08/06/2026
Understanding the Liberian Predicament—Hard Questions Require Honest Answers
Ian Yhap is on Hard Talk, an Earnest Seeker:
Hard Questions Deserve Honest Answers
August 5, 2026
Thank you for asking your questions respectfully and for encouraging Liberians to debate ideas rather than attack personalities. If our generation leaves anything of value to those who come after us, I hope it is the understanding that history advances through inquiry, not intimidation.
Where do I stand? Good question. Let mestart by saying where I do not stand.
I am not an apologist for the True Whig Party. Neither am I an opponent of every person who called himself or herself a Progressive. I attended the University with many of the progressives of the time and many of them remain my best friends and family today. Just name the progressives that were in the University of Liberia in the 1970’s and chances are you’ll be referring to a friend of mine. The situation is never that simple.
The True Whig Party governed Liberia for more than a century. To pretend that it did everything right would be intellectually dishonest. It may not have. Political participation was said to have been too narrow. Too many Liberians may have felt excluded from meaningful participation in the affairs of their own country. Opportunities seemed to be unevenly distributed. There may have been injustices. There may have been mistakes. There may have been policies that deserved criticism then and deserve criticism now.
But to vie our history fairly also demands that we acknowledge another truth.
The Liberia that existed before 1980 also built institutions. It developed one of Africa's oldest republics. It established schools, hospitals, roads, ports, an international airport, a currency respected throughout the region (using the US currency), an educational system that attracted students from neighboring countries and possibly produced some of the best minds in West Africa if not all of Africa, and an economy that, while it may have been viewed as imperfectly shared, functioned. Liberia possessed credibility in international affairs and offered opportunities that caused people from other African countries to seek employment and education within our borders. And I am not even touching the liberation movements that were supported, without which south Africa may have existed in the throes of apartheid for a much longer period. And who knows if South Sudan would have gained independence?
Those accomplishments did not erase the injustices. Neither did the injustices erase the accomplishments. I reject both forms of historical dishonesty.
You ask what I think about the hut tax.
Like many colonial-era taxes throughout Africa, it deserves careful examination. Whether one views it as necessary, exploitative, or both, it should be studied in the context of the time rather than reduced to a slogan. I have no difficulty criticizing policies that placed disproportionate burdens on ordinary Liberians.
You ask whether there was anything wrong with people rising against exclusion.
No. People have always had, and should always have the right to demand justice. The Progressives were right to raise difficult questions about inequality, participation, accountability, and governance. Many of those questions may have been long overdue. Every healthy society has people willing to challenge authority. I daresay that every society needs people to challenge authority. I myself am a chronic authority challenger albeit for different reasons. Because of that I was dismissed once by Taylor and twice by Ellen. You didn’t hear about it. Thats because I didn’t take up arms. LOL. I quietly stepped away and let history take its course. But while I was at the helm, I was uncompromising when I thought I was making the right and righteous decision for Liberia. I had grievances, but I respected authority.
Where history becomes more complicated is in asking not just whether grievances were legitimate, but whether the methods employed to address them ultimately improved the nation. That is a different question.
Paradoxically, opposition to those grievances were exercised violently against a president that advocated “total involvement” and manifested it. As I explained in my story of my journey through the university, every progressive at the school was on a government scholarship. The push to make Liberia inclusive was never more forceful than under the Tolbert presidency. That is not family loyalty. That is not True Whig Party advocacy. That is truth.
Likewise, you ask whether there was anything wrong with the military rising against the government.
Again, I would like to distinguish between understanding and endorsement. I understand why many soldiers and ordinary citizens were dissatisfied. Understanding why something happened is not the same as believing it should have happened.
The 1980 coup did not just remove a government. It destroyed constitutional government by force. It introduced a cycle in which political power became increasingly associated with the gun rather than the ballot. Over time, that cycle consumed not only those who were overthrown, but many of those who celebrated the overthrow. And today, it is still consuming the nation itself. That is why I said that history is not transferable. You may have had legitimate grievances, but does it excuse every consequence that follows?
You also asked what I meant when I referred to "Liberia's finest years."
I was not speaking of perfect government. There is no government in the world that is perfect.I was speaking of a Liberia where institutions generally functioned; where schools produced graduates respected throughout West Africa; where the University of Liberia, Cuttington, Booker T. Washington Institute, St. Patrick's, Ricks Institute, B. W. Harris, and many others cultivated excellence; where public utilities, though imperfect, operated; where our passport carried respect; where our currency inspired confidence; where young people believed education would lead to opportunity; and where Liberia's voice mattered internationally.
Could those years have been made more inclusive? Absolutely. Should political reforms have come sooner? Maybe without question. But acknowledging those realities does not require me to deny what Liberia also achieved.
Finally, allow me to answer what may be the most important question of all that I do not believe that you asked.
Why do I write?
I write because I believe we have reached a point where many Liberians know what happened but not why it happened. Some participants remain silent. Others remember selectively. Still others try to reshape history to justify decisions made decades ago. That concerns me.
I do not write because I believe I have all the answers. I write because I witnessed enough of Liberia's journey to know that no single narrative can explain it. If my writings sometimes appear more critical of the Progressives than of the True Whig Party, it is largely because the dominant narrative for decades has focused almost exclusively on the failures of the True Whig Party. Less attention has been given to examining whether those who promised a better Liberia ultimately delivered one.
That examination is not an attack. It is history doing what history is supposed to do.
My hope is that young Liberians will read Patrick Burrowes, Albert Porte, Amos Sawyer, Bai T. Moore, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Tuan Wreh, Gus Liebenow, Stephen Ellis, Elwood Dunn, Herbert Brewer, Dr. Fahnbulleh and others with differing perspectives. Then they should ask difficult questions of all of us.
The younger generation deserves the truth, however complex it may be. If my writing contributes even a small part to that search, then I will consider my efforts worthwhile.
