How can chiefdom authority effectively contribute to society in the newly decentralised post-war Sierra Leone? This paper from African Affairs suggests that while the chieftaincy is partly responsible for rebel recruitment, chiefs remain an important and potentially positive influence. Rather than an abolition of chieftaincy, local governance requires constructive relationships between chiefdoms and local governments, not simply a reshuffling of agrarian class relationships. The chieftaincy system needs reforming and local political tensions arising from decentralisation must be resolved.
Chieftaincy is an integral part of Sierra Leone’s governance structure. In rural areas, the chief is a key source of authority and frequently the only visible element of government. Whilst chieftaincy as an institution is valued, large groups in the countryside believe that the system has been corrupted and mismanaged and that they lack a voice in chiefdom government, which tends to operate to the benefit of a small, elderly elite.
Since the war, the international community has been closely involved in reconstructing governance across the country, not least at local level. In May 2004 elections were held for new District Councils. There are now three political groups within local government: politicians, chiefs, and district administrations, and there is a danger of conflict between them. The situation is further complicated by the residual power of ex-combatants and the threat of further violence by both ex-Civil Defence Force and Revolutionary United Front (RUF) fighters.
A mapping of the changes in power caused by decentralisation shows a continuity between pre-war political structures and the post-war political settlement:
- Institutional arrangements in the countryside facilitated greed amongst the rural elites. Historically, this was the district officer, the treasury clerk, and the paramount chief.
- Decentralisation has been implemented in a way that allows the district officers to step across and become Local Council Chief Administrators (LCCAs).
- The rural chieftaincy is still present, even if the new district councils offer opportunities for these actors to pursue old politics in new ways.
- Not all chiefs are a negative influence, but the administrative powers given to the chiefs by the British system of indirect rule have, in some cases, been abused since independence.
Despite new political groups emerging in the countryside, particularly former combatants, the chieftaincy remains able to exercise considerable influence over policymaking within the triumvirate power structure of chiefs, administrators, and councillors. The outcome of conflicts between these groups will determine the future of local governance and the chieftaincy system within Sierra Leone:
- Decentralisation could be a means of breaking down the damaging sociopolitical relationships that supported the chieftaincy.
- Democracy, political representation and service delivery by local authorities may make local populations feel more included in rural social processes and less inclined to resort to violence or join rebel groups.
- The fledgling local councils have a huge responsibility in resolving political tensions particularly given the inadequate support, oversight and policy guidance from the centre.
- There is a danger that the core-periphery politics of Sierra Leone will return in the form of neglect of local government, thus forcing local councillors to join the historic elite running the countryside.
- If the chieftaincy is not reformed, the situation will either remain the same or worsen from the point of view of those who have been excluded.
