By Moses Zangar Jr.

Samuel D. Tweah Jr.’s recent Facebook post extolling William V. S. Tubman as Liberia’s greatest president raises important points about Tubman’s legacy. However, it fails to critically examine the broader consequences of his policies and leadership. While Tubman’s presidency undeniably shaped Liberia’s trajectory, his record on economic policy, human rights, governance, and long-term development reveals significant flaws that challenge the claim of his greatness.

Economic Policy: Growth Without Development

Tweah highlights Liberia’s economic growth during Tubman’s presidency, particularly in the 1960s. However, this growth was largely superficial and unsustainable. Tubman’s “Open Door Policy” attracted foreign investment, particularly in the iron ore and rubber industries, but it failed to create a diversified economy or equitable development.

Dependence on Foreign

Corporations: Tubman’s policies prioritized foreign investors over Liberians, allowing multinational corporations to dominate key sectors like iron ore mining and rubber production. While these industries generated revenue, they did little to improve the lives of ordinary Liberians. Wealth was concentrated among a small elite, leaving the majority of the population in poverty.

Neglect of Infrastructure: Tweah praises Tubman for the Mount Coffee hydroelectric dam, but Liberia’s infrastructure under Tubman remained underdeveloped. Roads, schools, and healthcare facilities were inadequate, particularly in rural areas. Tubman’s focus on Monrovia and a few urban centers left much of the country disconnected and underserved.

Economic Inequality: Tubman’s policies exacerbated inequality, with the Americo-Liberian elite benefiting disproportionately from economic growth. The indigenous population, which constituted the majority, was largely excluded from the economic and political systems.

Human Rights and Governance: Autocracy Over Democracy

Tweah acknowledges Tubman’s “political autocracy” but downplays its impact on Liberia’s democratic development and human rights. Tubman’s 27-year rule was marked by authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, and the marginalization of Liberia’s indigenous majority.

Suppression of Political Opposition: Tubman maintained his grip on power through repressive measures, including censorship, imprisonment of political opponents, and manipulation of elections. His long tenure stifled political pluralism and delayed the development of a robust democratic culture in Liberia.

Marginalization of Indigenous Liberians: Tubman’s policies perpetuated the divide between the Americo-Liberian elite and the indigenous population. While he introduced the Unification Policy to integrate indigenous Liberians into the political system, it was largely symbolic and failed to address systemic inequalities. Indigenous Liberians remained disenfranchised and excluded from meaningful participation in governance.

Lack of Accountability: Tubman’s government was rife with corruption and patronage. Public funds were often mismanaged, and his administration lacked transparency and accountability.

Development Failures: Legacy of Neglect

Tweah argues that Liberia has failed to surpass Tubman’s accomplishments, but this assertion ignores the long-term consequences of Tubman’s leadership. Many of Liberia’s current challenges can be traced back to the structural weaknesses and inequities entrenched during his presidency.

Education: While Tubman established schools like William V. S. Tubman High School, his administration failed to prioritize education as a tool for national development. Liberia’s literacy rates remained low, and access to quality education was limited, particularly for indigenous Liberians.

Healthcare: Tubman’s government did little to improve healthcare infrastructure, leaving Liberia vulnerable to public health crises. The lack of investment in healthcare during his presidency contributed to the country’s struggles in this sector today.

Rural Development: Tubman’s focus on urban centers like Monrovia left rural areas neglected. Roads, electricity, and other basic services were scarce outside the capital, perpetuating regional disparities that persist to this day.

Historical Context: Greatness Requires More Than Longevity

Tweah’s argument relies heavily on Tubman’s longevity in office and the scale of his accomplishments relative to the period. However, greatness in leadership is not defined solely by the length of time in power or the size of individual projects. It is measured by the ability to create lasting, equitable progress and to uplift the entire nation.

Comparison to Other Leaders: Tubman’s contemporaries, such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, pursued more transformative policies that prioritized education, industrialization, and pan-Africanism. Tubman’s leadership, by contrast, was focused on maintaining the status quo and consolidating power.

Legacy of Division: Tubman’s presidency left Liberia deeply divided along ethnic and class lines. His failure to address these divisions contributed to the tensions that later erupted into civil war.

Conclusion: Tubman’s Legacy Is Complex, Not Great

While Tubman’s presidency undeniably shaped Liberia’s history, his record is far from unblemished. His economic policies prioritized foreign investors over Liberians, his governance was marked by authoritarianism and inequality, and his development efforts were superficial and concentrated in urban areas.

Liberia’s failure to surpass Tubman’s accomplishments is not a testament to his greatness but rather a reflection of the structural weaknesses and inequities he left behind. True greatness in leadership requires more than longevity and individual projects – it demands a commitment to equitable progress, democratic principles, and the empowerment of all citizens.

William V. S. Tubman may have been influential, but his presidency was defined by missed opportunities and systemic failures that continue to haunt Liberia today. It is time to critically reassess his legacy and strive for leadership that prioritizes the well-being of all Liberians.