Hi Hamjatta!
            My attention was brought to the piece you wrote by a friend because I have simply not had the time to read my mail and I have been in the dark about what has been going on here. I however want to bring to your attention the futility of trying to drag me into another discussion of issues, which you, during the time of the discussion from which you made your quotes, wrote:

 "Concerning the points you raised, I don't see any relevance of going into detail again what my position is vis-à-vis the struggle against Jammeh: its effective-ness, practicalities or guarantees of success."

 Since it was the fact that you did not see the relevance of discussing with me the issues I raised during our discussion that terminated the discussion at that time, I also do not see the relevance of discussing things which I feel had been dealt with. We had a discussion and I have gotten over it. If you still have a hangover from the discussion, I simply cannot do anything about it. 

            Another reason I do not see the relevance of getting into this discussion is the fact I noticed during our earlier discussion that you, whether deliberately or not, ignored points and issues I and others raised and dwelt instead on peripheral issues in a blown up, sensationalised, labelling manner and I simply do not have the time at this present time for such.

            A third reason I cannot engage in a discussion now is that personal plans entail my being away and without access to the net for a while. You would have missed me if you sent your message just a few days late. I'm afraid that you are going to have a monologue on the issues you raised which are related to me because I am not going to be around to tackle them. 

            Please allow me to give you a piece of advice. You have written a piece in which you have outlined certain beliefs and measures as suggestions to be seriously considered. When you do something like that, you have to present the piece in an objective manner so that people do not derail your intentions. When you write a proposal and call people names, give yourself the job of dividing all who do not see things as you do as indifferent, apologist and naïve idealist smug fatalists, then you are inviting people to ignore the point you want to make and dwell on peripheral issues. This defeats the very purpose of writing your proposal. Remember that a good communicator is one who presents his/her points and proposals objectively. Rebutting and responding to raised issues in a bid to disassemble the opponent's points is something different. Here, you can use the means that you have used to throw the opponent off guard and put him/her on the defensive. I wish you good luck in your renewals. Have a good evening.

                                                                                                                        Buharry.

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hamjatta Kanteh 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 10:11 PM
  Subject: RENEWALS


  RENEWALS: SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE PEDAGOGY OF THE STRUGGLE

  A debate or rather a largely and less visibly, an esoteric historical squabble has sprouted amongst historians, especially interpreters of the South African struggle as to when Mandela, or to spread the net, the struggle began to place more emphasis on militant agitation than the calm and passive Gandhian tactics of non-violent peaceful resistance that the old guard of the ANC like Albert Luthuli and Z.K. Matthews were incorrigible advocates of. Some have it that as early as the 1940s, Mandela was beginning to ruminate the futility of playing Mr Nice Guy to Mr Nasty Guy as represented by the Apartheid regime. From there, this school of thought contend - especially with the rise of youth militancy in the struggle of which Mandela was a one time president - mass opinion within the struggle began to question the judgements of the leadership on passive non-violent resistance and indeed, the major turning point in the struggle. However, evidence suggests that this at best is ill! -timed. As his autobiography graphically illustrates, it was not until the early 50s that Mandela was embolden by the lack of developments to question the ANC's strategy. Indeed, it was only in early 1953 when Luthuli and Matthews and certain members of the ANC met with white Liberals and their lack of open-ness about the meeting, that Mandela ridiculed his comrades as pigeon hearted and undemocratic for not taking up positions that are uncompromisingly militant. It is a matter of historical record that prior to this "impulsive" outburst, Mandela in a speech at the Freedom Square did literally incite his audience to take up arms against their oppressors with the freedom song whose lyrics goes: "There are the enemies, let us take our weapons and attack them."

  As he moralised on this change of heart, "..my words that night did not come out of nowhere. I had been thinking of the future. The government was busily taking measures to prevent anything like the Defiance Campaign from recurring. I had begun to analyse the struggle in different terms. The ambition of the ANC was to wage a mass struggle, to engage the workers and peasants of South Africa in a campaign so large and powerful that it might overcome the status quo of white oppression. But the Nationalist government was making any legal expression of dissent or protest impossible. I saw that it would ruthlessly suppress any legitimate protest on the part of the African majority. A police state did not seem far off." Thus began an odyssey from commitment to Gandhian tactics to more moderately radical means. As he commented on the odyssey: "I began to suspect that both legal and extra-constitutional protests would soon be impossible. In India, Gandhi had been dealing with! a foreign power that ultimately was more realistic and far-sighted. That was not the case with the Afrikaners in South Africa. Non-violent passive resistance is effective as long as your opposition adheres to the same rules as you do. But if peaceful protest is met with violence, its efficacy is at an end. For me, non-violence was not a moral principle but a strategy; there is no moral goodness in using an ineffective weapon. But my thoughts on this matter were not yet formed, and I had spoken too soon." [Emphasis mine. More on this do see Long Walk to Freedom: Mandela's autobiography.]

  What Mandela had in essence delineated above is that whilst the ANC enjoyed the intellectual muscle and moral underpinning of Gandhian non-violent resistance, it shouldn't in the face of reality ridiculously constrain itself by fanatically pursuing it if its logical conclusion is a cul-de-sac of the oppressive white status quo. Besides juxtaposing Colonial India's aspiration for self-determination alongside Apartheid S/Africa was inherently flawed because of the objectives and sources oppression of the two different oppressors. So a change of a tactic was not only inevitable for the survive-ability of the ANC, but also equally crucial to move to the next stage of the struggle; stop responding to Apartheid oppression lying down and indeed, as pitiful victims who need the good will of outsiders to be able to offer a credible bulwark against repression.

  At this stage, the impatient reader flails his/her hand in impatience and quips the monologue: What is Hamjatta trying to get at? Here I must implore the reader's patience. The point becomes plainer, if the reader surmises from the above excerpts that a clash of opinion between Mandela and the ANC old guard meant that in every struggle, there comes a time when conventions are subject to forensic scrutiny and their effective-ness re-evaluated against recent developments and or realities. Thus, in a gradual and less visible manner, the tide of opinion within the ANC itself and subsequent events that were to mirror its later chequered history made tactical changes not only avoidable but the only way forward. Indeed, from late 1953 onwards, tactical emphases were on militancy rather than ridiculously circumscribing themselves to only laudable but largely ineffective Gandhian passive non-violent resistance.

  Then the reader is asked to fast forward from South Africa and the ANC in the 1950s to the Gambia, Jammeh and the Opposition in October 2000. What could possibly be the connection with two such seemingly unconnected periods and places? The answer as I always argue about historicism, is not so much that what had worked for one period could, therefore, be applicable and indeed, be successful, but qualifies for one to wonder-gaze into enriched experiences others had lived. The moral of the ANC story as illustrated above is simple: when a strategy becomes ineffective, abandon it and reconsider your options. I have always argued that under the present circumstances there can be no free and fair elections in the Gambia. That to hold elections under the present inherently flawed milieu in which the IEC is doing its best to hand over power to Jammeh again as it did in 1996 is to help in legitimising the Dictatorship. When I was making such assertions, many were and perhaps to this ! day remain impervious to demonstration. Then cameth Sami and the IEC gave us what to expect come 2001. However, opinion seems to be changing at any rate amongst the party that looked more fanatically besotted with the flawed electoral process: PDOIS. So when Halifa calls for more pressure to be exerted on the executive, is he hinting that they might also have ditched their naive idealist policy of holding elections under the present circumstances in favour of the realism of agitating for changes before participating in any elections? If so, I'll say about time too. Two months upon a time, agitation for Halifa was a code word for "closet adventurism." But today? Guess what? "Exerting pressure on the executive" - which is really a more refined way of calling for agitating - is common sense. Yet, even if they are to argue here that they are hardly one and the same, the dazzled reader must raise his/her eyebrows whether it wouldn't be just a matter of pedantry and indeed, semantic! sophistry to argue that agitation and "exerting pressure" are not one and the same. So reality has imposed the much-ridiculed agitation or its code word "closet adventurism" upon those who refused to see sense in it two months. As Bob Marley memorably sang, "the stone the builder refuse, shall be the head cornerstone." Thus the much-ridiculed agitation looks certain to be the "head cornerstone" of the struggle. However, and above all, we must welcome the change in opinion.

  Change in opinion certainly has not been limited to the PDOIS. We also witnessed the UDP's call for an open defiance of obnoxious decrees that place bans on citizens not to take part in the political life of their country. About time too. If what is applicable to unprincipled opportunists like Buba Baldeh is being flouted every second of the day by them, then why in God's name does Jammeh and his acolytes expect others to respect such obnoxious decrees? Such defiance must be extended to unlawful restrictions placed on the movement of other members of the opposition. It is about time people say a big no Jammeh's repression and mean a BIG NO to any further victimisation. People have got to realise that so long as they are taking the oppressor's whip lying down, the crack of the whip will always be there notwithstanding the wails and pleas for mitigation. The most effective antidote they have against Jammeh's banditry, is to stop seeing themselves as victims and learn that tog! ether as a collective force, they are capable of flexing a Leviathan muscle that can cripple the most deadliest killing machine unleashed on them. They have seen the flexing of such civic Leviathan muscle in both Ivory Coast and Yugoslavia in recent memory. This is the message that political, civic and cultural leaders should be telling their constituents. Leadership, as the word implies in both its philosophical and literary connotations, suggests leading and not being led. If our political leaders call themselves leaders, surely it is incumbent upon them to lead the decent but increasingly forlorn Gambian people who have suffered so much under Jammeh's yoke of oppression. A leadership that fails to grab the initiative and lead, shall be lead in the very end by events that he/she has no control over. 

  If agitation has suddenly become fashionable and increasingly inevitable, equally so, it hasn't come critic-free. Agitation has earned itself, at any rate on this forum, heavy-handed criticism. Critics never cease to remind us that whilst we might be calling for agitation, ordinary folks simply do not have the stomach for it or simply not yet ready. Indeed, critics of agitation have cited as an example the UDP leadership's detention Basse shortly after they were ambushed and an APRC thug got killed that the people did not come out to agitate for Darbo and his colleagues release. Thus implying that the people are not ready for agitation. This at best is self-serving convenient nonsense and at worst, pretty much a subtle way of cutting corners to win an argument. If Darbo and the leadership of his party are loath to calling agitation, who are the rank and file to demonstrate for his release? It is Darbo, Jallow, Peters, Juwara and the rest of the UDP leadership that its membe! rship look up to for leadership not vice versa. No where did I see it get reported that the UDP leadership called the membership to agitate and it failed to oblige. Suffice to say that the onus largely rests with the leadership to see fit when and how the party agitates and indeed, clearly state the case for agitation not the other way round. When Milosevic wanted to cheat Kostunica and the Serb people of their election victory, it was the leadership of the opposition that called for agitation and not simply the rank and file seeing that they have got to go out in the streets and agitate for what rightly belongs to them until Milosevic buckled under the pressures. Similarly, in Ivory Coast the leadership of the opposition had to call its members to take to the street hence the success of their agitation. It is always up to the leadership to persuasively state the case for agitation and the faithful will be there for the meeting with destiny if the case had properly stated and ! deemed worthy of sacrifice.

  A somewhat and seemingly more powerful critique of agitation has been supplied by those that I shall call from henceforth as smug fatalists and or pessimists. It is the contention of smug fatalists that agitation invariably leads to violence and since none can guarantee its success or make it risk-free, it is not worth the while. The risks involved in it make it ineligible in their eyes to qualify it for adoption as a strategy. Smug fatalists have largely surfaced under three rubrics. Indifference; these maintain that in the current political equation, they are neutral and only wish to see the continuity of peace in the Gambia at all cost. The idea that any Gambian can be neutral about the Jammeh Mess is not only utter puerile piffle, but also basic petty hypocrisy. With Jammeh, you can be either for or against. Then there are apologists of the Dictatorship of whom we need not waste any further syllable on. The most important in the smug fatalist camp is perhaps the sincere! yet naïve idealists who are irredeemably pacifist in their core convictions but sincere in their desire to see the back of Jammeh. It is this former group I wish to take issues up with. Perhaps, and to a very convincing degree, the most emotive case stated against agitation came from Buharry Gassama. In a response to an early piece, he paints a very emotive leitmotif against agitation sprinkling it with a very rich anecdote. As he wrote, "An official from the South African embassy in Oslo made a comment during his presentation at the Gambian Cultural Week conference that has made a real impression on me. He said something along the lines that it is nice to have martyrs but even nicer to have those martyrs alive. He said that it is nice to think of Chris Hani as a martyr but it would be even better to have the organisational and other skills of Hani contributing to the development of South Africa today. In short, it is better to have Hani alive. Just as it would be nice to thi! nk of Halifa or Darboe as martyrs who gave their lives to struggle for Gambia's freedom, I would rather have Halifa writing letters, educating Gambians, taking care of the social and other projects instituted by PDOIS." I couldn't agree more. Smug fatalist are right to hint to the to risks involved when you directly a dictatorship. Yet, inspite of the profundity of this point, smug fatalists like Buharry are at best alarmist and at worst quite guilty of disingenuous-ness when he failed to state that martyrs like Hani had not gone in vain. Let me first state a crucial point: The logical conclusion of smug fatalists like Buharry's advocacy is a continued adoption of the Gandhian PASSIVE non-violent resistance to Jammeh that, as I illustrated earlier, Mandela had shrewdly calculated could never end the South African problem. Since smug fatalists are making all emphasis on martyrdom, it is important I do some philosophical musing on martyrs, martyrdom and history, especially liber! ation history. It is true that South Africa would be richer in leadership if Hani had still been with them. Or less equally, that Mandela could have been of much use to South Africa had he not spent 27 years languishing behind bars as a political prisoner had. And in another context, Black America - as we keep seeing from the leadership of both Jackson and Farrakhan - certainly does have a great need for its most illustrious visionary personage, Dr King. Yet, the flip of the coin is even more tragic. Imagine Dr King, Mandela, Hani, et al passively engaging their oppressors to set themselves free. Again, on that fateful day of December, 1st 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give her bus seat for a white simply because she could have lost her life. Indeed, it was reported that her husband Raymond Parks did once tell her that obstinacy could get her killed: "The white folks will kill you, Rosa." Yet, with dignified posture and humility typical of her, Rosa Parks ignored such! remonstrance from her husband and else and defied segregation and changed the face of America forever. To such remonstrance, Rosa was known to have quipped that "if it will mean something for Montgomery" [Montgomery in Alabama], she will continue to be obstinate and defy segregation laws. It was largely thanks to these visionary personages sacrifice to agitate that the peoples they rose up for are in a better shape today than they were when agitation was taking place. It is a matter of historical record that the lot of Black folks simultaneously changed with Kings martyrdom. A tragedy yes, but not in vain. If the likes had spent such time pondering on their personal well being at the expense of agitating, we could argue that Blacks might have been the poorer. I am not suggesting for a minute that King had to die before Blacks are freed from their yoke of oppression. The point is that it is tragic King died over something reason could have well won over, but it was not in vain! and it would have been stultifying morally if King had subjected himself to the rigours of self-reflection on life and death issues that could only dampen his zeal to sacrifice. Black America might be poorer in leadership, but there is no denying the effects Kings sacrifice has had in the social mobilization of Blacks from wretchedness, social exclusion and political marginalisation to more inclusion and relative prosperity. Similarly, and with contextual deftness, we could place Hani, Mandela, Tambo, et al in the same circle. As the Bible stoically comforts us on tragic martyrdom, better the lamb to the altar than the whole flock. In every struggle there are two alternatives; either the gets sacrificed as evinced in Black America and South Africa or the whole flock goes to the alter as manifested in Somalia, Sierra Leone and Liberia of recent memory. Suffice to say that liberation struggles and sacrifice in its variegated forms are tragically and immutably embedded into each! other that they are inextricably hooked together

  Since the Sami chieftaincy election is proving to be the litmus test of what to expect come the other elections, how the election is conducted and the outcome, certainly should suffice for political leaders to have a rethink of how far they will go with this fiasco we keep calling a political process. If not Sami then when are we going to get it? Sane and rational people, as the cliché has it, are once bitten twice shy. If in 1996, such an ignoramus like Jammeh bites us, surely we should shy away from a repeat of the fiasco of 1996. The comeuppance of such a repeat would in my view be too disastrous for me to ponder on here. If Jammeh cheats the Gambian people of their power again come 2001, it would be horrendously nasty. People can't contemplate another five years of brutal, criminal, repressive and, crackpot leadership the past six years have really been under Jammeh. 

  As things stand, agitation for genuine changes in the Gambia is inevitable. Politics is not only the art of the impossible but also more importantly that of liberating. When a People yearns for leadership under an oppressive milieu, and the political elites do not act and or speak in sync with such yearnings, we can effectively say they are at odds with the politics of liberating which had emboldened Aristotle to famously declare politics as inevitable. 

  As things are beginning to gather pace on politics back home, we must not only expose the failings of the opposition back home, but equally and perhaps, more importantly we must aid their efforts even if we disagree with on them on many fronts. As it is, the Diaspora could effectively and concretely engage in things that can make the work of the local opposition easier as we continue the fight against the Dictatorship. Notwithstanding my scepticism and opposition to holding/participating in elections under present circumstances, I am willing to assist them in various ways conceivable and within my limited powers. Below I have identified or brought up again ideas, ways and means we can all effectively and practically be part of the struggle against the Dictatorship. It is time we use the outlets of action to vent out our frustration with the situation back home; not only talk the talk but equally walk the walk.

    1.. Recently, the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy made two brilliant suggestions that tragically are being largely ignored. The Movement suggested that we start contributing towards a fund that will assist with the logistical planning of the opposition back home. It is a known fact that the incumbency holds the angle in virtually everything save the support of the masses. To translate this mass support into the emptying of Jammeh into the dustbin of history, we must help practically in every conceivable to make the playing field level enough for the opposition. This as things stand has one future flaw. Since there are three opposition groups, how can poor students like me make effective financial contributions to all three when it will make more sense to pool all resources under group and collectively utilise it more effectively. This is a grey area which further dialogue is needed on. 
    2.. Secondly, the Movement also suggested we collect biodata on Jammeh and his criminals and paste them on web site. A good proposition I'd say. Anything that can make these guys look more criminal internationally is good news for us. What has happened to those web-sites on offer here for the struggle to make use of? They could handy here. 
    3.. We must, even if it distresses the ire out Jammeh, insist on the presence of international observers during the 2001 elections. So as many have suggested, lets start looking for ways and means to get connected to the many organisations out there who would not hesitate to supervise our elections. 
    4.. For every major city in the world that has Gambia, they must start organising themselves into groups that can do things that will help the struggle. These groups should also co-ordinate with like minded groups in the Diaspora to agitate for changes. The amalgam of all these groups could be brought under one umbrella group that liaises with all interested parties in the Gambian family. Wishful thinking? Maybe. But I don't see why we can't do it if we wish to. 
    5.. Finally, what has happened to the idea directly petitioning Blair on his normalisation of ties with Jammeh? This is something we can win on big time. So why is the idea dead, at any rate on a collective basis? I urge members to get this started again.
  I cannot end this without hailing two inspirational figures whose consistency, diligence, vigilance and above all their good sense of justice are a constant source of inspiration for me. Hats off to Brother Kebba Dampha and Sister Sigga Jagne. Whenever the L is deluged with trivia, these great guys always know how to get us focussed with the real problems. I grant that it will not always be serious business on the List, yet sometimes the trivia that some bother with is amazing. We are faced with a situation that can turn our homeland into another Sierra Leone, yet come and see what people are whiling away on. The indifference that some Gambians attach to the Gambian problem was what precipitated the Sierra Leonean Mess. I can only hope that the recent intensification of the discourse on the struggle can be translated into one: Renewals.

  I hope I'm forgiven for this rather long and turgid piece. Not bad for someone who has chickened out because meteorologists are predicting severe floodings everywhere.

  Hamjatta Kanteh


























































































































































































































































































------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
  Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com .


  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask] if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------