Halifa,
I will begin with a very trivial issue which will expose the
shams/pick-and-choose in your so-called "principles of Democracy." You
wouldn't publish Saul's piece in your paper for the simple reason that Saul's
words to Jammeh, Dibba and Sidia might go unheeded, the impression on Foroyaa
should it publish such an article and the effects it will have on the mood of
the nation at a time when the forces of 'no' and 'yes' camps of the
transition's elections were slugging it out. You have declined to give what
these impressions/effects were and what warrants them? You have not said why
Saul's words will go unheeded by Sidia, Jammeh and Dibba. Does it really
matter if his words go unheeded by the aforementioned? Doesn't Saul reserve
the right to write on anything of legitimate concern to him and the public
especially if he has a conscience which spurs him to speak out? Are you
saying that if our words will go unheeded by politicians then we don't have
any right to get them published? In that case give up your rights to write
anything to Jammeh/public figures that is of legitimate concern to the public
since they might not heed your words.
Again what impression would this have on your paper, Foroyaa? What would
an independent opinion which clearly didn't solicit your support have on your
integrity? Saul's OPINION as it implies is Saul's opinion. And publishing it
in your paper WON'T make it your opinion. It is a very specious argument to
say because you disagree with the contents of the opinion you wouldn't
publish it on imagined grounds of it impinging on Foroyaa's independence. It
seems to me you don't know how a paper treats opinion that is contrary to
it's editorial line. Halifa, in such a case you write in clear language a
foot notes on the who the author is and state categorically that the opinion
that appears in the article has nothing what soever to do with you. It is
very undemocratic for you to stifle Saul's freedom of speech on the specious
grounds of impression and effects that are imagined.
Matter of fact this reminds of a period in 1997 when I replied to an
earlier polemical exercise between Halifa/Foroyaa and one Njaga Ceesay on the
origins of constitutions. Halifa's position then was that constitutions do
not necessarily have Judeo Christian/Biblical traditions and Njaga's was
contrary. I wrote to Foroyaa to be part of the debate but instead of my piece
being published, it was declined for publication for the simple reason that
M'Lud Halifa himself disagrees with my postulations. This was after waiting
for some three weeks without seeing the publication of piece and making
follow-up calls with a someone by the name of Sambou liaising between us.
Instead what was acceptable to them (editorial board of Foroyaa) was for me
to meet my learned friend and he would tell me why I was wrong on my
postulations on constitutional traditions, Jewish world view and philosophy
and it's pervasive effects on western culture especially on Socialism. After
strenuous efforts, I finally met my learned friend Halifa one evening. What
was supposed to be a debate turned out to be a lecture on PDOIS/Halifa
interpretation of History and human development. My side of the story was
never given a good hearing. My piece was never published. For the simple
reason that the editors disagreed with my contentions. Are these people
genuine democrats? Folks if you find yourselves in Halifa's shoes wouldn't
you have published my arguments and debunk them later if you feel that you
don't agree with my position? Where is their sense of freedom of speech and
the need to debate in order to iron out wrinkles that set us apart? How can
Halifa continually chirp about "democratic principles" if he doesn't get it
that we will not necessarily agree on everything and people are entitled to
their opinions and even if one disagrees, one should exercise tolerance.
Tolerance an inherent ingredient of liberal democracy, dictates that editors
publish contrary viewpoints of a paper so long as it is of legitimate public
concern and it doesn't libel anyone. Saul's and mine were legitimate public
concerns and doesn't libel anyone what conceivable/plausible reason does
Halifa has for not publishing them? ZILCH!!!!! The Halifa Sallah's of this
world see theirs as the perfect thing, incorruptible, fool proof against
error, always correct never mistaken/getting it wrong, sanctimonious and
holier-than-thou. Never in need of tutoring on where they could have got it
wrong, precisely the reason why even in the glaring illumination of their
folly they still maintain they have always got it right on the 1997
constitution, Koro's tragic death and the bogus transition.. This autarkic
dirigisme strongly bothers me and making me re-evaluate these people again.
Is refraining from publishing my piece and that of Saul's what you call
"explaining matters to people and dictate to them?" Were you not telling me
and Saul how and what to think by stating that you wouldn't publish us
because we only begged to differ?
I can see you went to great lengths to show members why for you the 1997
constitution was far better developed than the 1970 constitution. Again you
have chosen to bark at the wrong tree. I have indicated clearly the fact that
the 1997 constitution's superiority in certain respects than that of the
1970's. Unlike you I'm very objective and fair. I have given the 1997
constitution's dues whilst stating unambiguously why I'm so vehemently
opposed to it. I have noticed again that in your elongated epistle you have
not told members why this constitution is a monstrous travesty of justice,
why the executive still holds sway compared to the other arms of the State,
why we still have life president mechanisms that will bring the problems of
the past again to fore, how still the executive (president) can still engage
in business by appointing dodgy proxies. Ironically we are told allegedly of
some of Jammeh's business dealings this week not to mention other alleged
business dealings like Gamsen (whose owner is patron of the APRC and holds
Jammeh in "high regard") which gets almost all gov't tenders for public
projects, Boto construction et al. Tell me Halifa if your precious 1997
constitution is that superior and faultless (for you never tell us what the
faults in it are) as you always it, why is the executive getting away with
all these excesses that are every day occurrences in the Gambia? What about
the proposed Media Commission that the GPU tells us is against press freedom
and designed to stifle and control the fourth estate? Why are you not telling
this to members? Are you objective? Do you have a sense of fair play Anyone
who is fair and objective enough will tell you the sense of Déjà vu that they
feel as they write a dairy of Gambian public life today. The same shit we
were putting up with Jawara is the same shit we keep getting from Jammeh.
Just because Jammeh passes along a few bobs along the way doesn't suffice me
to support that fundamentally flawed constitution or the supposedly "new
democracy" that is happening there now. What fundamental seismic shift has
your "superior constitution" to our body polity?.Whatever it is, It might
suffice for you but not for me.
Perhaps the most interesting bit that came from your posting was when you
postulated that "if we rejected the 1997 constitution in August 1996, an
election would still have been held under the Elections Decree. Infact, the
1997 constitution did not come into force until 17 January 1997. The
presidential and National Assembly elections were in fact held before the
constitution came into force......" Halifa has it not struck you odd that we
were choiceless under this scenario that you have just stated? That if we had
voted "no" to their concessionary compromising document, the decrees would
continue the blackmail/threats goes. Clearly this choice between a
fundamentally flawed constitution and decrees was meant to be for us to play
the game according to selfish interest of the AFPRC. And resident scholars
like your type present the false premise that there is no way out if we voted
"no" in the referendum except to continue living under the brutal decrees of
the military. I remember this was the same reasoning that others used when
Jammeh first declared a 4 year timetable. It was said then that we have no
choice but to stick with this timetable; that there is no credible
alternative. How wrong they were!!!! When the people internally showed their
opposition and external factors came to play, the military knew they faced
isolation if they maintained their present position. There was a complete U
turn and we had the National Consultation Committee. From which cameth the
two year transitional recommendation Even then the NCC recommended a
transitional administrator being installed prior to the elections being held
to ensure the legitimacy of the elections and the democratic process. Further
it recommended a constitutional assembly to debate and come up with a final
draft constitution that would definitely have been in a far better position
than the fundamentally flawed document that Jammeh pushed down our throats.
Alas as we all know all this wise counsel was disregarded to our detriment.
It rendered the transition bogus, flawed and manipulated with only one aim:
that of legitimising the military rule in some sort of pseudo democratic
process that resident intellectuals like your type fell for and even dare to
call a "crisis management strategy." You call this bogus transition and
elections a "crisis management strategy"? You call a process a "crisis
management strategy" when only one winner was predestined to win? You call it
"crisis management strategy" a process that had vastly hampered the
participation of Gambians of all persuasions in public life? Do you think
after what had happened the grievances would still not rankle and make
reconciliation virtually impossible? Have you paused to think deep and hard
that those who had their rights forfeited during this period and those who
seek justice like your compatriot Koro's family will never get justice so
long as certain provisions like the Blanket Indemnity Clause are with us. Is
this healthy for a small country like The Gambia where every one knows the
other? So you call this "crisis management strategy." Have you just not
abandoned principle to blind pragmatism spurred by your misplaced enthusiasm
by lending credence to a process that was not in the interest of the Gambian
People?
Halifa had we voted a "no" in the referendum, clearly the AFPRC would
have no choice but to come back to the People in whom power always resides. A
populace virulently opposed to the 4 year timetable coupled with external
opposition made the military to climb down from an earlier hardened position,
this strategy would have sufficed in the case of the referendum. The Gambia
unlike the Libyas of this world has no resource/capacity to withstand
internal opposition coupled with international isolation. It took only a
British travel advice from the international community for the military to
climbdown from the 4 year agenda and consult the public on what they really
wanted. If we had voted "no" and Jammeh and his acolytes harden their
positions, they would have no choice but to continue contending with internal
opposition on a mass scale and growing international isolation. Experience
tells us that they will have no choice but to start talking to the People.
And believe we would have watered down the doctoring and manipulation that
the military has done to the draft constitution. I'm not surprised that you
failed to realise this option. Because you simply don't want to see it. I'm
not amazed that you believed that "there were only two options available to
the Gambian people, either rise up and overthrow the APRC or to overthrow to
an electoral contest." Again your classical imagined Hobbesean State of fear:
that we would "rise up and overthrow the APRC." I don't know where you've got
this idea that Gambians were gearing their machetes, guns or whatever to
fight a civil war. You have used this scenario everywhere to instil fear in
the hearts of the ignorant. Where is the evidence that things were
degenerating to this extreme? Didn't the chance offer itself on so many
occasions but Gambians prefer to pursuit the avenue of peace and dialogue?
I can see you have not forgotten your noble endeavours in telling the
ignorant what draft constitution and the "process" leading to elections meant
on Radio 1FM. Also you have not forgotten to inform us your sacrifice in
distributing leaflets about the draft constitution. But you didn't make
mention of the fact that you never bother telling them that the draft
contains provisions/clauses that endanger their rights to justice and that it
had been doctored by the AFPRC which had consequently expunged many of The
Peoples' recommendation. Were you not dictating and misleading them when you
say that "only two options available to the Gambian people, either rise up
and overthrow the APRC or to move to an electoral contest? Wasn't it possible
to reject the draft and peacefully pursue a better constitution in dialogue
as we did with the time table issue and not degenerate into a civil war
scenario you kept painting for the ignorant?
I'm still waiting for those provisions that will allow Koro's family to
take the State to court to invoke the Coroners Act so they could hold a
public Inquest on Koro's death.
Good Morning
Hamjatta Kanteh
hkanteh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
