The international community has succeeded in putting an end to the civil war in Sierra Leone. But why has there been so little progress in tackling corruption and the exclusion of many people from public services and resources? This report, from Chatham House, describes the building and reforming of state institutions. It argues that further progress will depend on appropriate coalitions taking opportunities for reform as they arise. The international community needs to make a long-term commitment and develop a thorough understanding of local needs.
A lot has been achieved in the five years since the end of Sierra Leone’s civil war in 2000. However, Sierra Leone remains at the bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index and recent improvements may not be sustainable unless other dimensions of governance improve. Old abuses could return with the re-establishment of institutions. In general, progress was greater when reforms were supported by a coalition of interests, which included both internal actors and donors. This coalition successfully reformed the security sector, police and local government. It also succeeded in making the diamond industry respectable under the Kimberley process and safeguarding the flow of aid by tackling corruption and improving financial management. Nevertheless, local commitment in those areas was tempered by resistance from vested interests and reform has not made much headway.
The government has made good progress in reforming the armed forces and police and has been effective in managing the economy as a whole. Other reforms have had varying degrees of success:
- The government’s attempts to tackle widespread corruption through the judicial process have made little impact.
- It has introduced better systems to manage public money but implementation is at an early stage and it is not clear whether corruption has been sustainably reduced.
- District councils have been established but rivalry with the chiefdoms means that decentralisation may not promote stronger citizen participation and better service delivery.
- Traditional rural elites remain very powerful.
- The 2002 elections were successful, despite significant irregularities, but the 2004 local government poll had considerable problems.
- Little progress has been made in reforming the judicial system and civil service, or in developing credible checks on executive power through parliament, the media and civil society.
Making Sierra Leone’s institutions effective has proved more difficult than setting them up. Traditionally, the source of political power in Sierra Leone is in patronage networks, and the old patterns are emerging again. This does not mean that good development outcomes are impossible or that violent conflict will return. However, for further progress to be made the following lessons should be noted.
Donors should:
- invest in understanding the politics and constantly reassess the balance of interests to determine where the chances of success are greatest;
- seek to build robust coalitions for change with local reformers;
- be prepared to commit funding for the long term – sustainable changes cannot be achieved quickly; and
- consider changing the standard donor approach.
The Sierra Leone government should:
- continue external engagement with the security, justice and diamond sectors;
- work with local government, including the chiefdoms; and
- give greater attention to transparency and accountability, including through working with civil society.
