15 Reasons Why Martin K. N. Kollie Is Dangerously Wrong

By Julius T. Jaesen, II
Managing Editor
Democracy Watch

1. Kollie lied: The TRC did not “indict” Lewis Brown, nor did it have any legal powers to do so.

2. Kollie lied: Brown served Liberia with unmatched distinction for only 2 years and not 6 years.

3. As the premier global multilateralism platform, the UN is where countries send their best, most experienced and imminently qualified diplomats. A former public servant and astute diplomat who served Liberia with distinction, including leading negotiations for Liberia’s peace after years of war, Brown is imminently qualified and ranks amongst the best African diplomats to have served their country at the UN. His name and quality of representation of Liberia continue to be echoed admirably in the hollowed halls of the UN.

4. To advocate for only the appointment of those who “campaigned” and “supported” a presidential quest, or for only “partisans” to be appointed, as Kollie now shamefully advocates, when our politics is not foundationally grounded in idealogical principles, like liberal versus conservatism, is to dangerously advocate to violate the Liberian Constitution in its profound demand for equality in opportunity and right to work of all qualified citizens. To ask any President to continue to run Liberia this way, is to undermine the change Liberians seek and returns our governance to deepening partisanship, and our country to increasing disunity. Worse, such misguided advocacies also seek to undermine the all-embracing constitutional character of the presidency. All Liberians should see themselves reflected in the Liberian presidency, whether they voted for the president or not.

5. Experience, correctly so, was the calling card of Presidential Candidate Boakai. This was preferred by the Liberian people after 6 years of the inexperience leadership of President Weah. Unarguably, as Kollie begrudgingly admits, experience and competence are the calling cards of Ambassador-Designate Lewis Brown. Both are particularly right for Liberia’s rescue and recovery.

6. Liberia’s foreign service is not a dumping ground. By all accounts, the foreign service is in dire need of support, experience and competence. Ambassador Brown’s years of distinguished public service and experience, which Kollie believes ought to disqualify Brown, are actual reasons for his nomination by President Boakai, for which Liberians should feel encouraged into thinking that our country may be slowly overcoming inexperience for experience, incompetence for competence, and exclusion for inclusion. This, too, is the rescue mission.

7. With his unmatched years of experience, President Boakai was mandated by the Liberian people to lead our nation. That exalted experience bespeaks of good judgement which is a much-needed character trait of the presidency. To question the nomination of Amb. Brown, as Kollie has attempted to do, is to publicly question, if not seek to ridicule, both the experience and judgment of President Boakai. This is not just disrespectful, disingenuous and disloyal, but betrays the rescue mission.

8. Yes, Ambassador Brown supported Presidential Candidate Alexander B. Cummings in the first-round of the elections. He did so loudly and clearly as a member of the Liberian opposition community. This alone, does not qualify him for any job in the current administration, nor should it disqualify him from consideration for any position for which his imminent qualification is without public doubt.

9. As a member of the Liberian opposition community, Ambassador Brown was physically threatened and barely escaped being mauled for his open and unmistakable stances against the former ruling party, while Kollie and his likes were “advocating” from the safety and security of foreign countries. Again, this does not qualify Brown for any appointed posts in the current government, nor does it disqualify him. This merely sets the public record straight.

10. Only Ambassador Brown, who did not publicly endorse in the second round of polling knows who he voted for. What is certain is that unlike Kollie, Brown voted. Kollie, who now frivolously elects to berate Brown, obviously without an ounce of merit and substance, did not vote! President Boakai did not win because of a vote from Kollie. Here, again, I merely state the obvious.

11. Excluding on the basis of non-partisanship was wrong yesterday, and just as wrong today, if not more. Neither Brown nor Kollie deserves to be included or excluded based only on what roles they played or may not have played in the last elections, if as the President rightly promised, to govern inclusively and democratically.

12. Liberians elected one President. Let him do his job as directed by the Liberian Constitution. Everyone who supported and campaigned for President Boakai should be satisfied when he does his job consistent with the demands of the Liberian Constitution, and not by the personal gripes of others, especially where they are unfounded and disingenuous.

13. To falsely malign the character of someone whose duty it will be to represent the government and people of his/her country is to ultimately undermine and diminish a representation which the host country, and in Brown’s case, the UN, believes to be deserving of the highest levels of diplomatic regard and courtesy. The processes for confirming such representations are never the playground for irresponsible and unsubstantiated mudslinging.

14. By now, one would hope that serious processes of the government will not be run on FaceBook, especially by those who claim to “own” the government by “bringing it to power.” There are mechanisms and functionaries of the government to address citizens’ “grievances”, whether such grievances are baseless or legitimate. For the expression of legitimate gripes, revert to the responsible functionary of the government to ensure constitutional orderliness and peace, and to reinforce institutional wellness, standing and adherence to their constitutional responsibilities. To do otherwise, especially by those who should be “owners” is to show contempt for the government they claim to “own”, and to have “brought to power.”

15. The current Kollie advocacy would have drawn loud condemnations from Kollie, only a year ago. We must be careful so as not to permit our fundamental values and principles to fly with time. As wiser ones would admonish, let us not risk repeating the past by repeating its mistakes in the present. To this, Gandhi would say, let us be the change we seek.