Is The Congress For Democratic Change Acquiescing To The Unity Party? At the time when violence was the fashion in town that was driving Liberia’s political machinery, with warlords and rebel commanders camouflaging their violent images as standard bearers for their former warring factions which they transformed into political parties, a group of Liberians let by former world soccer great George Oppong Weah came together to form a political party that is now known as Congress For Democratic Change, or CDC. Mr. Weah and his lieutenants, by the name of their party, were signaling to the Liberian people that violence, not only has failed, but was never the right path to take for the uplifting of the Liberian people, instead, CDC urged the people that fostering democratic changes through the Liberian political system was the true path to their uplifting. However, it has been 10 years now since CDC became part of the political life of the Liberian society, and yet the people have not seen any sign of democratic changes being championed by CDC, not only as an opposition party but as the supposedly “largest” opposition. Whether within its own ranks or on the national level. Many of its members have gone to the extend calling CDC Liberia’s main political party. Really? By what measurement and litmus test they are using remain to being seen. However. Those who are following Liberian politics since the entrance of CDC are finding it difficult to say at least as to what CDC’s positions on critical issues facing the country and not so critical issues. How do you juxtapose CDC current public activities or methods of operations with its mantle to foster democratic changes? What are the behaviors or policies of the ruling Unity Party government that CDC is diametrically opposed to, and how is it asserting such opposition? So far, what CDC has put out is getting people worry about a CDC-led government. Could it lead to people yearning for the Sirleaf government after it is gone? Let’s assume, for the purpose of this discussing, that CDC is indeed the largest and main opposition party in Liberia. The question is what or who is CDC opposing? One of the ways an opposition party demonstrates it political prowess, especially one who its members are describing as the main opposition party, is how it stands up to the ruling party, regarding policies and those critical issues that have the propensities of destabilizing the nation, its ability to present itself as the alternative party. For ten years and still counting. CDC has yet to create a striking difference or distance in terms of the direction of the country between itself and the ruling Unity Party. The Liberian people keep scratching their eyes trying to see if there exists such difference between CDC and the Unity Party or even the other political parties. Below are few instances where many Liberians thought CDC would draw the line between itself and the Unity Party. The TRC report. One of the most defining issues of our time. What is CDC’s position? CDC is mute on what she thinks about the TRC report, its recommendations. Should they be implemented or not? How can Liberia’s “largest” or main opposition refused to communicate its position on such main and important issue to the Liberian people? However, through inferences one can easily detect that CDC is in locked steps with the Unity Party’s position of refusal to implement the TRC report when George Weah, CDC’s standard bearer by default, until otherwise, accepted a fictitious position from the Sirleaf government as chairman for what was dubbed as “reconciliation” commission. An acceptance that didn’t not go well with many Liberian war victims, many of them who considered George Weah their hero. An acceptance many Liberians see as one of the ways CDC is acquiescing to the Unity Party. The refusal to clearly support the implementation of TRC report represents a major issue that will continues to hunt the conscience of our entire nation and is emerging as important hurdle in the way to political victory in Liberia as the Liberian people’s minds and memories began to be strengthened and get clearer about the atrocities of the war and their perpetrators. CDC also missed another opportunity when it failed to take a stronger position against Sirleaf government when its police brutalized hundreds of GW Gibson students in their classrooms downtown Monrovia, the Liberian capital in March of 2010. It was the Liberty Party Standard Bearer, Clr. Charles Brumskine, who came out to contradict the Sirleaf government position denying that any of the students was killed. Mr. Brumskine told the press that one of the students was killed as a result of the police brutality. The Sirleaf government conducted what was described as an investigation and stood by its early position that no student died. CDC as the “largest” opposition and main opposition party was a no show in defense of the students despite the fact students is base for CDC support. Then came what was considered the un-kindest cut of them all when on Nov 8, 2011, the Sirleaf-led Unity Party government security forces opened fire using live ammunitions on CDC’s members who were exercise their rights of expression protesting what they were told by CDC’s bosses that the first round of 2011 presidential election was rigged therefore robbing CDC of another presidential victory. This was an incident that hit hard in the heart and soul of CDC, the firing of live ammunitions on its members by the government security forces before its headquarters. It was an incident anyone would have been tempted to bet another up to $1.m that CDC would come out swinging defending these young people.. Within hours of the incident, in fact while the shooting was still going, President Sirleaf told the press that one person was killed and she termed that “an isolated incident” despite news spreading like wild fire saying otherwise that several persons were killed. The fact that this unfortunate violent event took place before CDC’s headquarters means CDC, from its vantage point, had exclusive privilege to the prima facie evidence and as such should have dictated the facts in this case, or better yet, conduct its own full investigation and make available the result to the public. As it stands, for the record, there will not be an asterisk mark to Sirleaf government purported independent investigation which results stood by the president early statement that only one person died as compared to CDC’s own investigation. Under pressure, with various reports suggesting and insisting that several persons died during incident or died later from injuries sustained from gunshots wounds, CDC’s standard bearer at the time Clr. Winston Tubman, in December 2010, while announcing that CDC will boycott the 2nd round of the 2011 Liberian presidential election, he said eight persons died before his party’s headquarters. Now here is a contradiction that had many Liberians stretching their eyes in surprise. Even though Mr. Tubman said as part of the reason CDC was boycotting second round voting is that 8 person died in the spray of live ammunitions, with other reports suggesting Tubman himself may have been a target, the CDC mock funeral that followed had only one casket supporting not what Tubman said of 8 being killed but what President Sirleaf said that only one person died. Here’s another contradiction. In his speech announcing the election boycott, in a firm voice, Tubman said CDC will not recognize any government coming out of the second round vote, few weeks later Winston Tubman, Geroge Weah and George Solo were front row guests at inauguration of the government Mr. Tubman said CDC will not recognize. Don’t get us wrong. Every person, organization, especially a political party, are entitled to change their minds if the circumstances call for it and based on the gravity of what is at stake. In this case the peace and stability of Liberia, still suffering from the ravages of war, are more important than anyone’s or one party political wish. However, when a political party makes such a profound statement not to recognize a government, it is assumed by the public, especially its followers, that all the ramifications or implications of such statement were carefully studied and considered. However, to reverse such statement for the reasons stated above, Mr. Tubman should have used the same process used to announce the boycott and non-recognition of the government to alert the general public, particularly CDC supporters, about the change of heart regarding recognizing the government. Many CDC’s supporters as well as sympathizers were rubbing their eyes in disbelief when they saw CDC standard bearer, vice standard bearer and chairman sitting in the front row seats at the inauguration of a government they have said they will not recognize
Posted on: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 00:44:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015