Saul,
We have been out of touch these days because of the interruption of the
telephone lines by Gamtel who are engaged in some form of installation.
I have seen that you have not disposed of your elasticity in drawing crude
conceptions without the slightest attempt to rely on facts. You want people
to believe that you hate lies but you do not hesitate to fabricate what is
essentially crude falsification of situations.
Take the first paragraph of your posting.
You wrote:
+ACI-I have to begin by congratulating you for exercising good judgment by
refusing a post in Yaya Jammeh's cabinet. If you had accepted his bait, I
have no doubt in my mind that by now you would have been one of the +ACI-has
been+ACI- (the group of used, dejected, and disgraced professionals who fell for
Yaya's patriotism Bs.) Some people have called you honourable for that. I
prefer to use +ACI-good judgment+ACI- 'cause honourable is normally reserved for
doing the opposite of what you did. Maybe, it's my inquiring mind, but I
wonder why you're trumpeting your refusal to serve Yaya. You rejected a
position, which if you had taken, would lead to your discredit. Smart move+ACE-
But unless you want people to read more into it than there is, why should
that be evidence that you did see something wrong with Yaya's presidency. My
whole contention hinges on what you said (as oppose to every other
politician) when Yaya started feeling the waters regarding his true
intentions at the time.+ACI-
Saul, Saul, Saul+ACE- you are making an increasingly rapid progress in becoming
a master in substituting what is relevant for what is frivolous+ADs- what is
factual for what is a fiction. What do you hope to gain by throwing about
all this empty phrase?
Clearly, anyone has the right to interpret situations as he or she pleases.
There is, however, an honest and dishonest way of interpreting situations.
You have chosen the dishonest way in the face of abundant facts to prove
that I did not accept a cabinet post because of the principle that the
Jammeh government cannot build the type of society that we have always
devoted our lives to construct.
Only a person who is capable of closing his or her eyes to the truth when
they see it can come to the conclusion that you have reached that the
refusal of a cabinet post is just a smart move.
Facts are very stubborn, Saul. The facts are already before the members of
the L. I hope you will go back and read our letter of 24 July 1994 addressed
to the coup makers. These fundamental principles are engraved in that letter
as thus:
+ACI-In our view, it will be a fatal mistake to hold that power is vested in the
barrel of a gun. Power really resides with the people. Without the people
there can be no country to lead. There can be no government. There can be no
economy. The people are, therefore, worthy of respect no matter how ignorant
they are of their rights at a given moment.
+ACI-This is precisely the reason why PDOIS has established five fundamental
principles so as to ensure that it is ever loyal to the interest of the
people.
+ACI-First and foremost, we are committed never to take power at the back of the
people.
+ACI-Secondly, we are committed never to participate in a government that is
taken without the participation of the people.
+ACI-Thirdly, we are committed never to participate in a government that is not
serving the interest of the people.
+ACI-Fourthly, we prefer to resign instead of using force against a people to
retain a manner of government that is no longer wanted.
+ACI-Fifthly, we prefer to resign instead of using force against a people who
are dissatisfied with the economic policies of our government.
+ACI-These are the fundamental principles which will make PDOIS never to be
indicted as an enemy of the people. You may wish to commit them to memory.
Of course, we know that history does not develop as we wish. Hence, we do
understand your concrete realities. We are, therefore, willing to contribute
our quota in an advisory capacity so as to build an electoral system which
can enable the people to determine their representatives freely and
fairly....+ACI-
In a letter conveying my position on the non-acceptance of a ministerial
post dated 27 July 1994, I wrote:
+ACI-Frankly speaking, it has always been my wish to serve my people to the best
of my ability, in whatever capacity circumstances may dictate, in the
context of our times.
+ACI-You would agree with me that to run a government any how one wishes is a
very easy task. However, to run a government sensibly, efficiently and
responsibly, so as to address the economic, intellectual, physical and
social needs of the people is the most difficult of all undertakings that a
human being can shoulder.
+ACI-It is a difficult undertaking because development is not done for people+ADs-
on the contrary, it is brought about by them. Hence, without the genuine
support of a people, no government can implement any programme with
efficiency and constancy. This is precisely the reason why we have come to
the decision that a people must be enlightened so that they can consciously
choose their representatives in order to be fully involved in all activities
that are directed to serve their needs and aspirations.
+ACI-When a people know where they are going and how to get there, they will not
hesitate to sacrifice and exercise patience in order to achieve their aims
and objectives.
+ACI-In short, the masses can easily find themselves accountable for change that
has been brought about by them. However, they do not hesitate to point
accusing fingers at those who bring change in spite of them if the going
gets rough, no matter how well meaning the perpetrators of change. This is
why PDOIS has always opposed to being dragged into a situation which may set
it against the masses.
+ACI-In my view, your Council is rightly called a Provisional Council. As a
Provisional Council, it is important for it to measure its tasks and
mobilise such people as are most suitable to perform such tasks. Suffice it
to say that a provisional government has a provisional mandate. Hence, it
should be administered by people whose objectives are to perform a
provisional role with sincerity.
+ACI-You have made your desire known to the people that you want sincere and
incorruptible people. The actions of such people should not be governed by
any selfish interests.
+ACI-Having examined my very nature, I have alerted my mind to the fact that I
intend to serve my country on a permanent basis not on a provisional basis.
This is why I am a member of a political party. Since our objective is to
serve the people, we have long held the view that the most important thing
to do is to get their consent.
+ACI-Your offer therefore puts two fundamental options before me. I am either to
serve provisionally without the consent of the people under a government
made up of people with different strivings or to serve with the consent of
the people under a government composed of people who understand the
programmes of our party to which the masses give their approval by putting
us in office. Faced with these two options, sincerity demands that I choose
the latter instead of the former.+ACI-
In the material we produced to defy Decree No. 4 which landed us in court in
our bid to demystify the AFPRC in August 1994, when they decided to choose
the road of confrontation, the following paragraph can be deduced:
+ACI-While focusing the minds of the masses on side issues, such as walking
under the rain during ceremonies to signify simplicity, they did not
hesitate to occupy the state mansions of the former President and Vice
President instead of transforming them into libraries, etc. like PDOIS has
promised to do. They called on those who earned D500 to live within their
means but have not said that they will reduce the salaries of the
President., Vice President and the ministers to the salaries of lieutenants.
What is the difference between those who rely on their top positions in the
civil service to build mansions and those who rely on a gun to move from
barracks into executive mansions?
+ACI-We stand for the salary of a President to be proportional to his or her
performance.
+ACI-The fact of the matter is that the AFPRC is not committed to such humbling
of presidential and ministerial posts. Hence, it should stop pretending to
have all the characteristics of the new incorruptible leadership Africa
needs, to the point of abolishing political thought. It is best to stick to
its provisional mandate....+ACI-
It is evident from the historical facts that this stand was taken on the
basis of principles. In fact, we are known to declare that we will never
serve in a cabinet where people who advocate for PDOIS' principles and
policies do not constitute the majority. The reason for this is simple:
PDOIS exists as a party because its principles, objectives and strategies
are fundamentally different from the other parties. Hence, to serve in
another cabinet would amount to acceptance of the principles and programmes
of the party which constitutes the cabinet.
It is very clear that you simply want to evade the points which have been
raised that it is inconceivable for anybody who is honest to conclude that a
person who has rejected a cabinet post and had campaigned for a presidential
candidate different from Jammeh, and had in fact stood as a candidate for a
party which is fundamentally different from the APRC could be accused of
having seen nothing wrong with a Jammeh presidency. The fact that you refuse
to acknowledge this naked truth shows that you are not a hater of lies after
all.
I can say that there is nothing wrong with Dibba, Jawara, Hassan Musa
Camara, Darboe, Hamat Bah, and so on and so forth standing for elections.
Does this mean that I do not see anything wrong with such people becoming
presidents? They could say the same thing about Halifa, Sidia Jatta. Does
this mean that they would approve all our policies? Do you see how naive
your reasoning is and why I continue accusing you of applying crude logic
just to draw false conclusions?
A person who has come to power by the barrel of the gun could only be
removed by the bullet or the ballot. What was wrong in a person who was in
power by the bullet and who intended to stay in power for four years to be
drawn to an electoral contest so that the people will ultimately decide his
fate?
You talk about Jammeh being player and referee. Who could have prevented him
from vying for office? As far as I am concerned, it was Jammeh's option not
to participate in an election and ensure that all the rules of fairness and
impartiality were put in place. It was left to him to decide to participate.
It would amount to gross naivety for anyone to claim that Jammeh
participated in the elections because I did not see anything wrong in him
participating.
You said that we are imbued with maturity. I, therefore, hope that you will
not allow our exchanges to sink below a level which defies the common sense
of a simpleton. This is the first point. Let us move to the second.
Secondly, you seem to be achieving the very opposite of what you had
intended by explaining why you felt that the PPP should be banned.
You wrote: +ACI-But since I'm asking you to level with people, and your alacrity
to turn the tables, I'll tell you what my feelings are about the PPP, and
why I got on the Yaya Jammeh bandwagon, and later abandoned it. If this
energises you to lunge after me, you're welcome.+ACI-
What is interesting is that the crude logic you are applying in justifying
arbitrary decisions only confirms that you are the one who is guilty of the
blind pragmatism that you have accused me of. Let me offer proof.
In a previous correspondence, you did lament why Jammeh banned Dibba and the
NCP even though you justified the banning of the PPP. However, Jammeh relied
on the same reason you have given not only to ban the PPP but also NCP and
GPP, as published in the August 19, 1996 issue of the Daily Observer.
It reads: +ACI-As promised by the AFPRC that political activities would be
lifted after the referendum, it is my pleasure to announce that with effect
from today, the 14th day of August, 1996, a decree known as the Political
Activities Resumption Decree 1996 has been promulgated and signed into law,
lifting the ban on political activities and also repealing the Political
Activities (Suspension) Decree, 1994, Decree No. 4.
+ACI-You are thus free to engage in political activities in accordance with this
Decree and the Elections Decree 1996. However, certain persons and parties
have been banned from participating in the forthcoming elections for their
participation in the 30 years of misrule in this country. There is no point
in carrying out prolonged and expensive investigations into the corruption,
malpractice and mismanagement on the part of the former regime and
disclosing all the wrongdoing and failures, only to allow those responsible
to carry on mishandling major roles in the political life of the country.+ACI-
Clearly, if there is any responsibility to be shouldered, as you and
Hamjatta wish to attribute to me, it should be shouldered by people like you
who couched the coup with so much euphoria, and not those of us who neither
had the military might nor the support of a mass movement but were trying
within our capacity to utilise every tactic in the book to move the country
towards a state where political expression and association could be
exercised without risking immediate banishment so as to continue our work of
enlightening the people and to ultimately acquire their consent to serve
them.
I hope this finishes up your ridiculous allegation that I did not see
anything wrong with Jammeh's presidency. If you have nothing to say on this
score, I will move to your second contention that my image is sullied for
supporting a flawed constitution.
By the way, have you read Book 1? I hope you will also read Book 2. I will
then pose questions to Hamjatta to find out whether he has ever written
anything on the monarchical disposition of the executive presidency prior to
this engagement. I have asked him whether he has read my memorandum to the
Constitutional Review Commission without getting a reply.
As far as I know, this concept that the powers of the executive presidency
are a monarchical legacy has been advanced mainly by us in thousand and one
articles. I have not read it in any book on constitutional law. May be,
Hamjatta's views are original. I will question him on this since he is
making a brazen attempt to give the impression that we did not have a
critical view of the 1997 constitution.
Greetings.
Halifa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
