I’ve no empirical evidence to answer this question one way or another. However judging by the actions of politicians especially in certain mature democracies the future definitely looks bleak.  The actions of politicians and public officials in these mature democracies afford us lots of perspectives not only in analyzing our problems but also devising solutions that minimize abuses at the same maximize checks and balances. More importantly to create an informed, involved/engaged and demanding citizens. 

Democratic governance should endure local partisan politics everywhere but especially USA!

The United States of America is probably the yard stick for democracy, freedom of expression , association and speech, civil liberties and human rights. It’s the oldest functioning institutional democracy. Over the years has being slowly but surely removed from the intent of the founding fathers and more towards what they fear (or even the whole reason of finding a New World).  The government has created dangerous interest groups, corporate cronyism, indifferent foreign policy pronouncements, indifferent tax code, political-class exempt from some laws they created, etc. the intent of some of which actions are/were noble but the consequences are far reaching into the heart of democracy. Each successive president/administration has concentrated more powers (or at least tried) at the Executive Branch than his predecessor either in the name of greater good, obscure provisions of the constitution/laws/rules and/or national security. Aftermath of 9/11 witnessed US government going beyond any reasonable interpretation of any constitutional provision on indiscriminate invasion personal privacy in the name of national security - The PATRIOT ACT. Should the last frontier of this Jeffersonian democracy fail one wonder how long democracy and human rights endure anywhere on the face of earth.

My bigger concern is if and when American experiment fail, democracy will not likely grow anywhere else nor will those of struggling to have it in our homelands will succeed. In fact the current global hypocrisies partly encouraged prolong tyrannies in many parts of the impoverish world. By the way this is not suggesting American democracy will collapse anytime soon but the slow mutilations is concerning and an avenue for tyrants elsewhere to point fingers to unworkability of democracy.

Here are few issues in US that concerns me as to its implications for our struggle and the global survival of democracy:

Unemployment Statistics - reports/speculations surfaced that Labor Statistics for the monthly unemployment rates has being manipulated by officials before and/or around the last presidential elections. We will have to wait for sometimes for these reports/speculations be substantiated or otherwise. My hope is America do not ever try that route. This is the hallmark of third world government gimmicks - using government resources to fan politics one way or another. This is a very dangerous route. Once government is not separate from party politics and/or used as political apparatus that will be the end of functioning institutional democracy. 

Isn’t it what both Jawara and Yahya did and/or are doing? If America goes this route, so goes democracy!

Voter ID - this is another hot political potatoes and should not have. One side argued for Voter ID to ensure vote integrity and the other against because it will enfranchise votes of the minority. With the level of record keeping in USA, every citizen should be able to proof your citizenship if you are interested to vote. With the resources of America, the nation should be able to afford all citizens free voter ID, if cost is the problem. America supply citizens cell phones in billions why not voter ID?
Elections (free and fair) is central to a functioning democracy, therefore vote should not be rigged one way or another. That’s those eligible to voter should be afford every opportunity to do so while ineligible individuals should be stop at every opportunity. 

The dilemma here is similar to that of the Criminal Justice System. It’s built such that we do not wrongfully incarcerate an innocent individual even if that means criminals slip through the crack once awhile. Thing about this for a second - what a beautiful feature of democracy! 

America’s politicians should stop giving lame excuses why or why not the vote should be impeccably free and fair. On the other hand every citizen wanting to vote should be responsible to be properly documented. I don’t think taxpayers should bear that responsibility. Varying economic circumstances prevailed over different people, let the Federal/State Government pay for every voter ID. Do you want to give to countless services that could but cut to pay for such support? Go figure for now!

Again my focus is not about America as it is to democracy as a whole. I want a property Voter ID and verifiable Voter Register in Gambia and I wouldn’t expect less for elsewhere. Surprisingly even Gambia never made such absurd agreement that people of (say sami Pachonki) are to remote to hold proper voter - just let them vote with whatever they can show that they’re from Pachonki. No offense - Pachonki used to be one of my lovely villages.  

Health Insurance - there is probably no disagreement that some improvement of the current system is needed to accommodate the portion of the nation without means to pay for their healthcare needs. It’s estimated that some 75% has health insurance leaving out about 25%. This problem besides politics/partisan ideology do not reason to dismantle majority’s in order to carter for the minority. It would be best to find solutions (based on why they are not insured in the first place) of the uninsured and address the specific problems. Now the website is a minor problem that will be eventually fixed but the economics will not work. People will be mandated to pay what they can’t so the uninsured can be insure. Government will subsidies both individuals and insurance companies to make it look/feel like affordable/profitable. That’s a temporary scheme that will go away after a prescribed period. Doctors will be required to work under some price scheme (price control) - anti capitalism/anti-economic. There will be shortage of doctors at some point. Above all the principal objectives of the law will not be achieved - insure the uninsured and bring cost down while it carries every hold mark of coercion and undue burden frowned by democratic ideals.

The bigger problem is the executive giving some an exemption, delay some provisions, waiver for others without Congress rewriting the law. This is bad for democracy. In America powers are separated - Congress write laws and the executive implement laws. These are the type of things that happen in Africa/Gambia and we cry foul but in America is justified one way or another. This is wrong and is slowly mutilating democracy at her practical home. My hope is this trend is quickly reverse because is no good example for our nations striving to be democratic.

My concern is how over bearing government can be destructive even when the intension is ok. More important concern is the underlying destruction of democracy along her part with very important implications for the rest of the world that searching for democracy on their shores. Every problem do not need a ‘comprehensive’ solution. If 75% is already insured the focus should have been how to get the 25% insure.

Again I leave the debate of the good/bad of the law to my American friends. However I wouldn't be ok with Jawara/Yahya cherry picking which laws will be enforce or not? Or people of Gambia treated differently under the provisions of one law different from what is prescribed by the law itself?  So far that’s exactly what America’s executive is doing with ACA.

Changing the Filibuster Rule in The Senate - the US Senate has changed a long standing rule to confirm presidential nominees to lower Federal Courts from super majority (60 votes) to simply (51 votes/Nuclear Option). Those in favor has cited political polarization in DC. Those against the changes cited undercutting minor input. The Supreme Court nominees still need super majority but am not sure what else is covered and/or not covered by this changes. 

Anytime laws and rules are change as the game is being played means there exist an ultra motive that do not necessarily serve the common purpose. That is laws/rules will need change to fit the needs of those they intend to serve but has to be democratic, in good faith and time considerate. This particular rule is said to have been in place for 225 years during which President came, went and Congress constituted in a proportion as wished by the American voter. As you can make case for the current seemingly impasse at Congress so too you can point to many paralyzed Congresses. These rules were not in place by chance of accident. They were put in place by founders to reign excess power. Those in favor of these changes were few years ago vehemently against them including Barack Obama.

This is simply an affront to democracy.

Isn’t these what  both Jawara and Yahya did/do? Isn’t these what dictators all over do. They change Constitutions, laws and rule. After all who will counter argue them. Fortunately in America we can still freely  express our political views for/against the government without been punish. But there are also instance were government is used for political purpose - one good recent example is the discriminatory IRS issuance of Tax Exempt Status to political organization. 

If people of the oldest functioning democracy are ready to change rules at will, bend some, ignore others and/or violate for personal/political interest; what should we expect of someone like Yahya?  Above all how do we continue to count on America as a reference to our efforts?

These manipulations by politicians in a mature democracy with supposed informed populace are some reasons why I kept asking for our struggle to demand democracy for what it is and not through some individual’s image. Because human being by nature seem to be dictatorial at every opportunity. Once someone is in a position of power it gets complicated to readily take action on him/her. Just think of how many presidents in Africa changed term-limit to their constitution when they were the primary force of writing such constitution before their arrival at office.

Immigration - this one is close to home for most of us in one form and/or another. These arguments are not about my personal interest and/or yours rather about running the affairs of ones’ nation base on democratic ideals.

US politicians on both sides claimed US immigration system is broken. This is not true they only failed to enforce the laws as prescribed for various political interests. This failure is not because of the un enforceability of the law but for political expediencies. 

More importantly they couldn’t agree on the forward.

They have the authority to change the laws. They’re also responsible of enforcing laws currently in the books until they’re changes. They’ve no authority not to implement laws as in the books. After all the oath of office is taking on those exact words. It’s an affront to rule of law and democracy when public officials do not enforce laws in the books.

As an immigrant I probably want America’s immigration laws be softer. However as a Gambian I want our immigration laws be enforce as prescribed in the books. In as much as any stringent enforcement of US immigration laws will affect me directly/indirectly I will stand for principle and democracy that public officials in a democratic nation has a public responsibility to enforce laws as is the book.

Marriage/Civil Union - I understand America has a Judeo-Christian heritage and these has informed main laws, social organizations and relations. That Christian background have equally inform laws on marriage in the past. Now that the nation is more religiously more mixed marriage can’t continue to be based on christianity.

It comes down to Freedom of Expression, Association and Speech which are fundamental pillars of democracy. Marriage is a form of Association that harms no third party. Hence it is undemocratic, against the basic tenant of freedom of association and equality before the law to recognize some unions and no to others.

Government came into the business of marriage and started providing some with financial benefits in the form of tax-breaks/exemption and denying others who did not fit their definition. Those fighting for similar governmental recognition probably do not care whether we notice or not and rightly so but they certainly want similar benefits as there opposition other form of relations. Equality of citizens before laws of a nation is paramount to functioning democracy. Do not forget that polygamy is another arrangements if the involved parties consent no third party should pass a judgement on it. It’s possible there are other forms of union not known to me and they should all be allowed as long as society is not harm. I may not like some of these unions but that’s not the point. Democracy and personal freedom rules the day!

Politicians use tax money for these so-call benefits to create support bases rather than advance the cause of the nation. If America’s politicians stop using the tax code as political table tennis we will all be able to pay less and government will be able to pay for all her rightful functions and as well pay off the $17 trillion debt.

Race Relations - if it hasn’t got worst during the Obama presidency, it hasn’t gotten better either. Almost every opposition to the Obama agenda is in some form perceived as racist by the political left. The fair/unfair use of race has weakened democratic exchange on important matters. I am not sure if there is anyone who consider me tribalist for opposing Yahya. I wouldn’t argue race/tribe is no factor at all but I also want to think majority of the opposition are issue based rather than race/tribe. In fact sometimes I want to think is a reverse intimidation to accuse one’s opposition racists/tribalists.

Obama has opposed almost everything George W Bush! Is he a racist/reverse racist?

After America elected Obama I thought that word will disappear in mainstream America. Obviously there will always be individuals and/or even groups who will remain prejudicial for whatever reason - it’s a fact of human nature. To indiscriminately accuse a nation that elected a black president twice in a row is a bit of stretch for me. Why not ask the other side to me somewhat considerate to the views of the other side. That’s democracy and may reduce many of the suspicions and animosities. 

Democracy the biggest victim. If we are boxed into fear of opposing any minority public official for fear of reprisal -  a recipe of dictatorship. People in a democracy should not be impeded in their political opposition/support. Recently Yahya tried such tactics on UDP and people of Mandinka origin in government has to watch their back with extra care.

America, Gambia and/or anywhere else in the world, race/tribe is a convenient tool of desperate politicians and dictators. 

Foreign Policy - America’s foreign policy was/is said to be informed by human rights, democracy, national security, economics and the expansion of the frontiers of freedom. Over the last 2 decades we can argue for or against all major American foreign interventions and/or lack there-off. In fact in some instances (in fact many) their earlier action/intervention usually become the new problem. Some good examples are supporting Saddam Hussein to neutralize Iran but then to have to deal with more powerful Saddam. After Saddam Iran has not natural competition which naturally open up a new challenge for America. Similar scenario happened in Afghanistan in that nations war with the USSR. The old friend is the new enemy at the war on terror. I wouldn’t even venture into the alleged CIA operations in post-colonial Africa - too much mess.

I’m not faulting US entirely for these messy foreign policy debacles but it could have been better handled with clearly defined principles rather than being partly/largely informed interests/ideologies the executive. Personally I don’t like Saddam Hussein, but do you think the so-called Intelligent would be present the way they did had the Bush Administration want it show nothing but the outcome they desire. Hope you remember Mr. Powell’s presentation of the facts of Intelligence finding as a justification to go to war. Today one wonder if America want to defend Freedom anymore at least beyond her shores and/or do they want to appease rivals/opponents/enemies at the expense of democracy. Certainly there is hardly a definitive answer to these complex issues but lots of cue are out there for good speculation.

Where’s the proactive policy to help millions in Africa including Gambia struggling for democracy and protection of human rights? Do they truly believe Iraq is stable enough for them to pack up after they removed what was considered bad? Why is Israeli/Palestinian conflict unresolved in decades? Is Assad Bashir the best pattern in Syria? Should they beg Hamid Khazai whether to stay in Afghanistan or not? Certainly each of these are complex issues govern by different laws/conventions but it gives an idea the point am trying to demonstrate.

These are some issues specific to US but many other global power houses has many questionable political pronouncement that either corrupt democracy and/or completely threw it overboard. The question now is how does all these impact our struggle? Will we get any political help - knowing we’re not organized, knowing Gambia provide little to no economic interest, knowing there is no on-going civil war/genocide, knowing there is relative peace, etc? If America and the West are corrupting/abusing democracy at home, will they ever command moral authority to preach and/or enforce it elsewhere? How does global weakness on democratic ideas embolden dictatorship around the world?

The Free/Independent Press - In many African countries Free Press are usually an arch enemy (they’re perceived to be) of the ruling group. In America they used to report the truth no matter what. That made many to consider Free Press the 4th-Arm of Democratic Governance. In the last 2 decades this line is getting blurry each passing day. In the Gambia the press is either owned by government, privately owned but sing praise of government and/or privately owned but avoid reporting on anything politics/governance if it will not tell well of the government. The press in US is broadly divided into conservatives and liberals just as the politics. The New Media on the WorldWide Web is certainly all over! Each broad group report/present issues to the consuming public from that view point. What a sad state! 

Free and independent press is an absolute necessity in a democracy. The current ideological divide in America that permeate the people’s open court judges/jurors (journalists) is a serious threat to democracy. Watch FoxNews and MSNBC on any one National political issue/subject - usually 180 degrees apart on the presentation and not because of the issue but mainly the medium’s ideological biases.

Recently the Obama administration called on journalist to a meeting at the White House on matters relating to ObamaCare/Affordable Care Act. The composition of these body all point to left-leaning journalists. That’s in fact trivial citation. But why would the executive call journalist to a meeting after all? How to rebrand the boxed lunching of the ACA law. Wow! I would have thought journalist should present news as is and not how the executive and/or government agents/agencies want it to be presented.

Budgets and Resource management - I hope we remember what brought about the Economic Recovery Program in The Gambia in the early 80s. Jawara was not able to pay salaries of some civil servants, basic supplies are scares in the market, long lines for gasoline for days, etc. The point is public service is very ineffective and we know why.

America is rich/resourceful! America has institutions functioning at higher level! The people of America are more knowledgeable about their role as citizens and that of their government. Yet America’s government is as ineffective as that of Gambia in many ways. What America waste in checking waste can propel Gambia to a Developed world state.

America’s government failed to produced an annual operational budget for about 5 years. The Gambia is some gobbled up numbers with little meaning in many ways. Sadly what is said to be the budget constraints no government action - the question begs why budget in the first place.

Politicians are quick to blame the divided nature of Congress for failure to deliver a budget. There maybe truth to that but there were 2 years of one party control of both houses of congress in addition to the executive but NO Budget. That said is hard to fault voters for dividing/checking powers - isn’t that how is suppose to be for democracy to prevail. The bottom line is not the system but the power hungry politicians whose interest is to use government as political ponzi scheme.

These political malpractice by our representatives portrays democracy as an unworkable idealistic scheme. More importantly it making our case for more democracy a difficult sale.

My intent is not to take side in America’s domestic politics and my heavy referencing of the current administration/Congress is by default. The same could be said about earlier administrations/Congresses. However, using current administration is a fitting because Obama has promised to change many of the ills  but ends up trumpeting some of them. Inability to follow through some promises maybe due to systemic constraints but using undemocratic tactics to avoid those rigors are concerning to say the least.

An undemocratic America will have profound implications for the growth of democracy. My views on some issues may be wrong. Yet there should be no doubting that an undemocratic America will encourage dictatorship elsewhere.

Our struggle ought to account for these happenings not only in the subregional/regional but as well global level to discern our threats and opportunities. We’ve a mammoth challenge. That’s to safe our country. This will not be done for us but by us. We have no standing army to lunch military attack on Yahya. Even if we have one, it’s an option worth thorough consideration. I’ll never choose it except in selfdefense. The only other viable option is political leverage. That is to garner as much support from global/regional powers to forced Yahya to the table. Compatriots am not talking about appeasing Yahya to the table. I know he wouldn’t fall for that at will but the leverage will forced him because the alternatives will be worst. Fortunately/unfortunately political leverage will never go for outright - ‘Yahya Must Go’, however it’s end product is exactly that. This is also not a smooth process. The hypocrisies of how political relations are played internationally were alluded to all along this piece. We can and should  learn to play the game to have our concerns considered.

It’s easy to say ‘Yahya Must Go’, and ‘Go First’ especially if you’re outside the borders of The Gambia. It’s a different matter who will do it, how will it done, when will it be done and where will it be done. I’m not against Yahya going but yet to see the practicality of us doing it. If there is one me and you can do please keep me posted!


Burama FL Jammeh

Founder/General Secretary 
The People's Movement for Democratic Gambia
facebook.com/burama.jammeh
Twitter.com/@bfljammeh
Skype.com/bfljammeh
810 844 6040

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤