 |
| H. Boimah Fahnbulleh |
The script is obviously not being adhered to and thus the outburst from the Chair person of the National Elections Commission (NEC) that the UN Special Representative is undermining the authority of the Commission. This would have been a laughable jibe if we were not dealing with the destiny of a nation and the future of a people who have suffered immeasurably over the years from the bankruptcy of a political class steeped in cynicism and arrogance.
The National Elections Commission was set up not to conduct an election but to orchestrate a process whereby the anointed one would be declared at the end of an elaborate charade. For this, it needed both the endorsement and financial support of the United Nations.
Those appointed to this Commission were either sympathizers of the escapee in Calabar, and thus allies of the current executive manipulators, or fans of the lady politician who for long has dangled her UN connections as credentials for leadership of Liberia. What was overlooked at the time of the appointments was that loyalty in Liberia is very flimsy and that sooner or later, those who were obsequiously dancing before the Executive to get a job on the Commission would switch their allegiances as soon as they were comfortable in their jobs.
The fact that the Executive had appointed factions from two camps underlined the desire to have one of two candidates elected and thus seal the fate of the Liberian people for the next six years in a system of avaricious accumulation and reckless corruption. But this was before the stakes were raised and the corrupt practices of the present interim administration became an issue to be dealt with after the elections and the coming into power of a new administration.
The faction on the Commission tilting towards the LAP camp has been unnerved by the rapid erosion of support for its candidate due to the revulsion of the people at the scandalous corruption of this administration; and, being that the present executive manipulators are solidly promoting this candidate, the people’s rejection is becoming palpable.
On the other hand, the lady politician with her UN connections has deftly used her status on the Governance Reform Commission (GRC) to expose the corrupt practices of this administration and thus increase her standing with those from the UN who would like to see more transparency and accountability in the governance of the country. The problem with her approach is that she runs the risk of alienating many who interpret her ambition as crudely opportunistic and see her condemnation of corruption as insincere. This is because it is hard to explain why members of the GRC are being paid in U.S. dollars, when the majority of Liberians in government are paid in Liberian dollars. Also, it is baffling why the UNDP would give the GRC half a million dollars when there is nothing concrete that this Commission has done to warrant such a huge amount.
Are there reasons for this lavish grant other than the writing of periodic reports purporting to expose mismanagement and corruption?
Is it not obvious that the payment in U.S. dollars by the GRC, which is charged with delineating the framework for good governance, efficient management and financial propriety, has infected the body polity that members of the National Elections Commission also get paid in U.S. dollars and the Chairman of the interim government demands per diem in U.S. dollars even when he travels internally?
As for the struggle taking place in the NEC, it is obvious that her faction can only wait, see, and report to her about the manipulations going on but is in no position to alter things in her favour. The two factions are embroiled in a game of “rascal man dies and rascal man buries him.” This is the context in which the UN Special Representative is being condemned. He is seen as leaning towards the faction that supports the lady politician and his utterances on many occasions have led people to believe that this is the case.
The problem with the Liberian electoral process is that it was designed to be run by Liberians with the UN assisting as a secondary partner. It should have been the other way round — with the UN running the entire process and being assisted by Liberians.
In a country where narrow political loyalties are prevalent and politics is the framework for all economic and social advancement, it is naïve to believe that Liberians can conduct an election without partisan bias. The political culture dictates that rewards are given afterwards for any crafty fraud which is then passed on as credible election.
The recent farce in 1997 is illustrative of this pattern where a commissioner ascended to the highest seat on the Judiciary after participating in the most ridiculous electoral skullduggery in recent times. There is no reason to believe that this time around things would be different. The UN Special Representative senses that something is not going right for his preferred choice, no matter what semblance of neutrality he puts on his queries. The Chairperson likewise feels that others are out to upset the carefully written script, and it is time to speak out.
But why should we be concerned about the suspicion between these two camps/factions? The answer is simple: This is our country and we can already decipher the recipe for disaster!!
We can hold no brief for the UN Special Representative. He has spoken on countless occasions and embroiled himself in the pettiness of Liberian politics. He should have known by now the childish disposition of the many gossipers who parade themselves as opinion leaders in the country. He should have understood that political allegiance in a country without a defined nationalism is fleeting. This should not be surprising; the number of political aspirants for the presidency underscores this point.
In Liberia, nobody follows conviction in the political arena because nobody sees the nation as a symbol of unity and honour. One can argue that personal ambition and vain showmanship are two of the defining characteristics of the Liberian political class. Against this background, there will be one presidential candidate for each household by the time we get to the elections!
Liberia suffers from a primitive political culture simply because its political class has never come to terms with its peculiar history of being the oldest independent republic in Africa, but with the most backward political, economic and social structures imaginable. How else can one explain the shamelessness of the present corps of officials who display wealth in the midst of scandalous poverty, or the cynical ploy of stacking the NEC with cronies, relatives and lovers of friends, or yet still, the abominable practice of ritualistic killings in this age of computers and robotics?
I hope the UN Special Representative is getting my drift? He must be impartial and leave untainted by the slime that lingers in this polluted backwoods of political idiocy! Our people in Sierra Leone say that the way one comports oneself at a wedding will determine whether one is asked to sit at the high table or asked to go to the kitchen and wash dirty dishes!
As for the Chairperson of the NEC, we still have to come to terms with her grouse. What is she complaining about when right under her nose the party of the interim chairman is breaking all the rules? Isn’t it obvious to her that people understand the pattern of manipulation and cannot be impressed by this posturing of indignation? If she really feels aggrieved, then she should resign! But can she? I doubt this very much. She has a role to play and must continue along the path of righteous indignation in a game of pretense. The time for real indignation will come and that is when the people, revolted by the scheming and trickery demand to know the actual results of the process. She will then come to understand that the UN is there to oversee not only the electoral process but the survival of that chosen segment of the political class to which she belongs!
While this political comedy continues with political opportunists, pitiful philistines, a soccer player and erstwhile rebel propagandists fighting for political relevance, the key issues are being swept under the carpet. These issues are:
Will there be a commission of inquiry to investigate the looting of the nation’s resources over the past ten years?
Will all economic and financial agreements be revisited in the immediate future and those found detrimental to the interest of the people be cancelled?
Will there be a war crimes tribunal?
Will there be an investigation into Taylor’s financial holdings and possible confiscation of his ill-gotten loot?
What role is Taylor playing in the present political process through his cronies?
Why is there a need to spend two hundred million dollars on a four thousand man army at this juncture of the nation’s history? If an army should be trained, shouldn’t this be done under the United Nations with preferably Indian troops who have no history of military intervention in their country’s political arrangements since independence in 1947?
The agreement being negotiated with Firestone, does it deal with what is under the subsoil?
Is it possible to revisit immediately the Maritime agreement, cut off the entanglements of Taylor and his cronies and discuss the possibility of increasing the monthly payment to the Liberian government to be use solely for providing dwelling places, health clinics and food for returnees and internally displaced people for the next four years?
There are many more but these are paramount.
In line with the above issues, there is the question of political alliance to confront the unfolding drama of the politics of personalities. Over the past two and the half decades, we have experienced the gush of greedy and overly ambitious young men jockeying for political office in order to accumulate wealth by any means. They are prone to join any group, follow any individual or cut deals with any charlatan in order to get a job and loot recklessly. This explains the emergence of the many propagandists for rebels and bandits who are today dancing behind a political newcomer who feels that because one has the capacity to kick a leather ball, one can summon the ability to govern a nation. This travesty of political participation if done in any other country would be considered a bad joke, but then in Liberia we have had many jokers in the political arena and thus the tragic state of our country. It is the mind-set of instant wealth and cheap political recognition that has brought forth the numerous hustlers who are willing to steal, kill and lie in order to become “honourable” ministers, senators, representatives, directors and security agents in a country of mass poverty, national neglect and wretchedness.
Apart from the greedy flunkeys with their narrow and anti-national agenda who can easily be bought because they are trollops, there are those who over the years have degenerated from serious activists espousing noble causes to political charlatans, readily following anybody who claims to be supported by powerful international individuals or institutions. The debate over the direction of the country as regards the interests of the popular masses has evaporated. Throughout these many years of struggle, we had assumed that these fellows understood that power was an effective symbol for change depending on which constellation of social forces held it at any historical juncture. Thus in our country, we accepted the fact that only the alliance of the students, workers, peasants, progressive intellectuals and honest nationalists can provide the bulwark for that united front which can make power the defining instrument for popular empowerment and participation. This was the leitmotiv of the heroic struggle waged by the popular forces that brought out the bestial reaction of the ruling group culminating in the massacre of April 14, 1979; the conspiracy of obstruction hatched by certain international circles to deny the popular forces political power through the military interregnum; and subsequently the unleashing of déclassé elements, wayward boys and political hustlers in rebel wars with the purpose of denigrating popular struggles and forcing the people to live only for today like barbarians in a state of nature.
The alliance being forged in certain quarters revolves around petty ambitions and compromises that have nothing to do with a national direction at a time when one is most needed. It is not surprising that there has been no serious debate around the fundamental issues mentioned and the people are being led to believe that politics is all about the strutting of personalities across the national stage battered by years of war, carnage and brigandage. But this should not be allowed to pass!
In a note to a friend recently, we dealt with this pathetic phenomenon and averred: “The situation with the emergence of all the jokers aspiring to be president has to do with that peculiar Liberian psychology of ‘big shotism.’ Everybody now feels that being president of Liberia is an easy task because Doe and Taylor did it. The presidency is not considered an office with monumental responsibility for social transformation but a job in which one makes money, seduces the women and wears expensive suits. We know that some of our militants of yesteryears have fallen victims to this virus. I saw them in action during the Sawyer interim presidency and it was laughable but pitiful. It is no more a matter of conviction and commitment to the downtrodden but a struggle for jobs—no matter who gives them. We know that there is a major problem but there are also possibilities for genuine social transformation. There are many young men and women who are growing up, conscious of the betrayal and the prevailing injustices. Our duty is to identify them, engage them in serious political debates and burden them with the task of leadership in tomorrow’s struggle. I believe that the progressive forces can win and begin the process of genuine reconstruction and social transformation. How and when is the responsibility of all of us who share a vision that has lingered through these many years of sacrifices, struggle and betrayal.”
This is the note on which we end: that the progressive forces, united in the zeal and determination that took them to the barricades in 1979 and forced the ancient regime to reveal its contempt for the lives of the people, can today win victory without these hollow alliances with those social forces that have always stood apart from the people and others that have wreaked havoc, death and destruction.
Thus the progressive forces, led by that vanguard (LPP, UPP, PPP and New Deal), though deflated and demoralized, can celebrate the martyrdom of the militants and cadres of April 14, 1979 by hosting a national conference to deal with the question of a national direction, and place on the agenda of popular participation the issues of security, stability, discipline and development as the fulcra of the new order.
This has to be done before the time comes in October!
No Patience For H. B. Fahnbulleh’s Tired Writings: Debunking
Sophism
Samuel D. Tweah, Jr.
The conclusion of H. B. Fahnbulleh's "Before the Time Comes" summons "deflated and demoralized" remnants of the "Progressive" movement to a national conference to "deal with the question of a national direction…” In “We Must Run While They Walk,” an apparent sequel, he asks “how have the politicians failed Liberia?” Playing part guru and part propagandist in his latest article, H. B. plunges into a highly self-contradictory argument, reversing all previous positions he once staked in the great debate on the march of modern Liberian history. In this piece, I trace the trajectory of H. B’s troubled intellectual inconsistency and diminish the weak arguments he presents on a number of critical questions. However, suffice it briefly to digress to deal with the “messenger” behind this recent “platitudinous effusion.”
Fahnbulleh is afflicted with Progressive nostalgia. He bemoans the passing of an era and the loss of an audience. He craves a gone Liberian age in which his hollow philosophical ranting will mobilize people to action. And he fantasizes about reconstructing Liberia’s social order from the debris of a failed Progressive movement. But more importantly, H. B. begrudges what he sees coming: the liberation of the masses from the distorted precepts of governance imposed upon them by a highly corrupt political class. This he fears the most, and for which he has now been recruited to celebrate the very same forces he once vilified.
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.” Has H. B. now become the hired pen spin-doctoring the political missteps and failings of individuals he previously scolded? Does he defend Sirleaf out of conviction or only because others oppose her? Can this man maintain any consistent position long before his ink dries? What has he now become, an intellectual mercenary, cavorting from one cause or idea to the next? When did he convert to the idea that Progressives need to be united? 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?
These questions expose the chameleon character behind misguided commentaries penned in the guise of reason. Fahnbulleh’s vacillation destroys his authority to impart any understanding of Liberian history. Such inconsistency indicates confusion. One cannot provide knowledge or wisdom from the fountain of confusion. Over the years, we have all watched H. B. regaled the public mind with articles about the tragedy of Liberian democracy. We have seen him locked in interminable debates with different personages. Many of his thoughts have indeed been penetrating; reinforced by an ostensible show of rhetorical power. But recently as I have observed his political movements and utterances, especially as it concerns his unconscionable repositioning on important issues, I can only conclude that H. B. may now be affected by a form of diminishing intellectual returns. He seems to have reached the nadir of his intellectual utility. How can this man assume such crass arrogance that whatever falsehood he projects will stand on the merit of his intellectual personality, not on the force of his argument. H. B needs to be restored to intellectual sanity.
In “We Must Run While They walk,” he refutes claims that he has argued for the surrender of Liberian sovereignty; dreads the holding of elections in October 2005; defends the Progressive movement or Liberia’s traditional political class as not “erecting a culture of social disorganization,” because they have not governed; misstates the arguments about who has failed in Liberia by alluding to false claims that the “academically enlightened have failed the nation;” defends Ellen Sirleaf; attacks George Weah; and generally whines in a verbiage befitting a frustrated politician whose 25-year politicking in Liberia has come to naught.
Let’s now consider four issues he discusses in his piece: the question of the failure of Liberia’s political class; of violence concerning that class; the misstated claim that the “academically enlightened have failed,” and of course, his feeble attack against George Manneh Weah, that new generation hero presently catalyzing the forces of radical and progressive change in Liberia.
How Have the Politicians Failed Liberia?
He argues it is wrong to believe politicians have failed Liberia. He maintains that a whole political class cannot fail in that “the political class is not a single group with one direction.” Then he names the segment of Liberia’s political class that failed, writing “when we say the political class has failed, we are talking about that segment that that held power under the True Whig Party; that fooled around with the military from 1983 to 1990; with the NPFL from 1997 to 2003; and now, with the present arrangement.” 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 scarce Liberian resources on meaningless trips. Yet this is a man who writes “an honest person will search for the truth no matter how it is hidden. A dishonest person will refuse to accept the truth no matter how obvious.” Is there a greater example of intellectual dishonesty? Certainly, we must crush falsehood and establish truth in this article.
Now that we have established that H. B. and some others are also part of the political class that failed, it spares us a little time and space to even belabor why they failed. He himself put it simply; they fooled around with the military regime from 1980 to 1990. Not only that, they failed massively in coercing political change in a society they least understood and at a time they were least prepared for it.
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. Progressives were schooled in the communist revolutionary cannon, but least understood its practical dimensions. Such description only befits revolutionaries like Fidel Castro of Cuba. 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 basis of an institution that would deal with power after Batista’s dethronement. Fahbulleh and his Progressive band did quite the contrary. These men organized personality cults in the form of PAL, or MOJA with no institutional foundation and no understanding of how to manage power. Because they were the first generation of indigenous intellectuals which had returned from abroad with a modicum of learning at a time political change was demanded, the mantle fell naturally upon them. And their situation was even made easier. Tolbert was willing to institute drastic reforms. By the mid 70’s he and moderates within the TWP fully understood that Tubman’s Unification, Integration and Open Door policies had unleashed social, political and economic forces beyond the grasp of the party. Consciousness had spread through the population. Tolbert sensed this. His immediate response was to launch a massive reform effort. He ended the practice of public employees remitting a portion of their salary to the TWP; clamped down on corruption though it remained a fixture of the TWP oligarchy; encouraged women involvement in politics by appointing women to cabinet positions; launched a four year development plan in 1974; directed the lowering of the price of rice; abolished monopoly on importing rice; and liberalized the political climate by permitting more political organizing and the voicing of dissent. But what did the progressives make out of this? They saw it as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to cease power for which they had no plan. This greed for power led to intra-factional bickering among their rank and file.
As their cults of personality widened, the actions of different Progressive organizations became ascribed to their respective founders. The April 14, 1979 rice riot was patented by Bacchus Matthews. Tipoteh personalized MOJA’s modest successes. Theoreticians Sawyer and H. B. bided their opportunity to upstage both Matthews and Tipoteh. Disunity and suspicion became rife within the group. MOJA did not sanction PAL’s April 14 rice riot and its 1980 mid-night march against Tolbert, which Tipoteh characterized as “at best infantile and rather ridiculous.” Such wrangling led to the tragic failure to anticipate and develop a strategic framework for managing power in the context of the rapid political change the country was now going through.
All H. B. and his Progressive cabal cared about was to mobilize for mass action and foment tension, out of which anything could happen. Change in Liberia now depended on happenstance, on historical accidents. This was the Progressive prescription for producing change. They did not mobilize to build institutions able to survive trying political times. Regime change was their obsession. 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. This is just an overview of Progressive failure of the 70’s going into early 80’s. The political class as H. B. has noted comprises more than just progressives. Let’s briefly examine its other components and do so via the lens of Fahnbulleh himself, maybe to point another instance of flip-flopping.
In “Liberia and Democracy” he writes:
“The charade has long since ended. What grumblings there remain are the reflexes of frustrated politicians who helped orchestrate the farce, but were themselves duped in the end by more unscrupulous political tricksters. The tragedy of this whole affair is that the people, in their determination to oust the racketeers who now rule their country, are willing and ready to sacrifice their lives in defense of the domestic opposition, without realizing that those who now lead this opposition are the very people who through cunning and stealth imposed Sergeant Samuel Doe and his band of thieves on them in the first place.”
Yes! This is vintage Fahnbulleh in his brutal candor, capturing the emergent decay of a political culture that would prove problematic for the country over the next two decades. One can only wish he would maintain that position. Unfortunately, two decades later, he doesn’t. Yesterday, he considers the political class a colossal failure, today he touts it as not “erecting a culture of social disorganization.” Which position are we to accept? I prefer the earlier version because it bears the hallmark of H. B. in the heyday of his fearless honesty. Numerous events may have now compromised that prior substance. Anyway, let’s deal with the man in his current metamorphosed personality. He writes “one cannot accuse a people or a political class of ‘erecting a culture of social disorganization’ when the decay brought about has to do with the repression, brutality and irresponsibility of those who hold power.” Ohm, quite a stretch! Is H. B arguing that this decay was caused by Doe’s brutality? He continues, “If this class has not held power for twenty-five years, how is it possible for it to have erected “a culture of social disorganization?” Yes. That is highly possible and this is what happened in Liberia. The answer lies right there, in H. B’s own prose as quoted earlier. 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. Take Samuel Doe and some of his cabinet for example; H. B. Fahnbulleh as Education minister, Togba Nah Tipoteh from Planning and Economic Affairs and Bacchus Matthews at Foreign. There three Progressives sitting at the high table. What went wrong? Different theories and speculation abound. Is it that pre-1980 bickering among progressives carried over into the new regime? Or were progressives in government countered by other forces (Fahnbulleh’s version) that feared Progressive influence and power? Affirmative answers to any of these questions only indicates that the “decay” H. B. mentions as having “to do with the repression, brutality and irresponsibility of those who hold power,” actually originates elsewhere. This is only logical. A “culture of social disorganization” is just what it is: a culture. Cultures evolve, comprising the habits, precepts, mores and values of a people from one era to the next. How can H. B. argue Liberia’s social disorganization originated with Samuel Doe? Did not Progressive opposition in the 70’s indicate a smoldering of this decay, which only festered in the 80’s and beyond? Could it be that the prolonged deprivation of Liberia’s indigenous mass created a culture in which formerly deprived indigenous leaders decided to maximize the gains for themselves once they gain power or access to it, just as True Whig Party leaders had done? These are theoretical considerations that render weak the claim that a “political class has to be in power before it can affect a culture of social disorganization.” Fahnbulleh would never have made this argument in 1983 after he had abandoned Samuel Doe.
The Political Class Did Not Introduce Violence in Liberia
Lets now deal with the question of violence and examine closely H. B.’s statement that the “political class did not introduce violence in Liberia.” He writes, “as a matter of fact this class has always indulged in what some commentators refer to as ‘jaw-jaw instead of war-war.’ This is the nature of intellectuals and other educated people. They analyze, speculate and diagnose instead of resorting to arms as the first recourse for settling disputes. However, there is a rare breed of such people who would readily resort to violence. In this category are those who combine their political ideas with radical action to change a situation. But even here, this form of action/protest is resorted to after thorough deliberation and consideration.” H. B. continues, “in Liberia, from the death of Tubman to 1980, various segments of the political class argued, analyzed, debated, and speculated, but did not once resort to violence to take power.” This is plain baloney and intellectual confusion. Here he attempts to distinguish mob action such as April 14 rice riot against Tolbert, which was indeed violent, from Doe’s overthrow or Taylor’s rebel insurgency. Does he understand the role of the violence in the overthrow of Tolbert; the April 14 1979 rice riot and the arrests of Matthews and others for charges of planning violence? Is he now flipping back to a position of detesting violence after celebrating it for so many years? The confusion is profound. In one section of the article, he extols the role of violence in producing change, arguing “It was only in the context of violent repression by a regime which had no legitimacy that some patriots decided to act. This is the only way patriots throughout history have acted. In the face of brutal and savage repression by tyrants, heroic patriots have risen to their responsibility to redeem their nation and people.” He asks further “Are patriots to refrain from decisive action against injustice because people will die in the process? History does not move in this way. In our case, after 1985, there was nothing to show that the regime would not go on killing, terrorizing and brutalizing the people as was done between 1980-84.” Writing all this, yet maintaining that “the political class did not introduce violence in Liberia.” Where are we headed? Can this man take one position and maintain it throughout a discourse?
The ‘Academically Enlightened have failed Liberia’
It is sad that H. B. stoops to lending credence to false claims that the “academically enlightened have failed Liberia.” He belabors the claim, going so far as to state the obvious. That “there are many educated people who have contributed positively to our development but have not been in the political class. There are farmers, midwives, medical doctors, bankers, engineers, teachers, scientists, agronomists, etc. without whose contribution we would not have our people surviving today.” This needs no arguing. The argument is not that the academically enlightened have failed, but that academically enlightened political actors of the brand of Fahnbulleh and his progressive cabal, coupled with other political degenerates, have used the political process in Liberia as a platform to self-enrichment and power aggrandizement. This is the argument. The masses have seen that those who advocate for change in Liberia mask their real intentions which become exposed when they assume power or enjoy access to it. And they have held power in one form or another, in the early 1980’s, and during the IGNU regime, though H. B. would disagree. Where is the evidence that Progressives and other political leaders have championed the interest of the masses when they were able to pull the levels of power? During the regime of IGNU, Fahnbulleh roved the planet as Special Envoy, achieving nothing, but wasting scare Liberian resources in the process. While he did that, his younger IGNU Progressive cadres were drinking beer and wasting public money on flashy girls in Monrovia. The nation’s currency was changed during this era and we all know the story of how IGNU officials reaped a fortune out of the process. These are the enlightened ones who are considered failures by the masses and not all educated people as H. B. would have us believe. But H. B introduces the misstated claim as a means to begin an attack on an unassailable character, a man who now holds the greatest promise of delivering the aspiration of our people: GMW.
On The Issue of George Weah
H. B. waffles in a pool of trivial arguments which I will not deal with because they have been considerably dealt with elsewhere. We cannot rehash failed arguments about Weah’s education, leadership ability or experience. However, he asks three questions he believes are critical for electing Weah to the Liberian presidency: 1) “How many kids has [Weah] assisted in school or college?” 2) “Has he built a soccer school for poor kids to attend like Patrick Viera and others have done in Senegal?” And 3) “Has Weah ever been a part of any social or political struggles for the promotion and defense of justice, liberty and equality?” Now, going by H. B.’s logic if Weah has done any one of these, then he deserves to be president. Let’s follow that line of reasoning and respond to each question. 1) Yes, Weah has assisted countless number of high school and college students. In the late 90’s Weah provided money to Abraham Massaley’s ULSU leadership which defrayed scholarship costs for downtrodden students at the UL. 2) No. Weah has not built a school for soccer kids. 3) Yes. Weah has contributed to the struggle to rid Liberia of tyranny. 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. So according to his own logic, H. B. agrees that Weah can be president because the man has achieved two of out three of his concerns.
But at a more advanced level H. B’s questions betrays the Progressive spirit, if there is one. How can this highly reputed Progressive elevate the influence of money, possibly bad money, in Liberian politics? The notion that to be president an individual will have to personally finance projects, while commendable, is dangerous. Such a prescription encourages crooks with vast financial means to seek the presidency. The massive trust Weah now enjoys is not in the concretion of what he did—monies he spent, scholarships he gave—but rather in the sheer patriotic symbolism of his giving, especially at a time when corruption defined the country. The masses believe that were Weah to guard the national treasury and administer the distribution of resources, their interests would be served far more than if a selfish and greedy Progressive leader were to assume power.
Weakening his case further, H. B. writes, “Weah is not the only great footballer in Africa, but in other countries, the people know how and where a man’s talent can best be used. In Guinea, we find Petit Sorie, Titi Kamara and others. These men are great footballers. Have we heard them talking about ruling Guinea? In Cameroon, there are Roger Miller, Rigobert Song, Samuel Eto'o, Patrick Mboma, Geremi Fotso Njitap and many others.” Are we now seeing the “maggots or the carcass” of H. B’s intellectual remains? What childish logic is this? Below is his syllogism:
Roger Miller is rich.George Weah is rich. Roger Miller is a former football player.George Weah is a former football player.Miller does not want the presidency of Cameroun. Therefore: Weah should not seek the presidency of Liberia. Where do they teach this kind of reasoning? What if I were to counter with the equally false syllogism:
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a celebrity.Jesse Ventura is a celebrity.Arnold and Jesse both sought the governorship of their respective states in the US.
George Weah is a celebrity in Liberia.Therefore: G. W. too should seek the Liberian presidency. This is where H. B. wants to take us. We cannot oblige.
Importantly, to whom is he addressing his question, “what has George Weah done for Liberia…?” Is he making a case to the masses? Does he regard the masses as the ultimate determinant of any criteria for candidates who desire their votes? The masses have long since concluded that they will do no political business with rabble rousers like Fahnbulleh who theorize one thing and practice another. They have borne numerous insults from the likes of Fahnbulleh who writes, “poverty-stricken masses care less for human rights than for the satisfaction of their basic needs.” He further degrades the masses in “Democracy and Liberia” when he writes that “the new military leaders were from the downtrodden of society--that humiliated and degraded mass for whom money means everything.” Yet, this is the man who is confused about why the masses crave George Weah.
The Liberian masses have endured many a tragedy. They have borne two dictatorships imposed upon them by misguided elements who risked a country’s future by tinkering with change when they were least prepared for it. They rejected the political class and voted Taylor in 1997 because it was the very political class who empowered him to pillage and terrorize the country. How could they reject Taylor and endure his post-election defeatist violence while those who armed and supported him sheltered in the comfort of America? Our people are not stupid. The political class deceived them by imposing a tyrant upon them. They could only reward that deceit by legitimizing the tyrant. Deceit for deceit. It is sad that the masses took a hit in electing Taylor as president, but they live on to fight another day. That day has now dawned in the populist emergence of the patriot George Manneh Weah.
So H. B. and others who believe that the populist groundswell bringing Weah to power is a “mobocracy” and are vowing to resist it can brace themselves for a tough battle. Anyways, what are threats from men like H. B. who flirt with danger and flee when tension heightens? Can he explain the Pandema Road Prison Situation in Sierra Leone in which he led several young militants in an attack against Samuel Doe but cowardly escaped, leaving several to be butchered in cold blood. Where is the proof of vaunted militant bravado? Vacuous utterances, bereft of any practical effect. He could not achieve politically. Neither could he militarily. Yet this is the man who vows to resist a people’s genuine struggle, summoning battered Progressives to a lost cause, and quoting the Mwalimu in the process.
When Mwalimu taught that “we must run while they walk” he was addressing that core of true African visionaries and revolutionaries; men and women who “knit rather than unravel nations” as Robert Rotberg from Harvard puts it. H. B. Fahnbulleh cannot quote this great old man with any authority because H. B. too has betrayed the teachings of the Mwalimu. George Weah and the new breed of revolutionaries will pick up after the Mwalimu. This is the mantra of the new generation!!!
The conclusion of H. B. Fahnbulleh's "Before the Time Comes" summons "deflated and demoralized" remnants of the "Progressive" movement to a national conference to "deal with the question of a national direction…” In “We Must Run While They Walk,” an apparent sequel, he asks “how have the politicians failed Liberia?” Playing part guru and part propagandist in his latest article, H. B. plunges into a highly self-contradictory argument, reversing all previous positions he once staked in the great debate on the march of modern Liberian history. In this piece, I trace the trajectory of H. B’s troubled intellectual inconsistency and diminish the weak arguments he presents on a number of critical questions. However, suffice it briefly to digress to deal with the “messenger” behind this recent “platitudinous effusion.”
Fahnbulleh is afflicted with Progressive nostalgia. He bemoans the passing of an era and the loss of an audience. He craves a gone Liberian age in which his hollow philosophical ranting will mobilize people to action. And he fantasizes about reconstructing Liberia’s social order from the debris of a failed Progressive movement. But more importantly, H. B. begrudges what he sees coming: the liberation of the masses from the distorted precepts of governance imposed upon them by a highly corrupt political class. This he fears the most, and for which he has now been recruited to celebrate the very same forces he once vilified.
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.” Has H. B. now become the hired pen spin-doctoring the political missteps and failings of individuals he previously scolded? Does he defend Sirleaf out of conviction or only because others oppose her? Can this man maintain any consistent position long before his ink dries? What has he now become, an intellectual mercenary, cavorting from one cause or idea to the next? When did he convert to the idea that Progressives need to be united? 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?
These questions expose the chameleon character behind misguided commentaries penned in the guise of reason. Fahnbulleh’s vacillation destroys his authority to impart any understanding of Liberian history. Such inconsistency indicates confusion. One cannot provide knowledge or wisdom from the fountain of confusion. Over the years, we have all watched H. B. regaled the public mind with articles about the tragedy of Liberian democracy. We have seen him locked in interminable debates with different personages. Many of his thoughts have indeed been penetrating; reinforced by an ostensible show of rhetorical power. But recently as I have observed his political movements and utterances, especially as it concerns his unconscionable repositioning on important issues, I can only conclude that H. B. may now be affected by a form of diminishing intellectual returns. He seems to have reached the nadir of his intellectual utility. How can this man assume such crass arrogance that whatever falsehood he projects will stand on the merit of his intellectual personality, not on the force of his argument. H. B needs to be restored to intellectual sanity.
In “We Must Run While They walk,” he refutes claims that he has argued for the surrender of Liberian sovereignty; dreads the holding of elections in October 2005; defends the Progressive movement or Liberia’s traditional political class as not “erecting a culture of social disorganization,” because they have not governed; misstates the arguments about who has failed in Liberia by alluding to false claims that the “academically enlightened have failed the nation;” defends Ellen Sirleaf; attacks George Weah; and generally whines in a verbiage befitting a frustrated politician whose 25-year politicking in Liberia has come to naught.
Let’s now consider four issues he discusses in his piece: the question of the failure of Liberia’s political class; of violence concerning that class; the misstated claim that the “academically enlightened have failed,” and of course, his feeble attack against George Manneh Weah, that new generation hero presently catalyzing the forces of radical and progressive change in Liberia.
How Have the Politicians Failed Liberia?
He argues it is wrong to believe politicians have failed Liberia. He maintains that a whole political class cannot fail in that “the political class is not a single group with one direction.” Then he names the segment of Liberia’s political class that failed, writing “when we say the political class has failed, we are talking about that segment that that held power under the True Whig Party; that fooled around with the military from 1983 to 1990; with the NPFL from 1997 to 2003; and now, with the present arrangement.” 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 scarce Liberian resources on meaningless trips. Yet this is a man who writes “an honest person will search for the truth no matter how it is hidden. A dishonest person will refuse to accept the truth no matter how obvious.” Is there a greater example of intellectual dishonesty? Certainly, we must crush falsehood and establish truth in this article.
Now that we have established that H. B. and some others are also part of the political class that failed, it spares us a little time and space to even belabor why they failed. He himself put it simply; they fooled around with the military regime from 1980 to 1990. Not only that, they failed massively in coercing political change in a society they least understood and at a time they were least prepared for it.
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. Progressives were schooled in the communist revolutionary cannon, but least understood its practical dimensions. Such description only befits revolutionaries like Fidel Castro of Cuba. 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 basis of an institution that would deal with power after Batista’s dethronement. Fahbulleh and his Progressive band did quite the contrary. These men organized personality cults in the form of PAL, or MOJA with no institutional foundation and no understanding of how to manage power. Because they were the first generation of indigenous intellectuals which had returned from abroad with a modicum of learning at a time political change was demanded, the mantle fell naturally upon them. And their situation was even made easier. Tolbert was willing to institute drastic reforms. By the mid 70’s he and moderates within the TWP fully understood that Tubman’s Unification, Integration and Open Door policies had unleashed social, political and economic forces beyond the grasp of the party. Consciousness had spread through the population. Tolbert sensed this. His immediate response was to launch a massive reform effort. He ended the practice of public employees remitting a portion of their salary to the TWP; clamped down on corruption though it remained a fixture of the TWP oligarchy; encouraged women involvement in politics by appointing women to cabinet positions; launched a four year development plan in 1974; directed the lowering of the price of rice; abolished monopoly on importing rice; and liberalized the political climate by permitting more political organizing and the voicing of dissent. But what did the progressives make out of this? They saw it as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to cease power for which they had no plan. This greed for power led to intra-factional bickering among their rank and file.
As their cults of personality widened, the actions of different Progressive organizations became ascribed to their respective founders. The April 14, 1979 rice riot was patented by Bacchus Matthews. Tipoteh personalized MOJA’s modest successes. Theoreticians Sawyer and H. B. bided their opportunity to upstage both Matthews and Tipoteh. Disunity and suspicion became rife within the group. MOJA did not sanction PAL’s April 14 rice riot and its 1980 mid-night march against Tolbert, which Tipoteh characterized as “at best infantile and rather ridiculous.” Such wrangling led to the tragic failure to anticipate and develop a strategic framework for managing power in the context of the rapid political change the country was now going through.
All H. B. and his Progressive cabal cared about was to mobilize for mass action and foment tension, out of which anything could happen. Change in Liberia now depended on happenstance, on historical accidents. This was the Progressive prescription for producing change. They did not mobilize to build institutions able to survive trying political times. Regime change was their obsession. 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. This is just an overview of Progressive failure of the 70’s going into early 80’s. The political class as H. B. has noted comprises more than just progressives. Let’s briefly examine its other components and do so via the lens of Fahnbulleh himself, maybe to point another instance of flip-flopping.
In “Liberia and Democracy” he writes:
“The charade has long since ended. What grumblings there remain are the reflexes of frustrated politicians who helped orchestrate the farce, but were themselves duped in the end by more unscrupulous political tricksters. The tragedy of this whole affair is that the people, in their determination to oust the racketeers who now rule their country, are willing and ready to sacrifice their lives in defense of the domestic opposition, without realizing that those who now lead this opposition are the very people who through cunning and stealth imposed Sergeant Samuel Doe and his band of thieves on them in the first place.”
Yes! This is vintage Fahnbulleh in his brutal candor, capturing the emergent decay of a political culture that would prove problematic for the country over the next two decades. One can only wish he would maintain that position. Unfortunately, two decades later, he doesn’t. Yesterday, he considers the political class a colossal failure, today he touts it as not “erecting a culture of social disorganization.” Which position are we to accept? I prefer the earlier version because it bears the hallmark of H. B. in the heyday of his fearless honesty. Numerous events may have now compromised that prior substance. Anyway, let’s deal with the man in his current metamorphosed personality. He writes “one cannot accuse a people or a political class of ‘erecting a culture of social disorganization’ when the decay brought about has to do with the repression, brutality and irresponsibility of those who hold power.” Ohm, quite a stretch! Is H. B arguing that this decay was caused by Doe’s brutality? He continues, “If this class has not held power for twenty-five years, how is it possible for it to have erected “a culture of social disorganization?” Yes. That is highly possible and this is what happened in Liberia. The answer lies right there, in H. B’s own prose as quoted earlier. 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. Take Samuel Doe and some of his cabinet for example; H. B. Fahnbulleh as Education minister, Togba Nah Tipoteh from Planning and Economic Affairs and Bacchus Matthews at Foreign. There three Progressives sitting at the high table. What went wrong? Different theories and speculation abound. Is it that pre-1980 bickering among progressives carried over into the new regime? Or were progressives in government countered by other forces (Fahnbulleh’s version) that feared Progressive influence and power? Affirmative answers to any of these questions only indicates that the “decay” H. B. mentions as having “to do with the repression, brutality and irresponsibility of those who hold power,” actually originates elsewhere. This is only logical. A “culture of social disorganization” is just what it is: a culture. Cultures evolve, comprising the habits, precepts, mores and values of a people from one era to the next. How can H. B. argue Liberia’s social disorganization originated with Samuel Doe? Did not Progressive opposition in the 70’s indicate a smoldering of this decay, which only festered in the 80’s and beyond? Could it be that the prolonged deprivation of Liberia’s indigenous mass created a culture in which formerly deprived indigenous leaders decided to maximize the gains for themselves once they gain power or access to it, just as True Whig Party leaders had done? These are theoretical considerations that render weak the claim that a “political class has to be in power before it can affect a culture of social disorganization.” Fahnbulleh would never have made this argument in 1983 after he had abandoned Samuel Doe.
The Political Class Did Not Introduce Violence in Liberia
Lets now deal with the question of violence and examine closely H. B.’s statement that the “political class did not introduce violence in Liberia.” He writes, “as a matter of fact this class has always indulged in what some commentators refer to as ‘jaw-jaw instead of war-war.’ This is the nature of intellectuals and other educated people. They analyze, speculate and diagnose instead of resorting to arms as the first recourse for settling disputes. However, there is a rare breed of such people who would readily resort to violence. In this category are those who combine their political ideas with radical action to change a situation. But even here, this form of action/protest is resorted to after thorough deliberation and consideration.” H. B. continues, “in Liberia, from the death of Tubman to 1980, various segments of the political class argued, analyzed, debated, and speculated, but did not once resort to violence to take power.” This is plain baloney and intellectual confusion. Here he attempts to distinguish mob action such as April 14 rice riot against Tolbert, which was indeed violent, from Doe’s overthrow or Taylor’s rebel insurgency. Does he understand the role of the violence in the overthrow of Tolbert; the April 14 1979 rice riot and the arrests of Matthews and others for charges of planning violence? Is he now flipping back to a position of detesting violence after celebrating it for so many years? The confusion is profound. In one section of the article, he extols the role of violence in producing change, arguing “It was only in the context of violent repression by a regime which had no legitimacy that some patriots decided to act. This is the only way patriots throughout history have acted. In the face of brutal and savage repression by tyrants, heroic patriots have risen to their responsibility to redeem their nation and people.” He asks further “Are patriots to refrain from decisive action against injustice because people will die in the process? History does not move in this way. In our case, after 1985, there was nothing to show that the regime would not go on killing, terrorizing and brutalizing the people as was done between 1980-84.” Writing all this, yet maintaining that “the political class did not introduce violence in Liberia.” Where are we headed? Can this man take one position and maintain it throughout a discourse?
The ‘Academically Enlightened have failed Liberia’
It is sad that H. B. stoops to lending credence to false claims that the “academically enlightened have failed Liberia.” He belabors the claim, going so far as to state the obvious. That “there are many educated people who have contributed positively to our development but have not been in the political class. There are farmers, midwives, medical doctors, bankers, engineers, teachers, scientists, agronomists, etc. without whose contribution we would not have our people surviving today.” This needs no arguing. The argument is not that the academically enlightened have failed, but that academically enlightened political actors of the brand of Fahnbulleh and his progressive cabal, coupled with other political degenerates, have used the political process in Liberia as a platform to self-enrichment and power aggrandizement. This is the argument. The masses have seen that those who advocate for change in Liberia mask their real intentions which become exposed when they assume power or enjoy access to it. And they have held power in one form or another, in the early 1980’s, and during the IGNU regime, though H. B. would disagree. Where is the evidence that Progressives and other political leaders have championed the interest of the masses when they were able to pull the levels of power? During the regime of IGNU, Fahnbulleh roved the planet as Special Envoy, achieving nothing, but wasting scare Liberian resources in the process. While he did that, his younger IGNU Progressive cadres were drinking beer and wasting public money on flashy girls in Monrovia. The nation’s currency was changed during this era and we all know the story of how IGNU officials reaped a fortune out of the process. These are the enlightened ones who are considered failures by the masses and not all educated people as H. B. would have us believe. But H. B introduces the misstated claim as a means to begin an attack on an unassailable character, a man who now holds the greatest promise of delivering the aspiration of our people: GMW.
On The Issue of George Weah
H. B. waffles in a pool of trivial arguments which I will not deal with because they have been considerably dealt with elsewhere. We cannot rehash failed arguments about Weah’s education, leadership ability or experience. However, he asks three questions he believes are critical for electing Weah to the Liberian presidency: 1) “How many kids has [Weah] assisted in school or college?” 2) “Has he built a soccer school for poor kids to attend like Patrick Viera and others have done in Senegal?” And 3) “Has Weah ever been a part of any social or political struggles for the promotion and defense of justice, liberty and equality?” Now, going by H. B.’s logic if Weah has done any one of these, then he deserves to be president. Let’s follow that line of reasoning and respond to each question. 1) Yes, Weah has assisted countless number of high school and college students. In the late 90’s Weah provided money to Abraham Massaley’s ULSU leadership which defrayed scholarship costs for downtrodden students at the UL. 2) No. Weah has not built a school for soccer kids. 3) Yes. Weah has contributed to the struggle to rid Liberia of tyranny. 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. So according to his own logic, H. B. agrees that Weah can be president because the man has achieved two of out three of his concerns.
But at a more advanced level H. B’s questions betrays the Progressive spirit, if there is one. How can this highly reputed Progressive elevate the influence of money, possibly bad money, in Liberian politics? The notion that to be president an individual will have to personally finance projects, while commendable, is dangerous. Such a prescription encourages crooks with vast financial means to seek the presidency. The massive trust Weah now enjoys is not in the concretion of what he did—monies he spent, scholarships he gave—but rather in the sheer patriotic symbolism of his giving, especially at a time when corruption defined the country. The masses believe that were Weah to guard the national treasury and administer the distribution of resources, their interests would be served far more than if a selfish and greedy Progressive leader were to assume power.
Weakening his case further, H. B. writes, “Weah is not the only great footballer in Africa, but in other countries, the people know how and where a man’s talent can best be used. In Guinea, we find Petit Sorie, Titi Kamara and others. These men are great footballers. Have we heard them talking about ruling Guinea? In Cameroon, there are Roger Miller, Rigobert Song, Samuel Eto'o, Patrick Mboma, Geremi Fotso Njitap and many others.” Are we now seeing the “maggots or the carcass” of H. B’s intellectual remains? What childish logic is this? Below is his syllogism:
Roger Miller is rich.George Weah is rich. Roger Miller is a former football player.George Weah is a former football player.Miller does not want the presidency of Cameroun. Therefore: Weah should not seek the presidency of Liberia. Where do they teach this kind of reasoning? What if I were to counter with the equally false syllogism:
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a celebrity.Jesse Ventura is a celebrity.Arnold and Jesse both sought the governorship of their respective states in the US.
George Weah is a celebrity in Liberia.Therefore: G. W. too should seek the Liberian presidency. This is where H. B. wants to take us. We cannot oblige.
Importantly, to whom is he addressing his question, “what has George Weah done for Liberia…?” Is he making a case to the masses? Does he regard the masses as the ultimate determinant of any criteria for candidates who desire their votes? The masses have long since concluded that they will do no political business with rabble rousers like Fahnbulleh who theorize one thing and practice another. They have borne numerous insults from the likes of Fahnbulleh who writes, “poverty-stricken masses care less for human rights than for the satisfaction of their basic needs.” He further degrades the masses in “Democracy and Liberia” when he writes that “the new military leaders were from the downtrodden of society--that humiliated and degraded mass for whom money means everything.” Yet, this is the man who is confused about why the masses crave George Weah.
The Liberian masses have endured many a tragedy. They have borne two dictatorships imposed upon them by misguided elements who risked a country’s future by tinkering with change when they were least prepared for it. They rejected the political class and voted Taylor in 1997 because it was the very political class who empowered him to pillage and terrorize the country. How could they reject Taylor and endure his post-election defeatist violence while those who armed and supported him sheltered in the comfort of America? Our people are not stupid. The political class deceived them by imposing a tyrant upon them. They could only reward that deceit by legitimizing the tyrant. Deceit for deceit. It is sad that the masses took a hit in electing Taylor as president, but they live on to fight another day. That day has now dawned in the populist emergence of the patriot George Manneh Weah.
So H. B. and others who believe that the populist groundswell bringing Weah to power is a “mobocracy” and are vowing to resist it can brace themselves for a tough battle. Anyways, what are threats from men like H. B. who flirt with danger and flee when tension heightens? Can he explain the Pandema Road Prison Situation in Sierra Leone in which he led several young militants in an attack against Samuel Doe but cowardly escaped, leaving several to be butchered in cold blood. Where is the proof of vaunted militant bravado? Vacuous utterances, bereft of any practical effect. He could not achieve politically. Neither could he militarily. Yet this is the man who vows to resist a people’s genuine struggle, summoning battered Progressives to a lost cause, and quoting the Mwalimu in the process.
When Mwalimu taught that “we must run while they walk” he was addressing that core of true African visionaries and revolutionaries; men and women who “knit rather than unravel nations” as Robert Rotberg from Harvard puts it. H. B. Fahnbulleh cannot quote this great old man with any authority because H. B. too has betrayed the teachings of the Mwalimu. George Weah and the new breed of revolutionaries will pick up after the Mwalimu. This is the mantra of the new generation!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment