George Weah's
Presidency: Perspectives And Context
OPINION
October 15, 2004
Samuel D. Tweah, Jr.
Monrovia
Liberians' soliciting of Ambassador George Weah's candidacy in the
2005 general elections and the serious consideration he appears to be
giving the petition have sent earth-shattering tremors in traditional
political quarters.
A populist groundswell for Ambassador Weah is now brewing among
Liberians both in and out of the country. Some find this massive
momentum baffling and see it as a potential replica of the Samuel Doe
scenario. A few paid propagandists and scaremongers are propagating
fear and confusion through the media by drawing false conclusions and
making erroneous juxtapositions. Amid this hullabaloo, sober analyses
of the issues at stake will have to be in order. Giving context and
perspective to George Weah's candidacy and subsequent presidency
dispels this false sense of fear while reassuring Liberians to sustain
the Weah momentum.
First, the massive and visible outpouring for George Weah validates
Liberians' vote of no confidence in the quality and caliber of
candidates now parading the political stage. Many Liberians see some
of these candidates, at least the most likely winners among them if
the elections were held today, as emblematic of a decayed political
culture that engendered massive corruption and laid the basis for the
mass murdering of our people. Two groups of candidates or leaders
readily come to mind. On the one hand, are the failed "Progressives"
whose quest for power compromised, negated and endangered any genuine
agenda for democratizing Liberia they may have originally conceived.
The Progressives' failure to take power over the past 25 years, partly
occasioned by intense disunity and rivalry between their competing
egos and clashing personality cults, has weakened and rendered them
less palatable to the political tastes of Liberians. Progressive
forces will have to acknowledge they have lost control of Liberia's
political landscape. They may still command varying levels of
respectability but these are not translatable into a mechanism and
institution for capturing state power. Important for purposes of
recounting historical reminiscences of Progressive alarums, the
Progressives are now seen as relics of a past that cannot be replayed.
On the other hand, is a newer group of political and business leaders
from the old generation that are now endeavoring to replace the failed
Progressives as determinants of Liberia's politico-cultural direction.
These may garner more respectability but are quick to lose it once
Liberians perceive the face of their current political ballyhoo and
assess their individual contributions to the Liberian society. Three
layers exit within this group. The first comprises individuals who
remained out of the country for so long as to have no visible
connection with the tragedies Liberians suffered. In their absence and
disconnect from the country they demonstrated no memorable leadership
and concern, upon which their claim to power can situate itself. The
second layer is peopled by individuals who probably never left
Liberia, leaving only for understandable safety reasons, but who
equally showed no passion for lifting our people from political and
economic misery. Their primary reason for staying in the country
anchored deeply in the profit to be reaped from business and corporate
connections. They did not lavish those profits on Liberians when they
needed it most during the war but are now spending vast sums in an
attempt to buy their way to political power. Finally, the third layer
comprises those who knowingly abetted the annihilation of our people.
They may not have directly participated in the slaughtering but allied
themselves with agents of destruction as a means to national
leadership. Showing a critical lack of judgment by siding with these
forces renders them untrustworthy, unpatriotic and sycophantic.
Members of this group truly validate the Machiavellian principle that
in politics the "end justifies the means." Such are the caliber of
Liberia's electable candidates. The people may have seen they deserve
better.
Second, merely preventing these leaders from assuming power is not the
overarching theme of the Weah momentum: this groundswell is a probable
culmination of Liberians' prolonged hanker for a patriotic leader. The
people's choice of George Weah rewards the patriotism, sacrifice and
selflessness he has demonstrated. Liberians are not merely searching
for just another leader: we crave a leader who rises above personal
greed, has the ability to unify and has less incentive to plunder the
wealth and resources that truly belong to all Liberians. Coming out of
war, Liberians are more inclined to trust leaders who have shown
patriotism, leadership and concern while acting in their private
spheres, far removed from positions of political power and privilege.
It may be that Liberian's choice of George Weah indicates a redefining
of the presidential criteria, and this is a good development. They
prefer leaders who identify with national causes and those who expend
personal resources without presidential motives. Such leaders can and
must be trusted with the power to make decisions about the
distribution of national resources among different population
sub-groups and about equalizing economic opportunities. The only true
test that the next Liberian president will accomplish these is by
examining his or her past, and on this score many of the serious
contenders for state power pale in comparison to George Weah. Also,
Liberian power has proven to be an extremely corrupting instrument,
but in the hands of a proven patriotic leader, it can be
transformative and productive. A patriotic a leader is less prone to
the blandishments and seductions of power. George Weah fits this bill,
hence the populist support now galvanizing Liberia.
Third, skeptics' and critics' contention that this momentum is a
directionless stampede that portends ill for Liberia's political
future is mistaken. This new populist movement has an eye toward
institution building. The iconic stature George Weah now enjoys is not
an institution in and of itself, and the Ambassador the new-generation
leaders now giving direction to new momentum understand the imperative
of institutionalizing the struggle for democratic change in Liberia.
The tragedies that have afflicted our people over the past few decades
reflect the failure of the past generation of political leaders to
build viable institutions through which the democratic aspirations of
Liberians can be channeled. These leaders instead bequeathed a failed
legacy of big political names and personalities, who, we were made to
believe, could wave political problems into solution. Big names like
Bacchus Matthews, Togba Nah Tipoteh, Amos Sawyer, Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf and Henry B. Fahnbulleh, Jr on the one hand, and their
dictatorial counterparts Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor, on the other,
took the place of institutions founded on ideas and deriving
motivation and populism on clearly established principles and agendas.
On the contrary, the new-generation leaders endeavoring to give birth
to George Weah's candidacy are fully cognizant of the importance of
building a massive political institution, modeled on the style and
substance of the African National Congress, ANC, of South Africa.
Geroge Weah, because of the patriotic example he has set, may be the
Liberian Mandella who will synchronize divergent viewpoints and
mobilize and unite disparate elements into a massive institution. It
is this institution that will play a critical role in evolving a new
society in which the goals of economic development and democracy are
attainable. Such institution will strive to develop new political and
leadership talents to whom power will be democratically entrusted for
safeguarding Liberia's posterity. By the time of his departure from
Liberia's presidential stage, George Weah would have imparted an
enviably enduring legacy upon whose foundation posterity can build.
This is the true value and appeal of the icon George Weah.
And so those who believe that a George Weah presidency is yet another
opportunity for wealth-hunting men to reap fortune at the expense of
the downtrodden can expect a rude awakening. Weah's candidacy and
subsequent presidency are intended to raise Liberian governance to a
new level of respectability and to restore the faith of Liberians in
their government. Decayed forces of corruption and misrule now biding
their time to join what they mistake as a "gravytrain" will meet the
wrath of the people. If Weah accepts Liberians' presidential urging,
it will be to champion the interests of the ordinary Liberian.
Uprooting the present corrupt culture now draining the country will be
paramount. As a matter of fact, the fight against corruption will
constitute a formidable component of George Weah's bid for the
presidency.
All this must convince skeptics that Weah's candidacy represents a
cornerstone for a new beginning in Liberia and dispel arguments of his
presumed incompetence or his equation with Samuel Doe at his
ascendancy to power. To argue Weah's incompetence on the basis of an
absence of formal higher level schooling is to define college or
graduate education as a necessary and sufficient guarantor of
successful leadership in Liberia, which stretches the truth beyond
recognition. If education were given such definition in the Liberian
context, Liberia today should be massive democracy whose people enjoy
the plenitude of development. We all know this is not the case. The
nation has suffered no deficit of educated leaders but it is seemingly
bereft of patriotic ones willing to advance a development agenda to
lift the ordinary Liberian from an existence in squalor. Ambassador
Weah may not be the most educated Liberian but he certainly is one of
the most patriotic ones endowed with an acute sense of judgment. It is
the exercise of judgment that is more critical to a presidency. John
Kerry, the Democratic candidate in the 2005 American presidential
election acknowledged this during the first of three American
presidential debates when he said "judgment is what we look for in a
president." The challenges Liberians face today do not require an
"expert" president gifted with the ability to analyze and frame
solution for every problem. That would be too overbearing even for
such a president. Our greatest challenge is finding a leader who is
able to exercise informed judgment in the interest of the country;
judgment about committing significant amounts of resources to public
projects, about directing resources to raise the standard of living
and the level of Liberian heath care, enrich our school environment,
build infrastructures, fight corruption, restore international
credibility and unify the people. A Liberian president does not have
to be a rocket scientist to commit money to complete major road
networks or to take electricity to rural Liberia, for example. All he
needs is a big chunk of patriotic spirit and goodwill to the Liberian
people, both of which George Weah is endowed with.
Also, juxtapositions of George Weah and Samuel Doe at his ascendancy
to power are spurious. Doe's horizon was too restricted to the
Liberian culture and society he knew when he assumed power. Not only
was he not formally educated, he could not conceive of a yardstick by
which to measure Liberia even if he endeavored to change it. A
sergeant already trained in the rigidities and ruffian nature of
Liberian military life, Doe could not be expected, coming from such
military culture, to transform into an icon of human rights. The
Liberian army is probably the only yardstick with which he had to
measure his progress and by time he had broadened his horizon, time
had run out for Liberians. The same cannot be said of George Weah.
Weah, at the maturing stage of his life, became exposed to societies
far more complex than Liberia. He has experienced, appreciates and
understands the benefits of democracy and development and how these
have impacted European and American societies, has interacted with
global business and international leaders and is himself an
entrepreneur. Owing his wealth to European soccer organization and
entrepreneurship, George Weah understands the importance of
transferring the benefits of such organization to Liberian economic
possibilities. As such Weah's horizon is far too extended and those
who which to compare it with Samuel Doe's at his ascendancy distort
reality. While, like Samuel Doe, George Weah too will be subjected to
some of the most intense negative forces of the Liberian society, his
natural patriotism, broad international experience and his desire to
uplift his people from misery will shield him and inform his choice of
dedicated political affiliates who will be needed to develop and
implement a well defined and structured agenda for change in Liberia.
The critical distinction to remember is that George Weah is not
commissioning political mercenaries to do his bidding, which is the
common practice in Liberia. Taking power in Liberia has never been his
obsession. Because of his iconic stature, he is being urged by a
conscious mass of patriotic Liberians who value his demonstrated
patriotism as a mobilizing dynamic toward building a new society
founded on the ideals of love of country, service to country,
accountability and transparency in the affairs of government and
respect for the rule of law, all of which are necessary antecedents
for economic develop.
If George Weah rejects this history mission and responsibility, he
would be doing the greatest disservice to his people and country.
|
Please Click our Sponsors
Links to support the site
|
