Rene,
This is a great analysis and it shows an excellent understanding of the
relationship between the governors and those whom they govern. However, I
just wish to point out that this analysis only holds true if you are dealing
with rational people who are also going to honor their part of the bargain.
The argument you made is also premised on the basis that we don't have a
flawed contract to begin with. Let me draw your attention to the following
paragraph in your posting:

"In the second instance, the notion that a govern that wants to consolidate
itself in power, against the wishes of the people, must be removed by all
means necessary, is only relevant to the contractual basis of a
constitutional arrangement; as such, the collective actions of the people,
through civil disobedience, the engendering of an ungovernable situation,
mass demonstrations and strikes, could cause a government to surrender its
illegitimate authority to govern by resigning, and return the authority to
empower to govern back to the people. If by all means necessary, is within
this context, it is a right that the people not only possessed but can
exercise."

What happens in a situation where the "constitutional arrangements" provides
for a right to peaceful demonstration and then the government decides to gun
down anyone who engages in such an activity; in clear violation of the
constitution (April 10 & 11 massacre)?
Worst still, what happens if the government usurps power and then put in
place a constitution that does not guarantee people fundamental freedoms? Do
you still tell those people not to exercise their natural rights because it
is not in the constitution or the contractual constitutional arrangements?
If the government repudiates the contract by gunning down children who are
exercising their constitutional rights, then it is legitimate to forcibly
remove that government. If the government also puts in place a flawed
constitution that does not guarantee its people's natural rights, then it is
legitimate to forcibly remove that government. To advocate otherwise, is to
advocate unilateral disarmament. Think about ordinary contracts for a
moment. Would you enter into a contract or honor your part of a bargain if
the other party made it blatantly clear to you at the onset that he/she will
only agree to provisions that are detrimental to your position and that even
if you agree to those onerous terms, he/she will repudiate the contract at
will? That is what I think you are telling people to do. Like they say, it
takes both hands and not one to clap. It would be foolish of us to
unilaterally disarm ourselves in the face of a callous regime that cannot be
expected to honor its part of the bargain. WE SAY, GET RID OF YAYA BY ANY
MEANS NECESSARY (including, but not restricted to constitutional means).



>From: Rene  Badjan <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Jammeh contemplating 18-month medical leave
>Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:56:38 EDT
>
>   Hamadi,
>          You have raised some very interesting scenarios, relative to a
>power
>vacuum should the above mentioned subject materalized. However, we need to
>recognize the fact that, nobody has the right to govern anybody. The right
>to
>govern is a collective imperative, that people willingly surrender, to
>establish the basis for a constitutional arrangement. As such, the people
>enetered into a contract with other citizens, and choose those whom they
>have
>empowered to govern them. They also maintain the right to revoke this
>empowerment to govern, whenever a government doesn't serve the interest of
>the people.
>
>      There should be a mutual responsibility between those who govern, and
>those who are being governed, which should be cherished and respected. When
>a
>government feels that it nologer can serve the interest of the people, it
>is
>noble for such a government to give back power to the people who owns it.
>When there is a breach of responsibility on the part of a governing body,
>the
>people have the right to revoke their authority to govern, and transfer it
>to
>another body they have so chosen.
>
>     The misguided response of a government, when the people have
>determined
>to revoke its authority to govern, and blatantly refuse to surrender power,
>is the consequence of most of the catastrophic and fatal conflicts that are
>evident all around us.
>
>    This situation gives rise to the question that is always being asked.
>What
>happens if a government, contravenes the rights of the people to revoke its
>authority to govern, and chooses instead to impose its will, its power, on
>the people? Thus the notion that the popular will of the people, through
>elections, cannot supplant a government that wants to maintain its power by
>all costs. Arguably too, the notion that a government that wants to
>consolidate itself in power, against the wishes of the people, must be
>removed by all means necessary.
>
>    In the first instance, a government that choose to govern a people that
>has already revoked its authority to govern, is only creating a situation
>of
>ungovernability. Hence a government must adhere strictly to the popular
>will
>of the people. Such a government should not try to rigg elections to stay
>in
>power; such a government should not try to manipulate adversely the outcome
>of an election that is contrary to the popular wishes of the people. Such a
>government should be imbued with a patriotic desire, to surrender power
>graciously to the people who owns it. This is a noble act; this is a
>patriotic act. The will of the people must always prevail.
>
>   In the second instance, the notion that a govern that wants to
>consolidate
>itself in power, against the wishes of the people, must be removed by all
>means necessary, is only relevant to the contractual basis of a
>constitutional arrangement; as such, the collective actions of the people,
>through civil disobedience, the engendering of an ungovernable situation,
>mass demonstrations and strikes, could cause a government to surrender its
>illegitimate authority to govern by resigning, and return the authority to
>empower to govern back to the people. If by all means necessary, is within
>this context,
>it is a right that the people not only possessed but can exercise.
>
>   In the final analysis, the people will always truimph. No instrument of
>coercion, suppression, brutality and savagery, can break the will of a
>people
>who are determined to be free; a people who are determined to guide their
>own
>destiny.
>
>     Rene
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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

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