Geared for Trouble
By Tarty Teh

The above touches on what I consider the most important part of the debate that was triggered by Dr. Fahnbulleh’s 1986 nom de plume article. It is important because, though written just a year after the failed coup he helped plan, Fahnbulleh completely avoided the name of the central figure of the botched coup – Gen. Thomas Quiwonkpah – in nearly ten pages of wall-to-wall text. I am not yet sure about Dr. Fahnbulleh’s motive, but if that piece of writing fell in the hands of latter generations as a depiction of an epoch a bit removed from their experiences, they would have gotten a undiluted dose of Fahnbulleh’s ‘‘polemical’’ dribble without any hints of Gen. Thomas Quiwonkpah – editorially ‘‘flush[ed] . . . down the sewage of history.’’

Anyway, take another look at Fahnbulleh as quoted above. I think what he said in that quotation testifies to something else he never meant to put on display. Fahnbulleh seems to be too good to play by the rules on anyone’s team, but never good enough to form his own. Now, imagine Fahnbulleh, ‘‘dressed in [his] military gear and with [his] kalasnikov.’’ I can only imagine it, but the war party getting ready to enter Liberia had to see it. So they took one look and decided that Fahnbulleh was too militant even for a commando group.

I don’t know about the ‘‘kalasnikov,’’ but Fahnbulleh probably needs a license to carry his capacious mouth around. That day, however, the party entering Liberia to remove Samuel Doe probably had no room for a big mouth. And so, as always, there was a ‘‘minor misunderstanding,’’ so Fahnbulleh chilled at the border while Gen. Quiwonkpah and the others entered Liberia. Perhaps Fahnbulleh takes credit for their failure through his absence. But there is an even more plausible argument – they failed despite the precaution of excluding Fahnbulleh.

There are ways – I should say better ways – to dispense ideas than the intravenous method Fahnbulleh seems to favor. I see no evidence of patience in Fahnbulleh while we digest anything he offers. And that’s why he tries to bypass the digestive system to deliver his ideas directly into the bloodstream.

His flaming speeches would suggest that Fahnbulleh is a brave man. He probably is; but I think he starts his confrontation too soon. And this oftentimes is a result of ‘‘misunderstanding.’’ Take the president’s cabinet for instance. Does Fahnbulleh – or, for that matter, Gabriel Baccus Matthews – understand his role in the president’s cabinet? There is scant proof from Fahnbulleh’s behavior that he understands what was required of him.

When a semi-literate young army officer seizes power, it is understandable that one would join his cabinet as a source of experience in an otherwise inexperienced leader. But the debate from which national policies result must come from internal combustion, not outward furies by the supposed smarter ones to prove their independence.

Defying a president’s order to register a protest is flatly stupid, especially when you seem surprised by the president’s reaction. The question is not whether the president is right or wrong. You are in his cabinet, therefore if you cannot privately persuade him that it would be wrong to do what he instructed you to do, your options would drop to staying or leaving the cabinet.

Just imagine a government in which every cabinet officer calls a press conference to register his supposed policy difference with the president. Well, Fahnbulleh did it; Gabriel Baccus Matthews did it. And they did it in the cabinet of an insecure young man learning the ropes of leadership. Okay, if that’s their style, that’s fine with me. But how does anyone figure that to report such expression, either directly to the press or to the relevant agency within the command structure is perfidious? I was not a Matthews groupie, and a pressman to boot, yet Matthews somehow expected my cooperation in keeping private the things he found it necessary to say in a public conference.

There is a metro-centric streak to Fahnbulleh’s view of Liberian politics and culture. So the question of pride for someone who lays no claims to elitist culture does not register with Fahnbulleh until it’s too late. Until then, he will rescue the villages and perhaps teach them not to take exception to someone placing his left hand in their bowl of rice. Etiquette is unheard of in a village in Fahnbulleh’s view. But if anyone cares enough to watch, he will see that tribal people have their protocol. And if, despite your vigilance, you breach the custom, you humble yourself in apology, not scream in indignation as the pedagogue of another culture. – Tarty Teh – [Washington, D.C., January 28, 2000]