Cherno Baba,

You indicated that I missed the point. What point did I miss?

Frankly speaking, I do enjoy your interventions. It strikes me that you have
a right approach to freedom of expression. You seem to believe that everyone
has the right to speak about anything and everything, even if it means
arguing that the sun rises from the west and sets in the east. This right
approach to freedom of expression is good for journalists, but not for
social scientists.

It is not strange that you have accused me of missing the point since you do
not have the intellectual maturity to understand my point of departure. In
my last piece to Ayittey I believe he now understands the wave length of my
intellectual discourse.

Before going to expose the barrenness of your conceptions, allow me to
express some of my concerns about your style of intervention.

It is in deed true that language is the tongue of the mind and proficiency
or eloquence in the use of language is of aesthetic value. Fine language,
however, tends to lose its finess when it is not tempered by substance.

You seem to take verbosity for intellectual profundity. This is why you have
a tendency to talk about everything only to end up saying nothing.  I will
now invite evidence to corroborate my submission.

In your submission, you indicated that I have missed the point and concluded
that: "And get this: Ayittey is a scholar, critic, writer. He has written
extensively on Africa. He tackles African issues with insightful scrutiny
unlike the Halifa Sallahs, who, out of drooling utopianism and incontinent
lust for nationalism, are hopelessly unrestrained in their kissing up to
vaunted Pan-africanism starved of self-dissenting objectivity. And honesty."

In short, you are accusing me of lacking objectivity and allowing emotions
to cloud my vision. You acclaimed Ayittey as a scholar and instructed me to
be objective. I thank you for the instruction, and I would adhere to it with
overwhelming thoroughness in reviewing your conceptions.

Let me now ask: Since you alleged that I have missed the point, what then is
the point, Cherno Baba? If you were interested in objectivity, you should
have started not by intruding into the inner being of Halifa Sallah to try
to convey how dogmatic, emotional, intransigient he is in his defence of
Pan-Africanism and so on and so forth.

On the contrary, you would have gone straight away to state the point at
issue and show very clearly how I have missed the point. Take a look at
Ayittey and Co.'s article again. What is the title? The title is NYERERE: A
Saint or A Knave?

Cherno Baba, this is the point at issue. I did not raise this infantile
question. It is your scholar, writer and critic who is responsible for this
pedantic formulation. What the principles of objectivity and common sense
require is for Ayittey to adduce evidence and provide the basis for their
corroboration to ultimately tell the readers whether the evidence
sufficiently proves that Nyerere is a saint or a knave.

Cherno Baba, you gave the impression that your scholar is capable of "fairly
rounded scrutiny", to use your own words, and is free from "dogmatism" and
the issuing of "historical narratives that are devoid of self-injecting
objectivity".

According to you, I argued from the position of a Pan-Africanist whereas
your two mentors argued "out of independent mindedness sharpened by
incisiveness and scholarship".

You concluded by saying "Ayittey's and Shirima's article is endowed with
irrefutable facts; facts that speak to the truth about Nyerere's legacy."

Now, Cherno Baba, let me ask you this simple question: a question that any
primary six child should be able to answer after reading a passage. Is
Nyerere a saint or a knave? What is your reply? Do you now see the point,
Cherno Baba? Did Ayittey and Shirima give a conclusive answer?

I am sure that you are now wallowing in a state of total void for an answer.
Do you now see what you have got yourself into because of your usual
pretence at intellectual profundity?

Cherno Baba, do you know how scholars write articles? Do you know why they
prepare themes? A real scholar must state the problematics that he or she
intends to enquire into. This must be followed by stating research questions
which must be predicated by objective enquiry without making any emotive or
conclusive remarks prior to one's investigation. A true scholar will not
start with themes that could not be provided with answers. Objectivity
provides a person with a tool to appreciate facts that could be convincing
to anybody who accepts truth when they see it. The facts should be able to
convince the reader that the theme was worth raising and the problematic
worth investigating into.

First of all, Cherno Baba, your scholars raised a point which was very
absurd. The fact that you see sense in the issue they have raised tells me a
lot about your own intellectual wave-length. Now take your dictionary and
find out the meaning of 'saint' and 'knave'. A saint is defined as "a very
holy person; one who is pure in heart and upright in life"; "a person who is
very humble, patient or like a saint in other ways". And a knave is defined
as "a tricky or dishonest person; rascal; rogue".

Cherno Baba, I guess when you quoted the following from your mentors'
article, you meant to prove one-half of their question that Nyerere was a
saint:

" "Although Julius Nyerere belonged to this generation of
African leaders," they write, "he did not display their egregious and
megalomaniac excesses. He was not personally corrupt and his living style
modest - a rare and refreshing exception among African leaders." They write
further: "Nyerere was also among the very few African heads of state who
relinguished political power voluntarily." And: "Nyerere worked
indefatigably to mediate conflicts and bring peace to the East African and
Great Lakes Region... Nyerere was quite active in promoting peace,
understanding among people of the developing nations." "

On the other hand, when you said the following, one would assume that you
are giving evidence that Nyerere is a knave:

"But Ayittey and Shirima took a critical look at Nyerere's domestic record,
unimpressive as it was: A socialist program forcibly shoved down the throats
of Tanzanians. Result? State-control of industries and a "controlling
interest in the major multinational corporation subsidiaries, coffee estates
and the sisal industry." Within a decade, according to the authors, most of
Tanzania's state-run industries had become inefficient and redundant.
Economic loss and unemployment soared. Tanzanians groaned."

"Nyerere's "Ujaama" villigization proved a disastrous failure. Agriculural
productivity dwindled and industries were sent packing. And Ayittey and
Shirima told us a UN report revealed that because of the policy of forced
villagization, Tanzania suffered ecological disaster, desertification as a
result of deforestation, over-grazing, over-cultivation and population."

This constitutes what you termed as an objective and scholarly review. Now,
if we focos on the point at issue, that is, whether Nyerere is a saint or a
knave and rely on the evidence that Ayittey and Shirima have given and which
you have quoted from, we would have to conclude that Nyerere is both a saint
and a knave. Nothing can be more ridiculous than such a conclusion. Even a
buffoon can see the barrenness of the enterprise that your scholars have
undertaken.

It is this emptiness that struck me when I read their article. Unlike you, I
could read in between the lines and could see that the intention of Ayittey
and Co. was not to help readers to understand the realities of Tanzania from
an objective point of view, but were trying to counteract the respect that
Nyerere has earned. This is clearly evident in their openng remarks which
reads:

"Before the international media pundits/mavens elevate any African leader to
sainthood, a reality check with his own people is imperative for balance. At
the minimum, Africans should be allowed to choose their own saints, not
those imposed upon them by outsiders for that smacks of cultural imperialism
or intellectual arrogance.

"As the new millennium dawns, many Africans fervently hope that their old
generation of leaders would quietly fade away into the sunset. To be sure,
they did endure great personal sacrifice and fought gallantly  for freedom
from colonial rule for their respective countries. But the
legacies they left behind bespeak of shattered economies, rampant
corruption, never-ending cycles of political instability, senseless
civil wars, wanton destruction, famine, and massive refugees. To deflect
attention away from their own domestic failures, they grandstand on the
world stage, railing against Western colonialism, imperialism, racism, the
IMF and the World Bank. To continuously celebrate them without a hint of the
unspeakable misery they bequeathed to their people is criminally
irresponsible."

This design to give Nyerere the image of a knave is also evident in their
concluding remarks:

"Perhaps, this “reeducation” came a little too late but it validated the
adage that one never ceases to learn until death. In this sense, Nyerere was
a true teacher. But the supreme irony of it all is that, Julius Nyerere, who
denounced the British colonialists, should seek medical help from Britain
where he died of leukemia. But then again, who thought Sergei Kruschev, the
son of Soviet President, Nikita Kruschev, would take up U.S. citizenship
this year?

"May Nyerere rest quietly in peace."

Since you do not have the maturity to get the point, I certainly could not
miss the point. This is precisely the reason why I decided to engage Ayittey
and Co. in polemics. My objective was not to refute facts, but to refute the
interpretation of those facts to put Nyerere in a negative light. I believe
I have succeeded in achieving precisely what I set out to achieve. This is
confirmed by the back-tracking that Ayittey has made in his response to my
challenge:

"No African would deny that the first generation of leaders strove gallantly
and endured personal hardships to win independence from colonial rule. They
were hailed as heroes by their people and the international community. We
made this point in our piece. BUT in country after country, these leaders
proceeded to establish brutal regime, violated the civil rights of their own
people and looted their economies. Nyerere was an exception, which we also
said in our article."

The new element here is the emphasis that Nyerere is an exception. That is
my point.

Now, may we ask Cherno Baba: If, according to Ayittey Nyerere was an
exception, what was the point in making reference to the Bandas and other
tyrants in an article entitled NYERERE: A saint or a knave? The title of the
article gives the impression that it is specifically about Nyerere. The
authors were, therefore, either incoherent in their thinking or had the
ignoble design to befog the issue. Let me just quote a portion of their
article so as not to prolong what is already evident:

" “Mwalimu” (the Teacher), the late Nyerere was among Africa’s first
generation of nationalist leaders that also included Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana,
Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, and Hastings Banda of
Malawi.

"After winning independence for their respective countries, they were all
hailed as heroes, swept into power with huge parliamentary majorities, and
deified. They built statues for themselves, named monuments, stadia, and
streets after themselves. Currencies bore their portraits while they heaped
vainglorious epithets upon themselves: Osagyefo, the Guide, the Messiah, the
Redeemer, the Teacher. They brooked no criticism. Criticizing them was
sacrilegious. Newspapers that did so were banned and editors jailed. They
used their parliamentary majorities to subvert their constitutions, outlaw
opposition parties, and declare their countries "one-party states" and
themselves presidents-for-life. Just one month after Malawi gained its
independence from Britain in July 1964, the new Prime Minister, Hastings
Banda, declared: “one party, one leader, one government and no nonsense
about it.” "

Is this not equating the Hastings Bandas with the Nkrumahs and Nyereres? How
can one discern who did what from such generalizations which is simply meant
to castigate a whole generation of leaders without differentiating those who
sought to serve their people, despite their limitations, from parasites with
monarchical inclinations?

Furthermore, your scholars did mention the arrest of "Chief Abdallah
Said Fundikira, Mwinyijuma Othuman Upindo and James Mapalala, founders of
Civic Movement .... in 1986 and detained under the Preventive Detention Act
of 1962 (revised in 1985)" after they have mentioned that Nyerere gave up
office in 1984.

Taking all this into consideration, I could not but draw the conclusion that
the motives of the authors are to mix facts with fiction so as to make
pretence at objectivity only to befog the issue as to whether Nyerere was a
saint or knave. Some of the points raised were unconnected with, isolated
from and independent of the subject they had sought to treat. Your scholars
did not give clear picture of the economic, political, social and cultural
development in Tanzania from one stage to another until the end of Nyerere's
adminsitration so as to enable us to have a balanced picture of achievements
and shortcomings. On the contrary, their approach was episodic here,
anecdotal there, judgmental here and emotive there. A myriad of approaches
were taken which could only produce the type of hog-pog analysis and
conclusion that you dubbed objective and criticial.

I decided to refer to situations that were happening throughout the world so
that we can have a thorough understanding of what these earlier pioneers of
the African liberation struggle had to confront. This was not meant to
apologise for any mistakes done but to help us to understand what we have to
confront today.

Could we simply say that poverty in rural Tanzania was caused by Ujaama
villages? What is the cause of poverty in rural Gambia where there had been
no Ujaama villages? If the news items are to go by, 250,000 farmers in
northern Kenya are being confronted by hunger and there is call for a state
of emergency to be called in order to invite international relief? What is
the cause of such food insecurities in the Kenyan villages?

One thing that is very clear, Cherno Baba, is that all African villages seem
to wear the same uniform of poverty and social deprivation. Our duty now is
to have a proper perspective of all the attempts which have been made to
deal with the African condition, distinguish the honest attempts from those
which were characterised by deliberate mismanagement and misrepresentation.

It is, however, not enough to be simply critical. It is also our duty to
provide an alternative and I hope, Cherno Baba, you know as much as I do
that flowery language is not the basis to build a new Africa. It is using
our brains to examine the economic, political, social and cultural factors
which have militated against the development of the continent, interrogate
all policies and approaches taken elsehwhere to deal with the human
condition and then reflect on the way forward. This task cannot be achieved
by any single person no matter how intelligent and dedicated. It takes a
concerted effort and it requires serious and well meaning debate about
issues. I hope all of us will engage ourselves in that noble enterprise.

Greetings.

Halifa Sallah.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------