Everyday real life events have more far decisive way of repudiating life-long held delusions of grandeur than say, a seasoned theorist/polemicist penning debunkers. The attack last week on Mr. George Christensen's radio station, the African-American Congressmen's Report on the Gambia and the IMF Scandal, all chancing in the same week, has debunked the "Idealist" camp's illusions that their strategy of using/advocating for tidy means of correcting the nastiest and untidiest mess in our country's chequered history.

When the challenge was thrown to the PDOIS/Foroyaa Alumni to empirically state how their party's strategy is working, of all gloaters, only Mr. Buharry Gassama made credible attempts to pinpoint the "difference" their strategy has had. Specifically, he elucidated the remorseful/reconciliatory tones of Jammeh following his return from Cuba, the appointment of a Coroner and the setting up of a Commission to "investigate" the gruesome murders of April 10 and 11, and the rescinding of the order of the State banning the UDP from holding rallies as evidence of their strategy of "pressure" and "writing endless letters" to Jammeh as being effective. Yes, on the face of it, these are indeed, indicators of their strategy having some if not negligible effect. Here i must emphasize the NEGLIGIBLE. For taken within the context of what Jammeh has wrought on the Gambia, these "effects" are, to be very fair, negligible. All that Buharry has so far elucidated are not new in Jammeh and cannot be attributed solely to "pressures" from both within and without. It is a matter of historical record, and perhaps uncanny conincidence [?] that like the gruesome April muders, when Koro was killed, Jammeh was away at some "meeting" in Addis Ababa. And upon his return Jammeh did show his "remorse" for Koro's death by publicly shedding crocodile tears when he went to pay his respects to the deceased's family. He infact said categorically and on the record that he was going to take personal reponsibility for the young Minister's tragic death and had forthwith instituted full scale "investigations" to bring the culprits to justice. Well, anyone who cares enough, knows how that "investigation" ended. Let me state here emphatically that the appointment of a Coroner to hold a Public Inquest and the setting up of a Commission of Enquiry complemented with Jammeh's remorseful/reconciliatory language were not necessarily due to "pressures" from the opposition or external forces but due to Realpolitik and the need to play to gallery of home constituents who were really disgusted with the events of April 10 and 11 and beginning to see the light. Under the circumstances, it was the only practical  steps to avert social implosion. Jammeh might be an imbecilic moron and deliriously psychotic, but he is not surrounded by dullards. His intellectual heavies rightly calculated that the way public mood was swinging, belligerence that has become Jammeh's trade-mark would only ferment social unrest. Suffice to say that Jammeh acted thus only out of NECESSITY and not merely out of PRESSURES. Anything contrary, would have proven to be only counter-productive.

On the IGP rescinding his earlier orders not to grant the UDP permits to hold meetings, the fact of the matter is that the reasons the IGP forwarded for his refusal  not to grant the UDP permits were not only flimsy and contradicting common-sense,  but bordering on the ridiculous. That order had become indefensible and self-defeatist at a time when the APRC was trying hard to project "normalcy" in the country. It doesn't take "pressures" from the opposition for the gov't to have a re-think on such orders as the IGP's, to realise the futility of projecting "normalcy" in the country whilst clamping down on peaceful gathering by members of the opposition. Doesn't add up. Again, this is a mere display of Realpolitik rather than the fruition of the concerted and sustained "pressures" from the opposition.

What, however, is becoming clearer to all, is that far from being reduced to a pariah gov't internationally, the APRC gov't through intense PR Blitzkriegs and a lethargic opposition, still enjoys some relative "respectability" international to be able to get loans and grants from international finance institutions like the Fund. And one can even contemplate a time when, with the current snail pace of "pressures" from both within and without, when this gov't can get away with murder and winning a life-line. One would have thought that after April 10 and 11, this gov't would become an instant international and national outcast with a ferocious and relentless campaign. Yet, it is able to successfully lobby some American Congressmen, State Department officials and the IMF,  and there has as yet been no international figure of real stature to unequivocally condemn this crack-pot regime. Whilst it might not be having a smooth sailing, the rudders of the APRC ship seem set on a fair course, at any rate on international waters. All this is attributable to the fixative, lethargic and soft response of the local opposition to the Gambian crises. Far from realising the unfeasibility of  employing dry rhetorics and using tidy means to respond to a Fascist order, the opposition to this very day remain unrepentant on the unfeasibility of their strategy.

Without any signs of the long over due local gov't elections  being ever held or the 2001 general elections, the Coroner's Report gathering dust elsewhere, doubts cast over whether there will ever be a fair dispensation of justice for victims of April 10 and 11 and their families, Jammeh has returned to  the bad old ways: State terrorism and abductions have returned to the fore; people are threatened with "six feet deep"; civil servants are harrassed on a daily basis; the judiciary has become malleable to the executive; the legislative a sick joke. Far from improving, things are rapidly deteriorating. It is fair to claim without any fear of exaggeration that anarchy like the Sword of Damocles is looming over the Gambia. Again, all this is attributable and rightly so, to an ineffective, unfeasible and lackadaisical opposition strategy of dealing with the  Jammeh Mess as the Gambia edges towards bankruptcy and anarchy.

Special attention must, however, be focussed on the PDOIS strategy, which in my view, happens to be the lamest. It seems these people like Emperor Nero, and albeit increasing evidence of the futility of their "tidy" and "idealist" strategy of absolute tolerance to an intolerant gov't and an almost fanatical pursuit of a bankrupt and discredited political process, will continue burying their heads in some clouds of fantasy whilst the Gambia burns. They seem to have a perverse understanding of tolerance and the democratic process and as a result confining themselves to the constraining absolutes of tolerance a discredited democratic process, impervious to the simple fact that like freeom, equality and individual liberty, tolerance as an ideal, is not an "absolute" but an "optimum". To expect to be tolerant at all times to an intolerable tyranny, is not only infantile and suicidal but is to work insidiously and or unwittingly against tolerance itself. Intolerance CANNOT be fought with tolerance. Intolerance can only be fought with intolerance. It is out of the profundity of this judgement that, Karl Popper, in his magisterial work, The Open Society and its Enemies, argued that inorder to preserve tolerance for all in society, "we must therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." Throwing light on the necessity and morality of such an action, the British writer and former SDP MP, Bryan Magee pointed out lucidly that:

"if a society extends unlimited tolerance it is likely to be destroyed, and tolerance with it. So a tolerant society must be be prepared in some circumstances to suppress the enemies of tolerance. It should not of course do so unless they constitute a genuine danger - quite apart from anything this leads to witch hunting. And it should try all in its power to meet such people first on the level of rational argument. But they may 'begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is decptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their pistols'; and a tolerant society can only survive if it is prepared, in the last analysis, to restrain such people BY FORCE. 'We should.... consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal'." [emphasis mine]

Since each day of our current political quagmire seems to repudiate the "idealist camp's" strategy, the question naturally becomes what at best and practically will lead to a solution? Here as Buharry pointed out, and i humbly concur, all roads seem fraught with paradoxical, untidy and painful end results notwithstanding the "realist camp's" advocacy of hard-nosed Realpilitik. The realisation of this, should not, however, hamstring our credible alternatives of pragmatism. To continue harping on about the dangers of Realpolitik is to sow seeds of doubt in the hearts of men who are ready to march against the dictator and or sacrifice if need be. Perhaps, most importantly, what most have yet to grasp about the Gambian predicament is that there can be no quick-fix, tidy and pain-free solutions to untidy mess that is Jammehism. Any attempt/choice at solving the problem will invariably lead to some end result we can all do without. We must not delude ourselves into believing that this can be done without incurring any pain or losses. Who has ever heard of treating a metastasizing cancer without  the treatment inflicting on the patient invariably with some degree of pain and loss? Insisting on a pain-free and tidy cure to the Gambia's predicament is just akin to a cancer ridden woman demanding to her doctor to have a pain-free, loss-free and tidy chemotherapy as a treatment. Challenging Jammeh at any rate, will be painful and untidy. It is the price we must be willing to incur if we are really serious about ending the tyranny in the Gambia.

The way i see it, progressive forces united against Jammeh can effectively employ a two- pronged strategy:

1.) Either leaders of various civic and political groups come together under one big umbrella/tent, agitating peacefully through sit-ins, peaceful marches/demos, refusal to recognize the moral authority of the gov't and any effective form of civil disobedience demanding from the gov't a complete over-haul of the body politic; from major constitutional ammendments [like a ceiling on the presidential term], giving more muscle and independence to the IEC, bringing to justice all those directly responsible for the orders given to shoot at the student demonstrators and other forms of injustices perpetrated under this crack-pot regime, etc, etc.

2.) Or in the very extreme, we will have to seriously contemplate the use of force against the increasing perpetuation of tyranny in the Gambia.

Of these two positions, the least painful, messy and unkempt, is the first one which is gratifyingly juxtaposed with a national sense of unity. Not only is this position practical and effective because of it's historicism, but experience has demonstrated on countless occasions in history as the best method to deal effectively with tyranny without resorting to violent and bloody social upheavals. From the Civil Rights mov'ts of 60s America to the Solidarity mov'ts of 80s Eastern Europe, this strategy has averted national catastrophies and placed all victims of tyranny under one umbrella as they brought such decadent political and social orders to relative peaceful end. From Dr. King Jr. to Lech Walesa, these people had grasped a fundamental moral truth: Tyranny has to be challenged directly by actions and not simply by appealing to the conscience and benevolence of such dictatorships through letter, newspapers articles and enfeebling intellectual trivia we keep seeing on Gambia-L. More-over, this strategy has a very gratifying way of getting much needed attention from the outside world to what was until hitherto a particular society's internal problems. Something the Gambia is much in need of as the gov't continues to enjoy relative respectability internationally.

Of course, if politicians and civic society in general fails to flex their Leviathan muscle, force becomes the next credible alternative. This can invariably be messier, secretive, knee-jerk and unpredictable, and almost always leaves out popular/broader participation of the people. I am less keen on this strategy because of the risks involved, but what i refuse to accept is it's illegal, immoral and catastrophic nature that some continue to harp on here that it will inevitably unleash on society. There is indeed, evidence that with dedication, patriotism and professionalism, such force can be moral, legal and above all effective in neutering dictatorships. History is littered with examples of such gallantry, from recent memories of  the Nigerian and Malian tyrannies to the Nazi and Communist menaces of yesteryears. Force can be moral and effective if wisely dispensed with. Again, as Bryan Magee, puts it in his important book on Karl Popper's thought, "indeed, force may be morally justified against an existing regime which sustains itself by force, if one's aim is to establish free institutions - and one has a serious chance of succeeding - for then one's object is to replace the rule of violence by a rule of reason and tolerance."

The Gambia has arrived at the juncture where all conscientious Gambians must question the moral authority of a gov't that inexorably and unrepentantly unleashes terror and fear on them on a daily basis. All conscientious Gambians, conscious of the fundamental truth that Jammeh is sliding our dear country towards the abyss, must put all their differences behind them and fight together under one big national unifying tent  for the restoration of tolerance, respect for all, and decency that our forebears worked so hard for that we are able to call the Gambia 'home'.

As my intellectual hero, Isaiah Berlin, rhapsodized in his famous essay on the Russian writer, Ivan Turgenev, " critical turning points in history tend to occur, we are told, when a form of life and its institutions are increasingly felt to cramp and obstruct the most vigorous productive forces alive in society - economic or social, artistic or intellectual - and it has not enough strenght to resist them. Against such a social order, men and groups of  different tempers  and classes and conditions unite." In my view, there is no better way of rhapsodizing the Gambian predicament and its solutions. It is precisely because of the aforementioned that i am willing and ready to embrace others "of different tempers and classes and conditions" to unite against the tyranny of Jammeh. The question then becomes again: Are all Gambians ready to do like-wise? We have heard platitudinous excuses from people claiming that unification of all Gambians what-ever their differences to battle Jammeh as being unfeasible because political parties have different strategies and or principles. Cobblers. If we all believe that Jammeh is a tyrant and we wish to end his tyranny, there can be no excuse for not fighting him under one big tent unless of course if others have some different cards rolled up their sleeves. The way things are politically in  the Gambia, there can be no free and fair elections under the current arrangements. T keep banking hopes on elections under present arrangements is not only unrealistic but borders on an infantile disregard of reality. Fact is also that those who cite the Senegalese case as reason for waiting until second of voting before considering a united front are missing a crucial point: The Senegalese body politic and electoral process at any rate is less likely to be malleable and corruptible by the reaches of the executive and legislative [because of years of personal battles Wade fought against the incumbency], than the Gambian system. To juxtapose the Senegalese and Gambian cases as evidence of waiting until a second round before forming a coalition is not only to miss the point but equally farcical.

What, however, will never be forgiveable is to stymie ourselves with the sterilities of intellectual trivia that leave only negligible marks on the predicament of the Gambia as she slids towards the abyss.  Whatever route we end up taking, i hope  last week's events are enough of a wake-up call to all to the centrality of my earlier arguments that a tyrannous evil only feeds on violence, intimidation and the continued perpetuation of fear amonmgst civil society, and has no room for reason, tolerance and individual liberty. Lets get on with it whilst there is still chance of salvaging our country. We must remember in this solemn and harrowing period, that the only credible bulwark we have against our country descending into anarchy or being reduced to another failed African State, is to be intolerant to the intolerant and refuse no longer to be the victims of tyranny.

Hamjatta Kanteh