|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Do we
really need a new airport at Mamamah? One problem with the APC is its
tendency to deify its leader. The party, modeled on the old communist dictatorships,
has always felt the need to elevate its leader to the status of a semi-god. “Our leader has brought all that is good to
us. Our leader can do no wrong”. In reality, outside the APC cocoon, The tendency to praise sing unquestioningly is worse in Ernest Koroma’s second term, when he has removed or sidelined many of the influential, older members of the party and government, like Victor Foh, Dauda Kamara, IB Kargbo etc. Many of the new replacements are young and inexperienced, unable to put forward any semblance of a narrative that might differ from their President’s. By comparison with the immediately preceding SLPP regime, it’s true that no SLPP stalwart was able to directly challenge President Ahmed Tejan Kabba (notwithstanding Charles Margai’s challenge to Solomon Berewa as the anointed successor); it’s also true, though, that SLPP stalwarts did not feel the same need to deify their leader that their APC counterparts now do. This tendency in our politics
(perhaps in all African politics) to regard the leader as supreme and
unquestionable, is reinforced by our presidential system of government. The
president is virtually absolute leader, and unchallengeable. Once he has put
his ideas forward there is no internal party debate. This system does not
compare favorably in this regard with the British parliamentary model, where
the leader is subjected to much stronger intellectual competition. The leader
is forced to put his ideas forward personally to a critical body (including
backbenchers within his own party) and to come up with sound justifications
for them. The British prime minister is regularly bashed in parliament to his
face! The bashings get even louder when he comes up with foolish ideas, as all leaders will do, from time
to time. Parliament can quite easily veto or downscale a prime minister’s
dreams (read Syria
crisis: No to war, blow to Cameron). By contrast in We first heard of a new airport
at Mamamah in the presidential address to mark the
state opening of this parliament on Dec 14, 2012. Since then plans have
apparently continued apace, and some reports indicate that construction work
has already begun (read new
airport becomes reality). It is not known when first this plan was dreamt
up, and by whom. We can find no reference to it, on the internet or elsewhere,
before the address at the state opening of parliament. The plan, though
apparently hazy in even the government’s mind, is to phase out Lungi as the main international airport in favour of the new one at Mamamah.
The ultimate fate of Lungi is unclear; the
transport and aviation minister attempted to reassure residents and stakeholders
there recently with promises, incredulous, that the airport would become an
industrial zone for import and export of minerals (read Industrial
zone for Lungi Airport) and would not be
abandoned. All this, despite earlier
presidential promises (two presidents, first Kabba
then Koroma!) to build a bridge to Lungi, and a Koroma commitment
barely two years ago to make Lungi the second city
(read President
Koroma promises bridge to Lungi,
second city, expanded airport). A little more than two years ago, at the tripartite
conference that heralded our 50th Do we need two international airports at this point in time? Is the existing one operating to capacity? If it is should the new one be based at Mamamah. On what basis was this choice made? What are the economics of this decision? How much would the airport cost to build and maintain? Who will be paying, both for the short term and the long term costs? Is the funding secure? Can we guarantee that promises made now will be honoured ten years later? We have invested millions and millions of dollars in Lungi over the past fifty years or so. Can we afford to see that investment go down the drain? Could the new incoming funds be put to better use? Have the necessary economic, environmental, engineering, safety and other studies been done? By impartial, independent consultants? Even if our Chinese ‘partners’ commit to all possible costs we should still ask (and answer) all these questions and more. Even if the money is a grant, its use should still be shown to be in our best interests. If there are more pressing areas in our best judgment where that same money could be used this should be communicated to our ‘partners’. According to various published
reports, the new airport will be funded by a loan from the Chinese Exim bank to the tune of USD 198 – 350 million, depending
on which account you believe. USD 350 million would resuscitate a lot of
schools at a time when |
|
|
|||||||||