Background and Political Platitude

Whether by coincidence or by design, The Perspective’s Abdoulaye W. Dukulé in December 2007 chose an ill-fated time in recent Liberian history, Christmas Eve, to publish an article that basically begs Liberians to recognize and show appreciation for what ironically amounts to the “democratic miracle” currently taking place in Liberia under the Unity Party government of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Mr. Dukulé not only believes that “Liberians are now taking for granted many things they could not even dream of [in Liberia] just three years ago,” but he also writes reassuringly about a new Liberian nation lurking on horizon thus: “Liberians deserve to celebrate their new nation in the making. It may be time to walk away from the memories of the fateful Christmas of 1989 and start building a new set of memories” (thepresepctive.org 2007). Of course, with the continuing presence of 150,000 UN peacekeepers in Liberia, coupled with high unemployment, increased armed robbery, rape, and other crimes, and poor health and education facilities still part of daily realities in Liberia, it is difficult to know the “many things” that Mr. Dukulé is referring to that the Liberian people have taken for granted for which they only dreamt “just three years ago,” but it is clear that Mr. Dukulé’s reference to the “memories of the fateful Christmas of 1989” is not coincidental. It was on Christmas Eve 1989—a little over 22 years ago—that Liberians awoke to a military invasion of their country by a group of Liberians living in the United States and other places supposedly clamoring for democracy, rule of law, accountability, and transparency in Liberia—albeit the celebrated birth of “machinegun democracy” in Liberia.

The Liberian invaders of 1989, nonetheless, claimed that their impetus for the military invasion was to “save” Liberia from the shackles of a “brutal dictator” and accelerate the pace of democracy in Liberia. But even after the so-called “brutal dictator” was captured and killed in 1990, the invaders intensified the warfare on the Liberian people for another six years rather than cease all hostilities and begin work on building or improving the democratic system of governance established in Liberia in 1985. For between the1980 coup and the time of the military invasion in 1989, five major historical achievements were made in the drive toward the development and promotion of pluralistic democracy in Liberia. These included: 1) the writing of a new Liberian constitution in 1983 to empower all Liberians to participate in the democratic process; 2) the holding of the first national referendum in modern Liberia on the draft constitution in 1984; 3) the registration and granting of operational licenses to a flood of private radio stations (i.e. ELCM, Radio Baha’i, etc.) and private independent newspapers and magazines (i.e. Footprints, Daily Observer, Sun Times, etc.) as part of the exercise of individual rights to free press and freedom of expression between 1981 and 1985; 4) easing the registration requirements for political parties in Liberia leading to the formation and registration of a dozen or more broad base (a mixture of Americo-Liberians and Native-Liberians of all walks of life) political parties (i.e. NDPL, UP, LAP, LPP, UPP, LUP, etc.) between 1984 and 1985 as part of the exercise of individual rights to political thought and association, and 5) the 1985 general elections, the first ever multiparty democratic elections held in 138-year Liberian history at that time that involved four independent political parties and Liberians from all walks of life, as opposed to the past when the token opposition during the early stages of the 133-year (1847-1980) exclusive Americo-Liberian rule in Liberia involved an all-Americo-Liberian social class competing against an all-Americo-Liberian ruling party where permissible.

So unlike the 133-year Americo-Liberian rule in Liberia, Liberians were already enjoying a modicum of pluralistic democracy when the invaders came. All Liberians were for the first time in Liberian history free to form political parties, gain access to the Liberian constitution, obtain voter’s registration cards and vote in a multiparty election involving four presidential candidates from four independent political parties. No opposition parties were restricted in their campaigns or distribution of campaign literatures, and no opposition politicians and their supporters were harassed at the polling stations. There were no pro-government and anti-government skirmishes among members of the four competing political parties during the entire process of the 1985 elections, and the elections themselves were conducted under a peaceful atmosphere during both the voting and counting of the ballots. After the elections, none of the three losing political parties that participated in the 1985 elections challenged the results of the elections either in a court of law or before the National elections commission. Yet the invaders of 1989 played on the shortcomings of an overly gullible, politically passive, and economically disadvantaged Liberian public to rally supporters to their cause by using such buzzwords as “rigged elections,” “brutal dictator,” and restoration of ‘free speech,” “free press,” and “free expression,” as if the proliferation of media institutions and political parties, let alone a national referendum and multiparty elections existed in Liberia before the 1980 coup that effectively dismantled the 133-year Americo-Liberian domination of socioeconomic and political power in Liberia.

Nonetheless, the agitations and demands by the invaders for a virtual dismantling of the sitting Liberian government never receded in the face of many opportunities for compromise. Therefore, the net result of the 1989 military invasion of Liberia or the so-called “fateful Christmas of 1989” (Dukulé) was not the establishment or codification in Liberia of a system of pluralistic democracy built on good governance, rule of law, transparency, and accountability, but rather a brutal 14-year civil war for political power, prestige, and economic enrichment that decimated the entire Liberian territorial landscape, thereby causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Liberians and destroying almost every basic national infrastructure or private property in Liberia. Consequently, Liberia today manifests the telltale story of a place that is the bastion of hunger in the midst of plenty (vast natural resources, fertile soil for growing various kinds of cash crops, bountiful plateau-like landscape for lucrative tourism development, and a very tiny population), as Liberia currently endures 85 percent unemployment, deplorable road conditions, poor housing, health, and education facilities, and poor sanitation due to lack of electricity, water and sewer services, and cleaning or garbage disposal services. Yet Mr. Dukulé thinks the current waves of human sufferings and lack of opportunities in Liberia are not themselves enough for the Liberian people to individually feel nostalgic about their own standards of living in Liberia prior to the 1989 military invasion.

Mr. Dukulé, therefore, doesn’t say “why” and “how,” but he thinks the time is now ripe under the current Liberian government for the Liberian people “to walk away from the memories of the fateful Christmas of 1989 and start building a new set of memories,” as if one can ever forget the images of ragtag rebel soldiers raping and murdering one’s families, relatives, and friends, or molesting oneself. But in Mr. Dukulé’s “new nation in the making” that all Liberians must comport themselves to embrace, memories of mass murders, rapes, and other acts of human cruelty as experienced during the 14-year civil war in Liberia are now irrelevant relics and fleeting realities of the past that shouldn’t continue to overwhelm and penetrate the human psyche. And so in this burst of enthusiasm Mr. Dukulé makes a set of sweeping claims and broad generalizations about the state of democracy in Liberia today under his own Christmas Eve intellectual bombshell weighing in propensity and intensity as the 1989 Christmas Eve military invasion captioned, “Looking at the Brighter Side of Things.” In the article, Mr. Dukulé is highly optimistic to a fault, if not directly engaged in outright public relations for the government, about the prospects for pluralistic democracy in Liberia under the current Liberian government that he accentuates his look on the “brighter side of things” in Liberia by proposing through rather sheer acts of political platitude and patronage that the 160-year-old history of Liberia should be discarded with so that all Liberians can concentrate their best efforts on creating a “new nation” in 2007 that will be much more deserving of Liberians than that of the old Liberia.

Fault Line Between Old and New Liberia

Mr. Dukulé is perhaps right that Native Liberians were never deserving of an “old Liberia” in which a group of former American slaves abused the generosity and goodwill of a group of African tribes people along the Atlantic coast who had welcomed them back to the land of their ancestors on African soil only for the former slaves to proclaim a Liberian nation that excluded the Native Africans from citizenship for 50 years and leadership roles in the governance structure of the Liberian nation for 133 years. However, it seems highly improbable that Mr. Dukulé actually believes that a group of people traumatized by 14 years of civil war with their homes destroyed and families forcibly torn apart can suddenly let go of past memories and embrace political statements about flourishing pluralistic democracy in Liberia while they continued to linger in abject poverty with no tangible improvements in sight. Yet in an attempt to provide a contextual contrast between the “old Liberian nation” and the “new [Liberian] nation,” Mr. Dukulé insinuates, among other things, that 1) “Inside Liberia, the democratic agenda that has long been illusive from the founding days of the nation seems to be taking hold;” 2) “The democratic process in Liberia is an evolving reality, it is happening, even if the changes are sometimes almost imperceptible,” and 3) “The freedom and democratic process enjoyed by Liberians are still in their formative stages [so] The notion that government cannot do everything and therefore is not responsible for everything has yet to sink in people’s psyche” (The Perspective, Dec. 2007).

Well, in the first instance, Mr. Dukulé did not point to any specific policy documents, new bills of rights, infrastructural development initiatives, educational and employment opportunities, and related political, economic, and cultural milestones or achievements currently taking place in Liberia to validate his claim about a democratic agenda that when contrasted with the old political agenda in Liberia will show that the Liberian “democratic agenda” is no longer “illusive.” In fact, as far as is practicable, Liberia still lacks an efficient postal service, electricity supply, water and sewer systems, modern roadways, bridges, and rail systems, telephone services, modern clinics and hospitals, and radio and television stations serving the entire country rather than Monrovia and its environs alone. So what is the basis of Mr. Dukulé’s enthusiasm or optimism? What has changed in Liberia if not continuation of the same old political rhetoric and platitude that set the Liberian nation and people on a collision course in 1980, 1989, 1996, and 2003? Indeed, it is one thing for Mr. Dukulé to proclaim that democracy is no longer “illusive” to the Liberian people, but quite another for him not to acknowledge that the channels of communication, education, and free movement (travel) needed for active participation of the Liberian people in the democratic process are not yet available to all the people in the national capital Monrovia due to poor road conditions, schools, and communication services, let alone Liberians living outside Monrovia.

Moreover, Mr. Dukulé did not explain in the second instance how and why he thinks democracy is still an “evolving reality” in Liberia in 2007 when the first multiparty elections involving four independent political parties and all the Liberian people were held in Liberia in 1985—at least 22 years ago. Or does Mr. Dukulé not believe that the 1985 elections brought about an “evolving reality” in Liberian democracy in spite of profuse partisan and class bickering? Does Mr. Dukulé not believe that the 1997 elections in Liberia built on the “evolving reality” of the 1985 elections in Liberian democracy regardless of the eventual intensity of political infightings? Or is Mr. Dukulé attempting to rewrite Liberian history about the nature of the “evolving reality” of democracy in Liberia when he only focuses on the present and not on the past, especially where “changes” accruing from democratic practices in Liberia are concerned, as per his claim that “changes are sometimes almost imperceptible”? Or did Mr. Dukulé and other Liberians not know that “changes are sometimes almost imperceptible” at the time of each democratic process in 1985, 1997, and 2005 that they ought to now know in 2007? Does the democratic process in Liberia take on an “evolving reality” every year depending on the party or president in power? I hope not.

I just don’t think Mr. Dukulé or anyone can sincerely claim that democracy is an “evolving reality” in Liberia today rather than in 1985? For prior to 1985, elections in Liberia were the exclusive preserves of the hierarchy of the ruling True Whig Party, while the Liberian public stood by as disinterested onlookers. The dates and times of national elections were a matter of top secret known to only True Whig Party leaders and insiders, and potential candidates had to be endorsed or pre-selected by one or more True Whig Party leaders for a chance to participate in True Whig Party caucuses at which national and local leaders were chosen. Generally, elections in Liberia prior to 1985 were a fait accompli, as no broad base opposition political parties existed throughout Liberian history until 1985, and any candidate nominated by the senior most True Whig Party leader to participate in True Whig Party caucuses was bound to be elected to the post of nomination. But more important, in 1985 Liberia was governed exclusively by Liberians in socioeconomic, financial, and military or security matters, as opposed to today when the Liberian people practically don’t have any say over socioeconomic, financial, and military or security matters in Liberia.

Currently, Liberia is a de facto joint protectorate of the U.S., U.N., European Union, Nigeria, and Ghana, as manifested through such entities as UNMIL and GEMAP or the so-called “International Contact Group on Liberia,” the parent body of both UNMIL and GEMAP. UNMIL is basically in charge of all security and military matters in Liberia, while GEMAP is practically in charge of all financial and procurement matters in Liberia. For instance, UNMIL, the 150,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping force in Liberia, can pick and choose when to cooperate with the Liberian government. UNMIL refused in December 2007 to honor a Liberian court request for UNMIL doctors to examine an alleged Liberian security service torture victim by invoking restrictions in a status of forces agreement. Yet the same UNMIL is usually pleased to get involved in security mobilization, containment, and police arrest activities across Liberia on a daily or regular basis. GEMAP, on the other hand, exercises such influence over financial, procurement, and socioeconomic matters in Liberia that representatives of GEMAP share equal signature with the president of Liberia on key public financial documents in Liberia, while GEMAP consultants also exercise overriding decision-making power and signature over senior Liberian government officials, including cabinet ministers. So it seems odd that Mr. Dukulé can overlook these kinds of circumstances of complete foreign domination of the Liberian economy and executive decision-making powers in Liberia and still proclaim a “new nation in the making” that for him manifests “Looking at the Brighter Side of Things.” I certainly wish I could share in the optimism of Mr. Dukulé’s “Brighter Side of Things” in Liberia under the circumstances cited, but I just don’t see it.

In the third instance, of course, Mr. Dukulé assumes that “The freedom and democratic process enjoyed by Liberians are still in their formative stages” in spite of the 1985 and 1997 multiparty democratic elections held in Liberia. But can anyone sincerely argue in 2007 that the exercise of freedom and democracy in Liberia is still in the “formative stages” in spite of Liberia’s own professed political history as a democratic nation for 160 years dating back to 1847, let alone the last two multiparty elections of 1985 and 1997? Should freedom and democracy remain at the “formative stages” indefinitely in Liberia after three multiparty elections in the last 22 years or after 160 years of political independence as a democratic state, or is Mr. Dukulé simply juxtaposing the issues to make a political point? But more important, which “freedom and democratic process” are the Liberian people enjoying in 2007 that Mr. Dukulé is referring to? Is it freedom and democracy for a Liberian government to arrest a Liberian man and keep him in jail against his will for well over six months under the dubious label of “protective custody” as state witness in a treason trial only for the very supposed state witness to be charged with treason after he discloses in court that he was arrested, jailed, and tortured to implicate some unsuspecting politicians and former military officers in a coup plot? Is it freedom and democracy for the Liberian government to attempt to give out 300,000 acres of the people’s ancestral land in 2007 without the direct input of the local people and their elected representatives as was the case in the Liberian Agricultural Company (LAC) expansion drama? I don’t think so.

Perhaps, these are the sorts of activities that constitute the “Brighter Side of Things” for Mr. Dukulé in Liberia today, but I don’t see freedom and democracy when a murder occurs on a plantation and the only persons arrested by the Liberian government for the murder are those from adjacent towns and villages near the plantation opposed to eviction from their ancestral land to facilitate the plantation’s expansion, rather than round up all possible suspects in the murder case to include employees of the plantation company. Worst still, I do not see freedom and democracy when the Liberian government attempts to remove retired army officers from their government housing on a military base without proper notice, and when Liberian civil war victims sleeping in the grave yards are evicted without the government first providing them with free or subsidized shelters. And I do not see freedom and democracy in policy statements issued so far by government ranging from employment, employment opportunities, school uniform, school hairdo or dress code, to the closures of radio stations and newspapers. But, again, I might be one of those who do not dislike the president, but who strongly feels that her government is not “living up to the nation’s expectations,” so I do not see any “Brighter Side of Things” in regard to a government virtually run by NGOs, foreign military and paramilitary organizations, foreign financial experts, and a group of expatriate-Liberian workers whose only loyalty seems to be to the president and not to the country. And I do strongly believe that there can be no “Brighter Side of Things” in Liberia until Liberians are empowered and entrusted with the reconstruction of their devastated homeland without heavy reliance on foreign expertise and expatriate Liberian workers as is currently the case.

The Irony and Uneasy State of Democracy in Liberia Today

I do, however, agree with Mr. Dukulé that “Democracy manifests itself through the rule of law, accountability and the respect of human rights” (theperspective.org). But Mr. Dukulé ought to know that what constitutes “rule of law, accountability, and respect of human rights” varies from country to country, based oftentimes on the level of public education about individual rights and responsibilities under a democracy, and the respect, protection, and enforcement thereof of those rights, as may be defined within the confines of the socioeconomic and technological developments, as well as associated political, cultural, and religious factors of that country. In other words, the word “democracy” is an all-inclusive term that is said to be built on the theory of government being “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” But democracy also includes back channels of political wheeling and dealing, strategic alliances, alignments, and realignments, ideological loyalty and political pandering, and sinister machinations of willful propaganda and related destructive schemes to marginalize the opponent. And because these attributes define the character of democracy, it is important for each democratic nation to promulgate laws and rules that will govern the scope and practice of democracy within the contexts and objective realities of individual countries. Sadly in Liberia, it is difficult to know what the rules and practices of democracy are, at least for the past 160 years.

For example, Article 17 of the current Liberian Constitution gives every Liberian citizen the right to free assembly at any time, and states inter alias: “All persons, at all times, in an orderly and peaceable manner, shall have the right to assemble and consult upon the common good, to instruct their representatives, to petition the Government or other functionaries for the redress of grievances and to associate fully with others or refuse to associate in political parties, trade unions and other organizations” (1986 Constitution). Yet when in September 2007 a group of retired personnel of the special security services along with members of the disbanded Liberian army and national police demonstrated in the streets of Monrovia to demand from government outstanding benefits due them, the government issued a strongly worded statement under the signature of Information Minister Lawrence Bropleh effectively branding the gathering of the former security personnel as “illegal.” The government said in the statement that “the laws of Liberia are clear on issues of demonstrations [in that] They provide that any persons or groups of persons seeking to demonstrate or parade the streets of the nation must first secure the permission and approval of the Minister of Justice” (GOL Press Statement, September 2007).

The government did not, however, directly cite the law on public demonstrations so interpreted by the Information Minister, but if the government’s intent for requiring justice ministry approval for public demonstrations of Liberian citizens was not to violate Article 17 of the constitution but to ensure an orderly assembly of persons, then the government’s press statement left much to be desired as to the sincerity of the government in upholding Article 17 of the Liberian constitution without using the justice ministry approval process as a ruse to control public disagreement and opposition to its policies and programs. For it is clear from the government’s own press statement that it did not intent to grant the former security personnel a permit to demonstrate since the government not only felt the need to describe the peaceful demonstration of the security personnel as “criminal and unlawful acts intended to disturb the peace[,] undermine the rule of law[,] and infringe on the safety and security of ordinary Liberia citizens,” (GOL Press Statement) but also became very dismissive of the benefit payments claimed by the security personnel. The government said in the press statement regarding the payments of benefit to the former security personnel thus: “The amounts paid were not incurred by this government. But was instead inherited from past governments, as far back as the early 1990s. The Government states in no uncertain terms that it owes no further amounts to any persons who have resorted to the unlawful acts mentioned herein. Contrarily, the Government has liquidated every legitimate obligation for the former members of the security sector and has made payments of every legally recognized claim….Further, the Government is and feels obligated to review only those claims which are legal and legitimate, and will entertain no further demands or claims from the deactivated persons whose legitimate claims have been satisfied and who have received appropriate benefits” (GOL Press Statement 2007).

Indeed, there are two troubling issues associated with the government’s handling of the grievances of the former security personnel that are inimical to the kind of flourishing pluralistic democracy that Mr. Dukulé touted throughout his article. First, the government did assign to itself the right to abrogate Article 17 of the constitution by requiring justice ministry approval for public demonstrations without providing any recourse for redress of illegal denial. And by illegal denial I mean any propensity on the part of the justice ministry to deny any potential group of demonstrators a permit to demonstrate except to forestall any potential conflict arising from two or more requests for the same public space at the same scheduled time to carry out a planned public demonstration. Otherwise, all requests for public demonstrations ought to be granted by the justice ministry without preconditions since the only role and interest of the justice ministry in granting permits for public demonstrations should be nothing more than ensuring proper coordination of all demonstrations to avoid time, space, and personnel conflicts. Second, the government either thinks it doesn’t have obligation to honor benefit payments to all former Liberian government employees irrespective of the time of hire, or that it has the authority to determine exclusively without negotiations with the former employees concerned which benefits it can pay or not pay. But whatever the government’s true beliefs and motivations in the specific case of the former security personnel, one is apt to be cautious about the validity of Mr. Dukulé’s claims about the “brighter side of things” in Liberia in terms of the staying power of pluralistic democracy in the country today.

Patronage and Democratic Display

Perhaps, Mr. Dukulé is sincere but overly optimistic about the current status or pace of democracy in Liberia as per his public statements: “Inside Liberia [today], the democratic agenda that has long been illusive from the founding days of the nation seems to be taking hold,” and “The civil society [in Liberia] has grown to play a major role in checkmating every action of the government and is far from being shy. There is cause for celebration” (theperspective.org). Indeed, I wish Mr. Dukulé had provided concrete examples of what he meant by the civil society “checkmating every action of the government” or the “democratic agenda” of the government that is now public knowledge inside and outside Liberia without talks about debt relief, a court ordered medical examination of an alleged torture victim, and a “firebrand new Auditor General [that] publicly attacked the government’s budget and forced the Ministry of Finance and the Budget Bureau to review their numbers” (theperspective.org). For even if Mr. Dukulé could prove that no previous Liberian government has ever successfully negotiated debt relief with an international lending institution or donor country; endured a public backlash from statement by an active government official on policy matters, or witnessed a Liberian court ordering medical examination of party litigants in specific cases, he will still have to identify the specific “democratic agenda” of the current government.

For a “democratic agenda,” or any national policy for that matter, is never restricted to isolated cases of individual bravados and debt relief efforts, but rather it is a broad base undertaking that seeks to build, protect, and promote permanent public institutions for the exercise of the civil liberties of all Liberians irrespective of political affiliations, socioeconomic statuses, educational qualifications, and cultural and religious linkages. But, again, maybe Mr. Dukulé is in a strategic position to know certain things that I might not, but I have never heard or read anything anywhere about the current Liberian government’s “democratic agenda” or the “checkmating” feats of Liberian civil society groups in regard to the current government’s actions. For as far as I know, the government has a core group of supporters who frequent Liberian internet chat rooms, listservs, news outlets, and community organizations to flatter and patronize the government as being the best “democratic government” in Liberian history without providing any tangibles to validate such a claim. So it is not quite surprising for Mr. Dukulé to claim that “changes [in society] are not about the freedom ‘given’ to the people by the government, but rather, that people have taken responsibility for their own freedom,” and that “such responsibility can only be acquired in an atmosphere of free choice [which] The government born out of the 2005 elections has chosen to nurture that atmosphere of freedom” (theperspective.org). I therefore wish Mr. Dukulé could provide tangibles rather than platitudes to back up his claims as to why he thinks the government from the 2005 elections has any better democratic credentials than the governments from the 1985 and 1997 elections when all three governments were elected amid electoral controversies.

Again, Mr. Dukulé has every right to patronize the current government in Liberia, especially where he has publicly declared his endearing admiration for the sitting president, as per this October 2007 listserv post: “It has never been a secret that I support Mrs. Sirleaf but I am also an independent thinker...I support the president but I also know she is human and she is surrounded by other humans. She holds power in a country where sycophancy has turned into a science. I will judge her work one issue at the time.” (Dukulé, ULIBSAAforum 2007). Indeed, I do agree with Mr. Dukulé that “sycophancy has turned into a science” in Liberia. Otherwise, why might anyone go to great length to declare a “democratic miracle” under the current government in Liberia amid blistering daily media headlines such as: “Ruling party sees enemies of progress, who are they?” (Star Radio, Nov. 2007); “Go to School Or Go to Jail” (IRIN, Sept. 2007); “Journalists Manhandled By Presidential Bodyguards” (Center for Media Studies and Peace Building, Sept. 2007); “Death Threats and Conspiracies: Full Text of Brumskine’s Press Statement” (FrontPage Africa, Nov. 2007); “Three AFL Companies to be Activated In December; Commanders From ECOWAS” (FrontPage Africa, Nov. 2007), “Journalists detained for photographing corpses at police station; camera confiscated” (LIMANY, Dec. 2007); “Police shuts down Stone FM”—the Firestone Agriculture Workers’ Union radio station (Star Radio, Dec. 2007), ‘Former Army Chief of Staff reports security threat” (Star Radio, Dec. 2007), “Rep Brown accuses County Attorney of lobbying with murder suspects” (Star Radio, Dec. 2007), and the list goes on.

The details of all the news headlines cited herein are not only quite distressing, but also paint a very bleak picture of current democratic strives in Liberia, and speak to a pattern of abuse and neglect by the government in meeting its democratic responsibility to the Liberian people. For Mr. Dukulé might be partly right that “The notion that government cannot do everything and therefore is not responsible for everything has yet to sink in [the Liberian] people’s psyche” (theperspective.org). However, Mr. Dukulé ought to know that the primary fiduciary and administrative responsibilities of any Liberian government, including the current government, are to set in motion a national policy agenda for economic recovery, stabilization, and advancement; employment opportunity; freedom of speech and expression; national peace and stability; health and educational opportunities, and socioeconomic growth and development leading to individual self-sufficiency and independence. Hence, in the absence of specific national policy agendas, programs, objectives, and goals to improve the standard of living of the Liberian people, the Liberian people will have to depend solely on the government for everything—and rightly so, since the government will have failed to empower the people to be self-sufficient.

In fact, when The Perspective’s Musue Haddad interviewed the current president, then opposition politician, back in 2001 about her vision for Liberia and asked the specific question, “What is your image of a better Liberia?” the president said thus: “A government that has a national vision and agenda, supported by a strategy that gives the people equal opportunity and equity, a government that is honest, accountable and dedicated to service to the people. We don’t have it yet. We all keep praying that circumstances will enable the Liberian people to benefit from a government of vision, commitment, and honesty. One committed to reconciliation and unity. When that happens, I think Liberia will make great progress on the bases of its best assets, which are its people - its people at home who are suffering but still very resiliently making ends meet under difficult circumstances and all these great talents abroad, this great experience of Liberians in the Diaspora. If you can bring a fusion between the people at home and the talents abroad, in the process of nation building, I dare say Liberia will make great strides and it will be an example of how progress can be made in a short period of time on the basis of dedicated people ready to serve their country” (theperspective.org 2001).

At this point, it is fair to state that the current government has failed to do any of the things opposition politicians Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf so eloquently articulated in the interview with Ms. Haddad in 2001. First, the Sirleaf government has yet to see the Liberian people as Liberia’s “best assets.” Second, the government has failed to “bring a fusion between the people at home and the talents abroad, in the process of nation building” as almost all cabinet ministers and other decision-makers in the government are imported from abroad. Third, the government has failed to initiate any national programs in the last two years to improve the living condition of the local “people at home who are suffering but still very resiliently making ends meet under difficult circumstances.” For example, while skilled and experienced Liberian military officers roam about in forced retirement without any fixed incomes since the government disbanded the Armed Forces of Liberia, the government has continued to import military officers from outside Liberia to play commanding roles in a revitalized Liberian army, as manifested by this news headline, “Three AFL Companies to be Activated In December; Commanders From ECOWAS,” and the earlier importation of one Nigerian army officer after another to spearhead the Liberian army revitalization scheme. Indeed, if the current Liberian government continues to rely heavily on foreign expertise—foreign financial experts, geologists, accountants, auditors, bankers, engineers, public administrators, military officers, and expatriate-Liberian workers—for the smooth running of the government and associated private business entities in key sectors of the national economy such as mining, rubber, telecommunications, hydroelectric supply, telephone and internet exchange operations for too long without investing in manpower training and development of a local Liberian workforce, the Liberian economy will automatically collapse in the near term at the end of the current administration when all expatriate workers begin to return to their countries of origin or residence. And I believe this was the very scenario opposition politician Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf alluded to in 2001 when she said: “I think Liberia will make great progress on the bases of its best assets, which are its people…” (theperspective.org 2001).

I did agree with the 2001 statement of opposition politician Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf that Liberia needed “A government that has a national vision and agenda, supported by a strategy that gives the people equal opportunity and equity, a government that is honest, accountable and dedicated to service to the people,” and I did expect President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to have turned her 2001 vision into action by now. But, evidently, a complete travesty has erupted where the policies of the current government are not in sync with a national development “strategy that gives the [Liberian] people equal opportunity and equity” in current reconstruction efforts in Liberia. For after 14 years of civil war that uprooted every Liberian family and destroyed basically everything of value for self-subsistence in Liberia, the worst thing that any government could do is to downsize an already jobless population or fire people for illiteracy, as the Sirleaf government has done, rather than provide the people with the necessary training to make them more productive citizens and marketable individuals. It is also a great travesty that the Sirleaf government could promulgate a “Go to School Or Go to Jail” policy that effectively penalizes parents whose children sell in the streets during school hours without consideration of the plights of many parents who lost everything of value during the 14-year civil war and still don’t have access to a steady job or regular income on which they and their children can survive. Hence, if per Mr. Dukulé’s insistence a “democratic agenda” existed that sought to give the Liberian people “equal opportunity and equity” in national recovery efforts in Liberia, then the case might have been that the government would have given jobs to parents of school age children or given the children themselves regular stipends for books, uniforms, transportation, and food before declaring its “Go to School Or Go to Jail” policy. But, unfortunately, no policy agenda aimed at giving the Liberian people “equal opportunity and equity” in the reconstruction of Liberia in the socioeconomic, political, educational, and cultural domains are visible in the current government, in spite of Mr. Dukulé’s claims of a floating “democratic agenda” that stimulates the “new nation in the making.”

Consequently, if Mr. Dukulé’s “new nation in the making” and “Brighter side of things” remotely countenance not “why” or “how” the government closes down a newspaper but that “Newspapers that were forced to shut down a year ago for publishing pictures are on the streets” again, then I don’t want to be a part of Mr. Dukulé’s “new nation.” I am rather more interested in knowing if the government is operating within the confines of the Liberian constitution and statutes than accept the generosity of the government in relaxing extrajudicial powers it was never entitled to. For if the government is permitted to close down and reopen private newspapers and radio stations at will, then one can make the case that the Liberian nation and people unnecessarily endured a 14-year civil war without netting any changes in the status quo still simmering in the old cat and mouse game of governmental power play that has hamstrung Liberia’s development for the past 160 years. So I do not share Mr. Dukulé’s enthusiasm about the government reopening of a newspaper, a court of law ordering a medical examination of a party litigant, and an auditor general challenging the projected national budget figures publicly as any signs of a “manifestation of freedom of speech and [an] evolving democratic process” in Liberia. And I certainly hope that Mr. Dukulé will appreciate that any idea of “freedom of speech” and an “evolving democratic process” in Liberia does encompass a level of complexity and enduring quality for general societal good that cannot be subordinated to the isolated individual cases cited. Hence, the three cases cited regarding the auditor general, the newspaper, and the treason trial are not, unfortunately, unique to the current Liberian government, nor do they together constitute or signify a “democratic agenda” in any sense, unless Mr. Dukulé wishes to align himself to that side of “democracy” that values ideological loyalty, political pandering, and sinister machinations or willful propaganda more than opposing viewpoints and genuine inclusiveness for the national good.

On the other hand, Mr. Dukulé might be partly right that “The problems facing Liberia did not start overnight,” and that “Liberians are and will be impatient with Ellen Johnson Sirleaf [in that] Whatever she delivers will fall short of the expectations and those who oppose her will always clamor that she is moving too slow and that she is not living up to the nation’s expectations.” However, I don’t think holding President Sirleaf and her government accountable for the president’s own publicly articulated position in 2001 on peace, national reconciliation, and development in Liberia while yet an opposition politician means that anyone dislikes her. The president made it clear in 2001 that the primary assets of Liberia are the Liberian people, and I do agree with her and this is why I take seriously her campaign promises and the 2001 statement quoted in this article. So I do not believe that placating the president or her government at this delicate time in the national history of Liberia is a viable option for national reconstruction in Liberia. I think after 14 years of civil war resulting in massive human life and property destruction, the preoccupation of every Liberian ought to be the building of a pluralistic democratic society that will eschew the kind of socioeconomic inequalities and political marginalization that resulted in the 1979 rice riots, the 1980 coup, and the 1989 military invasion-inspired 14-year civil war. And this is why I think any public declarations to the effect that “Rather than pointing to a weakness of the judiciary, Liberians must celebrate the fact that for once in our history government does not run the courts and cannot shut down media houses with impunity“(theperspective.org) is nothing more than sheer platitude intended to placate the current government. I certainly don’t think Mr. Dukulé or anyone will ever convince former Liberian transitional head of state Gyude Bryant that the Liberian government “does not run the courts” any longer. Mr. Bryant who spent a night in a common jail in Monrovia in December 2007 after the court suspended his two lawyers in the middle of his ongoing financial misappropriation trial, has claimed all along that the government was running the courts because the courts stripped him of his immunity from prosecution as a former head of state in order to facilitate the misappropriation trial based on the strength of a dubious binding resolution by the erstwhile transitional legislative assembly, which resolution a legislative clerk has disclosed was never passed into law.

Indeed, in pressing his case that the current Liberian government has a “democratic agenda” that is germane to the “new nation in the making,” Mr. Dukulé insinuates that “civil servants salaries has shut up by more than 150 percent and for the first time, since 1979, government workers are paid on time at the end of the month” and that “Displaced people have returned to their homes and refugees are finding their way back home” (theperspective.org). First, if increasing civil servants’ salaries by 150 percent is the mark of a “democratic agenda,” then there was no need for the PRC to hand over power to a civilian interim national assembly in 1984. After all, by 1981, the PRC had increased the salaries of civil servants and military personnel in Liberia by more than 100 percent—from US$50-$100 to US$200 per month for civil servants and from US$100 to US$250 for the lowest ranking military personnel. Hence, increasing civil servants’ salaries from US$30 to US$55 in 2007, which is not even half of what civil servants made in 1981 shouldn’t be any big deal unless one wants to placate the current government. Second, if most of the buildings in Liberia were destroyed during the civil war, then it seems improbable that anyone can return to a “home” per se, without first undertaking major renovations. But with the current high costs of building materials, scarcity of jobs, and poor road conditions in Liberia, it seems more likely that the majority of Liberians will dwell with relatives in crowded rooms where possible than return to any actual “homes” of their own. Moreover, if Mr. Dukulé’s forecast about a “new nation in the making” is remotely correct, then no one can return to a home in a nation not yet literally born.

Tinkering with Democracy and Patriotism

In July 2007, I wrote an article about the burdens and responsibilities of Liberian statehood (see Liberian Forum and LIMANY) in which I asserted that Liberia has been going through one crisis after another because Liberians currently have no unique cultural values to identify with and cherish in the time of peace, war, or reconstruction. I also said Liberia has no national symbols around which everyone can rally in times of national distress because successive national leaders in Liberia, including members of the current government, are more concerned with paying lip service in regard to peace, stability, and national developments in Liberia than with developing concrete plans and taking appropriate actions to effect the required changes. And I think Mr. Dukulé’s current article, “Looking at the Brighter Side of Things” in Liberia raises a serious red flag in many respects.

First, Mr. Dukulé claims in the article that “The government born out of the 2005 elections [that is the Sirleaf government] has chosen to nurture [an] atmosphere of freedom” in Liberia, but he does not say what the variables constituting that “atmosphere of freedom” are, nor does he explain in concrete terms what makes the current government any different from previous Liberian governments arising from the 1985 and 1997 elections. Instead Mr. Dukulé rambles about the outspokenness of the new auditor general, a court ordered medical examination for a treason trial defendant, and national debt relief efforts as if any of these three isolated cases had anything to do with creating an “atmosphere of freedom” for all Liberians. I think Mr. Dukulé will admit that the government’s handling of the LAC expansion case--the memorandum of understanding and the arrests of a group of Bassa people, let alone the government’s handling of the Speaker Edwin Snowe removal case--the missing Speaker’s chair from the Centennial Memorial Pavilion and the whole business of the Supreme Court ruling, cannot suffice as evidence of examples of “atmosphere of freedom” in Liberia. Second, I certainly think Mr. Dukulé has every right to create a fantasy world of grandiose democratic achievements for a government or president he admires and supports, but I also believe that the facts can never be buried under a pile of platitude and political rhetoric, no matter how thick.

In fact, during her 2001 interview with Ms. Haddad, President Sirleaf, then an opposition politician, conceded that a successful Liberian government does not hinge on piles of half-truths, exaggerations, and outright political platitude and rhetoric as Mr. Dukulé has attempted to do in his article about the far-reaching democratic achievements of the current Liberian government, but rather on concrete socioeconomic developments that seek to transform the standard of living of the Liberian people. She was unequivocal that political rhetoric about unidentifiable governmental achievements in improving the lives of the Liberian people might not work when she said: “Today’s world is open. People are in the country [Liberia] making regular reports. The government blames us [Diaspora Liberians] on the outside saying we are the ‘bad mouth’ for the government. The government is doing it to itself; the international community sees everything in these places through business people, visitors, through diplomatic missions, through NGOs. All of these people make reports. Our government needs to really do a self-appraisal, a serious self-appraisal - stop blaming all the ills on everybody else. The government should look within themselves and see what’s going wrong and try to correct it because if they don’t, they will not leave a legacy. They will not be successful” (theperspective.org 2001).

Clearly, the success of the Unity Party government of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf regarding the promotion of pluralistic democracy in Liberia and the crafting of policy agendas aimed at improving the standard of living of the Liberian people will rest on the concrete actions of the government rather than on any fantasy world that government functionaries, supporters, and admirers like Mr. Dukulé might create about the successes of the government. For example, Mr. Dukulé can declare all he wants that “much has been accomplished on the international scene [under President Sirleaf],” and that “Liberia has become more visible than ever and for the first time, since President William Tubman, a Liberian president was so widely received by the ‘international community’” (theperspective.org 2007), but the reality is that Mr. Dukulé might be threading on mere exaggerations rather than on the truth. For the truth of the matter in the last 28 years is that Liberia became “more visible” on the world stage as a result of the 1979 rice riots, the 1980 coup, and the 14-year civil war than any diplomatic travels of President Sirleaf in the last two years will ever achieve. Probably, though, the election of President Sirleaf as the “first woman president” in Africa might share the spotlight with the civil war in putting Liberia more prominently on the world stage, but not her presidential travels. And Mr. Dukulé’s reference to a Liberian president being “widely received” is a bit problematic because the frequency of presidential travels is not by itself an indication that a president is being “widely received,” taking the Canada snub of President Sirleaf as an example. But as far as is historically accurate, Presidents Tolbert, Doe, Taylor, and transitional head of state Bryant were “widely received” by the presidents and other dignitaries of the host countries they visited, so President Sirleaf might be in a class all by herself for the number of foreign travels by a Liberian president in the first two years in office but nothing more. Hence, Mr. Dukulé’s comparison of President Sirleaf to President Tubman for internationally “widely received” presidents in Liberia is merely a cheap shot at political rhetoric and intellectual misrepresentation.

But, again, as opposition politician Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf correctly stated in the 2001 interview with Ms. Haddad, the key to the success of the current government in Liberia is not political platitude but the respect, trust, and confidence that the government earns with the Liberian people. Indeed, Mrs. Sirleaf said these words in that 2001 interview: “Unless Liberians have confidence in their own safety [in Liberia], unless they have confidence that their rights would be protected [by the government]…unless they have that confidence, you are not going to see them do anything to improve the situation - like repairing their homes, starting their farms and businesses and when Liberians don’t do it, they send signals to the outside world that says ‘we don’t have confidence’ and the outside people say if the Liberians don’t have confidence in their own government and their own environment, we also cannot trust it.” (theperspective.org 2001). In other words, I agree with the President then and now that cultivating the trust and confidence of the Liberian people through concrete policy actions and programs remain the most viable option for the success of the current government than any amount of political pandering, political rhetoric, and sheer publicity or creation of a fantasy world of grandiose achievements will ever accomplish.

And this is why I think democracy and patriotism must be intertwined in Liberia as part of the process of sustaining the foundation of pluralistic democracy laid down in Liberia after the 1980 coup, from appointment of a constitution drafting commission in 1981 to the holding of the first multiparty presidential and legislative in Liberian history in 1985. But mixing democracy and patriotism is a very tricky undertaking in Liberia because while many Liberians profess a desire for building a multiparty or pluralistic democratic society in Liberia based on the principles of good governance, rule of law, accountability, transparency, and equal opportunities for all in health, education, employment, and personal security, Liberians generally do not respect one another or have tolerance for opposing points of view. Many Liberians have yet to learn to agree to disagree on pertinent issues of national development in Liberia, so Liberians usually treat one another as ideological and mortal enemies rather than as ideological rivals and political opponents working on opposite ends of the political spectrum for the common good of Liberia. In fact, this sort of assumed enmity in disagreement has emboldened many Liberians to feel more patriotic than other Liberians, especially those Liberians aligned to persons in the corridors of power or persons seeking power for themselves.

For example, when opposition politician Charles Brumskine and a group of Bassa elders protested a shady rubber plantation expansion deal between the government and a local company that would have effectively removed the Bassa people from 300,000 acres of their ancestral land without due compensation and any equity in the company for the Bassa people, the chairman of President Sirleaf’s party, Charles Clark, and the cabinet mastermind of the shady deal, Agriculture Minister Chris Toe, led the charge against Mr. Brumskine and the Bassa elders as “enemies of progress” in Liberia (see Star Radio headline, “Ruling party sees enemies of progress, who are they?” and other stories). Here, it seems that as far as Messrs Clarke, Toe, and other government functionaries were concerned, the desire of the Sirleaf government to attract foreign investors to Liberia superseded the right of the Bassa people to actively participate in any negotiations for the sale of their ancestors’ land to a foreign investor and to demand just compensation for the land, so the Bassa people automatically became “enemies of progress” in the eyes of the government functionaries. But as Mr. J. Nagbe Sloh, Jr. implied in his December 31 listserv post, “We Are Opponents, Not Enemies” to highlight the photo of two potential presidential candidates for the 2008 ULAA general elections, Ms. Mariah Seton and Mr. Anthony Kesselly dancing at a Liberian community program in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (ULIBSAAforum 2007), two major obstacles facing a sustainable system of pluralistic democracy in Liberia today are the lack of tolerance and respect for opposing points of view.

This lack of tolerance and respect for opposing points of view often makes it very difficult to find two Liberians disagreeing on an issue without one not feeling so superior and more patriotic as to brand the other as naïve, irrational, uninformed, or even unpatriotic. To many Liberians, democracy is relevant only in terms of elections but not in terms of governance, so it is a common practice amongst Liberians at the national and community levels for whomever elected as president of Liberia or president or chairman of a Liberian community organization to automatically assume the persona of the all-knowing, wisest, and most patriotic person alive with inclinations to dismiss all ideas and suggestions contrary to his or her own as irrelevant. As a result, many Liberians, rightly or wrongly, tend to gravitate toward an imperial president or imperial community leader with inclinations to disregard input from both subordinates and members of the loyal opposition in regards to community or national development goals. And this sort of attitude is so ingrained in the psyche of the average Liberian that many Liberians will stand up and defend any actions by the president of Liberia or a community leader as good for everyone, even if such actions are unilateral and against the constitution. For while President Sirleaf has rated her government’s overall performance for 2007 as “70 percent” (Star Radio, Jan. 2008), at lest fair, Mr. Dukulé might have been inclined to give the government an “excellent” rating for performance, since Mr. Dukulé already believes that the government has nurtured an “atmosphere of freedom” in Liberia never before seen in the history of Liberia, and has done a great job by increasing the salaries of civil servants by 150 percent, even though there is no comparison between a minimum civil servant salary of US$55 in 2007 to US$200 in 1981.

But Mr. Dukulé is not alone in celebrating the obvious. Mr. Somahn Dahn, writing about the recent organization