Mr. Sallah, This exchange is getting funnier by the day! What you've said about the circumstances surrounding the '97 constitution, and your role in it's formulation, makes sense -assuming that there were absolutely no other choices. But indeed, there were! From what you're saying, Yaya Jammeh and his cohorts had placed a take-it, or leave-it constitution before Gambians, and there just wasn't anything anyone could do about it. So, you urged Gambians to give in to the blackmail, or be otherwise condemned to living under the '70 constitution or worse. But, like I've alluded to, and Hamjatta has pointed out very clearly, Yaya with all his fiery rhetoric depends on foreign (mainly Western) aid. Khaddafi, as we all know, mostly gives out only his decades-old weapons as "aid." So, honestly, I don't understand what you find far-fetched about us believing that internal pressure, butttressed by external forces, would have forced the AFPRC junta to succumb to popular demand that the new constitution reflect popular sentiment. What is delusional about this idea? It has happened in countless places all over the world. Besides, you've always made a loud noise about being fearless. It's only "death that you haven't tasted yet" you say. So, why compromise justice for "pragmatism" in the case of the constitution? If truth be told, a fearless person would have objected to the exclusion of the Term Limit clause in the constitution, given that the overwhelming majority of Gambians demanded it. Forget the Indemnity Clause. The little tolerance that Yaya shows for the press, and the opposition is not because he wants to, but because he HAS TO! Anyone with sense knows that. I have absolutely no doubt that the political crisis/fallout that would have resulted from their defiance of popular sentiment (if they choose to ignore the wishes of the people in drafting an acceptable constitution,) would have been so great that even the most lunatic among the defunct Council would have hurriedly caved in to public demand. So, by enacting the kinds of scenarios that you use to justify your support, you portray the Gambian public as a helpless and hapless people, who just had to take ANYTHING that Yaya Jammeh and his boys were generous enough to give them. In doing this, you give more power to Jammeh et. al than they ever had, or would ever have. This is the electronic age, the age of frontier blurring - globalization- they call it. And you find it hard to believe that Yaya would have caved in to a combined force of internal and external actors? As Hamjatta has put it rightly, Yaya caved in after public outcry over the initial 4yr transition time table. So, what is surreal about expecting a replay of that scenario here? The Gambia, even by West African standards is a small fry. You haven't said how Yaya would have withstood the type of pressure we're talking about here. Regarding your appeal for civility, I concur with that wholeheartedly. Only I find your grumbling a little disingenous. Neither I, nor Hamjatta has used any language in the latest correspondences that stand out in their vulgarity. So, why the complain now? But more important, you've been throwing around words like "pedantic," "crass stupidity" and so on, AT US throughout this exchange. Not to mention the numerous self-righteous indignation moments, when you rant about our sanity, and "hypocrisy." I'm surprised the young people you referred to, did not have a heart attack upon seeing such language coming from the great Halifa Sallah! Or, is this your selective amnesia at work again? I see your appeal to this List as a cry for help. For once, you've found yourself in a jam (of your own making,) and you're appealing to your blind followers. So far, everyone who has tried to defend you on this List, has made a fool of him/herself. From sickening hypocrisy, to blatant lies, they've engaged in all. The first person to rise for you, took a shameless swipe at our intellectuals who "produce tons of worthless junk" in the West. I was hoping that you'll tell him that your brother Dr. Tijan Sallah happens to be one of those "junk" producers. The second and third persons to attempt to do so, quickly retreated. And the final person to do so, proudly proclaimed her concurrence with what supporter #1 had said ... intellectual "junk" and all - I guess. It turns out, she's something of a loony, because she can't even keep track of who she communicates with online. This is not the best of companies I'd like to be with - I dare say. On the other hand, I have no intention of revealing the names of several people who have been sending me mesages in confidence, but if you think that what we're asking you here are the views of a few people or "cronies of the new unscrupulous political class," to paraphrase one of your defenders, you're fooling yourself. For the past two months, I've met, chatted and received mail from several Gambians who have been following this debate keenly. They've all given "reasons" (excuses to me,) as to why they cannot engage you directly. I've been told all kinds of cowardly, or totally ridiculous excuses. But, the bottom line is, people are dying to know some things. Because, the simple truth is, the Halifa Sallah who physically stood in front of Pres. Jawara on Election day in 1987 at Serrekunda school, is different from the one people have seen since Yaya Jammeh came to power. If you have the integrity to tell people what's going on, you would do yourself a big favor. This latest antics you're pulling, could only harm you, because when the dust settles, you're the one who HAS TO convince people to vote for you. If you cannot explain your behavior to independent-minded people convincingly, that doesn't augur well for you. When this exchange started, you claimed that you welcome the exchange, and that this is the best thing that could happen to the Gambia -going into the new millenium. Then you went on with your usual bragging about how soon you'll silence us. That hasn't happened. The more phantoms you throw at us, the quicker they're razed to the ground. We ask a simple question that requires a direct answer. You see it necessary to provide a windy, and totally convoluted reply that is meant to impress feeble-minded people. You gave an analogy about the forest, and the individual trees. This is nothing new. I remember your response to Suwaibu Conateh's single page, and very succinct - criticism of PDOIS in the late 80s. The man took a ONE PAGE to say exactly what he thought the whole PDOIS mystique is about. You took FIFTEEN PAGES to reply, accusing him of "intellectual dishonesty" and all. I was in the Sixth Form at the time, but by the time I finished reading your reply, I was asking myself: "Has Halifa read what Suwaibu has written at all?" This, because, what the man said, and what you were talking about, were worlds apart. I admit to hypocrisy here, because I didn't mind your circuitious reply, as it was meant for a PPP supporter. Little did I know that I'll be the recipient of that deceptive style a little over a decade later. And now this new approach. It's your prerogative to say you won't answer anyone's quetions. I'll respect that. But, don't blame your change of tactic on the language anyone has been using to this point. I have a copy of every note you've written since this debate began. There are countless ANGRY INVECTIVES in many of them. So, Mr. Sallah, throw in the towel if you want to, but don't go down this route! Saul. >From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Halifa Responds >Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:40:22 -0000 > >Dear Lers, > >It appears that all that is left now is angry invectives. Every Gambian is >entitled to his or her opinion about any personality. I have explained very >clearly why the adoption of the 1997 Constitution was the most logical step >for Gambians to take at a time when the AFPRC had absolute executive and >legislative power and where decrees had supremacy over all laws. > >I have indicated that in putting the draft constitution before the Gambian >people, we had the option of accepting it or rejecting it. If it was >rejected, the APRC would have had to govern the country with decrees until >a >constitution was formulated by what would have been a National Assembly, as >Hamjatta said a Constituent Assembly completely dominated by the APRC. > >One could imagine what type of constitution would have been placed before >the Gambian people. > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------