By Sylvester Samai
On Tuesday, 6 August, 2024, President Julius Maada Bio delivered an address to Parliament, inaugurating the Second Session of the Sixth Parliament of the Republic of Sierra Leone. While the speech was laden with grandiose claims and ambitious promises, it ultimately fell short of addressing the pressing issues facing Sierra Leone today. It is yet just another hollowed rambling!
The President took pains in outlining his administration’s perceived achievements and then went on rambling about future plans, focusing on economic development, healthcare, and education, encapsulating his “Big Five Changers”. However, several critical points emerged in the aftermath of his speech, revealing dissatisfaction from a myriad of stakeholders.
From the onset, President Bio’s speech was bogged down by excessive formalities. The lengthy list of dignitaries and officials acknowledged at the beginning seemed more like an exercise in ceremonial propriety than a genuine effort to engage with the people of Sierra Leone. This sets a tone that felt distant and detached, missing an opportunity to connect once again with the broader citizenry who are eager for tangible progress and a transformation of the hurdles they are feeling in their lives today under his administration.
Throughout the speech, he made numerous claims about his government’s achievements, particularly in the areas of agriculture, healthcare, and education. However, these claims are vague and unsubstantiated, and they do not reflect the realities on the ground. According to critics, they are mere populist rhetoric aimed at spiriting his ever bunch of exuberant supporters who careless about realities, but for the simple reason that it is their political party that is in power. For instance, the President touted the expansion of rice production and the establishment of agribusinesses, yet provided little in the way of specific metrics or independent verifications to back these assertions. The establishment of agri-businesses is never a new policy in Sierra Leone; it was adopted by the former Government of former President Ernest Bai Koroma.
He also expatiated on education; kind of reaffirming his commitment to improving it, citing increased funding and new policies aimed at bolstering the sector and improving the literacy rate through retained school attendance. However, educators and analysts argue that the quality of education remains a critical issue. Overcrowded classrooms, insufficient learning materials, and underpaid teachers hinder the effectiveness of these policies. Additionally, the administration’s focus on quantitative metrics, such as increase in enrollment rates, often overlooks the qualitative aspects of education. To most critics, his admittance to revamping the education sector with additional funds is to say that, the first five year term during which he trumpeted the “Free Quality Education” matrix was an awful failure in his own estimation.
While President Bio claimed significant progress in the healthcare sector, including the construction of new hospitals and clinics; which actually were on-going projects brought about by his predecessor, critics point to the ongoing challenges that the system faces. Issues such as inadequate medical supplies, poorly maintained facilities, and shortage of healthcare professionals continue to plague the sector. These problems have been exacerbated by recent health crises, revealing the gaps in the administration’s approach to healthcare reforms.
The President’s speech also drew criticism for its lack of attention to pressing social and political issues. For instance, his address did not sufficiently address the ongoing concerns about corruption, bad governance and human rights violations. Activists and opposition members have incessantly condemned his administration for failing to tackle systemic corruption; whose fight has proved to be highly selective, and for suppressing dissenting voices. These issues have contributed to a growing sense of public disenchantment.
President Bio also touted the economic growth and stability achieved under his leadership. He highlighted improvements in infrastructure and increased foreign investments. However, critics argue that these claims are sheer smokescreens and far from the reality on the ground as his assumptions do not reflect the on-ground practicalities. The country’s economic indicators, such as unemployment rates and inflation, tell a different story, with many Sierra Leoneans struggling to make ends meet amidst high cost of living, low standard of living and limited job opportunities.
The President’s address was overwhelmingly focused on past achievements, often in a self-congratulatory manner, characterized by pomposity. This overemphasis on positive developments against the stark reality of ongoing challenges, tells in clear terms, how far away the President is from his people, simply because, he does not feel their pains and therefore cares less in listening to them. No wonder, even in times when situations get really tough, the President takes pride in flying out of the country instead of taking time to say words of solace and reassurance. How to address the plaguing issues of corruption, hunger, inadequate healthcare, access to rural areas, and persistent poverty were glossed over or discountenanced altogether. This selective narrative does a disservice to the complex and multifaceted challenges facing Sierra Leone and Sierra Leoneans.
Another glaring issue with the speech was its repetitive nature. Key points were reiterated multiple times, making the address feel redundant and drawn out. This not only diminished the impact of the President’s words but also risked losing the attention and patience of the audience. A more concise and focused speech would have been far more effective in conveying the intended messages.
While President Bio laid out the Medium-Term National Development Plan 2024-2030, the vision presented was vague and overly idealistic, critics say. The speech lacked concrete details about how these ambitious goals would be achieved. For instance, while mentioning the need for increased agricultural productivity and healthcare improvements, the President failed to provide detailed implementation plans or realistic timelines. This raises doubts about the feasibility of these aspirations.
The speech disproportionately focused on agriculture and healthcare while giving scant attention to other critical sectors such as technology, innovation, and infrastructure. These areas are essential for a holistic approach to national development and economic growth. By neglecting them, the speech presented an incomplete picture of the nation’s developmental needs and priorities.
Furthermore, the speech highlighted the administration’s diplomatic efforts and partnerships with international organisations. However, critics argued that these relationships have not translated into tangible benefits for the average citizen. They contend that foreign aid and investments often get mismanaged or do not reach the intended beneficiaries due to corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
One of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy is constructive engagement with opposition viewpoints. However, Bio’s speech lacked any meaningful acknowledgment of the opposition’s perspectives or the significant political tensions that have marred Sierra Leone’s recent history. By failing to address these issues head-on and promote a spirit of cooperation, the President missed an opportunity to foster national unity and reconciliation.
Perhaps the most glaring criticism is the President’s disconnect with the average citizen. The tone was too formal. The content was more of repetition and the focus was too much on ambitious achievements to leave as legacies; all of that did not essentially resonate with the everyday struggles of ordinary Sierra Leonean. Issues such as unemployment, inflation, and basic living conditions were not addressed with the urgency and empathy they deserve.
In conclusion, President Julius Maada Bio’s speech to Parliament was an overwhelmingly hollow that failed to address the critical issues facing his compatriots today. It was bogged down by excessive formality, vague claims, and a lack of clear vision, by all indications diminished its impact. Most importantly, it was disconnected from the realities of the average citizen and lacked meaningful engagement with opposition viewpoints.
For Sierra Leone to move progressively an honest, inclusive, sincere and nonpartisan approach must characterize the country’s development agenda and in presenting such to the people, it must be in simple and clear terms which the people can relate with. The people of Sierra Leone deserve better than what was presented to them in this address.