Hi!
The two-three months of
debate between Halifa on the one side and Hamjatta and Saul on the other, have
at times been interesting and at others made me wonder what is going on. Both
sides have intimated their desire for people to be the judges after reading
their presentations. I would therefore take this opportunity to write about my
feelings regarding the whole issue. I am not in any way saying that what I´m
writing is right. I am just stating my opinions.
While the
debate started out as an objective exercise in scholarship, it soon degenerated
into a personal fracas with egos at the helm. This affected not only the tone of
the discussions but their complete structure and outlook. This was a
disappointment because what was to be a solid discussion by brilliant minds was
negated, at least to me, to scoring points and coming out the
winner.
At the beginning of the debate, voices were raised
concerning putting Halifa on the spot. I was very surprised by that. Everyone
knows that Gambia-l is a cyber community where the only way to be free from
critique and criticism is to abstain from posting anything to it. Besides that,
Halifa is a public figure and as such cannot be exempted from the microscope of
public scrutiny. While I can understand the sentiments of those who questioned
the right to scrutinise Halifa, I can definitely not justify the premise upon
which such sentiments are based given that the whole exercise is a scholarly
one. I hold Halifa in high esteem but that would not blind me to the fact that
he is in the public arena and just as he scrutinises all aspects of other public
figures' lives, all aspects of his life are fair game to be scrutinised.
One thing which struck me as odd was the endless "baaku"
or steam blowing by all sides. I can guess maybe with a high degree of accuracy
that at least one third of the exchanges (am I exaggerating?) have been devoted
to threatening each other with throwing away the opponent's premises to the
dustbin. Every time one side wrote about shredding to pieces the premises upon
which the opponent based his assumptions, I eagerly looked forward to the next
posting only to be disappointed with more "baaku". I was at one point even
tempted to write and say "enough with the steam blowing. Please get on with the
debate." I somehow managed to let go.
Now, how do I rate
the performance of the various sides? Both sides have, despite all the negatives
which have kind of neutralised their effect, presented their cases with varying
degrees of effectiveness and success. Saul and Hamjatta have utilised the
offensive style quite impressively. (I must state here that I am truly impressed
with Hamjatta´s proactive and thrusting style of argument given his young age
even where his analysis and understanding of the realities are limited.)They
have systematically put Halifa on the spot by attributing to him not only
negligence and complicity, but by also belittling and questioning his
contributions vis á vis the 1997 Constitution and Koro Ceesay´s death. They have
utilised so well the same tactics that Halifa employs on his opponents. Maybe
this should be no surprise as both have admitted to having been ardent followers
and supporters of Halifa. Halifa has, in my opinion, maybe been taken aback by
the ferocity and unexpectedness of the use of his own tactics on him that his
tackling of the allegations piled on him have been both defensive and less than
"Halifa-style".
Both Saul and Hamjatta have, in my
opinion, been at times unfair to Halifa by attributing disproportionate
responsibilities to and expectations of him. Maybe this is all part of their
strategy of putting him on the spot. PDOIS and Halifa´s inability to win
elections has been paraded many a time on the L despite repeated pronouncements
by Halifa that he and his colleagues are most interested in enlightening the
people instead of cheap politicking. Despite this, the acceptance of the 1997
Constitution is attributed to Halifa and his colleagues. If they had such
influence, wouldn´t they be in government now instead of having only one seat in
parliament?
Both Saul and Hamjatta have
acknowledged the fact that they did nothing during the period in question about
the issues under contention. Halifa however did something. Some would argue that
Halifa had to do something given that he is a public figure. There were however
many public figures who did nothing. The fact that Halifa risked both his life
and freedom by doing something is commendable. The realities of the Jawara
and Jammeh era are different and any sensible person knows that different
realities demand different tactics. When the reality of the coup and its
aftermath presented themselves, Hamjatta and Saul adopted the tactic of keeping
quiet because of the realities on the ground whilst Halifa and Co. adopted their
strategy as dictated by the realities on the ground. I personally believe that
Halifa and his colleagues´ handling of the Constitution and the Korro Ceesay
affair was not dictated by complicity but rather by good faith and
principle as dictated by the realities on the ground. It is therefore unfair
to expect Halifa to risk his life whilst those who expect that of him chose
the tactic of keeping quiet when the reality presented itself. It is very easy
with the benefit of hindsight to say how things should have been done especially
when one is far removed from the realities on the ground.
I have kind of lost my train of thought due to so many interruptions but I´d
just like to finally add that I was quite disappointed by the language both
sides adopted and how the issues were so personalised. I believe that with the
level of intellect on display, the issues could have been discussed in a more
scholarly and civil manner without resorting to the use of the language that has
negated much of the essence of what has been presented.
On another note, I think that
personalising the titles of the postings makes it difficult to retrieve related
postings in the future. Titles like "To Halifa", "To Hamjatta" etc. say nothing
about the content of the postings. If I were to go to the Gambia-l archives and
try to download the "On the 1997 Constitution" thread, I would miss a lot of
brilliant postings because somewhere along the line, the discussions changed
name to "To Halifa" etc. Please think about that. Thanks.
Buharry.