There are pivotal moments in a nation’s history when the act of voting transcends its basic function. It transforms into a beacon of hope, a tool for overcoming despair, a testament to faith, and at times, a reflection of a people’s aspirations.
For Liberia, October 10, 2017, marked such a moment. On that day, countless Liberians gathered at polling stations nationwide, each carrying a dream that had been postponed for generations.
They were not merely choosing a president; they were seeking a fresh start. They yearned for a leader who understood the depths of poverty, who had faced rejection, and who knew what it meant to rise from the shadows and stand on the global stage. In George Manneh Weah, they saw that potential.
He was a man who had emerged from the challenging environment of his childhood in Monrovia to become one of the most renowned footballers worldwide.
An African son who had triumphed in European football, won the Ballon d’Or in 1995, and brought international attention to a nation scarred by civil war, poverty, and prolonged political turmoil.
If he could achieve greatness in football, many believed, why couldn’t he tackle Liberia’s challenges?
It was a compelling political story, an emotional call to action, and the promise of a revitalized Liberia.
History teaches us a challenging lesson: inspiring a nation and governing it are two distinct roles. Between these roles lies the heavy weight of leadership.
THE ROAD TO THE PRESIDENCY
George Weah’s victory in 2017 was not an overnight success. His first major attempt at the presidency came in 2005, as Liberia was recovering from the ravages of civil war.
He entered the race with immense popularity, a well-known international name, and the excitement of citizens yearning for change.
Howbeit, popularity alone wasn’t enough to secure victory. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf defeated him in the runoff, making history as Africa’s first elected female head of state. That loss could have ended the political aspirations of many, but for Weah, it became just one chapter in a longer journey.
In 2011, he re-entered the political arena as the vice-presidential candidate alongside Winston Tubman. Unfortunately, the opposition’s efforts did not result in a change of power.
By 2014, Weah had won a Senate seat in Montserrado County, further establishing himself as a formidable political force.
Then came 2017. This time, he was no longer just a famous footballer trying to leverage his fame for political gain. He had become the standard-bearer for the Coalition for Democratic Change, leading a movement that resonated with many young people and economically disadvantaged Liberians.
His message was compelling: advocating for change, inclusion, poverty alleviation, improved opportunities, and a government that prioritizes the needs of everyday citizens.
On October 10, 2017, Weah emerged as the frontrunner in the first round of voting, garnering around 38.4 percent of the votes, while Joseph Nyuma Boakai, the then vice president, trailed with approximately 28.8 percent.
Since neither candidate achieved a clear majority, a runoff was necessary. However, before Liberia could move forward with this crucial vote, the country found itself engulfed in a legal and political turmoil.
BRUMSKINE, THE COURTS, AND THE CONTRAVERSY THAT DELAYED THE RUNOFF
Charles Walker Brumskine was no stranger to politics. As a lawyer and leader of the Liberty Party, he had previously sought the presidency in 2005 and 2011. His ongoing pursuit of the presidency reflected a commitment to carve out a different political trajectory for Liberia.
In 2017, Brumskine and his running mate, Harrison Karnwea, contested the results of the first round, alleging electoral irregularities and raising doubts about the integrity of the electoral process.
This was more than just a minor disagreement over political arithmetic; it was a dispute whether the electoral process had adhered to the necessary standards to grant the eventual winner a legitimate mandate.
The legal dispute became entangled in a larger controversy involving the Liberty Party, the Unity Party, the National Elections Commission, and the Supreme Court.
The runoff, initially set for November 7, 2017, was delayed as the matter navigated through the legal system. Ultimately, the Supreme Court permitted the electoral process to continue, and the National Elections Commission announced that the runoff would take place on December 26.
The court proceedings brought to light concerns regarding statements made by the NEC chairman during the investigation of complaints.
The judiciary’s official records highlight the gravity of the legal issues related to the electoral process.
However, it’s crucial to note that the mere existence of an electoral complaint does not automatically imply that an election was fraudulent.
Similarly, a court’s decision to permit an election to move forward does not mean that all criticisms of the process are baseless.
The institutions were required to assess the complaints in accordance with the law, and the nation needed to find a constitutional way to move ahead.
This is what made the situation so consequential. Liberia’s democracy was being challenged not just by the rivalry among candidates, but also by its ability to address disputes without compromising the electoral process.
DECEMBER 28, 2017: THE PEOPLE DELIVERED THEIR VERDICT
When Liberians went to the polls again on December 26, the stakes were incredibly high. It was no longer just about whether George Weah could win; it was about whether he could turn the hope he inspired in millions into a real governing mandate.
Weah secured around 61.5 percent of the runoff vote, defeating Boakai, and was inaugurated as Liberia’s president on January 22, 2018.
This marked the first peaceful transfer of power between democratically elected presidents in Liberia since 1944, a momentous milestone for a nation with a history of coups, civil wars, and political turmoil.
The symbolism was powerful: a young man from a humble background in Monrovia had ascended to the highest office in the country, challenging long-held beliefs about leadership in Liberia.
His rise offered young people hope that their current situations didn’t have to dictate their futures.
Howbeit, the inauguration was just the start of a new chapter. The promises made during the campaign needed to translate into actual policies. The slogans had to evolve into tangible outcomes like schools, hospitals, roads, jobs, and effective institutions that would genuinely improve the lives of everyday citizens.
The cheers from inauguration day would soon be replaced by the pressing need for accountability.
THE WEIGHT OF EXPECTATION: WHEN HOPE MEETS THE REALITIES OF GOVERNANCE
Weah took office with a commitment to combat corruption, alleviate poverty, enhance living conditions, and ensure the government served the interests of the poor.
His personal history lent significant emotional weight to these promises. Many Liberians viewed him not as part of the conventional political elite, but as someone whose life experiences mirrored their own challenges, someone who truly understood the struggle of starting from nothing.
This connection was a source of his strength. However, it also meant that if his administration fell short of expectations, the resulting disappointment would be particularly acute.
The challenges facing his government were daunting. Liberia was burdened with weak institutions, inadequate infrastructure, a fragile economy, and the lingering effects of civil war and the Ebola crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic and unfavorable global economic conditions only intensified these challenges.
A balanced evaluation must recognize these limitations; no president could resolve every systemic issue within six years.
Nevertheless, tough circumstances do not absolve a government of its duty to exhibit integrity, competence, transparency, and genuine concern for the populace.
This is where the Weah administration began to encounter serious scrutiny, particularly regarding corruption.
One of the most troubling contradictions of Weah’s presidency was related to this issue.
He had vowed to ensure that public resources would not be misappropriated by officials. Yet, his administration faced numerous scandals and allegations involving public funds and high-ranking officials.
The controversies surrounding the printing and distribution of Liberian banknotes, concerns over public fund management, and subsequent U.S. sanctions against senior officials for alleged corruption all fueled public skepticism.
During Weah’s reign, the investigation into the alleged missing banknotes did not confirm that every claim circulating in the public sphere was accurate.
Additionally, allegations against specific officials should not automatically imply the president’s personal criminal responsibility.
Howbeit, the series of scandals raised a crucial question: how can a president, who has made combating corruption a key promise, reassure citizens that his administration is fulfilling that commitment?
In the realm of public life, perception does not equate to proof. Yet, ongoing public skepticism can turn into a political reality, particularly when a government fails to show credible accountability.
For a leader who was elected on the basis of a new political ethos, this posed a significant challenge.
For everyday Liberians, political pledges must ultimately be evaluated against the realities of daily survival, which brings the economic issues to the forefront.
Can a parent afford to feed their family? Can a recent graduate secure a meaningful job? Can a family obtain dependable healthcare? Can a trader generate enough income to sustain their business? Can a worker’s salary cover basic necessities?
These questions are crucial in determining whether the government feels authentic to its citizens.
Weah’s administration made strides in infrastructure, including road projects and electrification efforts, which deserve acknowledgment for the tangible benefits they brought.
However, critics point out that economic struggles were still widespread, job creation had not met expectations, and the government’s performance did not sufficiently transform the lives of those who sought change at the polls.
The pandemic, along with Liberia’s underlying economic issues, has added complexity to the situation.
It’s important to recognize that the government shouldn’t be held accountable for every external challenge or for problems inherited from past administrations.
Nevertheless, the key political question persists: after six years in power, were enough Liberians experiencing a real improvement in their daily lives to warrant another six years being handed over to the ex-footballer? By 2023, electoral data indicated that many voters were not persuaded.
Additionally, the issue of justice and national healing cannot be overlooked. Liberia’s history is not just a distant memory; the scars of civil war continue to shape the nation’s political and moral landscape.
Many Liberians had hoped for meaningful progress toward accountability for wartime atrocities and justice for victims.
The inability to establish a war and economic crimes court during Weah’s presidency became another point of disappointment for critics and advocates within civil society.
For the survivors and families who had spent years seeking accountability, the matter was deeply personal. It revolved around dignity, remembrance, and the fundamental belief that no one should escape the law’s grasp.
A government demonstrates its dedication to justice not merely by calling for national unity but by establishing the institutions necessary to pursue justice in a fair and lawful manner. Once more, hopes clashed with the Weah administration’s track record.
WAS GEORGE WEAH’S ELECTION A MISTAKE?
The question that continues to spark debate in Liberia is whether George Weah’s election in 2017 was a mistake.
The answer to this question hinges on how we define “mistake.” If we consider it a mistake for Liberians to exercise their constitutional right to choose a leader outside the traditional political framework, then the answer is no. Voters had valid reasons for wanting change. They had the right to evaluate the previous administration, seek better opportunities, and support a candidate whose life story resonated with their hopes and dreams. There is nothing inherently wrong with electing someone who was once a footballer. Political leadership should not be limited to career politicians, wealthy families, or established elites. A person’s modest beginnings do not disqualify them from leadership, nor does success in international sports automatically make someone fit to govern. The crucial question is how a leader utilizes the authority given to them.
Howbeit, if we ask whether the expectations surrounding Weah’s election were met, the situation becomes more concerning.
His administration failed to deliver convincing results on many of the promises that characterized his campaign.
Issues of corruption eroded public trust, and economic difficulties continued. The administration found it challenging to convince a significant portion of the electorate that its accomplishments warranted another term.
Thus, the lesson is not that the people erred in their vote. The more profound lesson is that a democratic mandate is a chance to serve, not a guarantee of ongoing public approval.
The voters provided Weah with a chance to demonstrate his capabilities. They were not required to extend that chance no matter the results. The duty of governance rested with the government.
NOVEMBER 23: THE RETURN OF THE MAN WEAH HAD DEFEATED
History has a way of returning to familiar events. In 2017, George Weah triumphed over Joseph Boakai to become president. Fast forward to 2023, and the two were pitted against each other once more. However, the political landscape had shifted.
Weah was no longer the hopeful challenger advocating for change; he was the sitting president defending six years of his choices, policies, and their outcomes. On the other hand, Boakai positioned himself as a viable alternative to the current administration.
The first round of voting in October 2023 resulted in a tightly contested race, with neither candidate securing a clear majority, leading to a runoff.
On November 14, Liberians cast their votes in the crucial second round, where Boakai emerged victorious with about 50.64 percent of the votes, compared to Weah’s 49.36 percent. The results were close, but the message was clear.
On November 17, Weah acknowledged his defeat and urged the nation to rally behind the election results. His concession played a vital role in ensuring a peaceful transition of power.
This act is commendable; true democratic leadership is measured not just by the desire to win, but also by the grace to accept defeat.
Weah had claimed the presidency in 2017, but six years later, the electorate opted for a new leader. The same constitutional principle that had brought him to power now mandated his departure.
THE FINAL VERDICT: THE PEOPLE WERE NOT WRONG TO HOPE
What lessons should Liberia draw from the rise and fall of George Weah’s presidency?
Firstly, his election was historically meaningful. It showed that a candidate from outside the usual political circles could rally widespread support and secure the nation’s top position.
Secondly, his time in office highlighted the limitations of personal charisma, as a well-known name, an inspiring life story, and a strong campaign message cannot replace the need for effective institutions, skilled governance, economic opportunities, and trustworthy accountability.
Thirdly, the disputes surrounding the 2017 election serve as a reminder that democracy requires more than just declaring a winner.
Electoral grievances must be addressed fairly, the judiciary must operate independently, and citizens should feel confident that their votes carry weight.
Fourthly, the outcome of the 2023 election showed that the Liberian electorate has the power to reassess its decisions. After six years of Weah’s governance, when the chance for a second term arose, enough voters chose to hand the presidency to a different candidate.
This decision does not necessarily reject every policy or achievement of Weah’s administration; it simply reflects a choice not to have extended his term.
A thoughtful historical evaluation should recognize the infrastructure projects and other initiatives undertaken during his tenure while also addressing the issues of corruption, economic setbacks, and unmet expectations that tarnished his reputation.
The record should be scrutinized, not idealized; critiqued, not misrepresented. The people of Liberia were not obligated to grant George Weah a second term due to his football legacy, nor were they required to favor his opponents simply because they opposed his administration. The presidency is a public trust, and ultimately, it is the electorate that serves as its final arbiter.
CONCLUSION: OCTOBER 10 AND THE LESSON LIBERIANS MUST NEVER FORGET
On October 10, 2017, the people of Liberia cast their votes with a vision for the future.
They hoped that a man who had emerged from poverty could help uplift a nation burdened by economic struggles. They sought change, inclusivity, and a new political path. That hope carried a sense of dignity.
However, six years later, the events of that election have highlighted the crucial distinction between selecting a leader and holding that leader accountable.
The presidency should not be seen as a reward for past achievements; it is a duty evaluated by current actions.
The national treasury is not a trophy from a campaign; it belongs to the citizens.
Public office is not a personal legacy; it is a temporary responsibility.
The ballot box is not merely a one-time show of loyalty; it is a tool for citizens to recognize good performance, express dissatisfaction, and steer the nation’s course.
Therefore, the pressing question may not be whether Liberia erred in electing George Weah, but whether the nation will learn to demand more from every future president.
Will the next leader grasp that promises need to translate into tangible outcomes? That allegations of corruption must be thoroughly investigated? That public funds require transparency? That young people deserve real opportunities, not just words of encouragement? That the underprivileged need effective institutions rather than mere speeches about their hardships? And will Liberians continue to assert that no one, regardless of their fame, wealth, or influence, is above the public good?
George Weah began his presidency amid great hope but exited after narrowly losing to the man he had once defeated. This is the essence of democracy: the people can elevate a leader, allow time for governance, evaluate their performance, and make a new choice. The true error would be to gain no insights from this experience.
For Liberia, October 10, 2017, should be remembered neither simply as a day a football legend became president nor merely as the beginning of a disappointing administration. It should be seen as the moment when a nation placed its trust in one individual and the beginning of a six-year journey to see if that trust could lead to meaningful national advancement.
The ultimate lesson is not just for George Weah, Charles Brumskine, Joseph Boakai, or any political party. It belongs to the Republic itself.
In a democracy, the people have the right to hope, to make choices, to ask questions, and when the time comes, to make those choices again.
While the presidency may be held by the election winner, the future of Liberia truly belongs to its people.
