Liberia has paid for this lesson in graves. The civil conflict that consumed 14 years of our national life was not only a war of guns; it was a war of names, of tongues and of where a man prayed. At too many checkpoints, a Liberian was asked for his tribe before he was asked anything else. That is why the warning issued this week by Representative Musa Hassan Bility deserves the attention of every Liberian, whatever his party, county or faith.
In his “Letter from Saclepea,” the Citizens Movement for Change leader says certain political circles are trying to decide who may lead Liberia by tribe and religion. He recalls efforts in the Legislature to turn colleagues against his Deputy Speakership and Speakership bids because of his tribal and religious identity. He says plainly that a Mandingo and a Muslim will be on the 2029 ballot. And he asks a question no honest Liberian can dodge: why should a Mandingo seeking the presidency be treated differently from a Kpelle, a Gio, a Bassa or a Kru?
THE ANALYST stands with the principle behind that question. The Constitution leaves no room for doubt. Article 11 guarantees every person, irrespective of ethnic background, creed or place of origin, the same fundamental rights and equal protection of the law. Article 14 goes further: no religious denomination may hold privilege over another, and no religious test may be required for any civil office. The presidency is a civil office. The right to seek it is not a favor granted by the largest tribe or the majority faith; it is the birthright of every citizen who meets the constitutional requirements.
Nor is this an abstract worry. Only last week, Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay told the nation that a court judgment in Gompa City had been met with tribal mobilization, and that his family has faced threats from people who accuse him of giving their land to Mandingo people. If a land case can become a tribal standoff in Nimba, a presidential campaign built on the same sentiment can set whole counties alight. Prejudice whispered in a party meeting does not stay in the meeting.
We commend Bility for the half of his argument that politicians rarely make. He tells his fellow Muslims, especially the young, not to answer provocation with anger, because anger is exactly what the bigots want. He insists that being Muslim makes no one a better leader, and that an incompetent Mandingo is no better than an incompetent man from any other tribe. Exclusion must not be replaced by entitlement. That standard binds Bility as much as anyone else, and voters should hold him to it.
The burden now falls on political parties and those who lead them. Every party heading toward 2029 should commit, in writing, not to campaign on tribe or religion, and should discipline officials who do. Pastors and imams alike should refuse their pulpits to ethnic campaigning. The National Elections Commission and the Peacebuilding Office should monitor campaign material and publicly name hate speech when they find it. And the Legislature, where Bility says this poison has already been tasted, should look honestly at itself.
The questions that matter in 2029 are the ones the market woman in Ganta and the farmer in Zwedru ask every day. Can this candidate bring medicine to the clinic, teachers to the classroom and light to the town? Did he handle public money honestly when it was placed in his hands? Poverty has no tribe, and hunger has no religion. Neither should our ballot.