The consequences of wrong choices in politics

Edwin Snowe, Speaker of the House of Representatives in Liberia, has thrown in the towel, but not without putting on a strong show that may suggest that he won the fight. He took as many embarrassing punches against the ropes, went down in the early rounds, but managed in each round to use his jibs so effectively that the judges, in the end, ruled that many of those punches were way below the belt. Therefore, they disqualified his opponents, leaving the impression that he won the fight.

Mr. Snowe also seems to have won the public support and sympathy, thanks in large part to his adversaries' poorly conceived and batched plan to knock him out. Once it backfired, Mr.Snowe played the victim's card well. And by resigning today, his popularity may soar among his supporters and even those who think politics--not anything he did or didn't do--ignited the fight.

That a man who is under serious allegation of corruption and may soon be charged by the Liberian government could be going home from now onwards to a heroic welcome in his district and elsewhere is utterly unbelievable. But this isn't the first, second, or third time this is happening in our politics. We saw it under Charles Taylor. Many of the former warlords used it. Mr. Snowe is just the latest beneficiary among the many before him to enjoy this unfounded public support.

Now that the crisis in the first branch is over, it is important to reflect upon why this scenarios always recurs in our politics. As a nation, we continue to suffer the consequences of wrong choices. Why if Taylor had not led the revolution? The outcome would have been probably different.To begin with, Taylor represented so many wrongs; he was charged with corruption, had a questionable past, but strangely enough, he was given the leadership in the NPFL. The history that follows after Taylor should remind us of the serious consequences of wrong choices in politics.

Fast-forward to 2006, after an important election that ended years of civil war, the in-coming House members had to choose a leader. Instead, they settled for Mr. Snowe as Speaker, ignoring accusations upon accusations that as head of the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC), Mr. Snowe misappropriated thousands, if not millions of dollars. By attempting to remove him as speaker, most of the freshmen members who elected him, were trying to correct a previous mistake of electing him, but this could have plunged the nation into serious chaos and confusion.

Under any condition--whether a choice may have a profound deleterious consequence on the nation or not, as in the case with Taylor leading the revolution, or a relatively modest political hiccup as the Snowe saga--deciding what choice to make must be weighed heavily against immediate and future consequences to the nation. In fact, such a choice, I believe, is easier when it involves a small number of privileged group of people, say, lawmakers gathering to elect a new leadership, which members of the House will soon do, or certain powerful political elites deciding who should lead a major political event, say, the group that decided on Taylor leading the revolution in 1989. On the other hand, the choice is hardest when it is open-ended as in a general election for president of the nation. The 1997 election could be cited as an example.

Thus, the resignation of Speaker Snowe presents members of the House with another chance to make amends with the past, and to this end, the House must elect a speaker by avoiding the unnecessary closed-door desultory negotiations by bringing the matter to the floor for open debate. Anyone seeking the position must be made to earn it by the quality of debate, ability to build consensus among the various parties; he or she must be made to show evidence of sound leadership, must be an individual who commands respect, a person of integrity, and a one who can represent the people of Liberia in the eyes of the world.

It is my conviction that anyone who emerges out of this type of vetting process would bring some credibility and respect to the House. He or she will earn the admonition of his colleagues. But more importantly, members of the House, by electing such a speaker, would be vindicated by their own staff, by their peers in the Senate, members of the executive branch, their constituents, and the Liberian population both home and abroad. Only by subjecting potential candidates to this type of rigor would House members be thoughtfully considering the consequences of their choice.