By Smart Newsroom
MONROVIA, LIBERIA – Few Liberian political figures have generated as much emotional debate as former President George Manneh Weah.
To his supporters, Weah remains the extraordinary son of the Liberian soil who rose from poverty in Monrovia to become one of Africa’s greatest footballers and eventually the first former professional footballer to become president of Liberia.
To his critics, particularly some academics, professionals, commentators and civil-society voices, his presidency represented a missed opportunity: a government that promised transformation but struggled with corruption, economic difficulties, institutional weaknesses and unfulfilled commitments.
But beneath the familiar political arguments lies a more complicated question:
Why does criticism of George Weah sometimes appear to go beyond disagreement with his policies and become deeply personal?
There is no reliable evidence establishing that “most Liberian intellectuals hate George Weah.” That would be too broad a conclusion. But there is substantial evidence of a longstanding tension between Weah and sections of Liberia’s educated and professional elite, and that tension predates his presidency.
THE MAN WHO DISRUPTED LIBERIA’S POLITICAL ORDER
Weah’s political rise was unusual.
He did not emerge from one of Liberia’s traditional political families. He did not build his reputation through government bureaucracy, academia, diplomacy or the legal profession.
He came from the grassroots and became globally famous through football.
His political appeal was therefore partly based on something that conventional political elites could not easily manufacture: his personal story.
During the 2017 election, supporters frequently dismissed concerns about Weah’s limited governmental experience with the question, “Da book we’ll eat?”
The expression was more than a campaign slogan. It reflected frustration with Liberia’s technocratic and educated establishment.
The argument was essentially this: Liberia had been governed by highly educated people for years, yet poverty, unemployment and inequality remained widespread. Why should academic credentials automatically determine who was qualified to lead?
The Council on Foreign Relations later described how Weah’s grassroots appeal resonated particularly strongly with younger Liberians who were skeptical of technocratic politics.
An analysis published during the 2017 election similarly observed that, for some Liberians, technocratic expertise had become associated with elite arrogance.
That is perhaps the first key to understanding the Weah phenomenon.
He did not merely challenge politicians. He challenged the authority of the traditional political class to define who was qualified to govern.
THE “BOOK PEOPLE” PROBLEM
In 2018, Liberian political analyst Robtel Neajai Pailey told Devex that there was a sense of “anti-intellectualism” in Liberia at the time.
Her explanation was significant: many people believed that the country’s educated elites had failed to deliver sufficiently after years in government, and therefore wanted to give someone else an opportunity.
This creates an uncomfortable paradox.
Liberia needs educated professionals, economists, lawyers, engineers, academics, doctors and policy specialists.
But education can also become associated with social privilege when the people possessing the credentials appear disconnected from ordinary citizens.
Weah’s political message exploited — and perhaps genuinely embodied — that disconnect.
His presidency therefore became a test of whether grassroots legitimacy could substitute for traditional elite credentials.
BUT THE INTELLECTUAL CRITICISM CANNOT SIMPLY BE DISMISSED AS ELITISM
This is where the argument must become balanced.
Some of the criticism of Weah was based on substantive issues.
Liberian academic and activist Robtel Neajai Pailey became one of the most prominent intellectual critics of the Weah administration.
In a 2023 analysis, Pailey argued that Weah had failed to translate his campaign promises into transformative government policies and criticized his administration over corruption, economic management, appointments, the war and economic crimes court and other governance issues.
Freedom House also documented concerns during the Weah administration involving procurement, financial management, transparency and access to President Weah’s asset declaration.
These are legitimate areas for political scrutiny.
Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest to characterize every academic or professional criticism of Weah as hatred.
Some criticism was evidence-based and concerned genuine governance questions.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RECORD?
The debate becomes less complete when Weah’s presidency is discussed exclusively through its failures.
His administration introduced tuition waivers for undergraduate students at public universities and colleges in 2018. The government’s announcement described the measure as an attempt to reduce financial barriers that contributed to non-enrollment and dropout.
The administration also promoted infrastructure and electrification projects, which were among the accomplishments highlighted by Weah during his reelection campaign. The Associated Press similarly reported that infrastructure improvements, including roads and electrification, were central to his defense of his record.
This does not erase criticisms of his administration.
But it raises an important journalistic question:
Are Liberians applying the same standard of scrutiny to every government?
That question requires evidence rather than assumption.
THE CLASS DIMENSION
There may be a deeper social issue involved.
Weah’s biography carries an uncomfortable message for an established elite.
A child from a poor Monrovia community became an internationally celebrated footballer, accumulated extraordinary wealth through his sporting career and ultimately became president.
His rise demonstrated that someone could enter the highest levels of national leadership without following the conventional path through elite schools, government institutions and established political networks.
That can be empowering to people who identify with his background.
But it can also generate a different reaction among people who believe that political leadership should be grounded primarily in formal education, technical expertise and institutional experience.
This does not mean Liberian intellectuals are jealous of Weah.
There is no evidence sufficient to make such a sweeping claim.
But it does suggest that Liberia’s Weah debate contains an unresolved class question:
Who has the right to define competence in Liberia — the educated elite or the people themselves?
THE IRONY OF 2023
Perhaps the most revealing evidence came from the 2023 election.
Weah remained remarkably competitive despite five years of intense criticism.
BTI’s 2026 Liberia country report notes that Weah retained support among almost half the population before narrowly losing the 2023 election to Joseph Boakai. The report also describes Weah as having attracted significant grassroots support because of his identification with marginalized Liberians.
That matters.
If intellectual criticism alone determined political legitimacy, Weah’s political movement would probably not have remained as resilient as it did.
Instead, Liberia demonstrated something more complicated:
A politician can be heavily criticized by sections of the professional and intellectual community while maintaining substantial popular support.
That distinction deserves attention.
WHEN CRITICISM BECOMES PERSONAL
The real investigative question is not whether Weah should be criticized.
He should be — just as every president should be.
The question is whether some criticism crosses the boundary between accountability and personal political hostility.
That distinction can be investigated.
Journalists could examine:
– How major Liberian newspapers described Weah before, during and after his presidency.
– The language used by academics and commentators when discussing Weah.
– Whether similar failures by previous governments generated comparable criticism.
– Whether commentators criticized Weah’s policies or repeatedly attacked his education, background and personal history.
– How the same intellectuals responded to policies introduced by other administrations.
– Whether political party affiliation influenced supposedly independent analysis.
– Whether Weah’s grassroots supporters were dismissed as politically ignorant.
– Whether Weah himself contributed to the polarization by attacking critics or failing to engage sufficiently with professional institutions.
– Whether some members of Liberia’s elite benefited from the political arrangements that existed before Weah’s rise.
That would turn an emotional argument into an evidence-based investigation.
THE OTHER SIDE: WEAH MAY ALSO HAVE DEEPENED THE DIVIDE
It would also be incomplete to portray Weah solely as a victim of an intellectual establishment.
His administration had enormous political power and was responsible for its own decisions.
Critics raised concerns about corruption, public-sector management, appointments and economic performance. BTI’s assessment says expectations for broader development were disappointed and identifies corruption and weak public-service performance among the problems associated with the Weah government.
Al Jazeera’s post-election analysis similarly reported that corruption was a major issue in the 2023 campaign and quoted Pailey and other critics who argued that Weah had failed to deliver socioeconomic transformation.
Therefore, the intellectual class cannot simply be blamed for Weah’s political difficulties.
Governments create their own records.
But critics also create a record — and that record deserves examination.
PERHAPS THE REAL CONFLICT IS BIGGER THAN GEORGE WEAH
The Weah phenomenon may ultimately be less about one man than about Liberia’s unresolved struggle between elite governance and popular politics.
For much of Liberia’s history, political authority has been associated with education, wealth, professional status, political connections and proximity to established institutions.
Weah disrupted that formula.
His emergence effectively told millions of ordinary Liberians:
You do not need to come from the traditional establishment to aspire to the presidency.
That was historically significant regardless of one’s assessment of his presidency.
And perhaps that explains some of the extraordinary emotion surrounding him.
For some Liberians, Weah represented hope that the political system could finally belong to ordinary people.
For others, he represented the danger of replacing technical competence and institutional experience with popularity.
Neither interpretation should simply be accepted without evidence.
THE QUESTION LIBERIA SHOULD NOW ASK
The country has moved beyond the 2023 election, but the Weah phenomenon has not disappeared.
He remains an important political figure, and the continuing strength of his political base means that Liberia has not finished debating what his presidency represented.
The most useful question is therefore not:
“Do Liberia’s intellectuals hate George Weah?”
It is:
“Did George Weah become the target of unusually intense criticism because of his governing record, because he challenged Liberia’s traditional elite structure, because of partisan politics — or because of a combination of all three?”
That question can be answered.
But it requires something Liberia’s political debate often lacks:
evidence, consistency and intellectual honesty.
The task of journalism is not to protect George Weah from criticism.
Nor is it to protect his critics from scrutiny.
The task is to examine both.This could also be developed into a Part Two focused specifically on “The Intellectuals Who Opposed Weah: What Did They Say, What Were Their Political Affiliations, and Were Their Criticisms Consistent?” That would require systematically examining named commentators, academics, editorials and public statements rather than generalizing about Liberia’s intellectual community.
