The Fallacy of Expertise in Liberia: Unmasking Superficial Knowledge and False Omniscience

By Julius T. Jaesen, II
Managing Editor
Democracy Watch

In Liberia, the road to true intellectual growth and genuine expertise remains long and arduous. Despite the growing number of individuals claiming high levels of education, there is a troubling and disturbing trend of “superficial knowledge” and “false omniscience.” Many among us, who profess to be “highly educated,” have assumed the mantle of the “All-knowing” — a quality reserved for God, “The Absolute.” This self-assigned “infallibility” has hindered our progress, polluted our democratic discourse, and grown a culture of “false pretense” of knowledge rather than “genuine substance.”

The settled truth is that many who pass through our educational institutions that should be sanctuaries of learning emerge lacking depth and genuine understanding. The facade of being widely read masks a hollow core. The emptiness of our education system is starkly evident in the way we falsely impress ourselves and others with supposed erudition. This phenomenon doesn’t only undermine our intellectual growth but is also a serious epidemic to the development of our nation.

A glaring example of this intellectual dishonesty is the subtle attempt to exonerate a sitting President from the shortcomings of his administration. Revered for his statesmanship, knowledge, wisdom, and experience, how dare we absolve Uncle Joe of the blame for the government’s failings, if there exist any, but indict his Chief of Office Staff, Sylvester Grigsby, for the early fall. This flawed reasoning suggests that we have elected a “figurehead” rather than a “capable leader,” who is being controlled like a “marionette” by his subordinates.

How can we, in “good conscience,” hold Grigsby accountable for the missteps of the government while exonerating Boakai? Are we to believe that a man with five decades of governmental experience is intellectually weak, fragile, and powerless against the whims of his subordinates or appointees? This notion undermines the very essence of leadership and accountability. It is absurd to think that the President, the “ultimate decision-maker” in the Executive Branch, is devoid of responsibility for the actions of his administration.

Supporters of Uncle Joe in the recent presidential election campaign heralded his 50 years of governmental experience, knowledge, and intellect. Yet, under his watchful eyes, you claim lots of wrong judgments have been made bedeviling the nation’s progress. If your claims are anything to agree to, then it begs the question, where has this vast reservoir of experience, knowledge, and wisdom gone if he cannot reverse the negative trends or respond to public outcry? Is it possible that his leadership abilities have been hijacked by those around him or stowaways, rendering him ineffective?

To make such a flawed analogy is morally equivalent to questioning President Boakai’s supposed impeccable judgment or leadership credentials. If he truly possesses the acumen and insight attributed to him, why are we shifting blame to his subordinates for what you consider detrimental policies and decisions prevailing under his administration? To do so is to question President Boakai’s so-called public service experience and his sense of judgement by suggesting that his governmental experience and knowledge have been compromised by those with vested interests, the so-called “hyenas” within his inner circle.

Moreover, the ability to decipher between loyal appointees working towards the ARREST AGENDA and those undermining it should be something easy for Uncle Joe, considering his touted public service experiences and statesmanship. Boakai’s purported impeccable leadership should enable him to identify and address internal saboteurs. The failure to do so raises serious concerns about his effectiveness and control over his administration.

In contrast, the administration of George Weah, despite its numerous flaws, is often given more leniency due to Weah’s background. Coming from the football field to the presidency, Weah’s lack of experience in governance was expected. Many of his poor decisions were attributed to his inexperience, and while this is not a justification, it provides a context for understanding his failures.

President Joseph Nyuma Boakai, however, does not enjoy the same excuse. His extensive experience and supposed knowledge should have equipped him to navigate the complexities of governance more adeptly. The comparison between Weah and Boakai underscores a critical point: Boakai’s failures cannot be dismissed as naiveté. His supporters must acknowledge that his administration’s shortcomings reflect not just the failings of his appointees or subordinates but also his own deficiencies as a leader.

So, the tendency to absolve leaders like President Joseph Nyuma Boakai of accountability, while unjustly blaming their subordinates, reflects a deep-seated flaw in our reasoning and the quality of education we have acquired.