By most counts, it was the largest crowd in recent City Hall gathering, all gathered to hear the candidates. Unlike so many programs this Hall holds, the herds of people were not enticed by drinks and food. They came to listen and if possible decide this month who will be senator for Montserrado County. The huge gathering pointed to changing political climate here, with rising interest in candidates profiles for public office.

The stars of the show-- candidates representing 10 political parties and Independents-- sat on stage with the moderators, as if they were before a tribunal or the Catholic Inquisition in decades past.

Three elegantly dressed in coat suit, three in African attire, and four wore T- shirts, for the people.

All this is a novelty here that began in 2005 when international organizations with the money and therefore the expertise saw debates amongst the candidates as vital for the voters in the democratic process. From 1847 onwards, elections here have been to fulfil the gospel. They were non-events. Not any more. Scrutiny of public officials and public figures is on the rise, and seems irreversible.

The questions from annalists were mundane, normal and expected questions-thoughts about change, corruption, and all that. They gave the contestants the opportunity and much-needed platform to parade academic credentials-those who have them, and to make claims that many in the audience certainly never understood to ask the relevant follow-up questions. Journalists were barred from asking questions, with the right preserved for the audience.

But if panelists's questions were normal and mundane, those from the audience seemed well planted for or against certain candidates. Dillon, for example, was asked why he (allegedly) rejected an alleged offer to America instead of going to jail in the name of fighting corruption. In the future, this could be a forum to mudsling opponents by planting people in the audience. Welcome to Africa with an American idea.

Candidates with academic credentials unveiled them with the sort of arrogant self-confidence that says, 'I'm unchallenged. I know it all while others, like the Liberty Party Darius Dillon whose high school records have been questioned, sought to escape wearing the academic gowns.

"I'm Abraham Darius Dillon, Chief of Office Staff to Senator Jewel Howard Taylor period." What followed next was his view on change, governance and corruption. All had their scripts on these topics, read like children reciting leaked exams.

Mr. Alhaji G.V. Kromah was 40 minutes late, but that did stop him from reading his CV since it appears Academic achievement was core factor in this race. He listed them: I have five university degrees in four areas in university in Liberia and the United States, 'Yana" boy, shoe shine boy, University Professor, candidate for Doctorate of Philosophy in law, Information Minister, Member of the council of state, President of Mighty Barolle. But this former Presidential candidate has blatantly forgotten one essential element of his resume: Supreme Commander of the United Liberation Movement in Liberia (ULIMO) - the rebel group he directed in the country's bloody civil war. Some things are better forgotten.

At this point, the debate was gradually transforming into a credentials contest. Congress for Democrat change Geraldine Doe Sherif, anxious and overwhelmed with her "university degree" the candidate coined her own word, "Advocator" and latter flopped where pronouncing the words "participatory democracy." The recitation was not thorough, perhaps. She stumbled: "participation, participate", before getting it right-"participatory democracy." Supporters from opposing parties jeered, as expected. But the CDC's stronghold is 'no book people', so this was not that off track. She was at home.

Surprising, though. During the 2005 elections, there was this famous one from party leader George Weah: "Privitizaa", "privitizah" and then "privatization," when a radio interviewer asked him if he would privatize public corporations when elected President. Da book we will eat?

As most things here, the debate was patterned after what one sees on US television amongst presidential candidates-a question asked and the right of rebuttal given to another contestants. But this is not America. Here, answers were lost in often emotional, high-tune, harsh voices, incoherent, as if this were the rebel era when tough talking and harshness were the hallmarks of the rebel-politician.

The debate has its interesting moments, nevertheless. At one point those in the audience might have thought they were viewing the U.S 2008 vice presidential debate as Sarah Pallin could be seen in Candidate Jacqueline Capehart, a one-time CDC executive now a UP member but running as an Independent.

She was totally disorganized with respect to her thoughts as her answers to questions demonstrated

For instance, she was asked about her view on change making and governance and how is it articulated in her platform?

This was her answer: "My view about change and the system has to do with unity plus sincerity, equal achievement "

She threw more lights on what she meant " We must be honest in whatever we do in that the Capitol Building, It is a place that makes decisions for each and everyone of us here and if you are not united smarter and sincere we will not achieve "

The country's class system was exposed, as every candidate portrayed being pro-poor, despising the rich while at the same time preaching unity and reconciliation.

A tall young lady marched to the stage like a majestically, demanding explanation from the candidates if the rich are not part of the state and do not deserve protection and representation?

"You people are talking about reconciliation and unity and you are talking about poor man and rich man. You people will not be senator for the rich?" she asked, while being jeered, since most of those in the hall were the "poor people"

The crescendo in the hall rose, gradually, as one candidate's loyalists booed and other's clapped, despite intermittent warnings that this was against the rule. Rules hardly stick here. Temperaments began to rise as questions were answered "unsatisfactorily" for some. The mood in the jam-packed hall began to change by the minutes, with loud noises consuming it, as if this were a market ground. The moderator pleaded unsuccessfully for calm with the multitude ignoring the warning, the noises becoming louder and louder.

Mr Darius Dillion was the central figure here. He was asked to display his high school records and name five classmates. At this moment, the atmosphere changed, he was sweating, his coat was off. Attired in a pink long sleeve, and black pair of treasures, he stood and held the microphone and attempted keenly the crow: "No! You are not the Moderator " This female moderator. who is fully cognisant of this new phenomenon - gender quality, told him. He obeyed like a child, then the answered. "If I stood here and say John Brown was my classmate, you will not know him. The most important thing here is that I am a 1989, proud graduate of Wells Hairston (High School). The school authorities have spoken. But it appears to me people are not making their research "

Doon! Chaos erupted. Rival parties zealots are not satisfied with the answer. They want a fellow-up question. The hall has collapsed; angry supporters are rushing to the candidates. Fingers are wiggled. Police are called in to restore order. This couldn't help.

This was the time to demonstrate nationalism. PUL president, Peter Quaqua, raised the national Anthem and everyone stood still. The debate stared in error and ended in chaos.

That was the end of our little show. Why did the Liberty Party, with all its prescriptions for change, fall in this landmine by selecting a candidate whose high school education is in question? Da book we will eat?