Yusupha, thanks for the response and I promise not to put you in the same
paragraph as the mental midget again. I also respectfully urge you to
re-read my piece because I think you made a lot of misstatements and put a
lot of words in my mouth (so to speak) that I did not say. I did not try to
send any subtle messages to you. I was categorically saying that it is wrong
to criticize the Opposition unjustifiably just for the sake of trying to be
different. And I also explained that the opposite is also true. One should
not be a sycophant and blindly support the Opposition because other people
are doing so. I hope I made myself clear. People have to be consistent and
back up their criticisms or support for the Opposition. When I saw your
piece, I detected someone trying to criticize just because he wanted to
appear different. I said that because I am of the opinion that your
objections are premised on shaky grounds. This was made clear by my earlier
post. No subtleties.

I understand your point about Joke all right. I just do not buy it. But I
think we can agree to disagree on this one. I think however that you have
been bamboozled by Joke. See, Joke is not loyal to the party at all. Joke is
loyal to Yaya and Yaya only. If defending Yaya means saying that the party
is culpable, he will say so. If it means saying that the army is culpable,
he will say so. For the Jokes of this world, the buck stops at them. So long
as Yaya has not touched them personally, they would not even fight for their
own blood relative. So if Joke concedes something in the name of the army or
the APRC or Isatou Njie-Saidy, Joke is not giving the Opposition anything in
the larger scheme of things. Without Yaya, APRC is nothing. Conceding in
APRC's name, does not represent a conflict of interests in the issues that
matter. So your continued insistence that Joke is loyal to the party,
evinces that you are looking at the wrong relationship. I am looking at Joke
and Yaya. You are looking at Joke and the APRC. Tell me what relationship is
more important to the big picture? What character had a bigger impact on the
Massacre of our children? Yaya or APRC?

As I said on this forum on numerous occasions, attacking Joke and discussing
other issues are not mutually exclusive. Debating Joke does not mean that
people are not discussing other issues. What issues are we neglecting? Even
if we neglect other issues, are you comfortable trying to force people to
discuss issues you think are pertinent? Don't you think that is a bit
arrogant and dictatorial? You are right about the irrelevance of Joke the
character. What is important is the lies he brings here. That is what we
seek to debunk. Do you propose that we leave the propaganda unchallenged? If
Joke comes here and say that UDP are a bunch of angry and hateful people
without a plan for the country, do you just want us to say nothing and let
that lie stick? What is a diversion is calls for us to give Joke a free hand
while we duplicate noble efforts of other comrades.

Moving to the 'pressing issues' as you called them, re-read my piece. I
never claimed that I was working with any Movement behind the scenes. Please
do not misquote me. I gave you examples of Opposition members that (unlike
me) were NOT engaging Joke. And I asked you to find out what they were doing
to see for yourself whether the whole Opposition is ignoring 'pertinent
issues' and 'lambasting' Joke. I hope you understand me this time. I also
told you that I do other things for the struggle which I did not see the
need to publicize over G_L. I hope you are still following me. I DID NOT say
that I had a collective agenda with any body.
Having clarified that point, I still urge you to do some research and know
what people are really doing before you accuse them of doing nothing. I do
not need to prove anything to anyone that I do not want to. Nor does other
Opposition members. When the time is ripe, you and G_L will hear from
people. In the meantime, don't just assume that people are sitting on their
laurels. We all know that time is of the essence and elections are fast
approaching. I know for a fact (because I did some research) that people are
working tirelessly to make sure that the Opposition wins in October.
Strategies do not have to be discussed on G_L for them to come to fruition.
Plans are being put to actions everyday. Think back about the London
Briefing. Most of the work that went into that I am sure was not discussed
on G_L. Before the ALD people informed us about the proposed meetings for
the participants coming from Banjul, did you know that that was in the works
via G_L?

Again, I never said that attacking Joke will 'help the election fund drive'.
Don't misquote me. What I said was, attacking Joke will help the 'election
drive'. See the difference? I even went through the trouble of explaining to
you that debating divergent views is what elections are about. If APRC
brings their propaganda here and we debunk their lies, the Opposition
benefits come election time. We can show our people for instance that
despite APRC claims that they 'developed' the country, our people are still
poorer than they were pre-1994. You have a problem with us putting our point
across and debunking those lies that are aimed at misinforming our people? I
hope you understand that the point I was making has nothing to do with the
fundraising activities of comrades like Joe Sambou. Why you interpreted my
statement in that light is mind-boggling to me. It is ridiculous to say that
attacking Joke will help us raise funds. That does not make sense. When it
is all said and done, you will be pleasantly surprised about the source of
funds for the Opposition. You will come to learn that the bulk of the funds
will be from people you have never heard of on G_L. Yusupha, the Opposition
struggle does not begin and end on G_L.

I also hope that you understand that I do not have a problem with your
criticism per se. But I think you do even yourself a disservice if you
criticize certain entities or certain people in a certain way. You end up
antagonizing people and they will not accept your criticism. That is in
nobody's interest. Are you comfortable coming here to say that you are good
at seeing problems but you are not good at pointing out solutions? Again,
you do not have to come up with solutions all the time, but if you know that
you do not have solutions, don't you think it is ill-advised to be harsh in
your criticism of people that are at least trying to come up with solutions?

On the cross-carpeting issue, I want to ask you what do you think is the
UDP's message and how should it be changed to stop the cross-carpeting?
Before you attribute the cross-carpeting to a weak or nonexistent message,
don't you think you should apprise yourself with the issues UDP cares for?

I also sensed that you misquoted me again on the vote buying. I frankly do
not have the time or the inclination to debate again points that I made
several weeks ago in numerous postings. Quote me where I said that the Kiang
'defeat' was solely attributable to vote buying. I never said that. I said
that the votes that were bought could have overturned the elections. I have
no doubt that you would not have problems following my logic. If you look at
the absent voters, they were more than the number of votes the APRC won by.
I use the vote buying argument to explain the 'absentee vote'. Another issue
that was never discussed exhaustively was how do we explain the number of
people that voted for APRC (as opposed to the people that did not vote at
all). You see how we are talking about different topics and potentially
different causes for the election debacle? Vote buying was responsible for
the disenfranchisement. Something else I do not want to get into here was
responsible for people deciding to vote for APRC and not UDP. So again I do
not know where you got the notion that am arguing that vote buying was the
sole cause of the election debacle.

On Waa Juwara, I am glad that you retracted your earlier assertion that he
and the party are 'antifeminist'. That label is simply untrue. I also cannot
agree with you that Waa should be clairvoyant enough to think that his
statements will be interpreted the way you and the APRC did. He was very
specific about the 'fairness' issue. He was NOT making a statement to
encompass all women and their role in society at large. Now as I understand
you, you are criticizing the man for NOT answering a question he was NOT
asked. Tell me if this is reasonable and whether it is justified to
castigate the man in the way you did for not answering a question the
interviewer did NOT ask him.
In my humble opinion, you should give a 'hoot' about the APRC record on our
women. It is very relevant. They are the ones in power as we speak. Waa does
not have the power to appoint or fire any woman now. He might never have
that power. He does not have the power to brutalize our women and their
families. APRC has that power. Commonsense dictate that we also talk about
the APRC record. Why waste our energies attacking a 'non-record'.
Discouraging people from voting for UDP and ignoring the APRC record.

I agree entirely with the first sentence of your last paragraph. As for the
second and last sentence, I would say this: your criticism would just be
accepted in the way it is given. If it is respectful, it will be treated
with respect. If it is arrogant and ill-advised, it will be treated with the
contempt it deserves. Here I am speaking strictly for myself and how I
approach criticism. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism. I
know you have potential to do a lot of good. I encourage you to exploit that
potential to the maximum and speak out. If we agree, fine. If we disagree,
fine. None of us has intellectual property rights to the truth and what is
good for the country.
KB



>From: Yusupha C Jow <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Gambian Opposition, Elections and Related Issues
>Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:33:42 EDT
>
>Dampha:
>
>I would like to start by conclusively stating that my opposition to the
>overall manner in which the anti-APRC campaign has been orchestrated by
>certain factions on the L did not originate from misplaced sycophancy, as
>you
>subtly alluded to in your post, or rebellion.  I am not very good at
>calling
>people names or engaging in personal attacks.  This you probably know by
>now.
>  So, again, let us deal with the issues and by all means try to avoid
>unnecessary name calling as subtle as they might be.
>
>First, I sincerely believe that you did not understand my point about Joke.
>If my language was unclear or too winded, I apologize.  But let me make
>things clear once again in the hopes that, this time, my statements will
>not
>be taken out of context.
>
>I simply do not understand why you seem to think that Joke's support for
>the
>APRC is not a conflicted one.  In your paragraph on this issue, I could not
>help but notice the use of  "Yahya" and the 'APRC" in an interchangeable
>manner.  I believe Joke stated that Yahya should not be blamed solely for
>the
>atrocities which have happened of late, but the APRC as a political party
>should be collectively held responsible.  His acceptance of the party's
>wrongs makes his support for them a conflicted one in my opinion.  He has
>flip flopped on the issue several times since then but this does not change
>the fact that he did put the blame for the recent atrocities on his party's
>doorstep.  I was going to use some examples to support my point, but I do
>not
>think this is necessary at this point.  Mind you, calling his relationship
>with the APRC a conflicted one was not meant to justify his legitimacy in
>any
>way whatsoever.  He has views which conflict with ours.  But so do many
>other
>Gambians and Africans who are willing to deal with supposedly legitimate
>regimes who violate human rights at every corner while, at the same time,
>performing some governmental function.  Again, I figured this would be a
>point worth noting!   Why? Because there will always be people like Joke
>and
>attacking him mercilessly while neglecting more pertinent issues will not
>change this fact.  Is there a danger that the one you called Joke will
>change
>the minds of the masses? I think not.  So what does the overall purpose of
>lambasting the man mercilessly while other more important issues are
>neglected serve?  Answer is it not only serves nothing but this can be
>equated to a misuse of the incredible platform we have for the discussion
>of
>more pertinent issues.  Anyway, I do hope you do have a better
>understanding
>of my point about Joke.  He is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, a
>diversion.  KB, how does one deal with a diversion?
>
>
>Now that the subject of Joke has been dealt with once and for all, lets
>move
>on to more pressing issues.  Let's talk about political strategy for a
>moment.  You claim to be doing work in the background with movements which
>have not come out with a solid agenda for months on end.  I do not intend
>to
>criticize these groups but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
>Please
>let us know about your collective agendas in respect to the fast
>approaching
>elections soon.  The elections are only six months away and this secret
>strategy will serve no purpose unless it is revealed very quickly.  In
>other
>words, plans need to be put into action as soon as possible to allow them
>to
>materialize.  But you say that attacking Joke will help the election fund
>drive?  Let me ask you a question!  How much of a change have you seen in
>your coffers since this attacking of the man started?  Don't you think that
>a
>more worthwhile endeavor would be perhaps trying to figure out how and
>where
>these funds will come from?  In the past, letters were drafted on the L in
>an
>attempt to sensitize the outside World of the plight of our country.
>Hopefully, we shall return to these types of strategies soon as opposed to
>attacking dissenting views in the hopes of raising funds.
>
>Finally, I will touch on the UDP and move on simply because I do not have
>the
>time to write rolling and endless narratives about every single thing which
>comes to my mind regarding this issue.  You say staunch opposition
>supporters
>should be discrete and constructive, perhaps in reference to my stinging
>criticism of the opposition.  Well to this Dampha, I say: "Welcome to the
>real World, and the truth as much as it hurts must be told."  I do not say
>these things simply out of being a sycophant or because I am a rebel, but
>because they were derived out of a genuine process of extended thought.
>What
>do you think I do after work, or on the occasions when I am chilling on my
>porch drinking a cold one?  One cannot help but hark back to the motherland
>and think of what has become of it and why?  My criticism of the UDP was a
>result of these 'aimless' moments of wondering and thinking.
>
>Let me reiterate my points once again.  Again, while I believe that
>anything
>but the APRC will suffice after the next elections, I am not satisfied with
>the way the UDP has conducted its affairs.  I do not think there is
>anything
>wrong with raising this grave concern, especially when the elections are
>right around the corner.  My discretion in raising these points would be to
>assume that this is not an open secret.  In other words, everyone with an
>inkling of common sense should know the UDP is headed for an election loss
>if
>things don't change very quickly.  Only the UDP and her supporters can
>change
>this possibly catastrophe, and I figured highlighting the issue for all to
>see would help bring some of the following issues to the fore:
>
>As I stated in my reply to Sanusi Owens, I think this cross-carpeting issue
>is very serious.  You guys tend to attribute the problem solely to
>enticements in the form of money from the APRC.  I refuse to be so
>simplistic
>and instead look for other reasons for such an occurrence.  One which jumps
>to my mind immediately is the party's message.  People also defect because
>they do not subscribe to a party or state's philosophy.  But you attribute
>this type of thinking to sycophancy!  Go figure!  I hope the UDP looks into
>this issue.  I have already apologized to Pesseh and family for using him
>as
>an example to make a point.
>
>My next point is related to the above in that a clear message in the form
>of
>literature must be extensively distributed by the UDP.  Unlike Burning
>Issues
>distributed by Foroya, the UDP does not have a publication to my knowledge
>which deals with issues people need to hear about.  This is probably tied
>to
>the defection problem in that the message is not just being stated strongly
>enough, or perhaps the platform is not strong enough.  Either way, these
>two
>problems (defection + message) need to be taken up by none other than the
>UDP
>and you saying that we should blame the individuals is absolutely
>ridiculous.
>  In the same vein, blaming the recent election losses solely on vote
>buying
>is simply not being objective enough.  Again, as I stressed , there is much
>more to the loss than a simplistic explantion like vote buying.  I think
>that
>assumption too is a misguided one borne out of foolish overconfidence.  We
>need to view the issue more objectively.  Vote buying solely does not do it
>for me.  I hope the UDP deals with this issue.
>
>Waa Juwara (apologies for butchering your name previously) made the wrong
>move in my opinion.  By making statements against people working for the
>feminist movements.  Contrary to my previous assertion, I do not think he
>is
>an anti-feminist.  But, lets put it this way, his statements did not help
>his
>party's position from the viewpoint of women who make up the majority of
>the
>voting population.  He did not get asked to explain UDP's position towards
>the upliftment of women, but he should have been savvy enough to realize
>that
>his statements would be interpreted from this perspective.  It's just the
>nature of the beast.  In this light, his statements were misguided and
>politically naïve.  The party regardless of spokesmans should speak
>responsibly in one voice.  On the APRC's  record on women, I could give
>less
>of a hoot.  I am more interested in the opposition maintaining a decent
>standard.  As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.
>
>To conclude,  Dampha, there is nothing wrong with thinking alike.  But once
>this modus operandi becomes such that the truth is being obscured/ignored
>in
>the name of thinking in unison, then there is a problem which needs to be
>addressed .  On solutions, I really don't have many but I do hope that my
>criticism is not seen as detrimental but instead as a chance for
>reevaluation, improvement and hopefully movement in the right direction.
>
>Note: KB: One objection.  I simply despise being used in the same paragraph
>as Joke. (laugh)
>
>Have a nice day!
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------