Foroyaa,
Can you check or empty your mailbox we at www.gamraleigh.com are finding
it hard to send you an e-letter.
Thanks,
Gamraleigh.com
<[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Halifa's Reply to Hamjatta - (A Pox On Halifa's Semantic
> Sophistry)
>Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:37:02 -0000
>
>Hamjatta,
>
>Your posting of December 19 is quite interesting. It appears that you do
>acknowledge that the 1997 Constitution is superior in content to the 1970
>Constitution. However, you proceeded to ask the question: "Where did you
>get
>the lopsided idea that we have raised issues of any kind that makes
>comparative analysis of the 1970 and 1997 Constitution?" You further asked:
>"Was there any dispute about the development of the 1997 constitution over
>the 1970 constitution?" You then proceeded to state categorically that:
>"Fairly and squarely, the 1997 constitution did away with much of the
>monarchical proclivities, gender discrimination and most of the democratic
>deficits that were inherent in the 1970 constitution." Interesting. Isn't
>it?
>
>Why then are you asking me to explain why I gave support to the 1997
>Constitution. Of course, you did give an answer. According to you, I made a
>postulation which was never raised. Furthermore, you indicated that: "It
>was
>a deliberate deviationist ploy and intellectual dishonesty on your part to
>bring up a point that was never in dispute; that of the 1997 constitution's
>developments over the 1970 constitution. The idea that Saul and I found the
>1970 constitution preferable to the 1997 constitution is a figment of your
>feverish imaginations and very hallucinatory brought up solely to gain
>cheap
>points."
>
>Now, now, Hamjatta, angry invectives aside, I know you are more intelligent
>than this. It is true that I have been very provocative. I quite understand
>that the trend of discourse does not help you to easily digest the points
>at
>issue because of the language like 'pedantic' and others which impinge on
>your self esteem. I have been doing so because of the prevalence of uncouth
>words like 'hog wash' in your own correspondence, fit only to be utilised
>by
>one who has allowed his or her language to degenerate into lumpen parlance.
>I would like to apologise for giving the wrong impression that everything
>you say is empty in content. It is my duty to encourage you to sharpen your
>critical faculties since you constitute the foundation for a future Gambia.
>In actual fact, the right thing to do is to enhance your self esteem
>instead
>of impinging on it.
>
>Let me now get to the point. You know as much as I do that there can be no
>constitutional order without a constitution. Hence, in order to restore
>constitutional rule after the coup, Gambians had two options, that is, to
>restore the 1970 Constitution which had been suspended or come up with a
>new
>constitution.
>
>Furthermore, constitutions are drawn up within a given contextual
>framework.
>In our case, it had to be worked out under the government of the day or
>under another government which could only have been possible at the time by
>overthrowing the AFPRC.
>
>The fact that you accused me of deviationist ploy by bringing the relation
>between the 1970 and the 1997 Constitution into play seems to indicate to
>me
>that you did not fully understand the mandate which brought the 1997
>Constitution into being.
>
>Let me refer to the terms of reference of the Constitutional Review
>Commission which were spelt out in section 5 of Decree No. 33. They read:
>
>"(1) The terms of reference of the Commission shall be;
>
>"(a) to formulate proposals for a Draft Constitution for The Gambia taking
>into account:
>
>"(i) the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, 1970 for purposes of
>determining its adequacy or otherwise for the good governance of The
>Gambia;
>
>"(ii) Laws passed after the enactment of the Constitution of 1970 whose
>provisions or part thereof merit inclusion in the draft Constitution;
>
>"(iii) Views and comments of members of the general public including
>professional and other bodies and associations;
>
>"(iv) Matters which in the opinion of the Commission are reasonably related
>to this section;
>
>"(v) Such matters as may be referred to it by the Council.
>
>"(b) Submit to the Council a draft Constitution which shall form the basis
>of a new Constitution for The Gambia; and
>
>"(c) To present a report of their activities which shall contain
>recommendations and such other matters that merit consideration by the
>Council."
>
>
>Hence, it should be abundantly clear that it was the fundamental role for
>the Constitutional Review Commission to review the 1970 Constitution and
>determine its adequacy or otherwise for the good governance of The Gambia.
>This was one of the principal task.
>
>Furthermore, the Commission was to take note of recommendations of other
>bodies.
>
>A draft constitution emerged out of the exercise. Gambians had the option
>to
>accept or reject the draft constitution. There would still have been
>elections under Decree 78 regardless of whether Gambians accepted or
>rejected the draft constitution. In fact the presidential and national
>assembly elections took place before the constitution came into force.
>
>Suffice it to say, if the draft constitution was rejected, the Party which
>won the elections would have had the mandate to prepare another
>constitution
>or restore the 1970 constitution. On the other hand, by accepting the draft
>constituion, any party which took over would have had to abide by that
>constitution but would also have had the capacity to consult the people
>again to bring about a new constitution.
>
>You have already agreed that the 1997 Constitution is superior to the 1970
>constitution. Relying on this conclusion you have drawn, it would,
>therefore, not be an option to you to restore the 1970 Constitution.
>
>Now, if we rejected the draft constitution, it would have meant that after
>winning an election, the same AFPRC would have ruled by some form of
>transitional instruments based on decrees until we promulgated a new
>constitution. The acceptance of the 1997 Constitution provides a yard stick
>by which the performance of the AFPRC could be gauged, and the instruments
>available such as the courts, auditor general's department, the Independent
>Electoral Commission made operational.
>
>As a Gambian, I was of the opinion that it was best to have a constitution
>which has elements that were superior to a constitution that I have
>functioned under for 26 years at the time.
>
>I did also alert my mind to the concerns you raised. According to you, your
>"dispute was premised on the blanket Indemnity Clause, the term limit and
>age of the presidency, how still the executive (presidency) still has
>enormous monarchical dispositions that the Constitution Review Committee
>has
>not fundamentally stripped off the 1997 constitution...."
>
>I am sure you know that in my memorandum to the Constitutional Review
>Commission, I had exposed and opposed all the monarchical characteristics
>of
>constitutions using the 1970 constitution as an example. Furthermore, there
>is no Gambian, except those who have something to hide and lose, who would
>support an Indemnity Clause. However, the issue was whether to accept the
>draft constitution with these flaws or reject it on the basis of those
>flaws.
>
>In my view, I had lived with those flaws under the 1970 constitution.
>Hence,
>if I could get a constitution with more advanced provisions to the 1970
>Constitution with the same flaws all the better. It is on this basis that I
>supported the 1997 Constitution. I am sure you do know that there was no
>term limit under the 1970 constitution which kept Jawara in office for over
>two decades. I am sure you do know that the age (30 years), qualification
>for a presidential candidate is the same under the 1970 constitution as it
>is under the 1997 constitution. I know you do know that the 1970
>constitution did not bar state of emergencies from being called and
>Indemnity Act established as the one after the 1981 coup absolving
>government and its agents from any liabilities to any commission or
>ommission of an act under the Emergency Regulations.
>
>Needless to say, you have already acknowledged the monarchical
>characteristics embedded in the 1970 Constitution. What is your problem now
>and why do you find it difficult to understand why I, personally, supported
>the 1997 Constitution? I do not know what Saul's position would be; whether
>he also holds that the 1997 constituion is superior to the 1970. Otherwise,
>I would have gone into greater details to make a comparative analysis. This
>is the first point.
>
>Now, on the Koro case, you wrote:
>
>"Particularly, I did find offensive your petulant ripples of
>holier-than-thou afterthoughts in your closing remarks about the Koro
>tragedy. You wrote: "we did everything that was possible to get to the
>facts
>and we concluded as everybody is concluding now, that there should be a
>coroner's Inquest. If it fails to do so, anybody can speculate whatever one
>wants. However, no one has the moral authority to question our integrity
>because of the manner we approached this." Oh yeah. Good gracious. What a
>banquet of sanctimonious tosh!!!!!! How can you claim to have to done
>"everything that was possible to get to the facts" when you overlooked the
>obvious circumstantial evidences that I mentioned above and did you carry
>out any forensic DNA examination of the site to scientifically ascertain
>whoever were present during Koro's death? Do you now see the sham that is
>coming out of your pretentious attempts to look smart and professional
>investigative journalists? Do you now see why I called you a novice
>journalist on his/her first assignment. Halifa you don't have the resources
>or the training to carry out a scientific forensic scrutiny of the site
>that
>Koro was found. The State could and should have done this even if it means
>acquiring help from outside the borders of the Gambia. What was at stake
>was too much to be left in the hands of muted silence and in the puerile
>hands of your investigations that reeked from the outset of absurdity,
>naivety and simplicity?
> "Halifa if you fail to follow the lead I just offered you, I will
>have
>every moral authority question your integrity. And get this: you shall lose
>my confidence and consequently my vote come the 2001 elections."
>
>Now, now, Hamjatta, your political maturity is higher than this. You know
>you have as much right to be a candidate for election as I have. In fact,
>you people should be preparing yourselves to assume such mandate at the
>earliest possible time, and I hope you will begin to develop the tolerance
>you are preaching, and not feel offended by the exercise of my freedom of
>expression.
>
>It is my view, that "we did everything that was possible to get to the
>facts
>and we concluded as everybody is concluding now that there should be a
>coroner's inquest." We indicated then that if the State fails to do so,
>anybody can speculate according to one's whims. This is the plain fact.
>Since I have promised not to utilise any language to impinge on our
>integrity, I must, however, ask you whether you have contradicted my
>assertions by asking the questions: "Did you carry out any forensic DNA
>examination of the site to scientifically ascertain whoever were present
>during Koro's death? Do you now see the sham that is coming out of your
>pretentious attempts to look smart and professional investigative
>journalist. Do you now see why i call you a novice journalist on his/her
>first assignment?" How did you conclude? You concluded by confirming my
>assertions as follows: "Halifa you don't have the resources or the training
>to carry out a scientific forensic scrutiny of the site that Koro was
>found. The State could and should have done this even if it means acquiring
>help from outside the borders of the Gambia. "
>
>In short, my assertion is that we have done everything possible and now you
>are pointing out our failure to do what you have indicated is impossible
>for
>us to do because of limitation of knowledge and resources. Moreover, we did
>not constitute a State.
>
>Are you being fair with us? Hamjatta, am I the one who should follow your
>lead or the State? Have you tried to contact the forensic experts where you
>are and inquire what they could do at the moment? What basis would you have
>for questioning my integrity or threatening to withhold your confidence and
>your vote? You know that I am not in the business of bartering for votes. I
>do not want to be anybody's President or representative. I only have a
>national duty to perform like every single Gambian. To serve one's country
>is a duty. It is left to the people to decide who can best serve their
>interest.
>
>As far as I am concerned, there is new evidence regarding Koro's death.
>Instead of engaging in a wild goose chase, according to your lead, it is
>best for us to continue to do the inquiry that is necessary without hoping
>to make political capital out of the death of a compatriot.
>
>Lastly, you dealt with the issue of Pan Africanism as a social scientific
>concept and Pan Africanism as a belief. After consulting your dictionary as
>to what 'HOLD' means in the context of my assertion, you went on to
>indicate
>the following: "I hope you will come up with a clearer and unambiguous
>statement on where you stand with Pan Africanism."
>
>I thought everything is clear, but apparently it is not to you. I noticed
>that you have not made any attempt to refute the view that science is the
>pursuit of the known and the knowable whilst belief may protrude into the
>unknown and unknowable. This is the clear distinction I tried to make.
>
>To have a Pan Africanist belief is to hold the concept as a dogma which
>must
>be pursued irrespective of whether it is viable or not. I have simply
>stated
>that this is not my view of Pan Africanism. To me, it is not a dogma. It is
>a by-product of the historical realities which have been woven by our
>colonial experience which has tied all our economies to a metropolise which
>continue to utilise our countries as sources of raw materials and markets
>for their manufactured goods. This gave rise to a common political
>experience.
>
>Needless to say, African countries need investments and Africa has
>tremendous resources. With the pooling up of resources, the strength of
>regions and countries could be enhanced and our collective economic
>development ensured.
>
>It goes without saying that colonialism left countries divided into ethnic
>groups which sometimes occupy land that goes across national boundaries.
>The
>post colonial State has not brought the people together and give them a
>national consciousness. Hence, Pan Africanism, as a political concept, is
>inconceivable without the elevation of the consciousness of the African
>people and their enlightenment to realise the economic, political and
>cultural initiatives that they need to take in order to forge an all
>embracing union that could ensure their collective survival in liberty and
>prosperity.
>
>I do not think it is necessary to go any further. What is however essential
>is to explain what I mean by asserting that I belong to a different school
>of thought.
>
>My emphasis is that before we can solve Africa's problems, we must begin by
>studying our societies and fully apprehending why they are the way they
>are.
>A person like Nyerere, like many African Socialists, felt that African
>societies have certain communal residues which can be built upon to create
>societies based on cooperation. The rural area was not examined on the
>basis
>of the economic and political realities which had been engendered through
>the colonial experience. Rural development was seen as a priority and the
>way to do it was seen to be bringing the rural people together so that
>educational, health and other services could be brought to them. It was not
>fully realised that the countryside is not completely isolated but was
>linked to the towns and an international economic system.
>
>The creation of towns which relied on taxation of the whole country to be
>constructed and developed and the creation of a colonial bureaucracy which
>depended on taxation of the whole population to be maintained led to an
>uneven development between countryside and town. The repatriation of profit
>made by the colonial merchant houses created an uneven development between
>colonialised territories and those of their colonisers.
>
>How to bring schools, hospitals, roads, electricity, water supply to the
>countryside and pay those employed by the State became a major dilemma.
>Some
>countries nationalized industries and other services not realising that
>many
>of them were not linked to the agricultural base of their economies and
>were
>not serving to provide consumer goods to the ordinary farmer. Others did
>not
>nationalize industries and services.
>
>However, irrespective of whether industries owned by foreign companies
>were
>nationalized or not, no development agenda was in place that could
>eradicate
>poverty in the countryside. Instead the bureaucracy continued to increase.
>The cost of living in urban areas continued to rise. The standards of
>living
>and the level of dependency continued to increase giving rise to the
>diversion of tax money to consumption by the bureaucracy.
>
>The countryside continued to depend on the production of raw materials
>which
>continued to earn less in comparison to the rise in the prices of
>manufactured goods. This led to the impoverishment of the countryside and
>pockets of development in urban areas.
>
>On the other hand, in countries where industries were not nationalized, the
>growth in the parasitic bureaucracy also led to high level of corruption
>where nominal industries and companies survived mainly by getting contracts
>from State bureaucracy through patronizing bureaucrats. The countryside
>depended on the sale of raw materials in the face of escalating prices of
>commodities.
>
>In both cases, the saturation of the tax base lead governments to borrow
>more and more to finance development projects.
>
>In my view, development can come to African countries by understanding the
>law of balanced and proportionate development which calls for policies that
>run contrary to the law of uneven development. What this simply means is
>that the countryside cannot be developed by simply bringing hospitals and
>schools without a productive base to sustain them; that development in the
>countryside should be linked to development of the productive base of
>communities. It is to recognise that each community is a production unit
>and
>they can be made to collaborate in different forms of cooperation to
>produce
>their basic necessities such as food, housing and processed goods which
>would have otherwise been imported. Through cottage industries, milk
>products, oil, canned vegetables and fruits can be produced through the use
>of appropriate technology. So each community must seek to be self reliant
>in
>producing the basic necessities and also in producing what it can sell to
>other communities including the international community to be able to earn
>more for social development. The law of balanced and proportionate
>development calls for a linkage between public servants and the productive
>base.
>
>As the communities develop their social institutions, the number of public
>servants will increase with the growth of those community institutions. in
>this way, the public service becomes a working body which is linked to the
>productive base. Instead of a parasitic bureaucracy you end up with a
>productive branch of the national economy with specialisation in services
>of
>all sorts.
>
>This development of the community productive base could be linked to a
>national productive base where resources could be invested in light scale
>industries to process goods for consumption. With such a self reliant
>economy, development can proceed without terrible dependence on external
>aid
>for any development project.
>
>It goes without saying that such community development must go hand in hand
>with total ownership of the community by the people. This calls for
>empowerment of the people so that they are involved in the adminsitrative
>lives of their communities. Community members would participate in
>different
>committees in order to facilitate the construction of services by taking
>part in planning, in receiving resources, in making decision on tenders, in
>keeping stores, monitoring the construction of public services, giving
>feedbacks to the community and delivering final products to the communities
>with explanation of cost and so on to ensure transparency and
>accountability
>thus making the community an agency to prevent corruption.
>
>Clearly, if each African country moves in a similar direction, then their
>economies which are well organised internally could have collaborated to
>ensure the maximum development of their potentials by pooling up their
>monetary resources, make investments in the right sectors and complement
>each other's economies through mutually beneficial trade.
>
>With the people empowered everywhere, their political unity could also have
>been ensured since managing a society would have seized to be the privilege
>of tyrant and would have been a mere task imposed on reliable people
>chosen
>by the people. Such people would not allow anybody to overstay and
>misrepresent them.
>
>In my view, Kwame saw the Pan African agenda and had hoped that through the
>unity of the continent from above, continental institutions such as armies,
>central banks and so on could have been created. However, he did not
>realise
>fast enough that the real task was to build up the countryside to ensure
>their self reliance and their empowerment; that this constituted the
>bastion
>on which continental unity could emerge.
>
>This is my view of Pan Africanism. I hope my position is now clear.
>
>Have all your questions been answered now? Can I now go on with my
>historical analysis of the whole coup period? I believe other people may be
>interested in my analysis of the whole coup period for the sake of
>posterity.
>
>
>Greetings.
>
>
>Halifa Sallah.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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 Email 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
