Dampha:

I would like to start by conclusively stating that my opposition to the 
overall manner in which the anti-APRC campaign has been orchestrated by 
certain factions on the L did not originate from misplaced sycophancy, as you 
subtly alluded to in your post, or rebellion.  I am not very good at calling 
people names or engaging in personal attacks.  This you probably know by now. 
 So, again, let us deal with the issues and by all means try to avoid 
unnecessary name calling as subtle as they might be.  

First, I sincerely believe that you did not understand my point about Joke.  
If my language was unclear or too winded, I apologize.  But let me make 
things clear once again in the hopes that, this time, my statements will not 
be taken out of context.

I simply do not understand why you seem to think that Joke's support for the 
APRC is not a conflicted one.  In your paragraph on this issue, I could not 
help but notice the use of  "Yahya" and the 'APRC" in an interchangeable 
manner.  I believe Joke stated that Yahya should not be blamed solely for the 
atrocities which have happened of late, but the APRC as a political party 
should be collectively held responsible.  His acceptance of the party's 
wrongs makes his support for them a conflicted one in my opinion.  He has 
flip flopped on the issue several times since then but this does not change 
the fact that he did put the blame for the recent atrocities on his party's 
doorstep.  I was going to use some examples to support my point, but I do not 
think this is necessary at this point.  Mind you, calling his relationship 
with the APRC a conflicted one was not meant to justify his legitimacy in any 
way whatsoever.  He has views which conflict with ours.  But so do many other 
Gambians and Africans who are willing to deal with supposedly legitimate 
regimes who violate human rights at every corner while, at the same time, 
performing some governmental function.  Again, I figured this would be a 
point worth noting!   Why? Because there will always be people like Joke and 
attacking him mercilessly while neglecting more pertinent issues will not 
change this fact.  Is there a danger that the one you called Joke will change 
the minds of the masses? I think not.  So what does the overall purpose of 
lambasting the man mercilessly while other more important issues are 
neglected serve?  Answer is it not only serves nothing but this can be 
equated to a misuse of the incredible platform we have for the discussion of 
more pertinent issues.  Anyway, I do hope you do have a better understanding 
of my point about Joke.  He is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, a 
diversion.  KB, how does one deal with a diversion?  


Now that the subject of Joke has been dealt with once and for all, lets move 
on to more pressing issues.  Let's talk about political strategy for a 
moment.  You claim to be doing work in the background with movements which 
have not come out with a solid agenda for months on end.  I do not intend to 
criticize these groups but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.   Please 
let us know about your collective agendas in respect to the fast approaching 
elections soon.  The elections are only six months away and this secret 
strategy will serve no purpose unless it is revealed very quickly.  In other 
words, plans need to be put into action as soon as possible to allow them to 
materialize.  But you say that attacking Joke will help the election fund 
drive?  Let me ask you a question!  How much of a change have you seen in 
your coffers since this attacking of the man started?  Don't you think that a 
more worthwhile endeavor would be perhaps trying to figure out how and where 
these funds will come from?  In the past, letters were drafted on the L in an 
attempt to sensitize the outside World of the plight of our country.  
Hopefully, we shall return to these types of strategies soon as opposed to 
attacking dissenting views in the hopes of raising funds.  

Finally, I will touch on the UDP and move on simply because I do not have the 
time to write rolling and endless narratives about every single thing which 
comes to my mind regarding this issue.  You say staunch opposition supporters 
should be discrete and constructive, perhaps in reference to my stinging 
criticism of the opposition.  Well to this Dampha, I say: "Welcome to the 
real World, and the truth as much as it hurts must be told."  I do not say 
these things simply out of being a sycophant or because I am a rebel, but 
because they were derived out of a genuine process of extended thought.  What 
do you think I do after work, or on the occasions when I am chilling on my 
porch drinking a cold one?  One cannot help but hark back to the motherland 
and think of what has become of it and why?  My criticism of the UDP was a 
result of these 'aimless' moments of wondering and thinking.

Let me reiterate my points once again.  Again, while I believe that anything 
but the APRC will suffice after the next elections, I am not satisfied with 
the way the UDP has conducted its affairs.  I do not think there is anything 
wrong with raising this grave concern, especially when the elections are 
right around the corner.  My discretion in raising these points would be to 
assume that this is not an open secret.  In other words, everyone with an 
inkling of common sense should know the UDP is headed for an election loss if 
things don't change very quickly.  Only the UDP and her supporters can change 
this possibly catastrophe, and I figured highlighting the issue for all to 
see would help bring some of the following issues to the fore:

As I stated in my reply to Sanusi Owens, I think this cross-carpeting issue 
is very serious.  You guys tend to attribute the problem solely to 
enticements in the form of money from the APRC.  I refuse to be so simplistic 
and instead look for other reasons for such an occurrence.  One which jumps 
to my mind immediately is the party's message.  People also defect because 
they do not subscribe to a party or state's philosophy.  But you attribute 
this type of thinking to sycophancy!  Go figure!  I hope the UDP looks into 
this issue.  I have already apologized to Pesseh and family for using him as 
an example to make a point.  

My next point is related to the above in that a clear message in the form of 
literature must be extensively distributed by the UDP.  Unlike Burning Issues 
distributed by Foroya, the UDP does not have a publication to my knowledge 
which deals with issues people need to hear about.  This is probably tied to 
the defection problem in that the message is not just being stated strongly 
enough, or perhaps the platform is not strong enough.  Either way, these two 
problems (defection + message) need to be taken up by none other than the UDP 
and you saying that we should blame the individuals is absolutely ridiculous. 
 In the same vein, blaming the recent election losses solely on vote buying 
is simply not being objective enough.  Again, as I stressed , there is much 
more to the loss than a simplistic explantion like vote buying.  I think that 
assumption too is a misguided one borne out of foolish overconfidence.  We 
need to view the issue more objectively.  Vote buying solely does not do it 
for me.  I hope the UDP deals with this issue.

Waa Juwara (apologies for butchering your name previously) made the wrong 
move in my opinion.  By making statements against people working for the 
feminist movements.  Contrary to my previous assertion, I do not think he is 
an anti-feminist.  But, lets put it this way, his statements did not help his 
party's position from the viewpoint of women who make up the majority of the 
voting population.  He did not get asked to explain UDP's position towards 
the upliftment of women, but he should have been savvy enough to realize that 
his statements would be interpreted from this perspective.  It's just the 
nature of the beast.  In this light, his statements were misguided and 
politically naïve.  The party regardless of spokesmans should speak 
responsibly in one voice.  On the APRC's  record on women, I could give less 
of a hoot.  I am more interested in the opposition maintaining a decent 
standard.  As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.  

To conclude,  Dampha, there is nothing wrong with thinking alike.  But once 
this modus operandi becomes such that the truth is being obscured/ignored in 
the name of thinking in unison, then there is a problem which needs to be 
addressed .  On solutions, I really don't have many but I do hope that my 
criticism is not seen as detrimental but instead as a chance for 
reevaluation, improvement and hopefully movement in the right direction.

Note: KB: One objection.  I simply despise being used in the same paragraph 
as Joke. (laugh)

Have a nice day!

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

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------