Loyal Opposition and Social Change in Liberia: A Historical Perspective
A Speech delivered at UNIBOA's Maryland Chapter Inaugural Ball
Baltimore, Maryland - April 18, 2009By Syrulwa Somah, PhD
Executive Director, Liberian History, Education & Development, Inc. (LIHEDE), Greensboro, NC
&
Associate Professor, Environmental and Occupational Safety & Health
NC A&T State University, Greensboro, NC
Syrulwa Somah, PhD
Mr. Emmanuel Garmondyu Smith, President–Elect; Mr. Roberta M. Clarke, Vice President–Elect; Other distinguished officers-elect; members of the Board of Directors; Mr. Alfred Dousuah, President of UNIBOA; Representatives of Liberian and non-Liberian organizations; Fellow Bassa; Distinguished quests, ladies & gentlemen.
It is a unique privilege and honor for me to speak before this august gathering at this moment. I have been very busy lately with the job, the passing of a family member, my grandson, and planning of the upcoming 2009 5th LIHEDE Jubilee Conference that I almost had a second thought about being here today. But, then, I felt a sudden urge and obligation to be here when I read your letter of invitation on this specific point, which I quote: “we recognize the need to be active participants in the development of our homeland and maintain our cultural and historical ties with our people.” This quote made my heart laughed and anything that makes my heart to laugh also makes my heart healthy. I know each and every one of you has a favorite "moment" that makes your heart to laugh and want to respond to a request. Your invitation did that for me. And I can tell you that I consider your invitation and your organization as a genuine effort to maintain our cultural ties with our people and it gives me the sense that you already know that our history matters.
History doesn’t exist in a vacuum. History is an experience and a tapestry that is waving and unfolding right now before our very eyes. Each one of us at this historical junction is a part of the eking, weaving visible threads of history in the fabric of our community and in the pattern of our lives. So as we shape our history, history will in turn shape us. That is to say that no one, no organization, no nation can, effectuate any meaningful change and national development in society in the absence of historical roots. Let me just state that my organization, LIHEDE, considers it an honor and a privilege to be the drum major of history. We at LIHEDE do not intent to live in a nation whose history is written and interpreted by people of different countries and cultures whose worldview is quite different from ours. I think you do not either. Our history should not, and cannot, wait to be told to the current generation of Liberians without the background, so they can in turn tell our history to next generation. And my hope is that the next generation will arise, embrace, and declare our history to the next generation after their generation.
We at LIHEDE are convinced that oral history, legends, linguistic links, documents, spirituality, cultures, words, voices, groves, buildings, oracles, and sacred places of the past should be preserved because they are the lifeblood of peace and stability. These historic resources can tell us time and again….. by our own definition, who we are, where we came from, and how we got here as Bassa people, as Liberians, as Americans. Therefore, I want first of all to convey to you warm greetings from the members and officers of LIHEDE, especially members of the 2009 Jubilee National Planning Committee who are working very hard to implement the 5th Anniversary Program activities of LIHEDE. As you may know, in October 2008, LIHEDE announced that in celebration of its 5th founding anniversary in 2009, LIHEDE will host on August 21-22, 2009 in Greensboro, North Carolina, a Jubilee on the history of the nation and people of Liberia, with the goal of uncovering the ethnic and linguistic links of Liberians, in order to understand how these links can be harnessed to manifest lasting peace, unity, reconciliation, and development in Liberia. I would like to see each and every one of you in this audience in Greensboro in August for the LHEDE Jubilee, so you are all invited, and please try to be there.
Fellow Bassa and friends of the Bassa people, in 2004 I made two appearances before the largest U.S.-based Bassa organization, UNIBOA, to speak first on Nonprofit Organizational Development, Leadership and Responsibility, and to speak second on The Role of the Bassa in Reshaping Liberia. I won’t bore you with the details of those two appearances, but I can assure you that in both instances I spoke about peace, unity, and cooperation among the Bassa people residing in the U.S. and in Liberia. I did believe then, as I believe now, that the essence and hallmark of leadership involves cultivating cordial relationship with people within a group setting and building TRUST and confidence amongst members to act in ways that benefit the group. No one can therefore succeed as a "leader" if the people he or she claimed to lead do not "trust" him or her as a leader. For this reason, trust is the key ingredient, if not the ultimate quality, of leadership in any organization or society. People generally will not choose you or regard you as their leader under normal circumstances unless they believe they can trust you. I should also state that leadership means more than power, control, and self-enrichment. Leadership is about service. Leadership implies a willingness and commitment on our part to effect positive changes in society for the betterment of all. And there are certain qualities and characteristics that all leaders share, which include honesty, shepherding, commitment to duty, positive thinking and planning, and the ability to inspire others to action in the best interest of the community or the national organization one leads.
A leader who is seen as honest, committed, and caring enhances his or her credibility and integrity by winning the trust of the people. And the people will gladly and actively participate in whatever programs such a leader proposes. In other words, trust or good character is primary quality of a leader. For we all know that there are people in our respective communities and organizations who are clearly competent in their professions, and who are personable and dynamic and inspirational speakers, but we dare not put them in leadership positions because they are generally not seen as trustworthy persons. This is why you must guard your character with your own life because that is all you have. Character is unlike an algebraic equation; it cannot be proven, and one cannot sew it back together when it is torn apart. People must believe you have good character and react to you in a positive way because of that good character. I hope and trust that the newly elected administrative officers and Board members of A MOH BEDO will each endeavor to maintain good character and win the trust of the members you lead in A MOH BEDO. And I know if this was in the church—okay we Bassa like the church—I will now hear Amen from all the officers and members of A MOH BEDO.
Let me make one more short point about who we are as a Bassa people before I get to my main topic for today, which is “Loyal Opposition and Social Change in Liberia: A Historical Perspective.” You should always be proud of your Bassa heritage no matter which part of the world you live in, or which station you find yourself in life. Once a Bassa by birth or by parental linkage, you will always be a Bassa whether you like it or not. Neither you nor your parents asked to be born into the Bassa ethnic group, so you have got nothing to be ashamed of. Don’t ever deny your Bassa heritage or your Liberian heritage, even if you were born outside Liberia, or you decided to naturalize in other countries as a result of circumstances unique to you. Those circumstances may have been necessary to improve your growth and development, but those circumstances did not change your Bassa heritage or your Liberian heritage. You will always be a Bassa man, woman, or child, and you will always be a Liberian man, woman or child. I only want to remind you that regardless of whatever you become in this world, the place you were born and the heritage to which you belong will always be part and parcel of your makeup. When you take the oath of office, let it therefore be known that you will never leave the House Bassa. So help you Gedephoh.
My brothers and sisters, we the Bassa people have a leadership philosophy, which is humanism (servanthood). A child born within the Bassa culture gets the collective attention of all members of the culture. The Bassa gbo hwidiin hwodo-dyua or worldview, like almost all traditional societies, is that ‘leaders are born and not made’ with campaign money or soft-money.
The cultural values dearest to the “House of Bassa”—those spiritual practices that sustain us—must be continued and never wavered. Tomorrow, when our ways of life continue to prove to be the right ways, then we will always be able to make the right choices at short notice, and remake the world through our own prisms. It is, therefore, within this framework that children are raised to respect and honor the College of Elders of the village, town, or chiefdom. The children who would be called to national leadership are taught from youth the responsibilities of servanthood and manhood, such as providing for their family’s livelihood and hold allegiance to their kingdom. The children are given the opportunity to fend for themselves and to learn how to make independent decisions on their own. As age and seniority play an integral part in Bassa culture, learning and rehearsing such independence often give the children the impetus to take on leadership role in the affairs of the community if they were called to leadership. The message here is that in Bassa culture, leadership must be cultivated, nurtured, and maintained on the basis of mutual respect, trust, and humility. Election to a national leadership did not depend on polls and political consultants. Selecting a running mate based on geography in an election was not part of Bassa culture. Becoming a leader in Bassa culture was predicated on impeccable records of achievement, experience, education, and public services documented in the memory of the Bassa people. In a sense, the Bassa try to avoid the theatricality or primetime drama that characterizes western electoral processes.
Fellow Bassa, our people knew about democracy or government! A person has to work his way through six steps of the leadership ladder before becoming a ‘Bodo Bai’ (leader of their world). The national leaders are “Bodo Bai” for male and “Bodo Deh” for female. When the Bassa elect a leader, the person becomes the one the nation hangs on for leadership. When a person is appointed to be father of the nation, he becomes ‘Bodoba, ‘or sectional father. In other words, the “Bodobai” is the father or elder of the Bassa nation, while the “Bodoba” is more like the administrator. In Bassa government, both leaders ‘Bodobai’ and ‘Bodoba’ served their ways into leadership and not necessarily by age. Many responsibilities rested upon the ‘Bodo-bai’ or “Bodo Deh” such as being the chief custodian and Chancellor of the Poro and Sande Universities.
As a Bassa people, you should know that we have the capacity to lead, fire vision, make thing happen by tapping into our forefathers’ spiritual resources – our faiths, our oneness -- to promote peace. But we cannot continue to be effective leaders unless we are servant leaders, empower others, united and know when we made our first baby steps outbound. I mean our history because change is the product of history. You cannot just get up and start making changes if nothing happened in the past and the present that caused you a pain in the flesh. Most importantly, change follows the law of recency (when last); it requires persistence, redundancy or synchronization. It requires not changing for anyone just to fit in a group for the day or just for your “pot to boil”. In other words, you are not going to be an agent of change if you cannot stand resistance, opposition, lies, curse, and ridicules of those who want to keep the status quo for their comfort.
Change begins with a baby step or an idea. It is a window of possibility! Take action to effect change, and then develop the tenacity to stay the course. Work night and day like the tropical black ants. Do not worry who gets or gives you credit, even when ordinary and powerful people take over your idea. This is what you want to happen in the first place. Change the world for the common good of humanity but do not try to own or corrupt it. Nothing we own, even the carbon or stardust of our bodies are simply loaned from the sacred womb of nature. None of our belongings is truly, entirely ours. So let your small discovery be added to by another and another until one ordinary day, the world’s attention is attracted in an extraordinary way. Remember, do not try to own or corrupt the world as you lead.
The call to leadership or servanthood is the call to do many things so keep your eyes open and be willing to help change the world one life at a time. Equally so, be ready to treat your current opponents as possible future functionaries or followers. Once you impact your current opponent’s life in a positive way, you will find that you have fired inspiration to that person to make a difference in the life of another. That is why most people need to hear a new idea countless times before they support it. They will first perceive it as somebody else’s idea, but the second or third time they may begin to take ownership of it as if as it was their original idea, so learn to synchronize your message or vision.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want at this time to shift focus to my main topic on “Loyal Opposition and Social Change in Liberia: A Historical Perspective.” I want to talk about leadership in our homeland of Liberia. I want to speak about the role and interactions of leaders of the ruling party and the leaders of the opposition parties. I want to state that the ruling party always has the power and authority to set national policy—at least the direction the country should take in local affairs and international affairs. The ruling party is responsible to decide how many new schools to build, how many new health centers to build, how many roads to repair or build, and how many farms to make. The ruling party is responsible for national security, electricity, safe-drinking water, job creation, and everything and anything that Liberia will need to be a unified and prosperous nation. These are the jobs of the ruling party or the government in power at any given time in Liberia.
The job of the opposition parties is very simple—that is to hold the ruling party accountable for whatever it said it wanted to do for the Liberian people. For example, if the government of the ruling party says it will build schools in Liberia, it becomes the job of the opposition party to make sure that the government doesn’t only build schools in the counties of government leaders and leave the other counties out. If the government is giving scholarship for people to study abroad, it is the job of the opposition party to make sure that the scholarships are not given to the children and family members of the government officials in power only. Mind you, if the opposition parties have the time and money, they too can build schools, clinics, roads, grant scholarship to students, and undertake other developments in Liberia, but it is not their job. The opposition parties’ main role is to bring about transparency, accountability, and rule of law in the national public service—government service. Above all, the opposition parties cannot be like seasonal mushrooms or politicians who only grow after the farm is burned. The opposition must be visible from the time the election ends to the next election, and so on.
You see, we human beings are greedy by nature, and we always want what is good for ourselves and our families and friends. And there is nothing that stops government officials, including the president and cabinet ministers, from looking out for themselves and their immediate families and friends. That is natural thing to do, except that Liberia is not the personal property of particular officials of government. Liberia is the property of every Liberian, including those in government service and those outside government service. But not everyone can criticize government because not everyone knows what goes on in government. Not everyone knows how much money the government is bringing in and how much money the government is giving out. But the leaders of the opposition parties always have access to this kind of information, so they are always in a better position to tell the rest of the country what the ruling party or the government in power is doing or not doing with the Liberian people’s money. It is therefore the role and obligation of the opposition parties to alert the Liberian people to waste and other abuses in government service to ensure transparency and public accountability. This kind of role of opposition politicians or parties in society is what is often refereed to as “loyal opposition.” This means that the opposition should not only point out what the government is doing wrong, but it should also point out what the government is doing right. The opposition is very important for check and balance in any democratic system. The opposition is particularly important in Liberia to inform the public about how state resources are expended by the government, given the history of an imperial presidency in Liberia.
Historical Perspective of leadership and Party Politics in Liberia
To put history in proper perspective, it is fair to suggest that from its inception in Colonial times to the present, Liberia has operated like a master weaver spider using a single thread interwoven into several challenges to plant the seed of division still continuing in Liberia today. A one-party system was instituted at the early stages of Liberia’s independence that brought about so many social, cultural, political, and moral malaise (crab mentality) that is so pervasive in public and private life in Liberia today. In other words, Liberia created a "political niche" that destroyed any notion of a “loyal opposition” in Liberia, where "loyal opposition" means the commitment of the national population to keep honest the government of the day without subverting the entire socio-political system. Yes, “loyal opposition” refers to politicians in the political parties, but the citizens will have to act in order for the opposition to be strong. For it makes no sense opposition politicians to challenge the government if the people will not support and encourage the opposition to dig deeper and make public any misuse of authority on the part of government leaders. Today, the lack of a “loyal opposition” in Liberia has created a political landscape that is detriment to the promotion of nationalism, patriotism, development, peace, national unity, accountability, transparency, and rule of law. And the current small, small talks, political infightings, character assassinations, fragmented community and national organizations, lawlessness, rigged elections, ethnic conflicts, military invasions and bloody coups started at a historical junction in Liberia when loyal opposition was frown upon.
As a result, every Liberian child has grown up believing that lying on and killing fellow Liberians in the name of “freedom" is the right thing to do. Here is the gist of this argument that everything has a historical beginning. Joseph J. Roberts, the first Governor of the Commonwealth of Liberia and the first President of Liberia at independence in 1847, was the most prominent member of the ‘Pro-Administration Party.’ He was elected under the “Pro-Administration Party (PAP)” (referred to as members of the Colonial Council or Assembly of the 1840 election). That is to say the first 25 years of Liberia’s existence were under colonial administration or "Colonial Assembly."
The Colonial Assembly was not only in-charge of everything but was also the executive branch of the government of the settlement. For example, one of the first significant governors was Jehudi Ashmum who was a member of the Colonial Assembly. As such, the Governor was the chief justice of Liberia Colony, at the same time that he was commander of the Colony and had control over the Colony’s economic supplies and everything pertaining to the Colony. In addition to the Colonial Assembly, there were the dark-skinned settlers who didn’t hold allegiance to the Colonial Assembly and the light-skinned settlers who held allegiance to the Colonial Assembly. In other words, the light-skinned or mulattoes were the indisputable leaders that controlled everything in early Liberia based on skin color and did not readily share power with the darker skin people. This sort of division based on skin color was a great source of conflict early Liberia, and a major source of conflict throughout Liberian history. This sort of conflict also resulted in very strong and powerful Executive Branch of government that created an all-powerful imperial presidency, where the president of Liberia exercised unrestrained power over the Liberian people and the other two branches of the Liberian government, the judicial and the legislative branches. A Methodist cleric, Rev. John Seys, founder of the Anti-Administration Party, is considered the father of partisan politics in Liberia. Rev. Seys protested and challenged the decision of Governor Roberts for missionaries to import duty free goods in colonial Liberia. The resultant conflict between Rev. Seys and Roberts would eventually lead to the birth of the kind of party politics that would haunt Liberia and its people for more than 160 years. During the conflict with Rev. Seys, Roberts rallied enough supporters to defeat Seys ally Saul Benedict’s proposed amendments. Benedict went on to challenge Roberts in our Liberia’s first presidential election as the standard bearer of the Anti-Administration Party, only to abandon the Anti-Administration Party and President Roberts’ Pro-Administration Party to form a new party called True Liberian Party, which later became the Republican Party in Liberia. This political collaboration between Roberts and Benedict foreclosed any prospects for a loyal opposition in early Liberia, as the political status quo created by whoever was the president in power became the order of the day that everyone had to obey. And no one exploited the cult of the imperial presidency more than President Williams V. S. Tubman, the longest-serving Liberian president from 1944 to 1971 on the banner of the True Whig Party.
First, Edward James Roye (1870-1871), Liberia’s first dark skinned president, founder the True Whig Party and successfully wrestled power away from the light-skinned Roberts, Benedict, and others to be elected to power as president on January 3, 1870. But the light-skinned Roberts and others would retaliate and President Roye was removed from power on October 26, 1871, assassinated, and dragged in the streets of Monrovia for misusing public funds. There is another side to the story as to why President Roye was killed, but that is a story not for today. The Reginald Sherman Committee, however, ruled Liberia briefly from October 28, 1871 to November 4, 1871. After the death of President Roye, followed by Roye’s Vice President, James S. Smith, who served as Interim President of Liberia from November 4, 1871 to January 1, 1872. Immediately after Smith, J.J. Roberts became president again for the second time from 1872 to 1876. At this time, of course, Liberia was subdivided into three categories of people—mulatto, dark skin, and Natives.
The Natives were the shortest end of the social structure. In particular, under President Charles D. B. King (1920-1930) who won 600,000 votes against his challenger Thomas J. Faulkner when Liberia only had 15,000 registered voters, the Natives were subjected to public humiliation in a tax collection scheme wherein the Natives were beaten at twenty-five lashes or more, rubbed with hot chilly and made to lie and stare at the burning sun, deprived of their farm produce, cattle, and poultry when they did not have the hut tax payment ready at the time the government needed it. Some of them still carry Tai-kpa or Kpe-kpe marks, sores from uneven hard wood poles or sticks that were manually pressed on their legs as corporal punishment if the taxes were not collected by the town chief prior to the tax collector's (soldiers') arrived. Second, in my article on “Building New Bridges for Unity in Liberia,” I briefly stated how the sweepstakes of imperial presidency, single-party and seasonal politics continued to be the norm in the 1930s. During the 1927 election, things heated up between the challenger Thomas J.R. Faulkner and incumbent President Edwin Barclay. When Faulkner supposedly lost the election with 9,000 votes or 27.3%, he began his political hibernation so “loyal opposition” didn’t transcend beyond the election. To keep Faulkner voiceless, Edwin Barclay (1930-1944) who won the election pounded his “Unification of Liberia” philosophy that kept the opposition muted to avoid the “anti- unification” Name brand. Interestingly, a “special legislation in 1935, confirmed by a referendum, extended Barclay's current term to eight years, bypassing the election scheduled for that year”. He won re-election unopposed in 1939 without stating the number of votes. Like the 1930s, the canker of imperial presidency, one-party dominant system, and the seasonal politics landed in the courtyard of William V. S. Tubman (1944-1971) in the 1940s when he won the election unopposed on May 4, 1943. Few experienced politicians, however, expected Tubman to be the broker for a cross-regional coalition that would unite either Liberia that had two laws: one for the “hinterland” and one for the “Monrovia government.” But soon he too did everything not to let the touch for “loyal opposition” ignite. For instance, he made it clear that if any person, civilized or uncivilized, oppressed the unification of Liberia, that person was an enemy of the State. During “Tubman’s Liberia” being labeled as an enemy of the State was an expensive proposition that made life afterwards an extremely intolerable venture. Tubman soon consolidated his powers by suppressing any potential opposition to his reign by making sweeping changes through the national legislature that benefited his political ego.
In 1951, for instance, President Tubman rammed through the True Whig Party-controlled Legislature, an amendment which removed the 1935 clause that limited the presidential term office to one eight-year term. The amended clause called for eight years for the first term, and four years for succeeding terms of office. However, such a radical change didn’t sit well with every prominent politician. Therefore, the political party that challenged this constitutional amendment was the Reformation Party, which Dihwo D. Twe (1879-1961), a Klao son headed. President Tubman sought to vilify and discredit Mr. Twe by labeling him: "man with premedieval mind", as an attempt to neutralize his supporters. Tubman didn’t stop there. To penalize the Klao people for their son Twe’s challenge, by declaring Old Kru Town, a public domain to facilitate the construction of the Free Port of Monrovia. In his book The Years the Locusts Have Eaten: Liberia 1816-2004, Mr. Joseph K. Tellewoyan cited a source close to President Tubman quoted the President as saying regarding the Klao people’s objection to confiscation of their land for port construction that "For having razed Kru Town, I have no apologies, explanation or excuse to make" (Tellewoyan, 2004).
During the 27 years that Tubman served as president of Liberia, he cleverly manipulated his opponent by using his trademark unification rhetoric to erase any threats to his leadership. Tubman seemly dismantled all political parties of Liberia and oppositions, beginning with the 1950 Reformation Party and then the Independent True Whig Party of former President Edwin Barclay. Tubman then turned his focus on the election of 1955 in which the ballots were taken out of polling stations to a private place for counting. This is another classic example of how Tubman succeeded in disarming “loyal opposition.” The final results of the 1955 elections were President Tubman, 244,873 votes and former President Barclay, 1,182 votes, which meant that President Tubman received 99.5 percent of the vote. The ITWP responded to the outcome by charging the True Whig Party with vote rigging, and lodged complaints with the True Whig party controlled Legislature. The charges were rejected and the end result was that Edwin Barclay lost the 1955 elections to Tubman, although it was suggested in some quarters that Barclay did win Tubman. President also manipulated the May 1959 election involving Independent presidential aspirant William O. Davis Bright in which he Tubman supposedly got 100% of the votes of 565,044 registered voters.
Tubman generally saw political oppositions as a foreign ideology that was not good for Liberia. In Tubman’s mind, anything that had the potential to divide the people was not good for Liberia. These included the establishment of opposition political party and the reading books that were deemed suspicious (See Bioma Fhanbullah, Gabriel Fahngarlo et al trail for “planning to overthrow Tubman.”). To keep the population and the opposition in check, Tubman took Colonial Assembly legacy and its anti “loyal opposition” to an extreme echelon. He formed the Public Relations Office (PRO) which had no ethical standard for membership and operation. With a chain of PRO officers and cadres established across Liberia, Tubman was ready to reign in anyone who challenged his political authority or whoever he saw as a potential political rival. Tubman was always prepared to put to death a soldier, a politician, or anyone who would try to overthrow to his regime. Therefore, one of the primary intelligence organizations Tubman created to spy on opposition was the PRO.
The goal of the PRO was to ensure Tubman's longevity in the Executive Mansion even if Tubman was in the wrong. Let us provide a specific example. It is said that Tubman had an affairs with E. Tyson Wood’s sister, a family friend. When the man found out, he threw his wife out. Wood wanted for Tubman to be punished for “interfering with his sister legal marriage.” Being a big businessman and prominent man in Liberia with some muscle to cause Tubman the presidency, Wood found young and powerful Samuel David Coleman to talk on the issue with Tubman. Samuel David Coleman was the son of former President William D. Coleman. So Wood felt that he got the name recognition to defeat Tubman. It didn’t take two long for relationship between the two men to turn ugly.
It didn’t take too long for the PRO to let Tubman know that the Samuel David Coleman and his son Joseph Coleman, a civil engineer, planned to overthrow Tubman, although they were reportedly not in Monrovia on June 22, 1955 to have planned the so-called plot. But that did not matter as the PRO had created the 1954-1955 uprising and blamed the Colemans. Kpanneh Doe and Siahyonkron Nyanseor, quoting sources in their article “Coups & Building Tyranny” revealed another school of thought on the PRO maliciousness: “When President William V. S. Tubman was faced with a strong opposition in 1955, his supporters staged a "fake assassination plot". The alleged conspirators were former president Edwin J. Barclay, Nete Sie Brownell, Samuel David Coleman and Paul Dunbar of the Independent True Whig Party (ITWP), all political heavyweights viewed as alternatives to Tubman authoritarian and corrupt rule. Paul Dunbar was made the scapegoat in this alleged plot. In the process, Samuel David Coleman and his son, Joseph S. Othello Coleman were killed”.
After the Coleman, the PRO striked next at Ambassador Henry Bioma “Duke” Fahnbulleh, Sr.., Second Secretary to the Liberian Embassy in Freetown who was named ambassador to Kenya. In Kenya, it was said that “Duke” supported Mzee Jomo Kenyatta (who helped to organize the 5th Pan-African Congress in Great Britain in 1945). It was also said that “Duke” had the picture of the Chinese Cultural Revolution Chairman Mao hanging on the wall of the Liberian Embassy. To make matter worse, there was no President Tubman of Liberia picture next to Chairman Mao. And during the latter parts of the 1950s and early 1960s, the PRO branded people as anti-Tubman and enemy of the Liberian State if they dared to mention the names of Fidel Castro who overthrew General Fulgencio Batista, the de facto leader of Cuba, in the Cuban Revolution and Mao Zedong who attempted to bring the government completely under his control. Therefore, the PRO had an easy case to make. Hence, it didn’t take too long for the news of the two incidents to reach Tubman. A surveillance team was dispatched unknown to Fhanbulleh. Under the disguise of “auditing” he was accused for embezzlement, a smokescreen that landed Fahnbulleh, Sr. in jail where he remained until Tolbert became president in 1979, freed him, and dismantled the PRO while rightfully describing them as a “bunch of lairs.”
The PRO implicated superintendents James Yarkpawolo Gbarbyee of Bong County; Robert H. Kennedy of Lofa County; Gabriel Fhangarlo of Nimba County, and Rev. Joseph M.N. Gbadyu of Grand Bassa county in coup plots and related anti-Tubman activities, as did they to others many people through Tubman’s 27 years in power. The PRO was a major part of Tubman's plan for longevity and helped to remove any potential opposition to Tubman, and to exterminate the opposition to advance the imperial presidency. Tubman created a fallacy in multi-partyism and exploited Non-partyism to carve his own niche in our nation’s political history. Tubman’s Open Door Policy which saw massive exploitation of Liberian natural resources by foreign investors benefited mostly Tubman and his supporters, as there was no loyal opposition to hold Tubman accountability in any sense. Today, Liberians have nothing to show in the way of meaningful development after years of operations in Liberia by LAMCO, Bong Mines, LMC, and other companies.
The absence of a loyal opposition has been a great problem in Liberia, not just under Tubman and earlier governments of Liberia. The governments of President Tolbert, President Doe, President Taylor, Chairman Bryant, and Interim President Sawyer also lacked loyal opposition. But as Mr. William Nyanue, former President of grand Gedeh Association once said, it is obvious that for a nation like Liberia to have a functioning democracy it must have multi-party system of “loyal opposition”. Like Mr. Nyanue, Dr. Amos Beyan, an Associate Professor of Africana Studies and History at Western Michigan University sees the need for alternative employment that will not make the people to continued to rely heavily on government. He notes that “All the political parties have the same ideas about what they want to do in Liberia about education, employment, hospital, agriculture, etc. However, what they have not been able to articulate is how they are going to do it. Too many political parties but few members.” Another political scientist, Dr. Edwood Dunn of the University Sewanee supports the need for a “loyal opposition” in Liberia. He argues that it’s not only overdue but it will encourage coherent political parties that create a veneer of openness and democracy by maintaining two equal voices. And Cllr. A. T. Jalloh, a young rising lawyer stresses the need for a loyal opposition in Liberia because “Liberia is a society of diverse views. So, by reason, any Liberian could serve as an opposition. In the field of politics, opposition is a necessary and healthy attribute of democracy. The political opposition serves as a public guard against the government. In performing its function as a public guard, I believe the opposition should have a firm commitment to the ideals of freedom and equality for all. It should review every questionable action of the government, ask the necessary questions, and offer viable alternatives to the people. It should work with respect and moderation, being mindful of how its words and actions could affect others. A key hallmark of democracy is gaining public support through the art of persuasion. Therefore, the political opposition must regularly keep the Liberian people informed.” I believe these views summed up the need for a functional loyal opposition in Liberia to bring about transparency and public accountability in government or public service. Teaching Democracy to our people
If you have not learned anything from this exchange or heard me, remember one thing. If we must build a flourishing system of democracy in Liberia, then we must define not only what democracy means to us in Liberia, but we must also teach the fundamentals of democracy such as voting, political platform development, political party core values, political debate, electoral conflict resolution, accepting defeat at the polls, and public demonstration as our people did. I believe that if the Liberian people are educated about these basic fundamentals of democracy, then the ruling party and the opposition parties will not see and treat each other as enemies, and no public demonstrations will be held in Liberia to result in demonstrators breaking windows and the police beating demonstrators.
Now, the big question is: How do we teach democracy in Liberia to avoid unnecessary conflict? Mind you, I deliberately used the phrase “unnecessary conflict” to warn you that no democracy is free of conflicts, although conflict is not necessarily the preoccupation of peaceful demonstrations and elections in a democracy. In fact, in the U.S. and other western democracies, public demonstrations are held regularly, and demonstrators are usually arrested by police and taken to court if they break the law in the process of demonstrating (i.e. fighting the police or destroying public or private property). But the police does not beat up and arrest demonstrators simply because they are carrying placards or making statements in public that the people in power do not like. And this is the point at which the system of democracy in Liberia has yet to develop. In other words, democracy imposes certain rights and responsibilities on both the Liberian government and Liberian citizens which both must take the time to learn if we are to develop the kind of pluralistic multiparty democracy we say we want in the new Liberia.
By the way, if we say we want multiparty democracy in Liberia, what does that mean? Do we develop our own system of Liberian democracy, or do we copy the American system of democracy? Okay, let us agree that we want to develop a Liberian democracy, then what should Liberian democracy look like? What should be the core values of Liberian democracy? What should be the rights and responsibilities of the Liberian government and people under a Liberian democracy? These are some of the pertinent questions that we must ask ourselves as Liberians interested in the practice of democracy in our homeland. We should not take for granted that democracy is democracy because democracy varies from country to country, as US democracy is different from British democracy, and French democracy is different from both British and American democracies. Therefore, Liberian Democracy, as we want it or see it, should be taught in Liberian schools, from grade school to college, with the commitment in time, intensity, and sincerity with which we teach French, English, geography, and science and other subjects in Liberian schools. Liberian democracy should not only be taught as an academic subject in Liberian schools, but also Liberian students should be encouraged to practice Liberian democracy through student council elections, issue debates, and community service.
I should state that the primary enemy of every nation is its own people. We have become our own enemies and refused to be responsible citizens by not teaching those things that will unite us as a peolple. We need to ask ourselves in Liberia why more than 250,000 people can hold a peaceful public demonstration in a US city without much problem, but we in Liberia cannot hold a single demonstration of at least 100 people without trouble. Perhaps, the answer to the question is that Liberians are not educated in the practice of opposition politics enough to know their rights and responsibilities under individuals. Liberians need to be educated about loyal opposition and the whole business of peaceful public demonstration. I believe all of us in Liberia —students, teachers, labor unions, the police, and government security personnel—have to learn that peaceful public demonstration should not lead to destroying private and public properties or beating up people. Mob action, vandalism, or police brutality only appeals to individual or group emotions and inflames a pressing situation rather than ameliorate it. Hence, what we need in Liberia is thorough education in loyal opposition, as we can never settle our differences and disagreements through violence.
Fellow Bassa, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, in order to improve our nation, we must critically look at our nation and face the fact that every nation has serious problems just like Liberia. Besides, if we must build a flourishing system of democracy in Liberia, then we must thoroughly define or create a blue print. We must not only define what democracy means to us in Liberia, but we must also teach the fundamentals of democracy such as voting, political platform development, loyal opposition, political party core values, political debate, electoral conflict resolution, accepting defeat at the polls, and public demonstration. I believe that if we design the government that fits our culture and educate our people about these basic fundamentals of democracy, then the ruling party and the opposition parties will have no need to see and treat each other as enemies. To change the Liberia to what we want it to be, we must begin the inner effort that begins with oneself. Most of us have a very long way to go before we realize that we will hurt ourselves when we try to become other people than ourselves. We must realize that our past history shapes our present behaviors, that our parentage form of government is not inferior of any modern form of government, and all of us can make a real contribution to changing Liberia for the better by making every effort to correct our own faults, and by helping those around us with encouraging words, kind deeds, uplifting thoughts, oneness in post-Reconciliation Liberia. Every step along this path is a step towards a more peaceful and caring Liberia for all.
May Gedephoh Bless the House of Bassa and Liberia.
References:
Beyan, Amos. (2005). Conversation
- Brown, George W., The Economic History of Liberia. Washington: Associated Publishers, Inc., 1941.
- Dunn, D. Elwood. (2005). Conversation
- Jalloh, A. T. (2005). Conversation
- Liebenow, J. Gus, Liberia: Evolution of Privilege. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1969.
- Fox, Early Lee, The American Colonization Society, 1817 – 1840. Baltimore: 1919.
- Gbadyu, Joseph M.N.: Conversation, 2005
- Mbiti, John S., Introduction to African Religion (Second Edition). New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc., 1991.
- Taryor, Sr., Nya Kwiawon, Justice, justice: A Cry of My People. Illinois: Strugglers’ Community Press, 1985.
- Hayman, Arthur I., and Preece, Harold. Lighting Up Liberia. New York: Creative Age Press, Inc., 1943.
- Richardson, Nathaniel R., Liberia’s Past and Present. London: Diplomatic Press, 1959.
- Yancy, Ernest Jerome, The Republic of Liberia. London: Allen and Unwin Press, 1959.
- Liebenow, J. Gus, Liberia: Evolution of Privilege. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1969.
- Liebenow, J. Gus, The Seeds of Discontent,” Part I - Liberia: The Dissolution of Privilege. American University Field Staff Report. Hanover, N.H., 1980.
- Nelson, Harold D. Liberia: A Country Study: Washington, D.C. American University Press, 1985.
- The African Colonization Movement , 1961
- Smith, Robert A., Meet the President. Providence Publications: Monrovia, Liberia, 1968.
- William, Nyanue, Conversation, 2005
- U.S. Commission to Liberia: Affairs in Liberia. Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting a Letter of the Secretary of States Submitting a Report of the Commissions which Visited Liberia in Pursuance of the Provisions of the Deficiency Act of March 4, 1904, "to investigate the interests of The United and its citizens in the Republic of Liberia.” Washington, DC. (61st Cong., 2d sess. Senate. Doc. 457).
- Yancy, Ernest Jerome. (1934). Historical Lights of Liberia's Yesterday and Today: Ohio: Aldine Publishing Company.
