THERE IS GENERAL agreement amongst Liberians and friends of Liberia that the nation's socio-political problems will only be solved by Liberians themselves through the election of a responsible government. There are therefore fewer doubts that for that to happen, the selection process must be transparency, fair, open, and free of undue tension elicited by cross-interest borne of old rivalries. Unfortunately, that general agreement is yet to be translated into concrete evidence of political maturity advised by past mistakes and guided by the desires of the moment.

AS THE RESULT of this gross national oversight, few important icons that must be in place in order to produce a democratic government comes 2005 are not in place and might not be in place unless major remedial steps are taken. What we see instead is obsession with the presidency, with presidency freaks crowding the dockets on the tickets of borrowed or hastily put together parties that are centered on personalities instead of ideas and principles. While this may seem harmless at the moment when electioneering politics has yet to start, there is strong reason to believe that it will definitely lead to roadblocks and hullabaloos in the not-too-distant future. This is why conscientious Liberians have begun to point the way forward.

IN APPARENT RECOGNITION of the grim reality of this fact, Mr. William V. S. Tubman, Jr. told journalists during a press briefing yesterday to announce his candidacy for president that he has begun and will continue to foster dialogue amongst politicians and political parties with the hope of thrashing out political differences and ultimately decongesting the political playing field. For him the dialogue will not force merger but will emphasize reasons for cooperation and continued dialogue as well as point out benefits that will accrue to the political realm of this nation and the happiness of the Liberian people when mergers or coalitions are formed for the purpose of the ensuing elections.

IN OUR VIEW, this is a fine idea that must be part of the pre-election preoccupation of every presidential candidate of substance. Instead of building walls and thereby compartmentalizing the leadership of this nation, it will be honorable for our politicians and presidential candidates to cultivate the culture of dialogue for the purpose of building bridges and consensus - attributes that are necessary for good and popular governance. We are stressing this point because administrations that grow out of compartmentalized politics seldom find friends and tolerance in the opposition. After all what would a ruling party brewed in arrogance and snobbishness be looking for from a bunch of defeatist political groupings following a good showing at the polls without their assistance?

WHEN SAMUEL DOE sidelined the opposition following the 1985 general and presidential elections, and again when Charles Taylor watered down the strategy by selecting old-time friends from the opposition to feign political cooperation and inclusion, they were proving the point that compartmentalized politics cannot be liberalized even at the perils of the government. While that was ongoing, in their own ways, leaders of the various opposition political parties during both eras, voted with their feet to drive home the point that they have no place in a government in whose formation they had no input or were never consulted in the first place.

FROM HINDSIGHT, WE see that the opposition was not unnecessarily uncooperative, neither were both administrations (Doe's and Taylor's) but that they were acting on calculated and predetermined failures and omissions. We have no choice as a people and nation coming out of a devastating war that is largely the result of failing to dialogue, but to get down the rudimentary of coalition politics and talks while there is enough time to talk and talk about talk. It will be too late to dialogue or talk about talk with predictable fruits after the deal is done - after the presidency is no longer at stake, after the line is drawn between the winners and the losers. Dialoguing is not only path-finding, bridge-building, and the alliance forging upon peace and reconciliation are bound to hinge, but it is also confidence building and tension ameliorating. It is good governance from the word go.

WE THEREFORE CALL on all politicians and their claquers to consider dialogue as the watchword for coming electioneering season.