Gabriel Bacchus Matthews’ Endorsement of George Weah Reshaped Liberia’s Postwar Politics
MONROVIA, LIBERIA — In the heat of Liberia’s historic 2005 presidential campaign, as the country emerged from years of civil war and searched for a new political direction, one of its most consequential political figures made a decision that reverberated far beyond an ordinary campaign endorsement.
Gabriel Bacchus Matthews — the veteran politician widely regarded as a father of Liberia’s multiparty democratic struggle — threw his political weight behind George Manneh Weah.
It was a remarkable political alignment.
Matthews was not a newcomer to Liberia’s political battlefield. He had spent decades challenging political exclusion and authoritarian rule and was credited with helping bring an end to the century-long dominance of the True Whig Party. In 1979, he founded the Progressive Alliance of Liberia, which later became the Progressive People’s Party — Liberia’s first opposition political party. His activism contributed to the political upheaval that culminated in the April 12, 1980 coup.
By 2005, Matthews had already served as foreign minister and had himself contested Liberia’s presidency. He was therefore part of the country’s political establishment — but he chose to stand behind a political newcomer whose principal claim to national prominence was his extraordinary career as a footballer.
That choice was anything but accidental.
Matthews Saw Something Beyond Weah’s Education
At the time, one of the central criticisms against Weah was his limited formal education and lack of conventional political experience.
His opponents argued that Liberia needed an experienced politician, an educated technocrat or a seasoned statesman after years of war and misrule.
Matthews offered a fundamentally different interpretation.
In comments reported internationally in August 2005, Matthews described Weah as “a breath of fresh air” for a country that had endured years of conflict. He argued that Liberia had experienced enough of what he called political “politricks” and did not necessarily need another politician steeped in the old system.
For Matthews, Weah’s lack of participation in Liberia’s wars was itself a qualification.
He argued that Weah had not participated in the Liberian conflict and therefore did not represent a security threat to the population.
“With Weah at the mansion,” Matthews argued, Liberians could sleep soundly.
That was a powerful argument in a country where the memories of war were still fresh.
The Veteran Revolutionary and the Football Icon
The symbolism of the alliance was difficult to miss.
On one side stood Gabriel Bacchus Matthews — the veteran of Liberia’s democratic struggle, a former foreign minister and one of the country’s most historically consequential opposition politicians.
On the other stood George Weah — the international football superstar from Clara Town who had risen from poverty to become one of the most celebrated African footballers of his generation.
Matthews’ support effectively challenged the argument that Weah’s candidacy represented merely the emotional enthusiasm of football fans and young people.
A contemporary report described Matthews as part of Weah’s CDC team and noted that he had recently defected from the United People’s Party to join Weah’s movement. The same report identified him as the man considered the “father of the Liberian revolution.”
His presence gave the emerging CDC campaign something it badly needed: political credibility among Liberians who remembered the country’s long struggle for democratic change.
And Matthews was not alone.
Weah’s political team also included J. Rudolph Johnson, a former foreign minister and planning and economic affairs minister who held two master’s degrees. Academic analysis of the 2005 election later noted that Weah was surrounded by figures such as Matthews and Johnson, both of whom brought substantial political experience to a campaign centered on a candidate with little conventional political background.
Why Matthews’ Endorsement Mattered
The significance of Matthews’ decision becomes clearer when viewed against the political climate of 2005.
Liberia had just emerged from a devastating civil war. Charles Taylor had left office. A United Nations peacekeeping force remained in the country. The October 11 election was intended to move Liberia from a transitional arrangement toward constitutional government.
Twenty-two candidates entered the presidential race.
George Weah, however, was quickly emerging as a mass phenomenon.
Campaigning formally began on August 15, 2005, and Weah’s rallies drew enormous crowds across Monrovia and other communities. Contemporary reporting described thousands of supporters turning out to see the football icon.
But popularity alone was not enough.
Weah needed people who understood government, diplomacy and politics.
That was where Matthews became particularly important.
Matthews’ Argument Was About the People
The veteran politician’s decision reflected a broader argument about who should benefit from political power in Liberia.
Weah’s supporters viewed him as a candidate who had emerged from outside Liberia’s traditional political elite.
Matthews, himself a product of Liberia’s historic political establishment, had spent much of his career challenging that establishment.
His decision to embrace Weah therefore carried an unmistakable message:
Liberia’s presidency did not have to remain the preserve of the traditional political class.
Matthews saw in Weah a candidate who could connect directly with ordinary Liberians — particularly young people, the poor and communities that felt excluded from the country’s traditional centers of power.
That interpretation would later become an important part of the political identity of the CDC.
Historical research on Liberia’s civil war and transition describes Matthews as a leading organizer of Weah’s 2005 campaign and a key CDC spokesperson.
The Endorsement Became Part of Liberia’s Political History
Weah ultimately won the first round of the October 11 election with 28.3 percent of the vote, while Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf finished second with 19.8 percent. The two proceeded to the November runoff.
Johnson-Sirleaf eventually won the runoff, receiving 59.4 percent against Weah’s 40.6 percent.
But the 2005 election fundamentally changed Liberian politics.
The CDC survived the defeat and grew into one of the country’s most powerful political movements.
And Matthews remained closely associated with Weah’s political journey.
A U.S. diplomatic account written after Matthews’ death in 2007 described him as a veteran Liberian politician and “father of multi-party democracy” and specifically recorded that Matthews had served as Weah’s political adviser during the 2005 election.
A Historical Question for Liberia Today
Nearly two decades later, the political significance of Matthews’ decision deserves renewed attention.
The question is not whether George Weah ultimately became a perfect president. Political leaders, including Weah, can and should be subjected to scrutiny.
The deeper historical question is this:
What did one of Liberia’s most respected democratic revolutionaries see in George Weah in 2005 that made him willing to leave his own political tradition and stand beside a footballer seeking the presidency?
Matthews had lived through Liberia’s old political order.
He had fought against authoritarianism.
He had helped create opposition politics.
He had served in government.
He had run for president.
And when the country reached another historic crossroads in 2005, he looked at George Weah and concluded that the former footballer represented something Liberia needed.
A contemporary account captured Matthews’ reasoning bluntly: Weah was “a breath of fresh air” in a country that had already endured too many trials and wars.
That decision remains one of the most striking political endorsements in modern Liberian history.
It was not simply a football legend receiving the backing of an elderly politician.
It was a founding figure of Liberia’s modern opposition movement placing his political credibility behind a new generation.
And that is why the moment when Gabriel Bacchus Matthews chose George Weah deserves to be remembered — not merely as a footnote in the 2005 election, but as a defining moment in the political history of postwar Liberia.I can also turn this into a , connecting Matthews’ 2005 decision directly to the present-day debate over why sections of Liberia’s intellectual class have been reluctant to acknowledge Weah’s historical political significance.
