A growing confrontation over the future character of Liberia’s democracy is emerging around a controversial electoral provision that could fundamentally reshape the country’s political landscape. At the center of the debate is renowned human rights lawyer, former presidential candidate, and constitutional advocate Tiawan Saye Gongloe, who has mounted a sweeping challenge to Section 5.A(1) of the Elections Law, the provision requiring political parties to secure at least two percent of votes cast or win legislative representation to remain electorally viable. As THE ANALYST reports, the Liberian legal luminary’s intervention comes amid renewed discussions over enforcement of the law and raises profound constitutional, democratic, historical, and governance questions about political participation, voter choice, and national inclusion.
Liberia’s democracy is facing renewed scrutiny following an extensive constitutional and democratic challenge mounted by veteran lawyer and former presidential candidate Tiawan Saye Gongloe against a controversial provision of the country’s Elections Law that could potentially remove political parties from future electoral participation based on past electoral performance.
The intervention by Gongloe, one of Liberia’s most prominent legal minds and long-time advocate for constitutional governance, arrives at a politically sensitive moment when questions surrounding electoral reforms, democratic participation, political inclusion, and the future structure of the country’s multiparty system are becoming increasingly prominent within national discourse. The issue has gained additional significance amid growing discussions concerning the possible enforcement of Section 5.A(1) of the Elections Law, a provision many observers believe could have far-reaching implications for Liberia’s democratic future.
At the center of the controversy is a simple but deeply consequential question: Should political parties be allowed to live or die through the choices of voters, or should government institutions possess the authority to determine which political organizations may continue to participate in elections?
For Gongloe, the answer lies squarely with the Liberian people.
DEMOCRACY’S FOUNDATION RESTS ON CHOICE
In a detailed examination of the law and its implications, Gongloe argues that democracy derives its legitimacy not from the success or failure of political parties but from the freedom of citizens to organize, associate, compete, and choose among competing political visions.
According to him, the essence of democratic governance lies in the unrestricted ability of citizens to support whichever political organization best reflects their values, aspirations, and interests. Political parties, he contends, serve merely as vehicles through which citizens exercise rights already guaranteed by the Constitution. Any law that permits administrative institutions to eliminate political organizations because of poor electoral performance risks transforming the state from an impartial referee into an active participant in determining which political ideas may remain available to the electorate.
His position challenges what many legal analysts view as one of the most controversial provisions embedded within Liberia’s electoral framework. While electoral thresholds are common in many countries, Gongloe argues that Liberia’s version ventures into far more dangerous territory by threatening the continued existence of political parties rather than simply regulating parliamentary representation.
He warns that such an approach carries consequences extending beyond election administration and enters the realm of constitutional freedoms.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLEFIELD
At the heart of Gongloe’s challenge is a constitutional argument rooted in several provisions of the 1986 Constitution.
He points first to Article 1, which declares that all power is inherent in the people and that government exists solely for their benefit. He further references Article 2, which establishes constitutional supremacy and renders invalid any legislation inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
Additionally, Gongloe points to Article 11(c), guaranteeing equal protection under the law; Article 17, protecting freedom of association; and Article 77(a), which explicitly guarantees citizens the right to form and join political parties.
Taken together, he argues, these constitutional provisions create a framework that prioritizes participation rather than exclusion.
Nowhere, Gongloe observes, does the Constitution state that citizens may only organize politically through parties that achieve specific electoral percentages. Neither does it suggest that constitutional protections evaporate because a political organization fails to achieve electoral success in a particular election cycle.
The Constitution protects rights, not outcomes.
In Gongloe’s interpretation, constitutional democracy requires that every political party be afforded an opportunity to compete before the electorate regardless of previous results. To do otherwise would effectively condition constitutional rights upon political popularity, a principle he believes is fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance.
A LESSON FROM LIBERIA’S POLITICAL EVOLUTION
History, Gongloe argues, provides perhaps the strongest evidence against rigid electoral exclusion.
Liberia’s political landscape has repeatedly demonstrated that political fortunes are neither fixed nor permanent. Throughout the country’s history, once-powerful political organizations have experienced dramatic decline, while previously marginal movements have risen to prominence.
The True Whig Party governed Liberia for more than a century and appeared politically untouchable. Yet history eventually altered its trajectory. The National Democratic Party of Liberia, which exercised considerable influence during the Doe era, similarly witnessed a decline in its political dominance. The National Patriotic Party, once among the country’s most formidable political forces, later experienced substantial electoral setbacks.
For Gongloe, these examples underscore an enduring democratic reality: political support changes.
Economic conditions shift. National priorities evolve. New generations emerge. Leadership transitions occur. Citizens reassess previous loyalties and embrace new ideas.
The democratic process itself is designed to accommodate such changes.
A political movement receiving one percent support today may emerge as a major force tomorrow. Likewise, a party dominating today’s political landscape may find itself struggling in future elections.
That uncertainty, Gongloe maintains, is not a weakness of democracy but one of its greatest strengths.
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE TELLS A DIFFERENT STORY
Gongloe’s critique extends beyond Liberia’s borders and draws heavily upon international democratic experience.
Across Europe, Asia, and North America, many of today’s dominant political organizations began as relatively small movements struggling to gain public attention and support.
Britain’s Labour Party spent years in opposition before eventually becoming one of the country’s governing parties. Germany’s Green Party evolved from a relatively small activist movement into a major force within government. France has repeatedly witnessed the rapid rise of new political movements that emerged from obscurity to national prominence.
Similarly, Spain’s Podemos, Greece’s Syriza, Italy’s Five Star Movement, and India’s Bharatiya Janata Party all experienced lengthy periods of limited influence before becoming major political actors.
According to Gongloe, none of these developments would have occurred had governments possessed authority to permanently exclude parties because of weak early performances.
The lesson, he argues, is that democratic systems must remain open enough to allow citizens to revisit and reconsider political alternatives over time.
Political ideas require opportunities to mature. Democracy requires patience. Voters require options.
THE 2023 ELECTIONS OFFER A PRACTICAL WARNING
Gongloe believes the strongest contemporary evidence against the two-percent threshold can be found in Liberia’s own 2023 General and Presidential Elections.
Several political parties secured tens of thousands of votes while still falling below the statutory threshold. Among them were the All Liberia Coalition Party, Collaborating Political Parties, Liberian People’s Party, Liberia Restoration Party, Movement for Progressive Change, Democratic National Allegiance, New Liberia Party, and Vision for Liberia Transformation.
Collectively, these organizations represented substantial numbers of Liberian voters who consciously chose alternatives outside the country’s dominant political establishments.
Yet under a strict interpretation of Section 5.A(1), many of these parties could face exclusion despite commanding significant public support.
Gongloe argues that such an outcome would effectively disenfranchise not only political organizations but also the citizens who support them.
More importantly, legislative election results revealed another democratic reality: voters frequently make different choices across different races.
Some parties that performed modestly in presidential contests nevertheless secured legislative representation. Others received significant presidential support but struggled in legislative races.
Such outcomes demonstrate that voter behavior cannot be reduced to simple mathematical formulas.
The democratic process is more nuanced than numerical thresholds allow.
EXCLUSION AND LIBERIA’S PAINFUL HISTORY
Beyond legal arguments, Gongloe frames the issue through the lens of Liberia’s historical experience.
For much of the nation’s history, large segments of the population felt politically, economically, and socially excluded from meaningful participation in national affairs.
Political power often appeared concentrated within limited circles while vast portions of society struggled to access opportunities and influence decision-making processes.
Over time, these perceptions and realities contributed to growing frustrations, instability, political upheavals, military interventions, and ultimately civil conflict.
Liberia paid an enormous price. More than 300,000 lives were lost. Communities were destroyed. Institutions collapsed. National development suffered profound setbacks.
Although Liberia’s conflicts were driven by multiple factors, Gongloe argues that exclusion repeatedly emerged as a recurring theme.
For this reason, he believes contemporary policymakers should exercise extreme caution before institutionalizing any form of political exclusion within democratic laws.
A nation that suffered from exclusion should not, in his view, embed exclusion into its democratic architecture.
CAN DEMOCRACY BE ENGINEERED?
Supporters of stricter electoral thresholds often argue that Liberia’s crowded political landscape requires rationalization and that the country would benefit from a smaller number of stronger political parties.
Some advocates point to countries such as the United States, Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone where two major parties dominate political competition.
Gongloe rejects this argument.
He contends that dominant party systems in those countries emerged organically through voter preferences rather than through legislative elimination of competitors.
Even today, those democracies maintain numerous smaller political parties participating in elections.
Political dominance was earned through competition, not manufactured through exclusion.
If Liberian voters someday choose to support two dominant parties, Gongloe argues, that decision should emerge naturally through electoral competition rather than through legal mechanisms designed to narrow the political field.
Democracy should reflect citizen choices, not administrative engineering.
THE LAW’S TROUBLING DORMANCY
Another aspect of Gongloe’s argument concerns the law’s practical history.
Since its enactment in 2014, Section 5.A(1) has remained largely dormant.
Political parties that arguably failed to meet statutory requirements have continued participating in subsequent elections without significant interference.
Neither ruling parties nor opposition groups have aggressively pursued its enforcement.
For Gongloe, this reality suggests an implicit recognition that excluding political competitors through administrative action may conflict with broader democratic principles and constitutional protections.
The provision’s limited enforcement may also reflect awareness among political actors that the law presents unresolved constitutional questions that have yet to be fully tested.
Its dormancy, therefore, may not represent neglect but caution.
THE FUTURE OF LIBERIAN DEMOCRACY
The debate now unfolding extends well beyond the technical administration of elections.
It raises fundamental questions about the kind of democracy Liberia wishes to build in the decades ahead.
Will political participation be broadened or restricted? Will electoral laws facilitate competition or limit it? Will voters remain the ultimate arbiters of political survival, or will administrative institutions acquire greater authority over political outcomes?
For Gongloe, the answers must remain firmly rooted in constitutional principles.
Liberia’s democratic future, he argues, should be determined by ballots rather than barriers, persuasion rather than prohibition, and citizen choice rather than state-directed exclusion.
In a nation still strengthening democratic institutions after years of conflict and political instability, he believes the protection of political participation remains essential to national cohesion, peace, and democratic legitimacy.
Ultimately, Gongloe warns that the measure of democracy is not how it treats powerful parties enjoying majority support. Rather, the true test lies in how it treats minority voices, emerging movements, dissenting opinions, and citizens whose political preferences may not currently command widespread popularity.
Those rights, he insists, are not favors granted by government.
They are constitutional guarantees belonging to the people.
And in a constitutional republic founded upon popular sovereignty, it is the people—not the state—who must decide which political parties deserve to survive.