By David K. Dahn
In 2024, the Unity Party led administration takes office in an era of great complexity. The national security environment is one wrought by brawny currents; blurred international image, heightened demand for good governance, the explosion of new, poor and impoverished class of beggars, sluggish economic growth, drug prone class of youth, an enduring landscape of protestations, anger and lawlessness, as well as competing demands for public offices.
Obviously, our inability to transcend domestic and partisan consideration to more effectively manage the collective security of the state poses an equivalent danger. It is further threatening to see that division, mistrust and confusing anxieties have leaked into our local politics. By confusing anxiety, I mean a whole nation every time makes decisions on impulse with each person aiming to obtain a pecuniary(money) or material reward from an elected official either from his community, region, clan, tribe, party, county, circle of academic fraternity or some kind of sorority.
When Charles Taylor and his Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia(INPFL) invaded the eastern frontier of Liberia in 1989, the underprivileged and threatened population under the reign of President Doe thought Taylor’s action was justifiable. It was later understood that there is perhaps a “just war” but never a “safe war”. More factions proliferated. The war was prolonged. Consequently, the economy was ravaged for personal satisfaction. The population was dispersed locally, regionally and globally and decimated by nearly a quarter of a million.
As a nation, we witnessed and experienced the evil of the war. We also identified our tormentors. Yet in the face of confusing anxiety, we elected our very tormentors into public offices. Mr. Taylor, for example,(August 1997) was honored with the highest seat of the land by ‘joyfully’ chanting the victory song for him- “You kill my pa, you kill my ma, we will vote for you”. Other warlords were equally honored in various political categories.
No sooner, the nation complained during Taylor’s reign about economic down turns, rigid security regulations caricature of a martial law in a civil democratic space. The population began to reflect that the country was on a progressive path until the war broke up, with optimism that Liberia could have been further developed under President Doe by now- confusing anxiety.
The election of Taylor germinated a renewed round of civil hostility by non-state actors who probably felt insecure under his regime. Again we murmured and wanted Taylor out-confusing anxiety. Eventually Taylor was pressured and he resigned 11 August, 2003. And sarcastically the nation rejoiced that it was freed from the ‘ironclad’ of the very President Taylor they elected.
Fast forward in 2005, the nation yearned for a female President and subsequently voted for madam Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf whose reign lasted for two constitutional terms. During her reign, the nation complained that her administration was allegedly corrupt. Comparatively, words went forth that things were far better under Taylor as President and that he could be re-elected if he were to return to domestic politics because he was the best man to govern the state- confusing anxiety.
In 2017, the nation had thought that the time was ripe for a transition from old-time politicians to younger breed of politicians. During that electioneering period, Ex-President George Weah and his CDC became the front runner. The messages resonated well with the electorates- “That the boy has the country at heart; he won international accolade (golden ball), he has international contacts and it will be automatically translated into economic prosperity for the nation.”
Just asking as an inquisitor, while the demand for a transfer of ‘old time’ politics to younger breed of politicians was perceived desirable, was sport icon George Weah at the time, the suitably qualified among the option of candidates to administer a war wrecked nation? This question was answered by the electorates at the polls when Mr. Weah was overwhelmingly elected as the ‘choicest’ successor of Madam Sirleaf. The six-year reign of President Weah, as described by one politician, became, economically, politically and security wise very discomforting, with aspersion cast over the international reputation of the state. With power once again tilted to the southeastern region, appointments were largely based on regional alignment. Taken altogether, the southeastern region has the highest number of years yet (49 years combined) in terms of occupying the Liberian presidency(President Tubman-27, President Doe-10, Dr.Sawyer-4, Gyude Bryant-2 and President Weah-6).
From the standpoint of critical evaluation and truth telling, was the “love believed to be in the heart of President Weah for Liberia” really translated into a life-changing environment for his own south-eastern region, needless to mention the country in its entirety? The response to this rhetorical question will be biased depending on who’s responding and from which stand point. I heard a vocal senator from one south-eastern county remarked that the reign of President Weah was “an embarrassment to the political future of the south-easterners.” Within the context of truth telling, was that a fair characterization of the Weah’s regime by his kinsman?
Talking about confusing anxiety, Madam Sirleaf whose regime was in hindsight perceived as “corrupt” was comparatively appreciated during the Weah’s reign and missed for what the population described as her leadership style and global fame brought upon the nation. I heard people say “Madam Sirleaf’s time was better because the international community really supported her and prices were far better.”
During the 2023 general election, the echoing voices at the time was that the country needed to be “rescued by an elderly statesman from the perceived doom of kakistocracy(rogue regime), from the state of lawlessness, drug infestation, a vague regional and international impression.” President Weah and his ruling elites were shown the exit from the public sphere and replaced with the Unity Party headed by President Joseph Boakai.
Barely 14 months into his administration, President Boakai is brought under the lenses of public scrutiny. Again confusing anxieties are emerging with some citizens claiming that the government is more corrupt than the Weah’s regime, adding, “Things were better under President Weah, rice price was cheaper, money was flowing therefore Weah and his party will return to power in 2029.” Although during the reign of Weah, the echoes filled the air about how few guys reportedly looted state resources. Yet when the Boakai’s administration embarked on the road of accountability, we are hearing echoes of “defense and or solidarity” with phrasing such as “… It is a witch hunt”, “Who hasn’t done it before?”, “At least money used to flow all over”, “But even if they steal they built houses here, they didn’t carry it in different countries.” I am talking about confusing anxieties here.
The same people who spoke of the transformative need for accountability and transparency in the public sphere are condemning the accompanying road to travel in achieving stewardship accountability. Like seriously?
If we have to build this nation, hear Francis Fukuyama. He calls for the creation of a sense of national identity to which individuals will be loyal, an identity that supersedes loyalty to tribes, villages, regions or ethnic groups(2014:185).
My concluding question remains, how can we ever chart a new course as a nation in the face of consistent confusing anxieties? I leave it with you.