When Politics Wears the Mask of Civil Society
Written by Peter Quaqua
PHOTO: Lawrence Yealue, II, incoming Chairman of the National Civil Society Council of Liberia
Mr. Lawrence Yealue, II
Chairman National Civil Society Council of Liberia
Dear Comrade Chairperson,
Congratulations on your recent election as Chairman of the National Civil Society Council of Liberia. I have followed your work in the civic space over the years and have no doubt that you are deserving of the trust reposed in you to serve in this important role.
Your election comes at a moment of deepening polarization and persistent governance challenges across various sectors in Liberia. It is therefore a time that calls for principled leadership, integrity, and a renewed commitment to safeguarding the credibility of civil society as a space for independent voices and public-interest advocacy.
Permit me also to acknowledge the contribution of Sister Loretta Alethea Pope Kai, whose steady leadership helped guide the Council through difficult moments. Her service deserves recognition and respect.
Mr. Chairman, I write to draw attention to an issue that is widely known but insufficiently confronted: the growing presence of conflicted actors operating under the guise of civil society. Addressing this challenge is essential if civil society is to remain a force for accountability rather than a proxy for narrow or partisan interests.
When Politics Wears the Mask of Civil Society
Historically, civil society in Liberia has served as a moral force—amplifying the voices of communities, holding power to account, and filling gaps where the state has failed. From the years of conflict through the fragile process of democratic recovery, genuine civic organizations have often stood on the frontlines of reform.
Today, however, that space is increasingly contested. Political actors and parties are forming—or quietly influencing—organizations that present themselves as independent civic groups. They speak the language of advocacy, claim neutrality, and invoke “the people,” while advancing partisan or personal agendas. This blurring of lines weakens democracy and corrodes public trust.
Civil society is meant to be independent—rooted in public interest, ethical restraint, and accountable to communities. When political actors operate under its banner, advocacy becomes propaganda, citizen mobilization becomes political choreography, and trust erodes further.
In Liberia’s polarized environment, the consequences are serious. Legitimate civil society organizations—often operating with limited resources and real risk—are undermined. Briefcase NGOs and party-aligned groups crowd civic spaces, dilute advocacy with partisanship, and drown out authentic community voices.
The damage extends beyond perception. Policymakers grow dismissive of advocacy, writing off even well-founded critiques as politically motivated.
Communities become cynical, uncertain whether those claiming to represent them are serving the public interest or personal ambition.
This practice also weakens accountability. Political actors hiding behind civil society labels evade scrutiny while enjoying the moral cover associated with civic legitimacy—without being bound by the transparency and disclosure standards expected of political parties. In doing so, they exploit the very democratic space meant to check power.
This is not an argument for an apolitical civil society. Advocacy naturally engages questions of power, policy, and governance. But there is a clear and necessary distinction between engaging politics and being captured by it. A healthy democracy requires civil society actors who are independent, principled, and willing to critique any government, regardless of who is in power.
Protecting the integrity of Liberia’s civil society is therefore not a luxury; it is a democratic necessity. It requires stronger self-regulation within the sector. It also requires political parties to respect the boundaries of civic space rather than manipulate it.
When politics wears the mask of civil society, everyone loses.
Democracy becomes louder but less honest. Civic space becomes more crowded but less credible. And the people—whose voices civil society exists to amplify, are left confused and disillusioned.
Liberia’s democratic future depends not only on free elections, but on a civic space that is authentic, independent, and trusted. Removing the mask is the first step toward restoring that trust.
Respectfully,
Peter Quaqua