We must not allow sentiments to becloud our judgment when we are dealing with major issues concerning our destiny. Liberia is in a world where the best and brightest are needed if she must catch up with other nations after fifteen years of war and destruction. The world will not wait for Liberia. The task of rebuilding our country requires erudite and dedicated men and women. Ruling a country takes brains and this is why countries in Asia and Latin America have done well in terms of economic and social development, because they have people in positions of authority who understand the issues and are capable of sitting with their counterparts in the developed world to discuss these issues. Our people must run while others walk because we are far behind!
We must be honest with each other. In politics, we must allow for all shades of opinions. I have heard certain charges many times and have come to understand that some people are confused in an honest way. My duty here is to help clarify the issues. In life, there is truth and there is falsehood. An honest person will search for the truth no matter how it is hidden. A dishonest person will refuse to accept the truth no matter how obvious. This is the situation with many people. They accept falsehood not because they are not educated but because they are dishonest. I have argued that one cannot pass judgment on a matter of which one is ignorant. This is not arrogance or disdain. It is a matter of common sense. For some, the answer cannot be given simply because for them there is no answer. Instead, what we hear are childish comments about how the progressives have failed Liberia, and that the political class or elements of this class have been “the brains behind all of the recent social catastrophes in Liberia.” Let us deal with this.
Some have wrongly assumed that I have said Liberia should surrender her sovereignty to the United Nations. I must ask them: What does sovereignty entail? We have over 15,000 foreign troops on our soil and yet some of us are talking about sovereignty! What sovereignty is there when personnel from the UN, ECOWAS, and foreign embassies direct our affairs? I have stated that it is not wise to allow the Americans or any major power to train our army for historical reasons. All major powers have their interests to protect and no major power will train an army in Africa because they like black faces; they will do so because they have their motives. With my little experience, I have recommended that the UN assume responsibility for training the new army as it has taken responsibility for security in the country, and let the Indian army train the new army. The reason is simple: The UN has no long-term interest in Liberia except peace and stability. Furthermore, India can have no long-term interest in Liberia, and the Indian army respects democratic institutions. Since we are talking about building democracy in Liberia, it is a good thing to start with institutions that respect democracy. By the UN assuming responsibility for training the new army does not mean we surrender sovereignty to the UN. If this was the case, then we should not have allowed the UN to be responsible for our security. We must be aware that security operations involve much more than simply standing at checkpoints!
Again, we come to the issue of the elections. Our recent political history does not give me the confidence that we can conduct free and fair elections at this point in time. What I have called for is a process which can be considered free and fair. Do we believe that the handful of Liberians on the Commission can ensure a democratic process? How were these commissioners selected? Why are we asking the UN and the international community for money to conduct our elections? The process will be democratic not because Liberians conduct the elections, but because the masses of our people participate in a transparent process. No matter how many Liberians conduct the process, if it is not conducted properly, it will not be democratic. I believe that many people will be satisfied if, at the end of the day, the UN conducts the election and comes out with the results. This was done in Cambodia after that country's civil war and no one has claimed that Cambodia lost its sovereignty in the process!
We must move from the position of making comments like “criminal leadership” without a careful analysis of the historical developments in our country. Some want to condemn the political class without an examination of the unique historical situation that confronted our country. Their arguments demonstrate that they are either unaware of certain developments or that they are dishonest. What some see as “criminal leadership” is seen by others as progressive and consistent leadership. Others have their ideas, too, and based on those ideas have reached different conclusions. This is as it should be. No individual has a monopoly of knowledge. However, if we make comments that are not supported by serious analyses based on research, then we make ourselves the laughing stock for others.
On the issue of the political class not having conviction, some have misunderstood my arguments. I do not separate myself from the political class. I referred to that segment of the political class that has not demonstrated any commitment to the struggle of the people for justice, liberty and equality. Why have I called on the progressive forces to come together and continue the struggle which was cut off by the military intervention? How can “the politicians” be blamed when they have not ruled Liberia since 1980? What kind of logic blames a group that was itself the victim of guns and rebels? Let us be honest and put forth our positions with conviction based on facts instead of listening to childish gossip about politicians failing Liberia without putting into context the historical developments of the past twenty-five years.
The political class is not a single group with one direction. There are various groups within a political class and they have different ideas as to how a country should be governed. Some believe in individual advancement at the expense of the people and the nation; others believe in collective advancement, and so on. When we say that the political class has failed, we are talking about that segment that held power under the True Whig Party; that fooled around with the military from 1983 to 1990; with the NPFL from 1997 to 2003; and now, with the present arrangement. These people know themselves and the progressives know them very well. We must watch and observe.
How have the politicians failed Liberia? Have they been in power since 1980? We know some of “the politicians” were in power up to 1980 while others were
struggling against them. In 1980, there was a military coup. The “politicians” were not in power. If anything, most of them tried to survive the era of the guns by playing along with the military. Others tried to work and when they found out that the military was not interested in good governance and people-centered programmes, they left office and went into exile. In 1989, the NPFL came on the scene. Before long, various other rebel groups came along. From 1990-97, the guns ruled again and all the interim governments from 1991-95 were restricted to the enclave of Monrovia. From 1997 to 2003, the NPFL ruled with brute force. From 2003 to the present, we have been subjected to the rule of rebels and weak civilians.
The political class did not introduce violence in Liberia. As a matter of fact this class has always indulged in what some commentators refer to as “jaw-jaw instead of war-war.” This is the nature of intellectuals and other educated people. They analyze, speculate and diagnose instead of resorting to arms as the first recourse for settling disputes. However, there is a rare breed of such people who would readily resort to violence. In this category are those who combine their political ideas with radical action to change a situation. But even here, this form of action/protest is resorted to after thorough deliberation and consideration. In Liberia, from the death of Tubman to 1980, various segments of the political class argued, analyzed, debated, and speculated, but did not once resort to violence to take power! In 1980, the military—and that segment which was the most backward, uneducated, unenlightened and reckless—seized power. How and with whose help is still being researched and debated by scholars.
The political class was marginalized after the military coup. Some members of this class served in the military regime for a time but without any real power. Others were kept in prison and yet others went into exile. Between 1980-84, there was reckless violence visited on the people. Many people were killed in the rural areas. In Monrovia, there were cases of people disappearing. In 1983, there was the Nimba raid and the killing of innocent people. In 1984, there was the raid on the university when students were killed, raped and brutalized. All this time, the political class never resorted to violence!
In 1985, there was an election and from all the records, the military leader lost decisively. He and his cronies decided to keep power. The people protested but were cowed by the oppression. It was only in the context of violent repression by a regime which had no legitimacy that some patriots decided to act. This is the only way patriots throughout history have acted. In the face of brutal and savage repression by tyrants, heroic patriots have risen to their responsibility to redeem their nation and people. These have usually been patriots with a sound education who based their actions on a thorough understanding of ideas and concepts relating to political developments. In history, we find this occurrence in the English revolution; in the French revolution; in the American War of Independence; in the revolutions throughout Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century; and in the Mexican, Russian, Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions. In contemporary times, we find the same thing in the anti-colonial revolts and in the uprisings of the people of Eastern Europe and South America.
One cannot accuse a people or a political class of “erecting a culture of social disorganization” when the decay brought about has to do with the repression, brutality and irresponsibility of those who hold power. If this class has not held power for twenty-five years, how is it possible for it to have erected “a culture of social disorganization”? Nowhere in history can we find condemnation for a group or a class that fights for its legitimate rights against tyranny or unjust regimes. What is the democratic struggle if not the struggle against injustice and tyranny? A recent example on our continent would be that of South Africa. The people took to arms to unseat a backward regime. Many died in the struggle and even today the South Africans are uncovering unmarked graves. Many lives were shattered because men and women took the decision to fight tyranny and injustice with arms. Are we to condemn the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress for this? Did they know that many people would die and that the regime would unleash reckless brutality on its own people?
Are patriots to refrain from decisive action against injustice because people will die in the process? History does not move in this way. In our case, after 1985, there was nothing to show that the regime would not go on killing, terrorizing and brutalizing the people as was done between 1980-84. What did the students do in August 1984 that they were brutalized with such recklessness? Where in history do we see courageous men and women refusing to fight tyranny and yet claim that they are patriots? What violence is justified in history: that of the tyrant and his cronies or that of the people? And in the case of such violence, where should a conscious political class stand? This is a question of conscience and in this respect, people choose sides based on their beliefs and on their honesty!
Again, there are various groups within a political class and these groups have different ideas and interests. But one thing is certain: these various groups did not take it upon themselves to destroy Liberia. Every group within the political class understood that violence was not the way to power. Left on their own, the various groups in the political class would have opted for a serious contest to win political power in the scheduled elections of 1982. This was the goal and this was the reason why my group, the Movement for Justice in Africa (MOJA) decided to test the political waters by having Brother Amos Sawyer contest for the position of Mayor of Monrovia in 1979. But there were forces that did not want a democratic transition in Liberia. They understood that a democratic transition with popular support was dangerous to certain interests and thus the military coup in 1980! I do not believe that Sergeant Doe and his colleagues were intelligent enough to stage a coup of that magnitude. I worked with them for three years and there was nothing to convince me that they had the ability or aptitude for political interaction. I have looked at the records and am still not convinced that they could have carried out that coup on their own!
Let me address Madam Sirleaf’s comment on the radio. I have been asked, “How is it possible for the very agents who have brought havoc on our people, and have refused to acknowledge their political backwardness, be trusted with the destiny of our nation?” In the first place, Liberia belongs to Madam Sirleaf also. I am sure she can justify every action or comment she has taken or made throughout her political life. I would normally not come to her defense but since some want to condemn her as part of a collective, I will defend her.
It is alleged that Madam Sirleaf said, “Level Monrovia and we will rebuild it.” Let us assume that she made the statement. Her words did not lead to that simply because there was not the capacity for that to happen. There was a war going on and many people were being slaughtered by the various factions. There was the Lutheran Church massacre and stories of people starving to death on the streets of Monrovia. Madam Sirleaf must have known that the NPFL forces were fighting with light arms and did not have the capacity to destroy Monrovia totally. Her speech, if she did make it, was what is called "figuratively speaking." In wars, there is a psychological dimension. You try to demoralize the enemy by exaggerations and fright. People were already dying by the hundreds and no amount of exaggeration or threat would have made any difference.
Madam Sirleaf did not start the war. The situation that led to the war must be traced to the repression, brutality and illegitimate power that obtained in our country between 1985-90. It is possible that she tried to exploit the situation, but this is the normal reaction of any rational person, especially a political person. A regime that does not respect the lives of the people and the human rights of the citizens does not have legitimacy and deserves to be overthrown! The British ambassador at the time made an inflammatory comment also. He said that the Doe forces had no defenses around Monrovia. This was obviously a signal to the rebels to take the Capital and end the nightmare once for all. Thus, what Madam Sirleaf could have been saying was end this nightmare once and for all. We all knew that the longer the stand-off lasted, the more the people would starve, die, and be massacred. Yet, if the NPFL regime was a credible one and had made positive changes, many people would be praising it today. The only reason why certain people still condemn Madam Sirleaf was because the process failed. We know the famous saying: ‘victory has many parents; but defeat is an orphan!’
What some have called “political backwardness” is regarded by others as the highest form of patriotic duty. This is how we make mistakes when we do not know and refuse to take the time to study and find out. Madam Sirleaf and others have not held political power in Liberia since 1980 and they cannot be condemned based on emotional reactions to the destruction of certain interests in our country. History will judge the political class harshly only after they hold power for a number of years and there are no positive development in the country or changes in the lives of the people. This is the only time one can say that the sacrifices of the people have been meaningless. We have had horrible regimes for the past twenty-five years, but this cannot be blamed on the political class. Doe and the assortment of rebel functionaries were not members of the political class. Had they been, we would not have reached this stage of utter decay! The claim that those who are “academically enlightened have failed the nation” is nothing but an emotional outburst.
There are many educated people who have contributed positively to our development but have not been in the political class. There are farmers, midwives, medical doctors, bankers, engineers, teachers, scientists, agronomists, etc. without whose contribution we would not have our people surviving today. In this group, there is a medical doctor who has decided to join the political class. He is called Dr. Gwenigale and is from Bong County. Why haven't we seen people running to promote this noble doctor who has not been with the political class, nor can he be accused of possessing a “terminal degree but” failing “to deliver the goods”? Isn't it obvious that these references to “terminal degrees” have more to do with an anti-intellectual position rather than a rejection of those who are supposed to have “destroyed Liberia”? Here is the case of a doctor with a terminal degree who cannot be accused of anything negative but certain people will never support him. They would rather support an illiterate footballer because he has money! What has the footballer done that Dr. Gwenigale has not done? Dr. Gwenigale has done more but the simple fact is that he does not have money to carry along all the hustlers in our country today!
On the issue of George Weah, I have been quite plain. Where in the world will you find patriots and nationalists allowing vagrants, vagabonds and street urchins to determine the destiny of their country? We cannot allow this to happen in Liberia! If this should happen, it will not be democracy but mobocracy. The nation is drifting and now is the time to act in order to stop the drift and the rot! We had our experience with Samuel Doe for three years. We realized back then that the man was incapable of ruling the country and that was why we told him to go back to school. But there were those who only saw their own interests and convinced Doe to stay in power. These were the people who told him stories about “socialists” and all the other rubbish. We know what happened to the country because of this! A few people got rich but the people suffered and then there was the oppression in order for the system to continue, which led to war and destruction. An educated and wise leader would not have allowed the country to sink that low.
I am not a medical doctor nor a nuclear physicist and there is no way I can comment on these areas with authority. If I do, I will be considered a fool, especially if I have not done any research in the disciplines. In order to know my limitation, I must be aware of what I am good at and what I do not know. This helps in life, because we do not want to increase the danger to ourselves in society by allowing carpenters to perform surgery or “sidewalk mechanics” to lecture university students about thermodynamics. We achieve much and move forward if people stick to what they know and can do better. This is called the division of labour. It does not only relate to economic matters; it also takes place in all areas of life.
What does Weah understand about politics, economics, diplomacy, negotiations, dialogue, to rule a country which has been bled for fifteen years? It is a problem when people want to promote an illiterate to rule a country when other nations are choosing their best brains. Is it possible the footballer has done some great things for humanity that we do not know about? Has he taken children off the streets in Liberia? Has he constructed a health clinic anywhere? Has he been in any struggle for the upliftment of the people? Playing soccer in Europe and being paid for it is not most people’s understanding of working for humanity. As regards him being a UN Goodwill Ambassador, anyone is appointed who has a high profile in their field. The illiterate masses can fall for this celebrity rubbish as they do everywhere in the world, but one should not expect everyone to fall for this tawdry fantasy!
Does Weah understand the recent history of Liberia and how we got to this level of paralysis? Does he think that ruling a country is about giving out orders? It is often said that ‘where there is no vision, the people perish!’ My argument has been that Weah is an illiterate and should stick to what he knows. Weah’s argument that he will buy brains is an insult to all patriots. Great patriots and nationalists do not sell their brains; only criminals and mercenaries do, and with terrible consequences. Patriots and nationalists give their blood, brains and sweat to noble causes and this is the reason why they do not just follow anybody!
Weah is not the only great footballer in Africa, but in other countries, the people know how and where a man’s talent can best be used. In Guinea, we find Petit Sorie, Titi Kamara and others. These men are great footballers. Have we heard them talking about ruling Guinea? In Cameroon, there are Roger Miller, Rigobert Song, Samuel Eto'o, Patrick Mboma, Geremi Fotso Njitap and many others. They are all great footballers. Have we heard them deceiving themselves that they can rule Cameroon? In Nigeria, you have Taribo West, Jayjay Okocha, Celestine Babayaro, Issac Okoronkwo, Nwankwo Kanu and others. Have we heard them dabbling in Nigerian politics? Then there are the very rich players like Didier Drogba from Ivory Coast, Frederick Kanoute from Mali, Patrick Viera of Senegal/France, Thierry Henry of France/Martinique, El Hadji Diouf of Senegal and others who know what they are good at, and that is playing soccer. Ignorance is about not knowing your limitations.
What has Weah done for the people of Liberia with his wealth and connections? Has he built a soccer school for poor kids to attend like Patrick Viera and others have done in Senegal? He came from a poor background. How many kids has he assisted in school or college? What has been his contribution to Liberia except for paying for the national team on a few occasions because he, too, had to play and get exposure? We are not talking about celebrity status. We are speaking about assisting a people! Has Weah ever been a part of any social or political struggles for the promotion and defense of justice, liberty and equality? The masses everywhere are impressed by celebrities, but not conscious cadres and militants. Here in Europe, no matter how famous a celebrity, if s/he decides to go into an area for which they are not qualified, people will laugh and mock that person.
The argument that one would go to a “sidewalk mechanic” who is known to be good with cars rather than to an engineer who is not known to be good in fixing cars does not hold in the case of entrusting power to an illiterate novice. But let us deal with this argument a little. If one has a car like a Toyota or Datsun and there is a problem, one will go to a mechanic who has demonstrated over time that he has experience in fixing cars as this is his area and there is the experience. The mechanical engineer, on the other hand, knows about strength of materials, thermodynamics, etc. and may not be familiar with the details of car maintenance. Let’s move one step further. We assume that the more delicate the thing to be attended to, the more the rational person will seek the best in the field. Thus, if one has a Ferrari and there is a serious problem with it, one will think twice about going to a sidewalk mechanic.
Let us go yet a step further. Let us assume a mother goes home and finds her only child lying on the floor unconscious. She rushes the child to the hospital and there she finds a nurse who has been good in giving injections for minor illnesses and a doctor who has had three or four people die under her/him during surgery. Who will the mother turn to under the circumstances? I believe that most, if not all, rational people will take a chance with the doctor. This is because the more delicate the thing we have to deal with, the less risk we want to take. In this case, as long as the doctor is trained and has saved other lives, the doctor would be considered better than the nurse. This explains why when dealing with the matter of state and governance, we want to ensure that the best and brightest in the field of politics are entrusted with our destiny.
The best and brightest do not have to possess “terminal degrees.” They can have years of experience of government and statecraft. For anyone to assume that because such people have made human mistakes in the past, they are therefore not capable of expertise is to demonstrate not only intolerance but emotional hatred based on ignorance and bigotry. How can one entrust power to an illiterate without any experience but feel satisfied to condemn men and women who have spent their years in the area of politics and have the capacity to learn from their mistakes? One thing is certain, and that is the country belongs to us all and we will fight for it with all our capacity. The same way some feel that they “are not for sale and will remain opposed to criminal leadership,” is the same way some feel that our country cannot be left in the hands of illiterates and semi-literates and have vowed to oppose those who want to experiment with the destiny of the nation! As our late leader Mwalimu Nyerere said: “We must run while they walk!” — March 2005
