Karamba:

Many thanks for your thoughtful response to the third and concluding
sections of the paper I posted yesterday.  The questions you raised are
important. And I agree that "collectively harnessing the potential of
the Gambian people has not been successfully done in our contemporary
history."  I also agree, partly, with your statement that " ideas which
would be the driving force of the new thinking cannot thrive in
rancorous political environment that actively stifles dissent."   While
political conditions today appear inhospitable to the "new thinking" not
all is lost.  Once ideas are raised, debated and struggled for, they
embody blueprints for  a more just and equitable society.  As Victor
Hugo said in his "Histoire d'un Crime," (1852), "an invasion of armies
can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come."  Pan-Africanism,
the French, American and Russian Revolutions and the societies they
ultimately brought about, started with ideas such as "independence,"
"equality," "justice" etc.  Thus, we need to be engaged and to struggle
for these ideals, despite the odds.

When Ian Smith declared UDI in the mid-1960s and said that Africans
would not be granted independence, "not in a thousand years," he failed
to realize the power of ideas and the willingness of a people to live
and die for those ideas/ ideals.  The 1994 elections that brought the
ANC/ Nelson Mandela to power in S.Africa, was the product of ideas
expressed as early as the late 1800s.  Leaders with vision as Deklerk of
S.Africa, in the end, embraced the ideas in the "new thinking" to avert
"rivers of blood" that the late Oliver Tambo, president of the ANC
threatened, if the status quo insisted on continued repression of the
black population.  In sum, leaders and the power structures that once
appeared unmovable and invincible, crumbled.  History is full of such
fallen leaders.

One likely danger in only providing parts of the paper is that issues
earlier raised and fleshed out only receive fleeting mention in the
conclusion. I hold both Jammeh and Jawara partly responsible for The
Gambia's current condition.  Yet, they are creatures of history, molded
and overrun by events partly of their making, but also by events beyond
them.

Regarding the questions you raised at the end of your article.  I
believe we must engage in a constructive way the current Jammeh
government.  This is nothing new.  You and I have been on this path
before.  He has a mandate from the majority of the Gambian electorate
and we must respect that.  Accepting his mandate, however, does not mean
condoning what he or his government does, especially if they are in fact
at odds with the popular mandate.  We must continue to criticize and
challenge, but with this right comes the obligation to offer alternative
or modified policy prescriptions.  I also believe that the suggestions
in the paper were/are as relevant during Jawara's, Jammeh's tenure,
respectively, as they are for future administration(s) after Jammeh.
Lastly, foreign aid is a temporary instrument intended to allay
bottlenecks under adverse economic conditions.  Dependence on it as The
Gambia does, only serves to reinforce pre-existing economic problems
that led to the need for aid in the first place.  A new vision must look
at the potential adverse effects of aid, i.e, aid as imperialism,
intended to keep you in place.  Put in another way, welfare in the US
for instance, has helped many out of poverty.  Dependence on the dole,
however, leaves one vulnerable to abuse and lowered self-esteem.  These
distort the human and national personality.

My response is getting longer than I ordinarily like it to be.  Thanks.

Abdoulaye

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>