Liberians, once caught in a Malthusian trap, unknowingly acceded to the adverse influence of a once friendly patron, not aware they signed a Faustian bargain. They knowingly signed up again with the popular support for the Doe coup and the election of Taylor.

The people are once more presented with a leader who is supposedly a unifier, who is touted as the panacea for all the sociopolitical and economic crises that now plagues Liberia. Simplistic, but given the recent historical past, it is not surprising these idealistic expectations.

This obsession with the candidacy of Oppong Weah and his qualifications, or lack thereof, is more a reflection on the inability of the opposition candidates to capture the imagination of the average Liberian. Oppong is the only candidate most closely allied by experience with the socioeconomic and political conditions that plagues the average Liberian.

Politically, this group has been marginalized and taxed without representation. Their hopes and aspirations have never been articulated by the ruling elite, unless as a by-product of the elite’s grandiose desires. Never having been vested in by the leadership, and since they were not given the opportunity to choose, but instead had leaders imposed upon them, they have felt no commitment to the political system. This disillusioned public will rise up to support any new messiah who overthrows the ruling elite and promises them the world. This time they will have the opportunity to choose one of their own without duress.

Socially, in some circles, this ruling elite considers itself higher up on the evolutionary scale, albeit the evidence for this exists only in their imaginations and has been discredited: remnants of an unoriginal idea acquired from those whose religion, science and technology they admire, and at whose hands they once suffered similar indignities. Fortunately, this divisive social aberration has been weakened due to recent circumstances, time, and the deaths of its adherents. Seeking to satisfy their narcissistic desires for the presidency, they, the educated elite — the new divide — now seek the votes of the very people they once ostracized.

Weah, by virtue of his age, is situated on the cusps of two generations:

1. Ages 20 and under identify with him, since he is the only positive apolitical national figure.

2. Ages 20 through 40 — 60 to 80 percent of the voting population — feel he will represent their interests, because he is a member of their generation.

Economically, the average Liberian exists on less than a dollar and one meal a day, even during the so-called good times of Tubman thru Doe. The relative rags to riches, and now presidential aspirant story of Weah, once a member of this group, can only soothe and satisfy the wild imaginations of average Liberians.

It is for these reasons and more that Weah has captured the imagination of the populace. Weah is one of them, as opposed to his opponents who grew up with relative middle/upper middle class privileges, or had access to higher education and can only speak with empathy about the plight of the average Liberian. Achieving social, political and economic power, even if lived vicariously through Weah, is an appealing alternative.

Liberalizing democracy and reality has always been imposed on the weak by the strong. Can the average Liberian exert numerical superiority over the educated, socially, politically and economically advantaged? Can Weah mobilize and energize this group?

Can the educated elites, who speak to the lack of a teleological link between Weah’s current status and his ability to respond to the immense needs of postwar Liberia, neutralize his immense popularity? If the elites, with all of their perceived advantages, cannot defeat Oppong, then they do not deserve to be elected.

In this postmodern era, where is the historical precedence to suggest good stewardship by someone with Weah’s background? Is Weah aware of the immense responsibility and capabilities necessary to preside over the affairs of government? Is Weah aware the presidency is not a dictatorship but a liberal democracy?

Who are the members of Weah's Party, and what other positions are they seeking from the electorate?

Has Weah managed any business or institution that reflects his leadership style, fiscal responsibility, vision and management of complex problems? Is his Party going to make available to the public his current financial status, his business records, tax statements, etc?

Can Weah make public his thought processes as to how he came to the decision that he would run for the presidency, and why he thinks he is the best candidate relative to his four closest opponents? Is Weah aware there are no parallels between playing football and governing the lives and livelihood of three million people?

How can we confirm the responses to these and many other questions?

Education is supposed to make one less biased. In this situation, it prejudices one in favor of the educated candidates, because the responses to most of the unanswered questions above can be empirically assumed.

(Un) fortunately, for some, the democratic process ensures equal votes for all, regardless of class, educational attainment or social status. We can all be thankful though, that this new divide is more socioeconomic, as opposed to the Neolithic ethnic struggles of the past.

This is progress.