G-L Community:

Here are the last two sections of the paper I promised to send earlier.
For those interested in the longer paper, feel free to contact me
privately.  As
usual comments and criticisms are welcome.


"The Gambia and the Political Economy of Globalization: Prescriptions
for a "New Order in the Twenty-First Century."


III.   The Gambia At a Crossroads: Prescriptions for the Twenty-first
Century.


At the dawn of the Twenty-first century, The Gambia and Gambians find
themselves in an unenviable position both politically and economically.
The Gambia is at a crossroads in which the choices are simple and
clear.  The Gambia and Gambians can continue to leave their affairs of
state and economy to be managed from the outside by international
financial institutions or go back to the drawing board to create a new
vision of relative economic prosperity and political stability.  The
inherited economic and political structures from earlier centuries were
not the making of Gambians and thus, cannot be expected to serve them
well.  It would be equally naïve to expect the IMF and the World Bank,
in spite of their rhetoric and ideology to serve the interests of
Gambians and Africans alike.  They were not created to serve that
purpose.

Since World War II, the propagation of Western values and interests have

been so much a part of development discourse.  The unwitting adoption of

this ideology by many Third World leaders and policy makers must change,

and change it must in The Gambia.   This is because aid and technical
assistance continue to be framed in ethnocentric narratives.  It is also

clear that Western aid, technical assistance and altruism disregard
Third World philosophical and moral assumptions and assume that failed
development policies initiated and imposed by the West are in the end
better that what “developing countries” would have otherwise initiated.
The West has enjoyed this hegemonic power and takes it ideas and
strategies as the only viable response to domestic global
circumstances.  Many Western policy-makers have also ceased to consider
alternative strategies appropriate for countries like The Gambia.  This,

Gambians must do for themselves.

Thus, The Gambia and its people must reclaim the power that was long
surrendered to outsiders and use it confidently to determine what
development and political arrangements most suit their needs and
interests.  After all, The Gambia and its people have been “independent”

for over thirty years and must now decided and graduate from having
others decide for them. Technical assistance and economic aid will have
lasting positive effects only when it complements a well thought out and

articulated national policy.  It is in this context that Gambians from
all walks of life must dialogue about the future course of the country
and take “the road less traveled.” This is not to suggest, however, that

Western interest is always cynical or self-serving or do not have a role

to play.  Rather, what I am arguing is that The Gambia and Gambians must

move away from the footless posturing as spectators to the proactive
role of participants in decisions that will shape the future of The
Gambia and its peoples.

At the helm must be a creative leadership that is willing to experiment
and possibly fail before a desirable outcome is realized.   A leadership

sophisticated enough to debate and be informed by the resulting
information.  This could result in freshly developed visions for The
Gambia.  Consequently, the skills, knowledge of all Gambian, but
especially Gambian intellectuals and students must be utilized. The art
of debate and critical thinking in particular, the deconstruction of
relations of power, control in the domestic and international systems
must be made clear and understandable to all.  Increased awareness based

on critical analysis and assessment of global forces are important.
Without it, the road traveled could be treacherous. This requires a
political system premised on freedom of expression and academic freedom
to challenge held dogma.  Gambians must rebuild a democracy based on the

long cherished principle of  “debate” as reflected in the “Bantaba”
(Mandinka) or “Datte” ( 'ollof).  Improved political and economic
systems that have at their core the provision of basic needs for all
Gambians and all who may reside within its borders must be given
priority.   It is this caliber of leadership that is most suited to
guiding The Gambia into the twenty-first century.

International institutions and partners who can help achieve these goals

would be welcome, but the policy-makers must critically analyze the aid
and technical services provided.  Aid must not be accepted just because
it is rendered, especially if it has potential of distorting national
goals and objectives.  More importantly, The Gambia must get off the
international welfare line and break the cycle of dependence on
handouts.  This “culture of dependence” stunts creativity and saps
national-self-reliance initiatives. Gambians are a proud and hardworking

people who have been failed by their leaders and time has come when
their interests take priority.

The new leadership’s first priority must be to reestablish fundamental
freedoms, rehabilitate the economy and once more provide opportunities
for self-improvement.  This must not be left to market forces alone.
While the latter has encouraged some important productivity gains, it is

by no means clear that laissez-fair capitalism is the only, or the most
effective, way to provide for human security and democracy.  Moreover,
neoliberal strategies often minimize deliberate efforts to reduce
inequities that result from social and economic arrangements.  In fact,
neoliberal policies have often exacerbated rather than alleviated
suffering and pain of the poor (Scholte, 2000).  And unlike economic
policy of both republics, new government policy must be active in
rooting out gross inequalities.  If these important national priority
objectives are left to the forces of globalization alone, it would more
than likely serve the interests of the privileged and undermine the
position of the weak.

A redirection of globalization away from neoliberal policies is
therefore desirable and notwithstanding the rhetoric, substantial
possibilities exist to develop policy tools and political support to
pursue alternatives to globalization.  The answer may lie in a dual and
somewhat paradoxical strategy that involves the expansion of democracy
and democratic norms to change the policy structures of international
agencies and fora while at the same time increasinging the scale of
production in order to institute self-management nationally and
locally.  Increasing the scale of production would entail among other
things, a shift toward more inward looking economic strategies, but also

forming new economic relations of cooperation with Senegal and
neighboring states in the sub-region.  Powerful minds, people and
institutions must be changed and resources be committed to this
endeavor.  Approaches to globalization and restructuring could be
reoriented internally so as to give priority to the provision of health,

food security, shelter, employment and human dignity.  Debt relief
monies could target these national goals.  The Gambia’s relatively small

size, ethnic harmony, abundant human and natural resources are a good
basis upon which to build a solid foundation to achieving these national

goals.  The democratic process must be enhanced to give voices to the
marginalized.  A new leadership must not only be committed to removing
the crippling vestiges of gender inequality, archaic cultural practice
and exploitation, but the government must be perceived to be active in
bringing about their end.

The program of reform sketched out here represents a viable but by no
means the only alternative to neoliberalism and unchecked
globalization.   Yet, there are powerful advocates who support the
continuance of the status quo with fundamentalist fervor.  These vested
interests cannot be easily moved and it will take clarity of vision,
creativity and the goodwill of Gambians at home, the Diaspora and its
international supporters to see these reforms through.  Institutional
capacity is of the essence.  Today, unlike the immediate period after
independence, Gambian nationals are trained in all the professions and
have acquired and continue to acquire skills and sophistication to be
effectively utilized in this period of national reconstruction.
Inducements to these individuals to return home must be made attractive
by government.  But the political and other infrastructure must be put
in place to earn the confidence of this population.  Those that cannot
return immediately could share their knowledge as technical experts.

Ultimately, the encouragement by government must be for Gambians abroad
to be more active in promoting development in the country of their
birth.  A thoughtful, stable and people-focused, domestic policy
framework for the twenty-first century, is the surest way of  attracting

Gambians in the Diaspora to both invest hard earned financial capital
and skills.  This is one way for The Gambia to benefit from the process
of globalization.  To be sure, implementing an alternative development
strategy and vision for The Gambia could face major political obstacles
from groups in society, powerful states and global institutions that
have vested interests in keeping the status quo.  It will take skill,
confidence, not arrogance and honesty to sell this alternative strategy
and vision.

IV Conclusion

This paper sought to assess The Gambia’s prospects and limits for
development in an increasingly integrated world economy.  It addresses
the “new thinking” needed in The Gambia to arrest and reverse, the
country’s deepening poverty and “culture of dependence” on “development
partners,” the IMF and World
Bank.  It contends that the incorporation of the Senegambia region and
The Gambia, in particular, into the global capitalist economy of the
mid-1800s, must be the starting point of any serious analysis of the
country’s post-colonial political and economic challenges.  The paper
also contends, paradoxically, that The Gambia needs to position herself
to leverage the opportunities from  “globalization.”  For this to occur,

however, a new leadership is required, a leadership that is both
assertive and creative to think “outside the box” of received dogma to
satisfy the basic needs of the Gambian populace.  This comes at a time
when The Gambia is going through major crises, and finds itself at a
crossroads between two stark choices.  The first choice is to continue
in its current development trajectory and harvest the same woes that
have
afflicted it since independence.  The second choice is to chart a new
course of development action that has at its core the needs and
interests of Gambians, and convince The Gambia’s true “development
partners” to support this new vision.  This is important, because the
current neoliberal rhetoric of open markets and a minimalist state
system often
reinforce existing suffering and pain for the most vulnerable in poor
countries.

Additionally, the state must take an active role in social and economic
policy to ameliorate pre-existing and continuing vestiges of inequality
and exploitation.  Regrettably, neither the first republic under Jawara,

nor the second under Jammeh, sought to overcome these problems despite
the promises of the “Gateway Project” and the rhetoric of “Vision
2020.”  These development schemes could never have had their intended
outcomes because of their unrealistic basic assumptions.  This is
because, the economic experience of most African countries since
independence has been rooted in their continued dependence on exporting
agricultural commodities or minerals whose prices have fluctuated
frequently on the world market (Khapoya, 1994).  This must be reversed
and gradually replaced with an inward looking strategy derived from
Gambian norms and culture.  Furthermore, an important reason why these
projects("Gateway" and "Vision 2020") have not succeeded, is because
their underlying assumptions are alien to the social and economic system

they sought to improve (Saine, 1997).  The time has come for The Gambia
to be assertive about what it wants as opposed to being dictated to by
lending agencies that reduce her policy-makers to bystanders.  Also,
Western ethnocentrism as reflected in both the ideology and practice of
development aid must be countered by alternative and practicable visions

of development. This is where new thinking is most needed and all
Gambians have an important role in this task.

In this regard, it is crucial that a culture of open expression, debate,

tolerance of different views and critical thinking be engendered to
overcome decades of intellectual dependence and unproductivity.  And to
encourage discussion and dialogue that aims at deconstructing power
relationships in the domestic and global political economy in order to
make them understandable to the populace.  Because these reforms are
bound to be opposed by domestic and international voices that have a
stake in their maintenance.  And because the reforms will require
sacrifices, the population’s support and understanding of underlying
goals would be crucial to success.

Today, unlike any other time in its history, The Gambia stands at a fork

on the road.  Gambians can take the easy way out or take “the road less
traveled.”  But unlike the years following independence, today Gambians
at home and abroad have amongst them well trained professionals who,
together with the new leadership, can begin to put in place reforms to
avert an impending disaster.  Government must, therefore, establish
programs to induce Gambians abroad to return home to share their varied
talents and to enable those that cannot relocate immediately to consult
and share their expertise in their chosen professions.

The time is long gone to continue to think of The Gambia as a poor
country.  Size notwithstanding, the country is endowed with human,
water, marine and other resources that when wisely utilized can begin to

turn around the tide of underdevelopment.  And unlike many countries in
the world, The Gambia is not riddled with bloody ethnic, religious,
racial and other tensions or severe social inequalities.  These serves
as a good foundation on which to build this new vision and strategy.
The Gambia’s location, and its water and marine resources unlike Chad’s
for instance, is a major boon for development.   And contrary to the
generally held view, there is no evidence to suggest that countries
better endowed on the continent are any better of socially and
economically.  In fact, in many of these countries in Africa and
elsewhere, abundant wealth has been the fuel for civil wars and ethnic
cleansing.  Additionally, there is little evidence to suggest a positive

correlation between wealth and happiness, or between how much wealth one

accumulates and personal happiness.  And as we enter this twenty-first
century, it is important to determine what is truly important both at
the personal and national levels.  For The Gambia, the answers could lie

in sensible political, economic and social policies that build upon our
most cherished values, i.e., belief in God, love of family and progress
through hard work.

Abdoulaye Saine
Department of Political Science
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
(513) 529-2489(O)
(513) 529-1707(fax)

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

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]

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