Questioning Mandingoes Alone For National Identity Is Unfair

Questioning Mandingoes Alone For National Identity Is Unfair

By Cllr. Tiawan S. Gongloe
The Perspective Atlanta, GeorgiaMay 16, 2005

Recent reports from Liberia point to the exclusion of Mandingoes from the voter registration process on grounds that they are not Liberians. According to reports, Liberians with Mandingo names are being asked to prove their Liberian identity. The underlining assumption here is that being a Mandingo raises the presumption of being a non-Liberian. The mindset is that a Mandingo is only a Liberian if he or she produces proof of national identity. The question is: what is the basis of this mindset?

Why is it that among all Liberians of the various ethnic groups only the Mandingoes always suffer this embarrassment of being singled out for proof of national identity? Is it because Mandingoes can be found in Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Sierra Leone and other West African countries? If this is the basis for the suspicion over Mandingoes’ Liberian citizenship, then they are being wrongfully discriminated against because apart from, perhaps the Dei, Belleh, Gbi, Sapo and Gbandi, almost every other Liberian ethnic group is duplicated, and in some cases triplicated somewhere outside Liberia, within or without West Africa. The Mano (my ethnic group) can be found in large number in Guinea and Cote d”Iviore. Other groups such as the Dan (Gio) Krahn, Grebo, and Kru (Klao) can be found in Cote d’Ivoire and the Loma, Kpelleh and Kissi can be found in Guinea. For example, the late Gen. Robert Guei, the military leader of Cote d’Ivoire was of the Gio ethnic group, and Lansannah Beavogi, the late Vice President during the regime of the late President Sekou Toure of Guinea, was a Lorma. The Vai, Kissi, Gola and Mende can be found in Sierra Leone. The Bassa ethnic group is also found in Cameroon, Congo, Togo, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Liberia). Yet these other ethnic groups do not face the frequent embarrassments that the Mandingoes face.

Is there any reason why there is no report that a Mano or Loma, Bassa or Grebo, or a person with an American name - James Brown or Jane Coleman has ever been asked to prove his or her national identity before registering to vote? If this question cannot be reasonably answered then whoever is asking only Mandingoes to prove their national identity is denying the Mandingoes of their right to vote. This is unacceptable and should be stopped by the authorities of the National Elections Commission immediately. Any voter’s registrar who discriminates against a specific group of people should be removed from the process. The right to vote is one of the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of Liberia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights as well as the African Charter on Human’s and People’s Rights and is the most powerful means of citizens’ determining the future of their country. A denial of such right must not be taken lightly at all by the NEC.

The recent denial of Mandingoes the right to voters’ registration has helped to bring the status of the Mandingo ethnic group in Liberia into focus, once more. Are Mandingoes Liberians or not? This is the question that must be squarely answered in the same way it is squarely answered for the Man, Dan, Kru (Klao), Loma, Kpelleh etc. In the same way a yes answer will readily flow for a Kpelleh, Kru (Klao), Man, Dan, Bassa other ethnic groups, the answer is an unreserved yes. The Mandingoes are Liberians just like all the other ethnic groups of Liberia. Not only is Mandingo recognized officially and legally as one of the ethnic groups of Liberia, there are historical accounts to prove that Mandingoes where geographically part of the area of West Africa that later was named the Republic of Liberia nearly hundred and sixty eight years ago. Sir Harry Johnston’s book Liberia (vol.I) published in 1906, one of the oldest accounts of Liberian history, states in great detail accounts of the presence of Mandingoes before the arrival of the American Colonization Society. According to Johnston’s account Mandingoes were not only in Liberia before the founding of Liberia, but played a prominent role in the establishment of the Liberian state. For example, Johnston in telling a story of the first encounter of the ACS, then represented in Liberia by Jehudi Ashmun said, “While Ashmun was still in the colony, a (?Mandingo) chief known on the coast as King ‘Boatswain’( said to have served in that capacity in the British ships) wished to enter into friendly relations with these American strangers. This chief or his father had established a Mandingo colony in the Kondo country at or near the site of the modern town of Boporo. The envoys of ‘King’ Boatswain made a treaty with Ashmun on March 14, 1828.” (id at. p 148). Boatswain is credited for having “built a heterogeneous confederacy of peoples in the hilly country round Boporo”. (id. at p180). Johnston also tells the story of how following the death of Boatswain, his successor, Gatumba was opposed to the ACS “because of their interference with the slave traffic” and how his walled town about twenty miles from Millsburg was completely burned down during his battle with the ACS.

Another evidence of Mandingo prominence at the founding of the Liberian state can be traced to the designing of the Liberian flag and the seal. One suggestion was that the color of the Liberian flag should be stripes of black, golden yellow, one white stripe in the middle, and in the left-hand corner a white state on a green ground, with black representing “the predominating Negro type in the state, the yellow representing African races which have mingled anciently with the Caucasians-Mandingoes and Fulas”, the white representing white America and the green representing the forest land. (id at pp220-221). A suggested emblem of Liberia had representation of three principal populations: “Christian Negro, Muhammadan Mandingo and Fula. The suggested seal like the flag had the colors - green, black and golden yellow with the portraits of a Mandingo man, a Fula man and a “Christian Negro” with the motto: The Love of liberty brought us here written under the portraits. (id at. pp221-222) This shows that even in thinking of symbolic representation of Liberia, Mandingo was the only ethnic group amongst the current officially recognized ethnic groups that was selected.

Is it not true that the Mandingo ethnic group was the only group given prominence, even by the True Whig Party Government in naming streets and state institutions? Front Street was renamed King Sao Boso Street, there is also Boatswain High School named after the same king (called Boatswain because he had earlier worked as a boatswain on a British ship) and the headquarters military clinic of Liberia was named Soko Sackor Clinic after the late Soko Sackor of Nimba County who, according to family sources, was a medic for the Liberian Frontier Force. Even the great D. Twe was honored only after the April 12, 1980 coup, by the renaming of William R. Tolbert High School, D. Twe High School. Given this historic recognition of the Mandingos, is it justifiable to question the citizenship of anyone in Liberia only because he is called Sekou or Mamadee? Why is Kollie, Saye, or Nagbe not asked to prove their Liberianship? Why will Kou, Tete and Sarah be allowed to registrar while Fanta is prevented from registering until she proves that she is a Liberian citizen? It is not wrong to ask potential voters to prove their Liberian citizenship. But it is wrong to ask one group of people to meet such requirement instead asking everyone who wants to register to prove his or her citizenship. Selective application of a law or rule undermines its credibility and legitimacy. Those negatively affected by such a selective process are right to claim that they are discriminated against. Asking Mandingoes alone to prove that they are Liberians violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution of Liberia, amongst other provisions.

Many times doubts over the citizenship of Mandingos have been justified by the argument that Mandingoes do not occupy any defined geographic areas in Liberia. This argument is not true. Besides Bopolu, Mandingoes occupied large land areas in what was considered Liberia in the 1800s. Had it not been for the strong-arm tactics of the French, Liberia would have had a huge Mandingo country up to “Mousardou” and “Naalah”. Nonetheless, based on a boundary treaty concluded with the French on December 8, 1892 the Mandingo towns of “Bamaquilla” and “Mahomodou” (Johnston’s spellings) in northern Liberia fell in Liberia’s territory (id. at p284).

Sometimes the doubt raised over Mandingo Liberian citizenship is extended to the Islamic religion. Very often some Liberians like to refer to Liberia as a Christian country. The basis of this conclusion is wanting in law and historical fact. The Constitution of Liberia does not recognize a state religion. It recognizes the existence of God. That is all! Liberia was therefore meant by its founders to be a secular state. Perhaps, it would have been reasonable to make this conclusion, if Liberia had had a predominantly Christian population, at its founding. But that was not the case. For instance, this is what Sir. Harry Johnston said in his book written in 1906, “There are Muhammadan mosques at Vanswa (Brewerville), and of course in the far interior Mandingo towns.

Of the approximate 2,000,000 of the population, about 40,000 are Christians, about 300,000 Muhammadans, and the remainder Pagans (African Religions).” (id. at. p376). This shows that there were more Moslems than Christians and those who did not believe in Islam or Christianity were in the majority. This over-all picture has not been reversed by subsequent census or population estimates. There are more non-Christians and non-Moslems in Liberia then the both religions combined. In any case those who make the loudest noise about either of the two religions are the worst pretenders in the practice of these religions. Some have opportunistically used their religious affiliations as means of satisfying one political objective or the other. Even today some candidates in the up-coming elections use the name of God more than a dozen times whenever they speak to the electorates. Some have even said it was God who told them to run while others have said that their vision for Liberia is “God’s vision”.

Besides all the historical arguments against the unjustifiable doubt over the citizenship of Mandingos in Liberia, it is important that the matter of citizenship be handled with care to avoid the persecution of Mandingos on the basis of their ethnicity. No group of people can easily accept the condition of statelessness. When a group of people suffer without redress from state persecution or state-backed persecution of one group of citizens by other citizens, the result is chaos. The examples are many in Africa, from Sudan to Rwanda and other areas in the Great Lakes region. Next door from Liberia, in Cote d’Ivoire, it is the exclusion of a large segment of the population on grounds of their failure to satisfy a condition of the purity of their citizenship that led to their taking of arms against their government. Liberians must learn lessons from others that the search for purity of national or ethnic identity leads to ethnic cleansing, genocidal and other kinds of conflicts.

Liberia has nothing to gain by emphasizing the purity of Liberianness. The attempt to prove “Ivoriété” in Cote d’Ivoire has brought nothing to that country but sorrow. Liberia needs not to have that other experience. The people of Liberia have had enough. The Transitional Government and the National Elections Commission must take concrete actions to put a stop to the unjustifiable discrimination of the Mandingoes in Liberia. The transitional government can begin with making the result of the Pajibo Commission on the October 2004 upsurge in violence public and to take actions based on its recommendations. The NEC can take immediate administrative actions against its registrars who are guilty of singling out Mandingoes on the question of citizenship. Taking actions now will deny another evil-minded Liberians an opportunity to have justification for leading another criminal gang like the previous ones.

It is important to understand that the objective of this article is not to prevent any Mandingo from being questioned about his or her citizenship, but that such a question be asked everyone who comes before the registrars for registration. Even if that is done, it should be done by an immigration officer assigned at each registration center, not the registrar. To leave such an important question to the intuition or discretion of a registrar is dangerous, to say the least. Why should Mandingoes alone, after the civil conflict, be asked to produce documents to prove their citizenship when everyone suffered from loss of documents as a result of the civil war? Even before the civil war all Liberians were not documented and only a small portion of the population had any form of photo identification. Let the authorities act to stop the trend of anti-Mandingo actions that is evolving as a result of official non-action or silence.

The discrimination of Mandingoes on the basis of their names is a matter that should claim the attention of all peace-loving Liberians. Mandingoes are Liberians. Some of their kind have made major contributions to the progress of Liberia just as some have contributed to the destruction of Liberia, like other ethnic groups of Liberia. They have been a part of the struggle for democracy in Liberia. For example, there were Mandingo leaders in the democratic struggle in the early 1950s led by D. Twe. Mandingoes, therefore, should not by any means be denied participation in the democratic process. Peace in Liberia will come and will last if the rights of all Liberians are respected without regards to ethnic origin, belief, look, education, class or sex. The challenge of this generation of Liberians is to transform Liberia into what it was meant to be-the land of liberty under the rule of law and the place where all who seek asylum from oppression can find a home. Liberia must cease from being a refugee producing country and become a place of asylum and a human rights paradise. This is the way forward for Liberia to lasting peace.

A reply to one Samuel D. Tweah, Jr : A Critique of the Bluster of a Charlatan

(First two articles are posted on this site)

A reply to one Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. : A Critique of the Bluster of a Charlatan
By H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr.

We must accept the fact that there are many political hustlers out there who will spew invectives with the hope of relieving themselves of the pangs of frustration and depression in their Sisyphean quest for the fulfillment of some ambition. Thus, we are not surprised in the least by the effusive rendition of threadbare arguments and gossip by this individual called Samuel D. Tweah, Jr.

We know these types and their appetites and thus threat with scorn their vaunted boast of being the new revolutionaries. These ones are mere political fortune hunters who dabble in catch phrases and inane clichés, making a pretense of knowledge with elementary logic and disjointed arguments! These are the political laggards we have to confront in an effort to interpret our history to the people and give future generations an understanding of what actually transpired and not the inflammatory cavils of delusional wiseacres.

I would have rather Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. come out and say who he is and at what level he has participated in the struggle for social justice in our country since he makes allegations with broad historical implications. We had to inquire about this character from our sources back home and were not surprised by what we found out. It is true what people say: a flunky will always be a flunky! This character trades loyalty for money and thus cannot understand why certain people struggle in politics because of conviction based on firm principles. His boastful bluster that “George Weah and the new breed of revolutionaries will pick up after the Mwalimu” will fade as certainly as it must considering the reality of politics in West Africa and he will move on in search of new masters as is his practice.

One can spurn these pretenders who fawn before anyone with power or money, but one thing must be taken into account: the nonsense they write will find a way into the gossip mill for a short time and become the talk of those who have never taken the time to find out the truth. Against this background, we must offer a critique, scathing and merciless against these boastful nonentities with their “Mickey mouse” logic and rabid rhetoric. This is our task and this is what we will now set out to do!

We dismiss insults because of where they come from. In this case, we must laugh at the insulting charges of “inconsistency,” “mercenary,” “propagandist” and the other comical descriptions of a man who lacks any conviction. He wants to claim political relevance by referring to me as “HB,” when I have never heard of any character by the name of Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. The use of “HB” is an indication of familiarity and is employed by my political friends, trusted cadres, militants and relatives. I do not know this Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. and do not relish a perfect stranger or moronic poltroon calling me ‘HB.’ This pretense of familiarity is cheap and detestable. It alerts us to a chronic character defect.

The question then becomes: why waste time on such a character? The answer is simple. This man belongs to that category of empty braggarts, purblind in their grasp of historical developments and desperate to become politically relevant by commenting on things of which they are ignorant. These are the political dregs of our society who now and again throw up platitudes and absurdities which they think constitute knowledge. These charlatans, who have mouths bigger than their brains and thus talk and write before they think are more comedians than serious political analysts and thus we are wont to regard their gibberish with that witty dismissal of Shakespeare in King Henry IV: “It would be argument for a week, laughter for a month and a good jest for ever.”

The man argues that “Fahnbulleh is afflicted with Progressive nostalgia.” But what is wrong with holding on to a tradition that only rock-ribbed reactionaries vilify in their fanciful notion that the progressives are responsible for the destruction of Liberia without an understanding of the historical fragility of a state that was built on the bestial exploitation of the majority of the people? Is it any wonder that we are saddled with a chronic incomprehension of the unfolding of the historical dynamics that forced a backward elite to gamble and then falter in its attempt to coerce and pamper at a time when “consciousness had spread through the population?” And which were the social forces that helped spread this consciousness? The denigration of PAL and MOJA by this political laggard who dabbles in what a sociologist has called “the McDonaldisation of knowledge,”--that is to say the taking and carrying of hastily prepared things for consumption—must alert us to the pervasive ignorance among many of our people.

Consciousness-building is not an act of mechanical improvisation but a dialectical process founded on praxis and undertaken by those who put their lives on the line in confrontation with hostile social forces. PAL and MOJA were in the vanguard of this process and thus the call for a united front of the progressives at this time to continue, not only the quest for state power as an instrument of societal transformation, but to undertake the task of rapid consciousness-building and enlightenment. This, if undertaken, will stop the drift of young men and women to the assemblage of fortune hunters coalescing around any political jester.

Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. berates me for praising those I condemned in the past. Why must I not change my position on people if the circumstances have altered? In life, no one is totally evil or totally good. We must be flexible in dealing with people and not allow bigotry or intemperate rage to blind us to different realities. We are not intolerant bigots and thus we do not stick to rigid positions when dealing with human nature. In the past if there were reasons to condemn colleagues, we did so not out of any malice, but with the hope of correcting certain negative behavioural patterns. We also accept criticism, but that founded on keen introspection and principle. This is not accepted by such as Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. For this charlatan, once you have condemned someone, you must always condemn that person even though contrary arguments or facts are presented. And this individual wants us to believe that he understands elementary logic? What an empty show-off!

Listen to this man and see how his poor logic reflects his poor historical understanding: “Condemn an object in one breath, uphold it in another. Resign from the LPP yesterday, berating Togba Nah Tipoteh and feuding with Amos Sawyer, rejoin the LPP today to ‘gather the forces.’ Lambaste Ellen Sirleaf yesterday as a lady who as finance minister under Tolbert ‘presided over the wastage of millions of dollars for the OAU Jamboree at a time when the Liberian people were struggling for basic health care;’ celebrate her today and say that ‘I would normally not come to her defense but since some want to condemn her as part of a collective, I will defend her.” Does this Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. realise that he is writing about developments that spanned twenty years? Does he not understand that people grow up and come to understand the world better? Does he now want to take a comment about Madam Sirleaf made in 1985 and a statement in her defense made in 2005 as proof of inconsistency? I thought we were supposed to be more reasonable in our judgment as we grow older? One would have thought also that we have passed the age of dogmas where the rigidity of ideas and opinions is construed as evidence of wisdom!

On the issue of differences with compatriots Tipoteh and Sawyer, this is permissible in the context of our struggle. They understand the necessity for criticism in a political struggle. This is always a healthy exercise to ensure that no one becomes a demi-god with rigid ideas of right and wrong. As political activists, we have never subscribed to the cannons of certain types of evangelism that see criticism as heresy. We start from the premise that we are all mortals, subject to all known human frailties. It is in this context that we must constantly subject ourselves to criticism and self-criticism. This must be done in order not to allow for the emergence of that convoluted uppishness that sanctions the monopoly of truth and rule by one man and thus the drift into tyranny, ex-communication, banishment and elimination of perceived enemies. Again, as regards compatriot Ellen Sirleaf, I have criticized her over the years and will continue to do so if I find fault with her political pronouncements and behaviour. But I will also give her credit and defend her whenever it becomes necessary. I bear no hatred towards her as an individual and do not see why she should not be defended in certain circumstances.

Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. goes on to ask: “Did not his over-inflated hatred of Charles Taylor provide a catalyst for bringing progressive forces together in 1997? Or does Fahnbulleh now fear George Manneh Weah more than he once dreaded Charles Taylor?” The first question makes no sense. It is patent gibberish and could be due to the cranky state of mind of our ardent poseur who specializes in specious arguments bordering on tawdry sophistry. This man is wrong to categorize my principled opposition to Charles Taylor as “over-inflated.” When one considers what Charles Taylor did to Liberia and Sierra Leone and the attempts now being made to drag him before the International Court, it becomes absurd to refer to any condemnation of him as “over-inflated” except one believes the lie that Charles Taylor’s banditry was synonymous with the liberation of the Liberian people.

As to the issue of fearing “George Manneh Weah more than he once dreaded Charles Taylor,” one can only laugh with contemptuous derision. Is this man really serious or does he only relish the play-acting of a clown? Who is George Weah in the political history of Liberia for anyone to fear? This simple footballer has been ‘conned’ into entering an arena that he does not understand and will regret his act. Now he spews the absurdity that the many fortune hunters have drummed into his skull that seventy-five percent of the Liberian people are behind him! Poor George Weah, he is a living proof that there is a sucker born every minute!! These rascals who are urging him on have their eyes on the little money that he made through raw brawn.
But then again, the footballer understands nothing about African politics and naively believes that the rented crowd his money can buy constitutes firm support for him. Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. must explain to us the huge crowds that meet Charles Brumskine, Winston Tubman, Ellen Sirleaf, Varney Sherman, John Morlu, Roland Massaquoi, Rudolph Johnson, etc. whenever they appear. He must explain to us how those in the rural areas who have been without electricity for the past fifteen years or more are fascinated by his George Weah? Does he not know that these poor neglected masses care less about elections because they are not interested and have never understood the state or their responsibility towards it? Is this man following the registration process back home or is he daydreaming as usual?

George Weah will be lucky to get ten percent of the popular votes if elections are held in October. The reason is simple: many of those who dance behind him are not people who will hold on to their votes because they are determined to give victory to what ‘Samuel D. Tweah, Jr.’ terms “new generation hero presently catalyzing the forces of radical and progressive change in Liberia.” The situation in Liberia is one of survival and many of the perennial dancers behind the assortment of presidential candidates will sell their votes for a paltry dollar or two. Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. should take time off from his job and travel to Liberia for a few days. I can vouch that he will return chastened and will then stop this comical chest-beating. Frankly, Samuel D. Tweah, Jr., I have never considered George Weah as a force in Liberian politics.
Long before you and others decided on your tricks to swindle this poor chap by pushing him into the nightmarish arena of Liberian politics, I had discussed this issue in England with one of his female sympathizers. I told her that the man would be used and dumped by the many hungry hustlers around. My argument was based on an understanding of the man’s chronic limitations in all spheres and the forces he would be up against in Liberia and the sub-region. I argued then that many in Africa, except those who have only been following soccer, regard George Weah as a political joke. Unlike you and others who flatter him on a daily basis, most Africans are scandalized by an illiterate neophyte adding to the mockery of an Africa already marginalized because of irresponsible and shortsighted leaders. Let me give you an insight into certain political realities.

George Weah has a little money and thus he can pull a crowd any day. But so can Brumskine, Winston Tubman, Sherman, Sirleaf, etc. The difference is that the others are seasoned political actors who understand the fleeting attraction of the people and thus they have identified groups, institutions and parties that can be used for maximum effect. In the case where there is no party, an effort is being made to galvanise a politically active sector for an independent option. This is political savvy.

In the case of you charlatans who are hovering around George Weah to live off his sweat, there has not been any strategic approach to the poor chap’s ambition. Why throw him into the ring months before the elections when it is obvious that the fellow cannot stand the bruising battle of political debates, cross-examinations, critical and malicious gossip and last but not least, that unique Liberian propensity to ridicule with biting sarcasm? What shortsightedness is this that throws a lamb among wolves and hyenas? The campaign has not even started and already people have seen the inadequacy of the poor chap.

He cannot answer questions at meetings; cannot get the registration of his party; still has to deal with the discreet comments in certain quarters about his French citizenship; the gossip about his fondness for buying houses for Nigerian girlfriends in Europe and purchasing cars for Ghanaian girlfriends because he lacks the savoir-vivre of the cultured and must thus pay dearly for the affection of these “private dancers.” For us, what George Weah does with his money is his business but the political opponents will use his shortcomings against him. This is politics and not Seminary work! Does a man who loves his people buy expensive houses and cars for women while his people are in rags languishing in displaced centres and refugee camps?

Anyone with an iota of political sense would have advised George Weah to stay in the background for now. You flunkies could register a party, set up structures, keep dropping the hint that maybe he is the man and then wait until a few weeks before the elections to produce the chap, exploit the short-lived political enthusiasm among the masses, travel frequently with the man around the country and avoid debating the other candidates with the excuse that the man is busy meeting the people and wait for election day to deliver the verdict. This would have been political strategy of the highest quality. But it is now too late! George Weah will be destroyed and eclipsed by the time we get to October.

The knives are out for him in several quarters because the political class knows the political pimps and greedy pretenders who are behind him and this class, which has been victimized by despots, warlords and upstarts for too long intends to put a stop to the phenomenon whereby lazybones and carpetbaggers gatecrash into the corridors of power by joining warring factions and any political “Johnny just come.”

I do not fear men like George Weah. I pity them. The same goes for Charles Taylor. I had no dread of him. I resented what he was doing to the people and the country. We now have a failed state, a forlorn people adrift and the stigma of a country with young men and women as guns for hire in conflict zones in Africa. I was aware of one thing though and that was that Charles Taylor would self-destruct. And now this pitiful rascal is facing twenty years to life in a country where the jailers are the sons and daughters of amputees—victims of the greed for diamonds by men and women who put their selfish interests “above all else.”

Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. makes much of his vaunted claim to an understanding of the historical developments in Liberia over the last twenty-five years by trying to prove through illogical constructs that all politicians have failed Liberia. He dabbles in gossip and not historical analysis by positing: “Notice that he cuts off the years 1980 to 1983 from his delineation; because those were the years he served Samuel Doe as minister of Education and Foreign Affairs. He also omits the years 1990 -1995 when he served as roving envoy to Sawyer’s IGNU government, wasting scare Liberian resources on meaningless trips.” Has it occurred to this man that the reason why the period 1980-83 was truncated is because this is the period with which we are the most familiar as we served then and checkmated many of the hostile social forces?
Does he not realise that this period was one of intense confrontation between the various social groups with the progressives not yet on the margin and able to co-ordinate their defenses between the Capitol Building and the various ministries where they held sway? This period was left out because we know what happened unlike Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. who can only guess! As for IGNU under compatriot Sawyer, it lasted from 1990 to 1994 and I must inform this man that I served as Special Presidential Envoy from April 1991 to November 1992.

On the issue of “wasting scare Liberian resources on meaningless trips,” this chap must be told that throughout the time we served in IGNU, we did not expend up to thirty-five thousand dollars on the numerous trips we made. Let us compare this to his situation where in the midst of the merciless plunder of our country’s resources by Charles Taylor and the persecution of student leaders from the University, this hustler called Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. took money from Taylor for his unsuccessful bid for the student leadership on the ticket of the NPP sponsored student movement called STUDA (Students for Democratic Alliance) and subsequently on graduation in 2001 was selected by Charles Taylor for a scholarship through the Family Planning Association of Liberia that got him to where he is at present.

The question is: why spend thousand of dollars to get a crony to the United States when the course could have been done right in West Africa for less money? Again we ask: was this a priority in a situation where people were dying of starvation, neglect and diseases? Who is talking about “wasting scare resources?” A man who goes to the United States on blood money made available by his benefactor who at the same time was neglecting the people and hounding progressive students around the country? Please spare us your hypocritical moan about “scare Liberian resources.”

One may ask: what does this whippersnapper know about the politics in the sub-region at the time of IGNU to make such a flippant comment about “meaningless trips?” What does he know of the attempts by certain international circles to decouple a particular country from ECOMOG with the intention of undermining the military alliance? What does he know about the discussions we undertook in several capitals, the analyses we made to certain Heads of state that convinced them to keep their troops in Liberia; the provision of intelligence and evidence to show the conspiracy against ECOMOG and the negotiations in certain capitals for additional logistics for the peace-keepers? If what Liberia and ECOMOG got from our efforts for barely thirty-five thousand dollars can be considered a waste of “scare Liberian resources on meaningful trips,” then we must conclude that we are not dealing with someone who is out for the truth but with one of those political ‘Mickey mouse’ with their skewed reasoning and simplistic interpretation of complex realities. But let us get back to the issue of progressives or politicians failing Liberia.

The man says: “Progressives primarily failed in their inability to manage political opposition against Tolbert. They coerced change and fled its consequences. Those who take upon themselves the mantle to evolve change in any society are considered revolutionaries only when they anticipate and understand the forces of change they unleash on a people and are willing to abide the consequences.” This is not mere jargon by any stretch of the imagination. It is more a nonsensical rendition of clichés that is typical of those who observe history from the periphery.
Whoever told this braggart that there has to be a prescription for revolution. Where in the historical literature has he seen a mechanistic ordering of the priorities for social revolution--that is, if he has seen much of the literature? Where is it said that the plans of men dealing with social variables in a volatile situation must be predetermined and followed to the letter? How did the Progressives failed “to manage political opposition against Tolbert?” What a historical ranting is this that ignores the dynamic emergence of unforeseen forces in a situation of social confrontation?

This man wants to ignore the involvement of exogenous forces in Liberia’s evolution and how these forces calculated their security interests against the perceived threat from certain domestic actors. It is sheer poppycock to assume that men and women make history by some mechanistic formulation and thus they are bound to understand the forces that are unleashed. If I may ask Samuel D. Tweah, Jr: is he aware of the social forces behind George Weah and how they will react when he runs out of money to feed them? Did his benefactor Charles Taylor understand the process he was commencing by engaging in a brutal war?

But yet Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. went along with this vaunted “revolutionary uprising” which led nowhere but to generalized anarchy, murder and international isolation! If it was that easy “to anticipate and understand the forces of change” in a dynamic social transformation with external forces discreetly participating to sway the process to their advantage, men would need not sociology but catechism!

The reality of the Liberian situation was that the progressive forces, facing hostile domestic and international forces at the apex of the cold war, carried on a process of consciousness-building among various strata of the society. They agitated for democratic reforms and awakened the downtrodden as to their responsibility to the country, their children and posterity. They brought before the judgment seat of history the appalling injustices perpetrated by a reactionary social elite and upheld by various institutions that were supportive of the pattern of exploitation and neglect. Within this context, the progressive forces altered the balance of class forces by winning over not only large segment of the people but also patriotic individuals from the ruling elite. As the years went by and the people understood the nature of and the reason for their backwardness, the stage was set for the playing out of that political game that is seen throughout history in which the people will not accept the old order and the ruling elite will refuse to compromise and take the country down the path of fascism and civil upheaval. But this game is never played in isolation. There are always external forces with interests to protect and in the case of Liberia, there was a lot to protect, especially after certain developments in Africa. What were they?

In 1980, Ethiopia had swung to the left with massive soviet involvement. Angola was battling the South African racists with the help of internationalist fighters from Cuba. Frelimo in Mozambique was consolidating a popular revolution. In West Africa, Ghana was witnessing popular agitation spearheaded by democratic left-leaning organizations. La. Cote d’Ivoire, Sierra Leone and Senegal were under patriarchs whose days were numbered through age and infirmity. Ahmed Sekou Toure had consolidated his popular revolution in Guinea. Throughout Africa, the struggle for the hearts and minds of the people seemed to be going in favour of democratic left-leaning forces.

This situation was considered detrimental to the West and those in the redoubt of apartheid South Africa. Against this background, Liberia was seen as the weakest link in a chain that had to be preserved. It is common sense that if the weakest link in the chain is preserved, the chain will stay intact!

It is obvious that in Liberia the progressive forces had no intention of challenging the Tolbert regime through an armed struggle. They had neither the trained cadres nor the international support to undertake such a struggle. They therefore used the Constitution and agitated for democratic rights with the hope that the ruling elite would understand the historical necessity of compromising after thirteen decades of minority rule.

This was the desire! What happened next in Liberia had nothing to do with the progressive not “willing to abide the consequences” of their actions. The coup came unexpectedly and the progressives were smart enough to ride the crest of the wave into office. They survived and settled in to help mitigate the excesses of the young military leaders. A cardinal point in any revolutionary situation is to be ready for any eventuality and to try and survive for more battles ahead. The leadership of the progressive movements survived even though some of them went through the furnace of Dante’s inferno. When they are called to order in the future they will emerge—wiser, more mature and worldly because of their experiences.

And they have been answering of late: Togba Nah Tipoteh, Baccus Matthews, Amos Sawyer, Wesley Johnson, Marcus Dahn, Dew Mayson, D. Kahn Carlor, Musa Deen, Dusty Wolokollie and many others. What about the next generation of cadres? They are around—more mature and conscious: Abraham Mitchell, Christian Herbert, Thomas Jaye, Ben Jlah, Jefferson Karmoh, Dempster Yallah, J.Yanqui Zaza, John Josiah, John Kanweaye, Andrew Jaye, Kpedee Woiwor, Alaric Togba, Joe Wylie and many others. And then after them: the legion of young men and women-- reading, studying, asking questions, searching for answers and rejecting with contempt the whirlpool of lies and distortions being splashed about by Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. and his cohorts.

This fry, Samuel D. Tweah, Jr., with his choleric disposition, parrots the same inanities we have heard over the years. He says: “Progressive forces were schooled in the communist revolutionary cannon, but least understood its practical dimensions.” Where were they schooled? At which party school in the United States? Is the use of the methodology of the Hegelian dialectics to explain history and social transformation equivalent to being “school in the communist revolutionary cannon?” Where does it say that because one reads the Bible or Koran, one is therefore a Christian or Muslim? Is intellectual curiosity to be equated with evangelism where one searches for justification from religious texts? Humanity has come a long way since the Middle Ages but some Africans are yet to understand the new reality. And to try and impress with his scanty knowledge of history, Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. tries to grapple with the dynamics of the Cuban revolution of which he knows very little!

Our man writes with such beguiling simplicity that: “Fidel’s instigation against the former Cuban leader Batista was not one of merely putting men in the streets to cause havoc, hoping to assume power out of the chaos. He understood the dynamic of Cuban society and conceived the basic of an institution that would deal with power after Batista’s dethronement.” Which Fidel is this quack talking about? The Fidel of the Revolutionary Insurrectional Union; the Fidel of the Cuban People’s Party; the Fidel of the Moncada attack in Santiago de Cuba; the Fidel of the landing at Belic and the catastrophe at Alegria de pio; the Fidel of the Sierra Maestra; the Fidel after victory but before the Nationalization Decree or the Fidel after the Decree and the total shift to the Cuban Communist Party of which he was not a member during the years of struggle in the Sierra Maestra? Where did this imposter Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. get his idea of Fidel and the Cuban revolution? It cannot be from Herbert Matthews (Revolution in Cuba); nor Tad Szulc (Fidel, A Critical Portrait); nor Jorge Castaneda (Companero); nor Regis Debray (Revolution in the Revolution and A Critique of Arms); nor Theodore Draper (Castroism: Theory and Practice) or the many volumes published by sundry authors on the Cuban revolution over the past forty years. All we can say on this issue of Cuba and our man’s comment is that he has affirmed Alexander Pope’s witticism that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.”

Our man avers that “MOJA did not sanction PAL’s April 14 rice riot….” He is wrong. Cadres of PAL and MOJA met at the back of the Cemetery on Gurley Street days before the Rice Demonstration and discussed the itinerary of the peaceful march. MOJA did give unflinching support to the cadres and militants of PAL and I was at PAL ‘s Headquarters early on the morning of April 14 as a representative of MOJA to find out the final plans as we were aware of the efforts of Albert Porte and others to stop the government from unleashing police and soldiers with live ammunition on the streets. As a matter of fact, the official announcement for the Rice Demonstration was made at MOJA’s 6th Anniversary in March 1979 held at the Sports Commission where compatriot Baccus Matthews was invited to extend greetings from the cadres and militants of PAL.

The fact that cadres and militants of PAL and MOJA were arrested together after the government’s violent reaction to a peaceful gathering at PAL’s Headquarters, indicted together and endured the fetid prison cells together showed that the government knew about our association on the rice issue. We did not conceal this! Where we disagreed with the government and spoke out was when the indictment listed us all as members of PAL. We wanted the distinction made that some of us were MOJA militants and wanted the world to know this fact. There was a simple logic to this: we wanted the liberation movements in Africa to know that MOJA militants had been arrested and to give us the same support and solidarity we were giving them in their anti-colonial struggle.

As for the mid-night march and compatriot Tipoteh’s comment, we cannot argue with Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. here. The statement was made but with the caveat that regardless of what had happened, the militants and cadres in prison should be given a fair trial. As a matter of fact, this issue was discussed and clarified between compatriots Tipoteh and Matthews on April 13,1980 behind the Mansion after the release of the latter from prison. Thus, Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. can only guess at what obtained from 1979 to 1983. He has never been a participant in any struggle back home nor has he done any serious reading on the situation with regard to the struggle leading up to the coup. He can only rely on gossip and sensational newspaper headlines without understanding the complex nature of the situation and why certain things were done and said. It is difficult to alter history when those who made it are still around and very alert to their responsibility of analyzing events and circumstances for the younger generation!

We now come to that other issue of which Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. and others have spewed so much rancid venom over the years. This has to do with the execution of the thirteen former officials of the Tolbert government in April 1980. Listen to this quisling in his hypocritical quest for a sympathetic audience: “And when their numerous agitations did produce change, what did they do? They banded with Doe, encouraged the slaughtering of former TWP officials and jostled for influence and power carefully watching one another’s advances.” There can be no clearer example of the figment of one’s imagination than this hollow historical myth.

Unlike Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. and those who want to go on living in the maudlin agony of the graveyard, we have moved on even though we lost loved ones, relatives and personal friends in April 1979, and between 1990 and 2003. But let us deal with the issue of “the slaughtering of former TWP officials…” Why would we as young revolutionaries settle on the elimination of only thirteen former TWP officials, many of them old men dying from the humiliation of being paraded through the streets of Monrovia naked and thrown into prison by their erstwhile house boys, wards and night watchmen? Of what benefit was it to us to see that the old and infirm were killed while their younger colleagues survived? Had we wanted to eliminate “former TWP officials,” would it not have been better to dynamite the entire Post Stockade where they were all held between April 12—22, 1980? The fact of the matter was that no member of the progressive group was privy to the decision to eliminate the thirteen officials.

Military regimes have their own internal dynamics and one is foolish to assume that he understands them. Thus, the progressive forces, pushed into a situation of armed violence where they did not control arms had to survive by the sufferance of those who wielded the weapons. They made no pretense that they understood what was happening in the military council but tried to reduce the anarchy as much as possible. We knew that the Military Tribunal was sitting but that no sentence had been passed on any official. Had this been done, we would have had time to react. But sometime between the 20th and 22nd of April, something happened that pushed the military fellows into an uncompromising mood.

This had to do with a telex or telegram sent by George Henries with an ‘SOS’ message. What most people did not know was that during the old regime, every telex or telegram that left the Liberian Telecommunication office on Lynch Street and the French Cable office on Front Street was intercepted by a special secret communication system based at the Ducor Palace Hotel. This system was under the control of the NSA. On the afternoon of the 22nd of April, Henries’ intercepted message was taken to the Mansion and given to Samuel Doe. The young man panicked and summoned all the members of the PRC who were in Monrovia.

The fear was palpable as there had been rumours that former vice president Bennie Warner was seen in Abidjan and also that the Ivorians were thinking of intervening to overthrow the military regime. With this fear in the air, they went into an emergency meeting and forbade any civilian to enter. It was there and then that the decision was made to execute those who had gone before the Military Tribunal as a warning to all and sundry that there was no going back.
There were two progressives at the Mansion on that day who had gone to see Doe on other matters of state—compatriots Oscar Quiah and Tipoteh. They were kept outside the meeting Hall and had no idea of what was being discussed inside. When the door opened and the military fellows emerged, Colonel Jerry Friday announced that some former TWP officials were going to be executed. At this news, Quiah’s knees buckled and he sank into the nearest chair. Tipoteh held on to the arm of the chair, frightened and confused. They were left in this state of petrifaction as the military fellows headed for the BTC to conduct the execution of the thirteen former officials. What could they have done under the circumstances?

As for the progressives in their offices, some heard about the execution after it had taken place; others found out from frightened office workers. I heard the news from a cousin who called my office and told me to listen to ‘Focus on Africa.’ I did and when the news was confirmed, I called the Mansion to inquire what had transpired. I was told that the decision was strictly military! This is not to absolve anybody from what happened. We were serving in the regime and so must take responsibility for what occurred but it is wrong to say we “encouraged the slaughtering of former TWP officials.”

Let us ask some questions: why the emphases on this historical accident when over 300,000 Liberians have died since April 1979? Who wants to benefit from the agony of those who lost their relatives in the confused state of the military uprising? Why this selective bereavement after twenty-five years of massacre, murder, mayhem, death and destruction? We have heard the condemnations and read the distortions, but one thing that has been overlooked is the frantic effort made by the progressives after the execution to see that there was no repetition. This was a risky and dangerous approach, but out of chivalry and human decency, we, together with some elder statesmen, church leaders and foreign diplomats convinced the military leaders to desist from executing people. We tried under extremely difficult circumstances to stem the anarchy and the bloody reprisal. In some instances we succeeded; in others we failed. This was the reality. I can say with all certainty that had the progressive forces not been around between 1980 and 1983, there would have been a monumental catastrophe and wholesale slaughter.

Let me now turn to an issue of which much fuss has been made over the years. This has to do with the drawing up of a list. The allegation made and on which Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. and others have based their gossip is that the progressives made a list of TWP officials to be eliminated. This is sheer nonsense. A list was drawn up on the third day after the coup but it was meant to account for every senior official of the former government. They had to be interned to keep them from causing mischief. There were some who were listed but were not interned because they were considered harmless. The list was not drawn up for the elimination of people as many of us had relatives, personal friends and acquaintances that were listed. The truth of the matter is that we had assumed that there was more to the TWP and the institutions of security over which it presided and thus we wanted to account for all those who we felt were capable of revising the process. A few days after, we realized that the grand old TWP, after decades of dominance was nothing but an empty shell. I remember riding together with compatriot Baccus Matthews a few days after the coup and he came out with one of those witty political comments for which he is gifted: “You mean to tell me that these people do not have a single loyal general to fight back?” I replied that their generals were all cowards and had gone into hiding. Compatriot Matthews sighed and I felt that our minds were moving in the same direction: “why didn’t we do this ourselves?” We could have on April 14, 1979 with only a few guns as the people had shown their courage and spirit of resistance! But then again we had never contemplated the violent seizure of power!!

On the issue of social disorganization and the political class, our man either did not understand the analysis or he is being deliberately dishonest. We understand our history and could never have said that the social disorganization in Liberia began with Samuel Doe. The reference was to those who held power in Liberia within the context of the confrontation of various social forces. The Doe era was used as an example only because it had to do with the absence of legitimacy and the violent usurpation of power after the elections of 1985. But we could have gone back into time and narrated the various wars of pacification of the various social formations and how the social disorganization was a consequence not of state building but of domination and control.

Our man’s confusion probably comes from his inability to differentiate between ‘a political class,’ ‘an oligarchy,’ or ‘a ruling clique.’ A political class is that group which is conscious of its political responsibility, seeks power to further certain goals and objectives, and promotes its struggle on the tenets of an ideology. It is a class “in and for itself” if we must borrow the Hegelian description from “Lordship and Bondage” made so simple for the layman in Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man.” Cliques, oligarchs and bandits do hold power too but they do not necessarily constitute “a political class.” The confusion in our man’s little mind concerning political definitions undoubtedly explains his vitriol that: “ Opposition political elements, in wheeling and dealing with sitting governments or leaders, affect both the style and substance of governance. Because members of Liberia’s political class are predominantly in politics for selfish reasons; they have usually acted in ways that send mixed messages to leaders.” Is this political analysis or gibberish?

Any undergraduate in politics knows that “opposition political elements” do not necessarily constitute a political class. Our man moves between one and the other without stopping to catch his breath and thus choke on the vacuity of his tawdry conjectures. Of course “opposition political elements” wheel and deal as the status of our man clearly shows. In 1997, he was in the camp of Madam Sirleaf at the University of Liberia; then after the elections he jumped on the criminal bandwagon of Charles Taylor and got a scholarship to America; and now he is on the rickety bus of George Weah hoping for a miracle in order to be able to get a government job on his return home. The man knows what he is talking about when he refers to “wheeling and dealing.” As a man thinks so does he behave! But let us go further on this issue.

The man says: “Because members of Liberia’s political class are predominantly in politics for selfish reasons, they have usually acted in ways that send mixed messages to leaders.” If one enters “politics for selfish reasons,” then one calculates the changes of success by reducing the risk factor to oneself and takes the path of least resistance. No one who enters “politics for selfish reasons” set out to disturb the status quo when there is the possibility of serious risk to one’s life. This would be irrational. “Selfish reasons” means that one takes the path of least resistance and in the context of politics in the third world, this translates into ‘joining them’ and not trying to ‘beat them’ because of one’s principled stance.

The progressive forces in Liberia, defined as a political class, together with those other actors within this class have fought over the years with their eyes not on selfish ends but on their vision for a change in Liberian society based on their different ideological perspectives. They have suffered losses, imprisonment and persecution over the years but have not wavered. They have been beaten, hounded, chased into exile and ridiculed by little men with little minds, but they have not fallen. Had they entered the political arena for “selfish reasons,” they would have compromised with the Tolbert regime; would have stayed with the Doe regime come hell or high water; would have supported the banditry of Charles Taylor throughout his money making odyssey; would have joined any of the warring factions for jobs and loot; and would have made money by singing the praises of anyone with money! The fact that a wimp like Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. sells himself to the highest bidder does not mean that men of honour will do the same! One must not judge others by one’s slimy standard!

On the question of violence in Liberia, we have written much over the years and do not intend to help our man out of his confusion. If he feels that the April 14, 1979 Rice Demonstration was a violent and not a peaceful act, he can keep writing his story but not the history of that occurrence. Our people assembled as was their constitutional right; shouted slogans and would have dispersed peacefully if the security forces, acting on orders from certain government officials did not open fire on unarmed young people, killing several of them with the first volley. Where is it written, except in fascist societies, that the first act of crowd dispersal must not be by water cannons and tear gas but by live ammunition?

How can any government claim to be responsible if at the first sign of protest it unleashes mayhem and death on its own people? And then these people, sons and daughters of those who had upheld the rotten edifice with their bruised and battered bodies for decades screamed through their anger and pain: “enough is enough!” And yes, they came out in their thousands to confront those who had brought the terror on them! I was there! It was beautiful to behold: the people making history with nothing but their courage and defiance. When the drama was over, those who had protected the ruling clique through violence and terror now realized that this clique was nothing without violence and terror. Here was the beginning of the end of that historical play-acting which had lasted for decades! Has our man Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. really not understood the pattern of violence in a class society and its blowback effect? Well then, his problem is not one of comprehension. It is one of dishonesty!

Our man’s elementary ‘logic’ when dealing with the issue of George Weah’s ambition is anything but logical. He dabbles in tautology; builds premises which are laughable and then draws conclusions which are non sequitur. I would advise him to think deeply about the comment that “ignorance is about not knowing one’s limitations.” In trying to prove that his new benefactor George Weah “has contributed to the struggle to rid Liberia of tyranny,” this pitiful opportunist Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. says: “In 1996 his home was looted and burnt, relatives raped when Weah progressively suggested the UN intervened in Liberia to save the country from continued tyranny.” Well, these things were done to poor George Weah in 1996 but our man Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. saw nothing wrong in working for, accepting money from and taking a scholarship from the man who perpetrated these acts of terror against Weah. When it was going good for him under Taylor, Samuel D. Tweah, Jr. did not see any injustice in the acts meted out to George Weah. Had his benefactor Taylor still been in power, the terror against George Weah and his family would have been dismissed by our man. But this should not surprise us. This is the nature of political hustlers. They are harlots engaged in ‘private dancing’ where they do not care about the human aspect but only the money!

Can we ask a question? When has victimization become synonymous with participation? George Weah was victimized by one of those with whom he associated during his days as a soccer player in Europe. The man in question is Reginald Goodridge. We heard about the relationship and even saw Goodridge with a large portrait of George Weah when we accidentally boarded the same plane in Liberia back in 1995. These relationships of convenience do have their ways of ending in tears and vicious malice. Interestingly, it was Goodridge who commented over the BBC after Weah’s plea for international intervention that the footballer was ignorant of what he was saying and should stick to playing soccer! Many Liberians were victimized in one way or the other. Does this mean that they were all participants in the struggle against tyranny in our country? Victimisation could be an act of revenge for perceived betrayal as it was in the case of George Weah. Participation connotes a conscious act of involvement over a period of time. A plea for peace and sanity at a point in time does not translate into a struggle against tyranny and injustice!

We must conclude now by saying to our man that we accept the challenge of confrontation in the political arena for the taking of state power. We write, not so much to deal with the drivel that he spews so ignorantly, but to provide to the well meaning ones an interpretation and analysis of history by one who was a participant and who, after twenty-five years still believes that the fight for social justice, democracy and dignity must continue until victory. We are ever ready to engage in these debates to show how we differ from the political rascals with their unconscionable and unprincipled approach to the struggle for social justice in our country. These social parasites and carpetbaggers must be exposed for they are adept at concealing their true nature and intentions under rhetoric picked up by accident.

Samuel D. Tweah, Jr., I say to you in all honesty that you are no revolutionary and have never been one! Your hubris will be deflated shortly by the evolving situation in our country.

The test of courage and commitment is not when there is no danger or uncertainty; but when one puts his life on the line against terrible odds and there is absolutely no certainty of victory! We have been down this path and are hardened by the many lashes of history. We shall be at home waiting! We hope you will come to prove yourself in the new camp you have chosen!!

Varney Sherman Scolds ’97 Alliance Brokers

Sherman Scolds ’97 Alliance Brokers; Describes Them As Sycophants, Demagogues
Says [He] Is The Alternative

Liberia Action Party Standard bearer, Cllr. Varney Sherman approached his party convention with a different political standard, observers say.

He quietly played the game; he did not leave any stone unturned but touched every ounce and iota of strength to clinch the victory as the standard-bearer of one of Liberia’s indigenous political parties.
Varney won the standard-bearer position on a “white ballot” that is, he went unopposed.

Sherman’s Campaign Team: Making Scapegoats

Dr. Joseph Kortie, the man who earlier opted for the post soon backed off, claiming foul play prior to the convention. He alleged that party executives were after cash.
Whether his claims were correct or not, LAP did not bother but went ahead with its convention.

Following his semi-selection, Cllr. Varney Sherman addressed his partisans on things that lie ahead and how they can together confront them.

In his statement to partisans, he reflected on many burning issues of national significance: reasons of the founding of Liberia, the nightmare of the 1990 war, 1997 Alliance of Political Parties and those he believes played a major part in what we Liberia finds itself in today.

The LAP Standard-bearer did not lose sense of the 1997 Special Elections and its attending effects with reference to the Alliance of Political Parties on whose ticket he ran for the Senate.

Sherman informed the partisans that he did his best, putting in time, energy, financial and human resources and intellect, but things apparently went wrong.

Declining to repeat the conduct of the process that led to the failure of the alliance, he said the manner in which those who were part of the alliance conducted themselves led to “one of the protagonists in our civil war become the victor.”

“Even as we strived to organize the Alliance of Political Parties, a warlord, who now stands indicted by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and who brought so thick a dark cloud over our country, warned that the ego and ambition of certain political leaders will break the alliance up,” he recalled. “Those political demagogues were not noble enough to prove the warlord wrong.”

After almost seven years, he said, “Today, the same persons whose conducts landed the 1997 special elections in the hands of that warlord have come up again to ask the Liberian people fro their votes.”

In a rather enticing tone, Cllr. Sherman told partisans, “We stand here today to oppose them, we stand here today to challenge them, and we stand to offer ourselves and all that we have as an alternative to them.”

According to him, worse than those political demagogues of 1997, are those Liberians who he said collaborated and cooperated at the highest level of the destruction of our country and campaigned to place state power into the hands of the warlords.

“People who persisted and marveled in the destruction of our country, who enjoyed the abject poverty and misery that they subjected our people to have come.” Without naming them, he said they have come, “pretending to have changed with the passing of years, carrying the bible in one hand and perhaps in the other hand take cover with iron, begging the people to give them state power tomorrow. I stand here today to oppose, to challenge them and to offer ourselves as an alternative to them.”

According to him, these political demagogues have collaborated with the dictatorship of the 1980; a dictatorship whose very conducts of the affairs of the country made the soil fertile for rebellion and anarchy.

At the same time, he said Liberia was founded so that people of the black race will have the capacity to govern themselves, but noted that after 150 years of independence, this is not the case and that Liberians have failed miserably in the governance of this country.

Apart from that assertion, he conjectured that another reason Liberia was also founded is that “all men are borne equal with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

In spite of this, he said, “Yet through most period of our independence, politics of exclusion, marginalization and opportunism have been practiced in this country.”

He agreed that such level of madness has precipitated the presence debacle Liberians are still endeavoring to get over.

According to the LAP’s strongman, in spite of the horror and bloodshed characterized by continued misuse, abuse of power, nepotism and corruption, un-alienated greed and inordinate ambition of abuse, the situation remains the same and has now reduced our people to abject poverty, misery, degradation, imposition and sufferings of the magnitude many of us never dreamed of.

It is against this backdrop apparently he has thrown his hat into the race for the chief magistracy of the land. “We are here today to change things around, and we make a clarion call to all Liberians to join this enterprise of transforming our native land to a safer and better place for all Liberians,” he noted.

He also made reference to the nightmare most Liberians endured on the notorious bulk-challenge ship during the 1990 episode: “I remembered the days when Liberians trooped the notorious bulk-challenge. I will never forget that afternoon in Accra, Ghana in 1990 where we temporarily sought refuge.”

He said he felt the pains when Liberians were running from “depravity, destitution and suffering.”

Although faced with death threats at sea, he said, those Liberians on the Bulk-challenge mustered courage when they song the Lone Star Forever.

That nationalistic spirit, Cllr. Sherman noted, rekindled his faith in his people and hope for Liberia. “They rekindled my love in the final words of the refrain of our battle song, “Deserve it no never, and uphold it forever. Oh! Shout the Lone Start banner,” he asserted.

“From that moment,” he told dozens of partisans Saturday at the Unity Conference Center in Virginia, “I quietly vowed to myself that if there is anything that I can do singularly or in conjunction with other Liberians to ensure that never again would our people suffer so terribly and our country so utterly destroyed, I would.”

He said it is after this experience that he has decided to leave “the comfort of my successful law practice, get involved with politics by seeking elected office and help steer my country out of mess it had been plunged in by evil, rebellious and misguided sycophants of our times.”

He has called on all LAP partisans to go and take off their shoes, roll up their trousers and go into the villages to recruit and ensure that the party wins the elections.