Hi!
     As the political beliefs and positions of the various individuals that have not taken an "everything or nothing" view with regard to the government in The Gambia are very diverse, I think it is misleading to attribute blanket statements to them. Statements have been made during the past few days that are generally attributed to those who do not belong to the "everything or nothing" group and these statements do not in the least represent my position. I can keep quiet and be guilty by association, or I can offer clarification with regard to the various misconceptions.

 

The first misconception that seems to be thrown around is that those who recognise the mandate of the government or those who do not take a locked position are doing so because of opportunism. I have touched on this issue in an earlier posting. The beauty of democracy includes being able to have your opinion. My opinion on this whole issue is that among other things, the people of The Gambia have voted for Yaya Jammeh and that arguing about the process after the fact is futile. Others might have other opinions and that is their right. I however hold that it is misleading to contend that one is an opportunist for recognising the presidency just as it is misleading for supporters of Yaya Jammeh to contend that the regime's opponents are criticizing it in order to get asylum status. Remember that charge? Is it correct?

 

The second misconception is that accepting the mandate of Yaya Jammeh means that one should not criticize or take the government to task. Some might have called those who have concerns about the governance situation back home unpatriotic but that is not my position at all. Every government or institution has to have a system of checks and balances to ensure its proper functioning. This can take various forms and public opinion is one of them. Even if I were in Yaya Jammeh's position would I ever discourage criticism because it is through criticism that we learn and grow.

 

The third misconception is that our position changed when it became evident that Yaya is going to be there for another five years. This is misleading, as some of us have had our opinions long before there was talk of the elections. Accepting Yaya's mandate is based on reasons stated above. On top of that, I do not believe in violent government changes. So my position is that the opposition should do some serious introspection and design ways and means to be more effective come the next elections. Others might believe otherwise but that is their right.

 

The fourth misconception is that all those who do not take an "everything or nothing" line against Yaya are open or closet APRC supporters or against those who take the hard line's right to express their opinion. This is also very misleading. I for one would never be afraid to state my position or political beliefs. I do not belong to any political party but my sympathies lie with PDOIS because of their policies. This is my position. Others are free to like Yaya more than he likes himself or hate him more that they like themselves. That is their right. I do not have the power or the right to stop them from expressing their opinions. All we can do is debate and at the end of the day go home having been convinced of the fallacy of our positions or clinging more tightly to them having been convinced of their validity.

 

The fifth misconception is that not taking an "everything or nothing" line means condoning human rights abuses, not putting economic and other policies under scrutiny. This too is a fallacy. I can never call for violation of people's human rights nor can I ever call for the violation of such rights to be condoned. All public policy should be scrutinised because it is financed by money from or taken on behalf of the people.

 

The sixth misconception is that not taking an "everything or nothing" line makes one less of an opposition. In every given situation, there is the need to have varying degrees of dissent. In the opposition, it is necessary to have those who are somewhat opposed to Yaya, those who are in the middle and those who are extremely opposed to him. This is necessary to balance the actions taken. If all of the opposition is just a bit opposed to Yaya, the result will be a sheepish opposition. If all of the opposition is extremely opposed to him, the result would be a destructive path. Both ends however are needed to act as balances to create a position that is firm but reasonable. The same is true of supporters of Yaya. It is necessary to have the die-hard supporters, the middle ground and the sceptics in order to have a reasonable position.

 

I have taken my position regarding issues in Gambia based on information both on and off the L. On the L, one is exposed to extreme propaganda on both sides of the divide. When the hard-line supporters of Yaya send information, you believe for a while that Gambia is Paradise transferred to earth. When the hard-line opponents of Yaya send information, you believe that the world in The Gambia is going to end tomorrow. For many of us who have not been to The Gambia in a while, this becomes very confusing. Which side should one believe? In order to be objective, one avoids taking any side's info as the Gospel truth. One digests the info and makes a judgment. Outside the L, one listens to those who have just come Gambia or are in Gambia, get their opinions and take positions.

 

Some of us choose to debate without engaging in histrionics because at the end of the day this is just Gambia-l, a bantaba or spot in cyberspace where we come to exchange ideas and learn from each other. For some, the taking of prisoners is not an option but that is their right. For others however, human relations come into play. A few years back, I went to visit my niece in Atlanta. She picked me up from the airport and on the way to her house she said she had to stop at a friend's place to pick up something. When we got to the friend's house, she introduced me to her friend and then the friend's husband came into the living room. She introduced me to him. She told him: "this is my uncle Buharry from Sweden". The man shook my hand and said: "are you Buharry from Gambia-l"? I said yes and he said: "I am Musa Jeng". I asked: "Jeng Fanneh (as he used to sign) from Gambia-l"? He said yes. It is under such surprising circumstances that I have met Gambia-lers like Mounir Alami, Amadou Janneh, Saiks etc. It is through Gambia-l that I have met and developed friendships with people like Amadou Kabir Njie, Momodou Camara and many others. It is through Gambia-l that I have come to have respect and admiration for people like Habib, Hamjatta, Yus, Ya Soffie, Mini, Katim, Dr. Saine, Bakary Kanteh, Pa Samba, Jabou and countless others who I hope to meet one day. It is through Gambia-l that brothers and long lost friends like Sidibeh, Joe, Mboge, Ablie Njie, King Solomon, some who use aliases and many others continue to gain my admiration for dedication to a cause. Some of do us not employ histrionics to argue our positions not because we do not feel passionately about them but because we choose to put the human factor into account. These considerations do not a thing to others. They are also within their rights. At the end of the day, to  each his opinion. Thanks and have a good day.

                                                                                                              Buharry.

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

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]

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