Editorial: Weah, More Explanation!

Just recently, media reports had it that the political leader of the Congress for Democratic Change or CDC, Mr. George Manneh Weah had accepted to be a running mate (Vice Presidential Candidate) of Liberty Party’s Charles Walker Brumskine. Obviously, the reports may have been as a result of the recent meeting between Mr. Weah and Cllr. Brumskine in the Ghanaian Capital, Accra.

While such news may have sent some threatening signals to the ruling Unity Party which has been engaging Mr. Weah behind the scene for sometimes now, there were also confusing signals among executives and partisans of the CDC. Recent utterances by the Liberty Party Political Leader, coupled with the conspicuous silence of the party on the “Brumskine-Weah ream” for the 2011 presidential election further tried to give credence to the media reports.

Perhaps due to the mounting concerns within the CDC, Weah decided a quick trip to Liberia, which he made on Friday, October 22, 2010 to break the ice. Of course, the CDC Leader confirmed the meeting between him and Cllr. Brumskine, which he said, ended with the signing of collaboration of intent and not an agreement to form a common front as reported in the Liberian media.

According to Weah, in the document it was decided that they work together for the sole purpose of bringing opposition political parties together, and that negotiation process was still continuing.

Weah told his partisans that the political destination of the Congress for Democratic Change or any other political arrangements was not a decision of his, but a challenge of the executives and general membership of the CDC. Since George Weah’s clarification, Cllr. Brumskine is yet to comment, perhaps because, he’s trying to politically arrange himself before responding in accordance with the terms of their Ghana meeting.

Whether or not there’s merit in this matter, we see a state of confusion not only among members of the CDC or Liberty Party, but also undecided electorates who are following the current trends of events toward next year’s electoral process because of someone’s mischief.

In the first place, why would such an arrangement occur when George Weah and his CDC are the front-runners in the process of forming a proposed grand coalition already named and styled “Coalition for Democratic Change?” We were also disappointed at Mr. Weah’s failure to explain the CDC’s status with the grand coalition which he and his party initiated.

Whether or not his Ghana meeting with Brumskine was in continuation of efforts toward the formation of the coalition, we think it is not too late for Weah and the leadership of the CDC to say. We believe that in such a political battle for 2011, there must be a set objective and to pursue such objective, one or an institution must be focused.

But for Mr. Weah to take a direction without the acquiescence of the executives of the CDC, we see a missing link as far political maturity is concern. And if this is the path on which Weah and his likes will continue to thrive, then the Liberian opposition may just have our sympathy.