7
Following Milton Margai’s death in 1964, his brother Albert Margai assumed the position of Prime
Minister and attempted to push for a unitary system of government and the implementation of a republican bill.
Both amendments suffered major opposition,8 and failed to take effect. Following the attempts and failure at
institutionalizing the unitary state, Margai suffered major political pressure, which resulted in a slight win for
the APC during the March 1967 general elections. Stevens was, however, prevented from exercising his duties
as the new Prime Minister by Brigadier David Lansana who issued a warrant for his arrest, placed the Governor
General (Lightfoot Boston) under house arrest, and “declared martial law” (Fyle 2006). Lansana’s reasons for
initiating the arrests were “to protect the constitution and maintain law and order (Harris 2014). Within 48
hours, a second coup resulted in the removal and replacement of Lansana by Andrew Juxon-Smith. Juxon-Smith
was placed in power by the military to lead a military government (under the National Reformation Council
(NRC)). Juxon-Smith’s government upon assuming power, suspended the constitution along with all political
parties and activities. Meanwhile, during the one-year reign of the NRC, Stevens, Colonel John Bangura (a
3 Legislative Council Debates, No. 1 of Session 1943-44, 76, in Kilson (1966, 147-148). Kilson details the constitutional
process that followed the end of the WWII, leading up to the actual decolonization process.
4 Other factors included: returning soldiers who fought alongside their imperial masters in the WWII, questioned the reasons
for fighting for Europe’s freedom, when they did not have freedom back home. Another factor was prescribed in the 3rd
chapter of the Atlantic Charter Declaration of 1941, “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under
which they will live, and they will wish to see sovereign rights of self-government restored to those who have been forcibly
deprived of them.”
5 Milton Margai was Chief Minister from 1951-1953, Premier from 1953-1958, and Prime Minister from 1958-1964.
6 Stevens was concerned about Margai not being radical enough to remove Sierra Leone from under British control. He had
this to say about Milton Margai, “he lacked the vital spark with which to light, and keep alight, the people’s torch of freedom
as well as the militancy of those African nationalist leaders who succeeded in bulldozing their way to victory through the
most formidable of colonialist barriers because they had first secured the full backing of the masses.” (Stevens 1984, 174 -
175). In later pages (195-202), Stevens (1984) explains that he also had concerns over the defense pact that had already been
agreed upon with the British without further deliberations at home.
7 In an alliance with the Sierra Leone Progressive Independence Movement (SLPIM), the APC won 22 seats, where it had
initially held none (Harris 2014, 48).
8 Stevens vehemently opposed the one-party system of government in 1966 but transformed Sierra Leone into a unitary state
in 1977. The republican bill will afford the more executive powers to the prime minister than the judiciary.
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and how it Failed the Sierra ..
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 58 |Page
Sierra Leonean army colonel who had been retired from the military by Albert Margai) along with other
prominent members of the APC remained in exile in Guinea.9
A year after the institution of the military government, a third coup called “the Sergeant’s Revolt”
(Harris 2014) of April 17, 1968, resulted in the overthrow of the NRC. Officer Patrick Conteh and Morlai
Kamara formed the Anti-Corruption Revolutionary Movement, and a National Interim Council to oversee the
transition of political power to civilian rule. Col. Bangura was recalled from exile to head the government, while
Justice Banja Tejan-Sie was named Governor-General. On April 26, 1968, Stevens was invited back to Sierra
Leone and officially reinstated as Prime Minister by Tejan-Sie.
Frustrated with the corrupt manner in which the state was functioning, Colonel Bangura attempted to
take over political control of the state, on March 23, 1971 in a military coup. He successfully seized control of
the government for a few hours, but was overthrown by Stevens’ loyalists in the army, headed by Lieutenant-
Colonel Sam King. Following this coup, Stevens began treating threats to his rule by over-compensating
military leaders, yet barely providing the army with a constant flow of weapons, “the army became widely
known as ‘One bullet’ owing to its lack of equipment” (Harris 2014). Consequently, power of the Sierra Leone
Army (SLA) became extremely weakened and organizing coups d’état was rendered impossible. In times of
civil uprisings, Stevens turned to a paramilitary brigade – Special Security Division (SSD)10 he had helped
create in 1973 (Fyle 2006). Due to persistent political opposition to his leadership, Stevens eventually
transformed Sierra Leone into a unitary state in 1978.
The military along with the structure of the state had been extremely weakened within a few years of
Stevens reign as Prime Minister. The state under APC rule progressively grew weak, as resource appropriation
coupled with undemocratic decisions became the defining tools of the APC administration. APC rule had pulled
Sierra Leone into an abyss and almost every socio-economic index found itself slipping below the level of a
failed state like Somalia (Pham 2006). Indeed, “the term shadow state was specifically coined to refer to the
manner in which Stevens displaced political activity and resource distribution out of the formal state and into his
informal networks” Harris (2014). Resources were so poorly distributed that “unpaid civil servants desperate to
feed their families ransacked their offices stealing furniture, typewriters, and light fixtures to trade (Hirsh 2001).
Nevertheless, the height of corruption was reached when unpaid teachers began demanding fees from parents to
prepare students for public examinations (Hirsch 2001). These events eventually got worse leaving the state
economically immobile, and creating a cleavage that was soon to be exploited by the RUF/SL.
With regards to undemocratic decisions, the patrimonial system of administration made it possible for
Stevens to quickly suppress opposition political parties. The creation of the United Democratic Party (UDP) in
October 1970 was one of such opposition parties to present a threat to Stevens and his APC. The UDP
comprised of Karefa-Smith, former Minister of Finance, Mohamed Sorie Forna, and former Minister of
Information – Ibrahim Taqi. All three leaders were of Temne origin (the Temne were the ethnic backbone of the
APC) who had served in administrative positions. The party was banned by the state merely 18 days following
its formation and some of its leaders fled, while others were imprisoned until July 1973 because they were being
perceived as a threat to the survival of the state. By 1991, the corrupt government had alienated the youths, and
successfully destroyed relevant state institutions like the parliamentary system, civil service, the military and the
police force.
II. AN ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINS OF THE POLITICS OF CLIENTELISM IN
SIERRA LEONE POLITICS
How did clientelism come to be prevalent in the newly independent Sierra Leone state? There are
polarizing arguments in the Social Sciences and Humanities that aim to determine whether clientelist politics in
Africa is the product of colonialism or structural opportunism. Colonial explanations of clientelism are relevant
to the extent that they can be used to determine the type of leadership that was inherited by the African elite.
The British adopted indirect rule and patronage during their administration in Sierra Leone, and essentially
transferred that form of government at independence. Similar to the exiting colonial masters, Siaka Stevens
governed Sierra Leone along patrimonial lines, while affording various ethnic groups representation in his
government. Stevens and his APC created, according to Harris, “a new indirect rule: a highly hierarchical
system reliant on ‘traditional’ authority on top of the paternalistic model developed under the British and the
Krios” (Harris 2014). Corruption was also evident in this system of government, as Stevens maintains in his
autobiography: “He must hand out largesse; educate not only his own children but also those of family
9 Stevens and the APC had cultivated strong ties with President Sekou Toure of Guinea and his radical Parti Democratique
de Guinee who were promoting a more radical leftist regime. They had abolished the chieftaincy in Guinea, which they
termed a “feudal institution,” and shortly after proclaimed a socialist regime based on social revolutionary power (Pham
2005).
10 The SSD was an offshoot of the Internal Security Unit (ISU) (Fayemi 2004).
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and how it Failed the Sierra ..
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 59 |Page
members…Money slips through his finger like quicksilver and he can never have enough of it to satisfy his
dependents. When it can be had so easily, when all that is required of him is influence in tipping the scale…”
(Stevens 1984).
While tracing the developmental stages of clientelist politics, René Lemarchand and Keith Legg (1972)
argue that “nowhere is the relationship between clientelism and the political system more evident than in the
feudal polity” (Lemarchand and Legg 1972, 161). Therefore, clientelism is an unequal exchange that is
sustained by a sense of duty typical in feudal communities. However, scholars like Tarrow (1967) and Mousnier
(1974) disagree with this stance. For instance, Tarrow (1967) holds that “observers often confuse the clientele
relationship with feudalism; in reality it is quite different. In feudal society, social relations were formalized,
hierarchical, and legally sanctioned. A logical pyramid of mutual obligations was built up which was congruent
with the requirements of the society for defense and solidarity…. Clientelismo, however, is shifting and
informal, and has no institutional recognition in concrete institutions” (Tarrow 1967, 69). Tarrow (1967) further
explains that “notables clientelism” survived into the democratic age and transformed into a new form of
clientelism similar with a market exchange. With the new clientelism, clients seek to maximize utility with little
sense of duty. This was true of the post-colonial government in Sierra Leone where productivity was low, and
poverty served both as a reason and result of the clientelist relationship.
The body of literature on patron-clientelism, holds that the reason patronage takes the form of
government employment is because patrons “cannot be sure that the clientelistic deal will be honored, as no
legal enforcement mechanisms can be devised” (Piattoni 2001). The ruling politicians often offer political favors
and policies to groups or individuals in exchange for political support and influence. According to Robinson and
Verdier (2013), this exchange is illegal, because democratic parameters do not allow for subjective politics.
Turner and Young (1985), however, maintain that the formation of a patron-client relationship is not solely
dependent on a mutual exchange, “but on some principle of affinity which supplies a social logic on the
network. Kinship and ethnic affinity are the most frequent bases for network formation.” A master of the politics
of survival, that defines anti-democratic governments, Siaka Stevens occasionally used force on state opposition
(SLPP members) and built up authority and respect by creating an ethnic ruling class. Stevens and the APC
created “a new indirect rule: a highly hierarchical system reliant on ‘traditional’ authority on top of the
paternalistic model developed under the British and the Krios” (Harris 2014).
The patron-client relationship “involves reciprocity and voluntarism but also exploitation and
domination” (Kitschelt 2000). With clientelism, patrons enforce an obligation for reciprocity that eventually
results in cumulative expectation of political support. And clients create a sense of dependence on patrons.
“Gift-giving and hospitality are potent means of controlling others, not because of the debts they create, but
because of the recipient’s dependence on their continuation. A continuous flow of gifts creates needs and fosters
dependence and the threat of its being cut off becomes a powerful disciplinary device” (Barth 1959). This cycle
of mutual dependency constructed on the patron’s patrimonial grip on society is difficult to break even under the
worse economic conditions. Even though the state had control of the diamond industry, economic decline of the
1980s made control of the shadow state difficult for Stevens and his cronies.11 Human development was not
upheld, yet patron-clientelist politics ensued, even under these dilapidating socio-economic conditions. This was
another way in which indiscriminate redistribution of goods and services was failing under patron-client
conditions.
The problems with Stevens’ politics peaked when he consolidated power in the APC. There was no
political space for democratic participation, thus no limitations on presidential power. The absence of a
modernizing élite further worsened the socio-political condition of the state. Given that Sierra Leone’s élite was
identical with the state, corruption ultimately became the expression of a conception of sovereignty. After
Stevens eliminated multiparty politics, all that remained was monolithic élite politics. Thus, the absence of
checks and balances. This policy made the country resistant to reform, yet vulnerable to civil war. Clientelist
politics during Stevens’ regime did not permit for impartial selection of the élite. Élite appointment was based
on a personalized system of appointments by Stevens and power flowed in a top-down structure, resulting in
extreme power centralization at the top. Power emanated from the state and was dominated by Stevens. This
system prevented civil society formation as society lost interest in the political process and hope of democracy
dwindled.
Given the sluggish political climate of Steven’s regime, civil society formation was not picking up
legitimate momentum. Civil society is used to refer to a collection of non-governmental organizations with a
presence in society. Politicizing civil society should not be taken to mean complete political transformation, like
the formation of the Pan-African Union (PANAFU),12 which functioned more as a political society than a civil
11 “…you can therefore understand why we cannot give you immediate promises to reduce school fees. You can
therefore understand why we cannot improve health facilities and build more roads” (Stevens 1984).
12 In 1982, a group of student activists and lecturers from the Fourah Bay College founded the Pan-African Union
(PANAFU) and sought political ideology from the Green Book.
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and how it Failed the Sierra ..
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 60 |Page
society organization. PANAFU organized study groups through which students were introduced to Pan-
Africanist thought and organization, opposed to being taught methods for renegotiating the intersection between
state and society and providing civic education. Because, the social actors of PANAFU were not tasked with the
burden of leading Sierra Leone through a transition by promoting democratic interests and values, they sort
inspiration from radical, pan-Africanist ideologies such as Qaddafi’s Green Book and the tenets of direct
democracy. Consequently, several motivated young activists of the group (Sankoh, Kanu, and Mansaray)
traveled to the World Revolutionary Headquarters in Libya for guerilla warfare training and later formed the
RUF/SL. Hence, PANAFU had failed to generate a moral order befitting for society, but its ideals appealed to
millennials who sort political reform.
While civil society requires the space that only a democratic political regime can provide to fully
develop, the emergence of civil society has historically preceded the advent of stable democratic regimes and is
therefore to a certain extent independent of the existence of a democratic political regime (Oxhorn 1995a and
1995b). However, the oppressive apparatus of the state rendered the formation of a functional politicized civil
society (one that was strong and independent of state influence) unattainable. Arbitrary arrest of several SLPP
members and chiefs from the Southern and Eastern provinces in 1968, in what was termed “state of emergency”,
sparked fear nationwide as social actors disseminated (Lavalie 1985).
Furthermore, clientelism resulted in institutional fragility. The ruling élite approached problem-solving
from a traditional perspective, by use of extraction, redistribution and force. These pre-modern élite were
accountable for systematic marginalization of society, thus unable to secure compliance from the impoverished
majority. As a result, state legitimization depended on the strength of the state’s use of coercion, opposed to the
consolidation of popular representative structures. All that was left in the absence of legitimacy and democratic
institutions was political and economic disorganization. The unchanging state system of the APC, embellished
with a pre-modern élite, sustained Stevens’ patron-client system of administration.
The state preferred consuming the products of western modernity, opposed to utilizing a modern elite
group for the proper functioning of the country. Stevens’ government was short of knowledgeable
administrators, hence incapable of creating a modern nation-state. In exploring the role of civil society in the
socio-political construction of citizens’ rights, it becomes evident that the limitation of civil society was a result
of Sierra Leone’s status as an oppressive patron-client state. The proper functioning of the state lies, partly, in
the relationship between state and society, because community is the core of democracy and development.
However, because citizen participation in the political process was low, Stevens and his cronies were able to
continue functioning along patron-client lines without facing repercussions.
Siaka Stevens’ Economic Policies
There is no one paradigm or theory that can explain the sudden failure of the Sierra Leone state
structure. During the APC era (1968-92), state machinery resources were redistributed to benefit a rather small
number of people and not the general citizenry. It is customary for undemocratic regimes to depend on
discriminatory and partial neo-patrimonial tenets to enforce authority. “Ironically, while patrimonialism is said
to cement social bonds in small-scale situations through a reliance on trust, reciprocity, and material exchanges,
it is believed to distort power, corrupt authority, and fuel personal aggrandizement when it permeates larger
political institutions such as bureaucracies and states” Pitcher, Moran, and Johnston (2009:130).
The patron-client system of authority adopted by Siaka Stevens was oppressive and ill-equipped to
handle the challenges of the newly independent state. According to Kpundeh (2004), a system of patronage
thrived under the ruling party because it was used as a tool to recruit and retain party members. Membership and
party support became an acceptable qualification for public office opposed to actual credentials and capabilities.
In a way, the state dominated the job market, rendering public service in exchange for party loyalty. State
domination of the public service job market resulted in a monopolistic state. This system derailed overall
economic growth, modernity and democratization as public officers became accountable to top party leaders and
not the citizens of the country they were meant to serve. The absence of political accountability made for gross
misuse of public office and resources for personal enrichment. Hence, a system was created that enabled
institutional corruption and resource redistribution for members of the ruling class and top civil servants. This
corrupt system was perpetuated by Siaka Stevens and his close party cronies.
Despite having experienced an average annual growth of 7% between 1950 and 1972, Sierra Leone
soon began facing an economic crisis by the mid 1970s. And as was common with several developing
economies, Stevens turned to the International Monetary Fund in 1979 for a loan that aimed to reorient the
economy and balance the short-term financial problems. External factors such as the increase in OPEC oil prices
in 1973 partially accounted for the downturn of the Sierra Leone economy as export prices on diamond, palm
kernel and cocoa plummeted. Zack-Williams (1993) notes that the plunge in export prices resulted in the Sierra
Leone Development Company (Delco) stopping iron production in Marampa in 1975. Economic activities in
mining, agriculture and forestry progressively deteriorated resulting in shortfalls in economic performance. The
downward trend in economic activities meant reduced government revenue, however, Stevens’ internal
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and how it Failed the Sierra ..
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 61 |Page
economic policies were geared towards elite accommodation instead of nation building, meaning government
expenditure was not downsized in spite of the economic downturn. This was bad for fiscal policy. Reno (1995)
notes that, not even the revenue from the diamond industry was sufficient to accommodate Stevens’ clientelist
policies. As such, economic regression was guaranteed given how the government had failed to redirect
spending away from elite largesse towards export-oriented commerce. This system did not utilize its budding
human capital for productive purposes.
The politics of decline that defined Sierra Leone was laden with contradictions. The government’s
refusal to provide basic public goods and services, but further exploit societal poverty and reliance of
constituents, slowed economic growth and advancement. By releasing the full force of the corrupt state system
on civilian society via the imposition of compulsory savings on the underprivileged and subsistent farmers (via
the state-controlled Sierra Leone Marketing Board), the APC damaged society’s enterprise and the will to be
governed. This resulted in the peasantry’s withdrawal from the domestic market and gradual emigration of the
educated and bourgeoisie class overseas (Zack-Williams 1999). Sierra Leoneans turned to survival strategies to
either adapt to the economic despair while others escaped the general dissatisfaction, the silent despair of absent
political, economic and social opportunities by seeking out better socio-economic conditions in foreign
countries.
III. CONCLUSION
Authors like Kpundeh (1993), Smith (1997) and Berewa (2011) have extensively discussed the corrupt
and partial politics of the APC party. Stevens’ reign revealed that the relationship with political leaders as
patrons and civil servants as clients facilitated abuse and exploitation. Stevens’ system of administration
unraveled as democratic elections soon resulted in undemocratic governments. In a sense, the strength of the
state was not a given, because state machinery was not modern; there were no legal limits on state officials.
While Stevens’ government was powerful, it was neither rule bound nor accountable, rendering political
stability and economic prosperity unsustainable. The political climate of Sierra Leone between 1968-1985 was
fostered by bad leadership and poor resource distribution. As demonstrated, the repressive default of Sierra
Leone statehood throughout the Stevens’ régime constituted an absence of politics and any organized
articulation of grievances was made impossible by the repressive machinery of the state. The process of state
building that had commenced with Milton Margai faded in the absence of a democratic government to guarantee
freedom of press, accountability, the rule of law, separation of power and freedom of assembly. Berewa (2011)
maintains that promises and glimpses of political stability, and economic prudence gained fruition and died with
Milton Margai in 1964.
This essay aimed to demonstrate that Stevens did not have an effective economic and political structure
in place for Sierra Leone. The motivation of African political leaders as portrayed by Stevens was (and for the
most part continues to be) grounded in the need to provide economic satisfaction for themselves and their
dependents. This simplistic motivation prevailed, due to the absence of sufficient structural and cultural
restraints built into the political systems. The result of the absence of effective state institutions “is that it is
considerably easier for a leader in Africa than for a leader elsewhere to pursue personal satisfactions free from
any restraints other than his own conscience, while it remains comparatively difficult for him to pursue goals
that will make significant changes in his country” (Cartwright 1978). In this vein, Sierra Leone exemplified that
the problems faced by weak states are daunting, but effective efforts at democracy could possibly ameliorate the
problem of wealth appropriation and reduce episodes of grievance-driven rebel movements. There is a vast
amount of Literature that makes the argument that poor countries are more likely to be clientelist (Stokes 2005,
Keefer 2007 and Remmer 2007), however, this does not mean that change is impossible. Clientelism is not
genetically engineered into the veins of the leaders of poor countries.
The “distribution of state resources on a nonmeritocratic basis for political gain” (Mainwaring 1999)
renders economic prosperity in “third” states unlikely. The focus on clientelist politics in Sierra Leone obscures
a basic observation: the incapacity of the state to deliver basic economic services. As outlined earlier, the
success of the shadow state created by Stevens depended on the state’s accessibility to revenue that was
sufficient to pacify clients. The argument that clientelism converts late modernity nations “to postmodern
conditions” (Roniger 2004) was true of the Sierra Leone state under APC rule.
Siaka Stevens’ reasons for maintaining the defective clientelist system which resulted in an untenable
rent-financed political economy are unknown. However, most Political Science Literature maintains that
democratic governance is the only possible institution that will permanently bring an end to clientelism and
redistributive politics in third states. The political history of Sierra Leone results in the realization that socio-
economic development and political advancement are central for the survival of the democratic state. Socio-
economic development is not dependent on the type of government, but on the degree of government. “The
differences between democracy and dictatorship are less than the differences between those countries whose
politics embodies consensus, community, legitimacy, organization, effectiveness, stability, and those countries
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and how it Failed the Sierra ..
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 62 |Page
whose politics is deficient in these qualities” (Huntington 1968). Almost a decade after the war officially came
to an end, Sierra Leone appears to be on the path of building effective state structures with functioning
administrative and bureaucratic institutions.
Appendix
Differences between Patron Client Administration and Democratic Governance
Patron-Client
Democratic Governance
Authority is personal, resides with individuals
Authority is institutional, resides with official roles
Personal enrichment and aggrandizement are
core values
Rule of law, fair elections and majority rule are core
values
Leaders tend to monopolize power and are
unaccountable for their actions
Leaders share power with others and are accountable
for actions
Leaders’ relationship to supporters is opaque and
may be unreliable
Leaders’ relationship to supporters is transparent and
is predictable
No regular procedures exist regarding leaders’
replacement
Regular procedures exist regarding leaders’
replacement
Leaders hold onto power by providing personal
favors that secure loyalty of key followers
Leaders hold onto power by providing collective
benefits that earn support of large segments of society
Policy decisions are taken in secret without
public discussion or involvement
Policy decisions are taken in the open after public
discussion and review
Political parties are organized around
personalities
Political parties are organized around stated programs
Civil society is fragmented and characterized by
vertical links
Civil society is deep and characterized by horizontal
links
Decision making standards are tacit and
procedures are impossible to follow from outside
Decision making standards are explicit and procedures
are transparent
Supporters’ interests guide decisions
Public interest guides decisions
Extensive scope exists for patronage
appointments
Limited exists scope for patronage appointments
Source: Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith. 2002. “Clientelism, Patrimonialism and Democratic Governance: An
Overview and Framework for Assessment and Programming.” Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.
REFERENCES
[1]. Abdullah, Ibahim. “Bush Path to Destruction: The Origin and Character of the Revolutionary United
Front/ Sierra Leone.” The Journal of Modern African Studies. Vol. 36, no. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.
[2]. Clotilde Asangna. "An examination of the Sierra Leone war." African Journal of Political Science and
International Relations 11, no. 5 (2017): 103-111. https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJPSIR/article-
abstract/B9FE42563809
[3]. Barth, Frederick. Political Leadership among the Swat Pathans. London: Athlone, 1959.
[4]. Berewa, Solomon. A New Perspective on Governance, Leadership, Conflict and Nation Building in
Sierra Leone. Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2011.
[5]. Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith. “Clientelism, Patrimonialism and Democratic Governance: An Overview and
Framework for Assessment and Programming.” Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc, 2002.
[6]. Cartwright, John. Political Leadership in Sierra Leone. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978.
[7]. Conteh, Sorie. The Diamonds. New York: Lekon Dimensions Publishing, 2001.
[8]. Fayemi, Kayode. “Governing Insecurity in Post-Conflict States: The Case of Sierra Leone and Liberia.”
Pp 179-206 in Reform and Reconstruction of the Security Sector. Edited by Alan Bryden and Heiner
Hanggi. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2004.
[9]. Fyle, Magbaily. Historical Dictionary of Sierra Leone. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006.
[10]. Harris, Peter and Ben Reilly, eds. Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators.
Stockholm: IDEA, 1998.
[11]. Harris, David. Sierra Leone: A Political History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
[12]. Hirsch, John. Sierra Leone: Diamonds and the Struggle for Democracy. Boulder Colorado: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2001.
[13]. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Or The Matter, Forme, & Power Of A Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall And
Civill. London, printed for Andrew Crooke, at the Green Dragon in St. Paul’s Church-yard, 1951.
[14]. Huntington, Samuel. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
Politics of Decline: Siaka Steven’s Patron-Client Government and how it Failed the Sierra ..
DOI: 10.9790/0837-2605075663 www.iosrjournals.org 63 |Page
[15]. Kitschelt, Herbert. “Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.” Comparative
Political Studies, 33 (6–7): 845–79, 2000.
[16]. Kpundeh Sahr. “Corruption in Africa: Prospect in Contemporary Sierra Leone.” Corruption and Reform.
Vol 7, no 3. 1993.
[17]. Lavalie, Alpha. “Government and Opposition in Sierra Leone, 1968-1978.” Paper presented at Fourth
Birmingham Sierra Leone Studies Forum. Birmingham, UK, 1985.
[18]. Lemarchand, Rene and Keith Legg. 1972. “Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary
Analysis,” Comparative Politics, IV, pp 149 to 178.
[19]. Meredith, Martin. The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence. University of
Michigan: Free Press, 2005.
[20]. Piatonni, Simona. “Clientelism in Historical and Comparative Perspective.” Clientelism, Interest and
Democratic Representation. Edited by Piatonni Simona. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[21]. Pham, Peter J. The Sierra Leonean Tragedy: Historical and Global Dimensions. New York: Nova Science
Publishers, 2006.
[22]. Pitcher Anne, Moran H. Mary and Johnston Michael. “Rethinking Patrimonialism and
Neopatrimonialism in Africa.” African Studies Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236761387_Rethinking_Patrimonialism_and_Neopatrimonialis
m_in_Africa
[23]. Reno, William. Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995.
[24]. Richards, Paul. Fighting for the Rain Forest: War, Youth and Resources in Sierra Leone. Heinemann
Publishers, 1996.
[25]. Rotberg, Robert. 2013. “Failed and Weak States Defined.”
https://robertrotberg.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/failed-and-weak-states-defined/
[26]. RUF/SL. 1995 “Footpaths to Democracy Toward a New Sierra Leone.”
https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/footpaths.htm
[27]. Shillington, Kevin. History of Africa. Revised Edition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989.
[28]. Smith H. Gerald. “The Dichotomy of Politics and Corruption in a Neopatrimonial State: Evidence from
Sierra Leone, 1968-1993.” Commentaries in African Studies: Essays about African Social Change and
the Meaning of Our Professional Work. Vol 25, No 1, pp 58-62. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[29]. Stevens, Siaka. What Life Has Taught: The Autobiography of President Siaka Stevens of Sierra Leone.
Kensal Press, 1984.
[30]. Turner Thomas and Crawford Young. The Rise and Decline of the Zairian State. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.
[31]. US Department of State. Sierra Leone Country Report on Human Rights and Practices for 1997. Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 30 January 1998.
[32]. Weingrod, Alex. “Patrons, Patronage and Political Parties.” Comparative Studies in Society and History.
No. 10, 377-400, 1968.
[33]. Wunsch, James and Dele Olowu. The Failure of the Centralized State: Institutions and Self-Governance
in Africa, ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1990.
[34]. Young, Crawford. “Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Class in Africa: A Retrospective.” Cahiers d’Etudes
Africaines, no. 103 (1986): 421-495.
[35]. Zack-Williams, Alfred. “Sierra Leone: The Political Economy of Civil War, 1991-98.” Third World
Quarterly, no. 1 (February 1999): 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599913965
