Many of us became politically active at some point after the July 22, 1994 overthrow of PPP. This is partly because of our age but also because many believed PPP was good. It was a democracy! We had rule of law and all those goodies democracy and freedom provides. Certainly PPP is far better than A(F)PRC but what obtains wasn’t democracy and freedom either.

 Hence the general consensus - Yahya is ‘The Problem’.  That also implied that what preceded Yahya was good/okay. Therefore the solution must be – Yahya must go and go first! Knowingly and/or unknowingly this view has undercut our abilities to reason our problems. This is not to say Yahya is not bad and/or he’s not ‘a problem’.  Our problems have deeper underlying causes but we seem to be concern with the effects (understandably they’re painful) of the problems. In addition this view quickly runs itself into a political cul-de-sac – in 20 years we have no plan of taking Yahya down.
 
The following propositions are thrown around:

1.	A Single Opposition Candidate Against Yahya 
2.	Civil Protest/Unrest/Demonstrations
3.	Military/Arms Intervention
4.	A Sudden Natural Death of Yahya
5.	Some Combination of The Above

The first problem of the above is their practicality – for some given the current state of affairs; for others lack of resources and/or logistics. Elections are controlled and managed by Yahya/IEC. Where Yahya is the other contestant the outcome is predetermined well before casting votes through the many manipulations. The second problem especially for the none election routes is - who will implement these propositions?  For the most part the vocal proponents of these propositions are neither resident in Banjul nor plan on going back to directly participate in what they’re advocating. They’re hoping someone (an imaginary/alien Gambian) will do it on their behave. That someone did not exist! Problem three is that the products of any of these propositions are not sure path to sovereignty and democracy. The new leader(s) can take us for a ride as both Jawara and Yahya did – because these propositions are either individual/group driven rather than the people.

We’re stuck with these propositions for 20 years because of the conviction that Yahya is the problem – hence taking him down is the solution.  It would be nice to take down Yahya but very difficult if not impossible from our weak position. What we need (and can do) is to be politically smart/pragmatic than Yahya to use Yahya to effect the needed changes. We seem not recognizing and/or accepting that we are fighting from a weaker position.  If that sounds complicated - it is because we have complicated problems to fix. That solution begins with ‘A Common Understanding/Definition’ of the problem.

Hereunder I attempt to list what I see as the roots of our problems:

I.	No Uniform Sets of Rules – It’s called a Constitution. Here I don’t mean merely having some written pamphlet selectively uses and/or respected. Not one owns by a president but that bind a president within a limit. It must be followed to the letter especially in the conduct of the business of the state. A good Republican Democracy Constitution is intended more to restraint government than are to restraint the people.
II.	Lack of Capacities To Live A Life of Democracy – democracy is not simply electing people into office; certainly not just governmental organo-gram but lifestyles of a people. It wasn’t largely our cultures and/or religions hence a need to be taught. That was one of Jawara’s primary tasks and he failed abysmally. Yahya on the other hand is clueless and above all he did what he did to fix his personal poverty. Before democracy can truly hold we will have to create good degrees of capacities amongst our citizens to live such lifestyles – only then will they expect and demand it from their servants.
III.	Impartiality/Rule of Law – even a household can get complicated by interconnected functions/systems much more a nation of over a million people. The sets of rules will not only be complicated but has to hold and apply fairly at all times to all the people. In The Gambia for this basic principle to be uphold/not uphold has lot to do with our small size where everyone knows the other. However this can’t be a good excuse for lack of fairness. In fact that should make us better people who would not wrong the society much more a neighbor you intermarry and/or share mosque/church. 
IV.	Due Processes of Law – democratic laws bear universal presumption that a person(s) is/are innocent until proven otherwise at a properly constituted court of law. Hence law enforcement has protocols to ensure that presumption is adhered to at all times. In a democracy primary law enforcement agents can only process (due process) a person to get to court but not determine guilty and/or otherwise. Throughout our history the opposite is true – police/uniformed officials and/or ordinary government agents determine guilty of a person(s) in their various duties.
V.	No Separation of Powers – a government of a democracy is a shared responsibility – after all that’s why is not a dictatorship. An organo-gram of typical democratic government is 3-coequal branches – executive, legislature and judiciary. Unless these arms have the independence and capabilities to serve the people in accordance with the Constitution the system turns into collusion and tranny against those supposed to be serve. This is what obtains in Banjul since independence/start of self-rule.
VI.	No Decentralization – in a functioning democracy management of common affairs are drop down the social strata to as low as possible. The idea is that people know best their own matters hence they’re their own best managers. The reasons used to make case against colonialism are the same reasons we can’t centralize power in Banjul. We need diffusion and dispersion to villages/hamlets.  It’s incomprehensible that after almost 50 years we can’t elect/select our own Commissioner’s/Governor’s, District Chiefs and Village Heads but can do for president of a nation. Which of the two is closer/easier to make a decision on – your president and/or village head? Beyond electing/selecting our local representatives, these functionaries ought to have an unadulterated role and authority within law.
VII.	No Maintenance of Basic Social Statistics – people’s affairs can’t depend on the mood of an individual. This has to be based on facts. Such facts come from data. Such data are collected and managed. For almost 50 years Gambia doesn’t have an accurate citizen registers on birth, death, IDs, automobiles, passport, varies agricultural products, economic and employment data, etc. How can we even contemplate free and fair elections under these conditions is simply beyond my comprehension. How do you purchase a ferry when you have no clue on both current and projected traffic volume and density? Simply say it this way – do we require our spouses measure the rice to be cook for lunch/diner and/or just scoop a container full? Reasonable person will require spouse measure – it’s nothing different! 

I said all the propositions so far on the table wouldn’t work. I also said even if by some chance they work that outcome is not necessarily going to guarantee democracy and the maximum protections of our sovereignty. I further said the focus on these propositions is the lack of proper diagnosis of our problems. We clinched on to the effects rather than go after the root causes. But it would take some conscious reflection to see that we are actually playing with the leafs and not the roots. Hence I came up with the 7 aforementioned issues that I considered our problems. Logically if we could eliminate these problems we will have our sovereignty and democracy whether Yahya and/or someone else is the president.  Suffice to say if my reason is right and I believed it is – then Yahya is not ‘The Problem’. Noticed that I just said Yahya could be a president and we would still own our sovereignty and be a functioning democracy.

The next stage is to develop these issues into themes and programs. The product of that effort I called – ‘A National Democracy Vision’. A vision that will make our nation ‘A Truly Functioning Institutional Democracy’. I wrote a 35-page document I called ‘The Working paper’ – essentially how a functioning institutional democratic Gambia will be structured and managed. Its too detailed – but I will make efforts to regenerate and abridged version to provide readers with the fundamental. Send me your email if you want to read the full text.

That National Democracy Vision should be our Quran/Bible of political demand for change regardless of who is in the stewardship. In this approach all citizens can participate regardless of political party affiliation. We can spread and share the risks. Our roles will be defined by the purpose and allocated based on expertise. This doesn’t discriminate the nation into opposition and ruling party camps. It doesn’t consider tribes, regions, religions, education, trades; etc.…the only qualification/eligibility is to be a Gambian and/or a friend to Gambia.

I hope you following my logic. You don’t have to agree but I would appreciate if you’re up to this point following. Next I will present the package (Vision) that I thought should be the program worth our fight. After which we can discuss the kind of vehicle that will be necessary to carry it to Banjul and all across the length and breath of The Gambia.

Stay tuned!

Burama FL Jammeh
The Founder/General Secretary
The People's Movement For Democratic Gambia
[log in to unmask]
facebook.com/Burama.jammeh
twitter.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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤