Liberia: Why the Trump-Weah Comeback Comparison Falls Short

opinion

Recent media coverage in Liberia has frequently compared two political figures: Donald Trump, who secured a remarkable return to power in the United States in 2024, and former President George Weah, who some suggest could mount a similar comeback in Liberia's 2029 elections. These comparisons have gained traction in radio discussions, newspaper editorials, and political debates across Monrovia and beyond, with some commentators pointing to superficial similarities between the two leaders' political journeys. However, this new perspective fails to consider the significant structural and contextual differences between Liberian and American democracy, which influence the political situations and paths of their leaders.

On the surface, the political trajectories of Donald Trump and George Weah present parallels as figures who upended traditional political norms to rise to power. Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul and reality TV star, tapped into widespread discontent and shaped his "Make America Great Again" movement into a rallying cry for working-class Americans. Similarly, Weah, celebrated as a global soccer legend, galvanized Liberia's underprivileged population with promises of prosperity and transformation, securing his presidency in 2018. However, a more thorough analysis of their public trust, political messaging, and economic management demonstrates that the parallels are, at most, surface-level. Trump's story of economic success, focused marketing, and steadfast base support helped him win reelection in 2024--advantages Weah lacks. The buying power of average Liberians, over half of whom were already below the national poverty line, was diminished by the country's skyrocketing inflation during Weah's administration, which peaked in August 2019 at an alarming 31.30%. Public trust collapsed as a result of this economic suffering, which further weakened Liberia's already precarious institutions and was exacerbated by corruption scandals and broken promises.

Furthermore, sociocultural factors under which these leaders functioned were completely dissimilar. However, the relatively healthy middle class and deeply entrenched democratic norms in the United States saved the nation from the full and toxic impact of Trump's divider-in-chief personality. Unlike Sierra Leone, Liberia was struggling to rebuild after a long devastating civil war. The society was poor, and this made the weak institutional framework compound the effects of Weah's poor governance by offering little leeway for mistakes or reversals. This op-ed contends that organizational barriers form the thorny, uphill task that Weah must venture into to begin a comeback. It was more severe than anything Trump came across. Because the two have different economic records, their political speeches influence the citizens and their level of trust in their governments; it is easier to understand the limitations of populism, especially in countries with weak democracies such as Liberia. Whereas charisma and the promises of change enable populist leadership to come to power, maintaining that power, and hence receiving another term in office as Trump did, are dependent on structures of economic stability, good governance, and popular confidence in leadership, all of which are missing in the case of Liberia.

Macroeconomic Outlook: President Trump's Leadership: His Works and Worries

From this point of view, the success stories of Donald Trump and George Weah are in different stages. Though Trump's America safeguarded all the variables of a diversified economy, Weah's Liberia suffered in a frail and unsophisticated global economy. These were the economic conditions that would define their presidency, policy, image, and political destiny. Economic growth was slow and constant during Trump's presidency, especially during his first term, when he was most undoubtedly a Guide. Following his inauguration in 2017, the US economy was still partly recovering from the recession, with the GDP growth rate at about 2.3% and the unemployment rate at 4.7%. Before the 3.4% economic contraction that the pandemic brought in the later part of 2020, Trump managed to sustain and build on this growth; the unemployment rate was at an unprecedented 50-year low of 3.5% in February last year1.

Again, it may be argued that Trump succeeded in framing economic success; at the same time, critics believe this growth did not include income inequality and wage stagnation that persists for some populations. He often used data on tax reductions, employment rates, and high stock market returns to argue that his government effectively stimulated economic growth. Perhaps the most iconic tool of the Trump administration's economic policy was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which was lauded for spurring business investment and job creation2. However, critics have pointed out that these tax reforms favored the upper class and boosted the federal budget deficit to more than $1 trillion in 2020. Another significant component of Trump's economic plan was the recasting of NAFTA - now known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement or USMCA. This new trade agreement was an excellent achievement for US workers, farmers, and manufacturers, as it was estimated to generate over $68 billion in new economic activity, with over 176,000 new jobs3. However, some critics opine that even though the USMCA has demonstrated increased efficacy in liberalizing trade, investment, and opportunities for job creation, it may not significantly influence market conditions.

While it is possible to say that his victory in the specific elections in Kentucky depended on the change in the proportions of electoral sensitivities, the indisputable fact is that the problem of such an economic indicator as inflation played a crucial role and had high approval ratings in both Republican and Democratic voting districts. Trump increased his vote share across the country, with marked improvements in the likes of Florida and Texas and incremental gains in traditionally blue states such as New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Although these policies had been shown to positively and negatively impact significant macroeconomic measures, Trump could frame their existence as a victorious narrative. They carried swing states and were instrumental in passing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, and the final electoral vote tally was 312 for Trump and 226 for Harris. This strategic management of the messages and the area of interest was critical in ensuring he emerged victorious across the states and the various demographics.

Macroeconomic Outlook: weah's Leadership and Its Challenges

When George Weah assumed the presidency in 2018, Liberia's economy was fragile. The nation was recovering from the devastating effects of the Ebola epidemic, declining rubber and iron ore export prices, and a persistent lack of foreign investment. Over 50% of the population lived below the national poverty line, and the economy relied heavily on donor support. In response, Weah introduced the "Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development" (PAPD), aiming to reduce poverty and promote inclusive growth. However, his administration's efforts struggled to achieve substantial progress4. During his tenure, inflation surged, peaking at 31.30% in August 2019, up from 23.56% when he took office. By 2023, inflation remained high at 10.1%, driven by rising food prices, exchange rate pressures, and budget deficits.

These trends eroded the purchasing power of ordinary Liberians and worsened food insecurity. Over half the population continued to live below the poverty line, with limited access to necessities like healthcare and education. Furthermore, the dominance of the informal sector, accounting for 80% of employment, reflected profound structural challenges in the labour market5.

The COVID-19 pandemic compounded these issues, contracting Liberia's real GDP by 2.6% in 2020 and pushing an additional 526,000 Liberians into poverty. International aid diminished as global attention shifted to pandemic responses, leaving Liberia with a $150 million balance-of-payments gap6. High poverty rates, food insecurity affecting 79% of the population, and limited foreign direct investment averaging $122 million annually underscored the precarious economic foundation.

Trust in Institutions: Cultural and Social Influences

Due to political and historical institutions, Liberia and the US have different sociocultural foundations. Liberians still trust their government post-crisis. Unfortunately, Weah's youth led to broken promises and government neglect. Leadership novice Weah's populist efforts exacerbated structural difficulties. Weah suffered early multi-processed democracy, unlike Trump, who has policy advisors with policy expertise and a purposeful communication strategy. Fragile economy leaders struggle to address obstacles due to their limited institutional capabilities. Sociopolitical and historical reasons influence the public trust in Liberia and the US. Thus, sociopolitical and historical events influence public trust in sociocultural variables. Liberia, a post-conflict country with political upheaval and poverty, lacks government credibility. His once-hopeful leadership became a symbol of despair, failed promises, and entrenched corruption. Lack of administrative expertise and populism were challenges for Weah in enhancing structural efficiency. While Donald Trump has skilled policy advisors and good communication skills, Weah inherited a weak democracy in which to rule--his inexperience and lack of structures to address mistakes led to lousy governance on critical national issues. American institutions were more resilient because structural changes lessened Trump's candidate and president experience, allowing him to maintain fan faith despite problems.

In Liberia, however, weak institutions amplified Weah's poor governance outcomes, which exacerbated the pace at which citizens lost confidence in their president and democracy. For example, Weah's government was embroiled in high-profile scandals despite its pledge to combat corruption7. The purported loss of $100 million in freshly produced banknotes in 2019 was one of the most prominent instances of undermining public trust in government accountability. Similarly, international observers, notably the United States, accused the country of corruption during the COVID-19 epidemic when money meant for the country's response was purportedly squandered--Liberia's Embassy. Because the people who had trusted Weah to change the system witnessed the continuation of the exact corruption he had pledged to abolish, these scandals further eroded public confidence in his leadership.

Furthermore, Weah's failure to put measures in place meant to reduce economic disparity further diminished public confidence. Many Liberians remained impoverished due to his "Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development" programs' inability to produce noticeable advancements in crucial fields like healthcare and education. Additionally, nearly 68% of Liberians remained trapped in informal labour markets while essential public services deteriorated. The lack of visible progress in alleviating poverty was compounded by growing criticism of Weah's perceived prioritization of personal gain over national reform8. For example, his construction of a multi-million-dollar private residence during his presidency, while many Liberians struggled with poverty and lack of access to essential services, became a glaring symbol of this disconnect.

Perhaps Weah, once seated at the table of Liberia's entrenched elite, found the allure of privilege too tempting to resist. The trappings of power--luxury cars, lavish mansions, and other symbols of excess--seemed to overshadow the ideals he once championed as a leader of the poor and marginalized. His actions reinforced the perception that he had abandoned his promises in favour of self-enrichment, further alienating the public. This pronounced contrast between his professed ideals and his actions while in office contributed to the erosion of public trust and tarnished his legacy.

In contrast, the United States more established democratic institutions and robust middle-class provide greater resilience to political disappointments. Stable systems act as safeguards, preventing the complete erosion of public trust even amidst significant controversies. Trump had an average popularity rating of 87% among Republicans throughout his administration despite being the subject of two impeachment proceedings, a historic mugshot, and accusations of financial misconduct9. Because of the stark partisan difference in the United States, where voters frequently place a higher value on party allegiance than on individual behavior, this extraordinary devotion can be explained. By presenting himself as a rebellious outsider opposing the establishment and redefining his disputes as politically driven assaults, Trump deftly capitalized on this division.

However, this administration provided accomplishments to energize the base supporting Trump. Confidence. These were declaring three Supreme Court of Appeals justices for conservatism, sanctioning the Tax Cuts and Job Acts of 2017 to cut corporate taxation, and renegotiating NAFTA to develop the USMCA for American workers. These actions gave people reasons to support him, even as critics claimed his rhetoric and policies were divisive. Unlike Liberia, where Weah led corrupt and ineffective institutions that deceived the nation, the United States offered Trump robust systems that maintained his credibility with supporters despite challenging conditions.

A Comparative Analysis of Resilience and Opportunism:

The Cases of Trump and Weah

History is a harsh judge. It provides innumerable instances of leaders who either changed who they were to inspire followers or fell apart when faced with obstacles. The question is whether a leader can win again and whether they will double down on their vision or withdraw when faced with obstacles. Trump belongs to the latter group, whereas Weah takes advantage of political opportunities that arise by chance.

Trump Dependence on Resilience

Trump defied the conventional course of political retreat, which was often followed by defeating incumbents after losing the 2020 presidential election. Instead, he started working right once to dispute the election results, claiming extensive voting fraud and bringing many court challenges to nullify the results. One of the most divisive events in contemporary American politics resulted from these attempts, which culminated in the contentious Capitol riot on January 6 when Trump's claims of a "stolen election" galvanized a portion of his fans. These acts cemented his reputation as a rebellious leader, opposing what he perceived as a corrupt system, even if they also received harsh criticism and resulted in his second impeachment.

Far from fading into the background, Trump remained a towering figure in American politics. In the months following his loss, he held mass rallies, dominated conservative media, and became the central figure in Republican Party politics, positioning himself as the undeniable leader of his party. His legal troubles--ranging from multiple lawsuits to criminal investigations--only bolstered his narrative of being a victim of political persecution, further energizing his base. Even the release of his historic mugshot in 2023, following criminal indictments, was reframed as a badge of honour, symbolizing his resilience and defiance against the political elite.

Trump's consistency and continual engagement with his supporters--through rallies, media appearances, and his unrelenting message of "America First"--kept his base energized and unshakeable. Despite controversies, including two impeachments, accusations of financial misconduct, and the Capitol riot fallout, Trump maintained a tight grip on Republican voters, with approval ratings among Republicans consistently hovering around 87% throughout his presidency10. This steadfast loyalty laid the groundwork for his triumphant comeback bid in 2024, demonstrating his unmatched ability to mobilize a movement and transform setbacks into opportunities for political resurgence.

Weah's Dependence on Political Circumstances

On the contrary, Weah's political journey has depended more on external factors and the political climate than his ability to bounce back from setbacks. Following his 2005 presidential defeat, instead of using the loss as an opportunity to strengthen his political foundation, he accepted a "peace ambassador" role within the government he had vowed to reform. This decision distanced him from his base and signalled a willingness to align with the political establishment he had campaigned against, raising questions about his commitment to systemic change. Before the 2011 election cycle, Weah distanced himself from leadership even further by relinquishing the position of the standard-bearer to Tubman, a respected elder barely linked to the passionate spirit of a young man who helped Weah to win the previous campaign. The water loss in the 2011 general election revealed his failure to cultivate deep political loyalty or 'momentum' but the short-term 'politics'. These decisions reflected Weah's priorities: instead of strengthening his calls for change and reform, he looked for posts that benefited him in the short run, leaving behind long-term leadership-building initiatives. This lack of focus finally affected his political stability and cast doubt on his transformation since he had a volatile political career.

Such a pattern of retreat and reliance on the political circumstances negates the existence of a leader with sustained strategy or individual resilience to manage Liberia's political environment. Indeed, Weah's triumph in the second round of the 2017 presidential elections cannot be attributed to his own political determination and personal political vision. An apparent schism was within the ruling Unity Party when then-president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf had a falling out with her vice president, Joseph Boakai. This division created a political void that Weah filled and projected himself as a man not associated with the intensifying polarized political elite. Sirleaf's indirect endorsement of Weah became instrumental when she disowned her party and endorsed Weah for the presidency, giving him the all-important edge. Cohen highlights how Sirleaf's influence made Weah's rally more credible for some of Liberia's voters. In this way, key personalities such as Sirleaf were pivotal in transforming Weah into a president rather than his efforts.

Conclusion: Populism's Limits

This work compares Trump and Weah, noting that while both leaders rose to power through populism, their paths to reelection differ significantly. This has caused a loss of faith in Weah's ability to govern Liberia due to his failure to provide US$1 billion in banknotes, misuse of US healthcare funds, and lack of progress on his "Pro-Poor Agenda." Weah faced civil conflict and internal contradictions initially, while Trump did not rise to power through such issues. As Liberia approaches 2029, the government must implement governance and economic accountability reforms to restore public confidence and encourage development. Weah faces challenges related to his corrupt past and united opposition, requiring significant political endurance and versatility, which he has not demonstrated.

These comparisons matter for Weah, his presidency, and Liberia. Systemic solutions are essential; relying on populism alone will not work in countries with weak democratic institutions. Effective management of governance and the economy is vital to sustaining public confidence. Liberia needs to shift from emotional leadership to equitable and progressive systems. Politics involves not only attaining power but also addressing issues in health, education, and poverty. These changes can shift the landscape from a "big man" polity to one that utilizes Liberia's resources for everyone's benefit. The Trump-Weah analogy shows that populism does not fit with good governance but calls for a society focused on change and transformation.

Bibliography

1 Mory DA Sumaworo, "Prospects and Challenges of Liberia's Midterm Economic Strategy 'Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development,"' Theperspective.org, 2018, https://www.theperspective.org/2018/1117201803.php.

2 Mory DA Sumaworo, "Prospects and Challenges of Liberia's Midterm Economic Strategy 'Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development,"' Theperspective.org, 2018, https://www.theperspective.org/2018/1117201803.php.

3 Mory DA Sumaworo, "Prospects and Challenges of Liberia's Midterm Economic Strategy 'Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development,"' Theperspective.org, 2018, https://www.theperspective.org/2018/1117201803.php.

4 Mory DA Sumaworo, "Prospects and Challenges of Liberia's Midterm Economic Strategy 'Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development,"' Theperspective.org, 2018, https://www.theperspective.org/2018/1117201803.php.

5 Mory DA Sumaworo, "Prospects and Challenges of Liberia's Midterm Economic Strategy 'Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development,"' Theperspective.org, 2018, https://www.theperspective.org/2018/1117201803.php.

6 World Bank Group, "Liberia: Sustaining Prudent Microeconomic Policies and Expanding Fiscal Space," World Bank, November 19, 2021,

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/11/24/liberia-sustaining-prudent-microeconomic-policies-and-expanding fiscal-space.

10 Amina Dunn, "Trump's Approval Ratings so Far Are Unusually Stable - and Deeply Partisan," Pew Research Center, n.d., https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/24/trumps-approval-ratings-so-far-are-unusually-stable-and-deeply-partis an/.

DePillis, Lydia. "4 Ways Trump's Tax Cuts Changed the American Economy." CNN, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/15/economy/trump-tax-cuts-impact-economy/index.html. Dunn, Amina. "Trump's Approval Ratings so Far Are Unusually Stable - and Deeply Partisan." Pew Research Center, n.d. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/24/trumps-approval-ratings-so-far-are-unusually-stable-and-deeply-partisan/.

Lincicome, Scott. "Grading Trump's Economic Policies." Cato.org, 2022. https://www.cato.org/commentary/grading-trumps-economic-policies.

Sumaworo, Mory DA. "Prospects and Challenges of Liberia's Midterm Economic Strategy 'Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development."' Theperspective.org, 2018. https://www.theperspective.org/2018/1117201803.php.

Tarr, Emmanuel-la P. "'Corruption! Political Corruption and Its Impact on Development in Liberia."' Liberianobserver.com, May 24, 2024. https://www.liberianobserver.com/opinion/commentaries/corruption-political-corruption-and-its-impact-on-development-in-liberia/article_d2066fba-19c0-11ef-8792-6746af6a2cfc.ht

ml.

Villarreal, M, and Ian Fergusson. "NAFTA Renegotiation and the Proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)," 2019. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190226_R44981_8aaa20dea9fab7a1148d72c464b20bfe9800d45d.pdf.

World Bank Group. "Liberia: Sustaining Prudent Microeconomic Policies and Expanding Fiscal Space." World Bank, November 19, 2021. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/11/24/liberia-sustaining-prudent-microeconomic-policies-and-expanding-fiscal-space.

AllAfrica publishes around 500 reports a day from more than 110 news organizations and over 500 other institutions and individuals, representing a diversity of positions on every topic. We publish news and views ranging from vigorous opponents of governments to government publications and spokespersons. Publishers named above each report are responsible for their own content, which AllAfrica does not have the legal right to edit or correct.

Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica. To address comments or complaints, please Contact us.