Bamba the concept of collective responsibility is only found in a genuine
and matured democracy. In that type of democracy consultation is the order
of the day. But  remember what happened to former sos jobe, it is alleged
that when the Brirish deputy high commissioner was explelled he was not
consulted, the decision was taken behind his back. Such is the nature of
absolutism and in the present regime it appears that many decisions are
taken above the heads of those presumed to be responsible, another case that
hilight my assertions is former sos Mendy. You remember the oil saga Mendy
who was deemed responsible for sealing the deal  but he refuted any
knowledge of what transpired. This is the nature of a regime that operates
with the doctrine of commandism. After all Blaisse was demoted at one point
and sent to the USA, if he had any influence on Jammeh as you  try impress
he would have been the vice president, but Jammeh made a completely
different choice, which  took many observers at the time by surprise. So
what am trying to insist on is the fact that Jammeh operate as an
independant mind, he may confer if the decisions are technical but if they
are within the remit of his understanding he would take action and no one
can reverse such a decision except himself. What we must avoid is to shift
blame from the protagonist to the nonentities. Under Jawara it was a common
remark that Jawara was a good man and he wanted to do a lot but was
sorrounded by some people who were giving him wrong advice, this is the
classic excuse that was bandied about and it would be the same mistake you
would be commiting if you are not careful. In the case of Blaisse at the UN
I was making reference to government policy which might or might not have
been designed by Blaisse, in any case whatever Blaisse had to say must have
Jammeh's blessing or else he would not even contemplate of delivering it.
As for Jamnmeh's personality prior to taking power I do not know him and
cannot therefore comment on that, but what is significant from what I was
saying to Jallow is the fact that the army in Africa has always defended the
intrest of a minority class and that happens to be  the ruling class. And
further to that is the fact that the military has created a lot of monsters
in Africa I do not need to give examples of that, but we can reflect in the
not too distant past to see characters such as Idi Amin, Mobutu, Samuel Doe,
Baba Ngida, and may more. The emmergence of such notorious characters is not
by any means a coincidence, they are or were a by product of an institution
that was a colonial legacy. Under colonialism we had no rights, no voices no
franchisement we existed as nonentities as far as the colonialist were
concerned, to enforce and perpetuate this master slave relationship they
created an army that was trained  and designed to subjugate and terrorise
the people. Whenever the people express their grievances they were brutally
suppressed to the point of anihilation. To achive this they most have had a
modus operadi in place which guaranteed compliance, hence the term obey,
execute your duty and then complain. It does not matter how irrational that
duty was it must be carried without questioning, in such a system of
compliance you create zombies that only do as they are instructed. The
situation as it is now is not different from what it was in any significant
way, in fact the arrogance that was or is exhibited by senior army officers
is quite evident, if we  called to evidence  for people to asses our present
or former senior ranking army officers I can bet only a few would be judged
as none arrogant and brutal. They are made to believe that they should be
macho when dealing with people. Such machoism creates a sadistic people who
can inflict pain without hesitation.

At the dawn of  Indepence many people had anticipated change for the better
but there was dissapointment because many of the changes  were not
substantive, there was no qualitative changes all we had was change of
captains, the new leaders flew flags made us sing the new national anthem
then they occupy the governors mansion and dish out the same laws with the
same zeal and vigour. Thus started the conflicts of intrests.

The  state machinery  was no different,  nothing change except perhaps the
colour of the new ruler.  In the case of the Gambia  not  even the
constitutuion was  changed,  instruments  reffering to the queen were still
in place, despite years of Repulicanism. And this fact could be replicated
in many of the former colonies and it will fit.

At Indepence what should have emmerged was  a peoples army, and army whose
purpose would have been the defence of the terretorial intergrity of the
nation state, but did we have without exception was an an institution that
inherited and maintain oppression. So clearly from the word go the army was
flawed and therefore in direct confrontation with the populace it was meant
to defend, instead of wadding of external enemies they were used to suppree
the people whenever they demonstrate to exppress a legitimate concern. To
this day this is the function of most of the armies in Africa, in fact the
way the operates testifies to that, their guns are hardly ever pointed at an
external enemy but usually to the general population. This is not a people's
army. A peoples army would defend the teretorial intergrity of the people as
well as the constitution of of the state. If this is the oath that Ebou
Jallow why did he not fight to defend the constitution as he was sworn to
do?. Is he saying that he is such a faint hearted soldier that he could not
have sacrificed his life in the intrest of the nation, you his arguement
cannot stand because he cannot on both  sides of the arguement.
Anyway with regards to the armies involvement on national issue I am in no
way oppose to that, I happen to think that the army as well as any one else
are stake holders in any country. After all they part of the population,
what they cannot do and most not do is to be partisan but of course they
have to be political, without political knowledge they would be virtual
criminals with licence to carry guns and commit crimes without impunity and
this cannot be accepted.

If you look at the armies in Africa the emphasis is not professionalism
except for a few, and in this category falls soldiers like Jallow, they are
given training in  military institutions around the world  to protect the
intrest of the property class. That is the reason why the army is always
called if there is an organised demonstration. They come with their guns and
shoot at the very people they are meant to protect. The protection of the
state overrides all else and this cannot be refuted. That is precisely why
those few elites that are normally choosen must have to  through thorough
examination to fit the criteria that guarantees security. This is why
nepotism, sectionalism and tribalism is inherent in such armies, one does
not need to scrutinize to see the interconnection of high profile
appointments with the regime. To ensure continuity, merit is not all that
relivant but loyalty to the class or leadership. In the Gambia people were
provided the opprtunity for further training simply because there exist
family affinities or long term loyalties. This is the only way to guarantee
continued oppression.  Instead of being an institution that people are proud
of, an institution that people can count upon in times of desperation it has
become an institution that is feared, this cannot be a peoples army, an army
is a true army only if its vocation is to defend the just and fend of the
unjust. A true soldier can usurped power  if there is abuse of power and
return it to where it belongs to the people. A true soldier will never
aspire to rule.

>From: Bamba Laye Jallow <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Malik>>Manners of Ruler
>Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:29:48 -0500
>
>Malik,
>
>Please allow me to change the subject of our discussion to a mroe
>appropriate one.
>
>I see that our brothers with military background are not taking your
>explanation of Jammehs’ mannerism on the premises of vertical/horizontal
>socialization very well. I can understand where they are coming from and
>that’s all well and dandy; but at the end of the day, Jammehs’ personality
>as the president of The Republic of Gambia is what matters most. That is
>what affects geopolitical positioning of the Gambia government in the New
>World order. I think your explanation makes sense in describing how
>Jammehs’ military orientation makes him become what we see in him today.
>Those who knew the guy while he was a military police officer will agree
>that he had always adored and believed in the use of brute force to resolve
>situations. I think there is a certain degree of inherent personality that
>has nothing to do with his military training. One can safely say that the
>military environment only helped to bolster such inherent characteristics
>and even more dangerously so, now that he has power and wealth to go with
>that.
>
>In moving on with our discussion, I would want to take issue with an
>observation I had on your last posting. You had mentioned that “many of us
>would try to blame those around him, but that would be a mistake because….”
>I think you fell in the same trap of blaming those around him when in
>describing how Blaise Jagne was at pains pleading for recognition you
>mentioned the following: “ Blaise must realise that THEY are as equally
>culpable as anyone else in creating such a diplomatic empasse. The ball is
>in as much as it is in the international communities’ court it is equally
>in THEIRS. Hence THEY most sort out the concerns that affects both Gambians
>and the international community.” (My emphasis). I think you just want to
>take the easy way out on this one but you must realize that part of the
>blame will have to be apportioned to some of the high rolling toadies like
>Blaise. They are the experts with the moral, professional and civic
>obligation to steer the government, including Jammeh in the right direction
>even if this means that it is the end of their stint. In the end, they
>would have fulfilled their obligation to the people of The Gambia and
>history will serve them well. This is why I will always respect people like
>Alieu Ngum – a truly dedicated, principled and yet humble professional.
>Those who know him will undoubtedly agree that the Gambia needs more of his
>kind in these trying times. The last time I checked, he was an ambassador
>somewhere in the Middle East. An expert in Public Finance! Sometimes I
>wonder what people like Famara Jatta (SOS Finance) feel about how talents
>and mentors like Ngum are being frustrated – though I doubt if Jammeh can
>ever frustrate him. Now, to what we have in personality for a leader.
>
>Allow me to take a slightly different approach in trying to understand
>Jammehs’ mannerism as a leader of a developing nation like ours. I will
>venture to use the concept of Emotional Intelligence – the application of
>intelligence to our gut reactions, especially at times when a creative and
>calm mind is what is needed to make a decision. In his book with the same
>title published by Bantam Books in 1995, Daniel Goleman describes Emotional
>Intelligence as “the abilities such as being able to motivate oneself and
>persist in the face of frustration; to control impulse and delay
>gratification; to regulate ones moods and keep distress from swamping the
>ability to think; to empathize and to hope.” With that in mind, one can
>fairly conclude that Jammeh has, on numerous occasions, demonstrated that
>he is dangerously deficient in Emotional Intelligence when critically
>needed. Of course, wherever you mention the name Yaya Jammeh words
>like “intelligence” will be out-of-sync!
>
>Now, how does one compensate for inherent lust for use of force to resolve
>situations, a military background that encourages the concept of “command
>and obey” - thus making it difficult to switch from vertical socialization
>to horizontal integration. Moreover, the lack of Emotional Intelligence
>when critically needed, to steer a nation yearning for a competent and
>dedicated leadership that will be a force to reckon with. Jammeh will have
>to undergo a total change in personality to achieve the standards of a
>successful leader. Unfortunately, this might be unachievable and even
>worse, the damage is already done with hundreds of innocent lives lost and
>many others languishing in jail for no apparent reason. The question is, is
>he willing and ready to accept responsibility for the damage done and take
>the opportunity to change the way he us ruling the country. This will by no
>means exonerate him from the loss of life and continuous incarceration of
>the innocent law abiding citizens, but will help to put the country in
>track for a well-deserved prosperity and peace we all yearn for. I think
>Aristotle meant well when he said:  “Anyone can become angry – that is
>easy. But to be angry with the right person, to right degree, at the right
>time, for the right purpose and in the right way – this is not easy.”
>Malik, we have an angry ruler, no doubt. However, is he angry at the right
>person, at the right time, for the right purpose, in the right manner? That
>is the question.  What are your take folks?
>
>Abdoulie A. Jallow
>(BambaLaye)
>
><<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>
>
>To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
>at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
><<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>