Mr Hamjatta, Please allow me to make a correction. The sentence :"SO ANY ATTEMPT TO HAVE ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS BY SENDING A PRIVATE MAIL TO BUHARRY WAS NOT ME A SIGN OF YOUR WILLINGNESS TO DO DISSERVICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE L".should read:ANY ATTEMPT TO HAVE ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS BY SENDING A PRIVATE MAIL TO BUHARRY WAS NOT TO ME A SIGN OF YOUR WILLINGNESS TO DO SERVICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE L. I apologise for the mistake .have a good night. PEACE! PASAMBA JOW COACH >From: Pasamba Jow <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Buharry's Questions >Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:08:45 GMT > >Hamjatta, > >I should commend you for answering the questions raised by Buharry. I was >however, disappointed by your last paragraph in which you wrote, "I have >noticed also the impatience of incorrigible programmed fanatics like Samba >Jow who simply would not desist from reminding me a duty to answer your >questions. Somehow, him and his ilk think you have had me cornered and >there is no escape." The essence of my insistance that you should answer >the questions raised was simply, because these questions were raised during >a debate at which you challenged PDOIS and its supporters on the L. So any >attempt to have answered these questions by sending a private mail to >Buharry was not to me a sign of your willingness to do a diservice to the >members of the L. For if one criticizes an individual or and organization >in public one should always be ready to hear the case of the individual >criticized or the organization in public. > >What I would want to know is how do you come to the conclusion that I am >incorrigible and a programmed fanatic. Does any of my postings on the L or >the articles that I have written whilst in the Gambia carry any message >that >suggests that I am programmed? What I would want to make clear is that I >am >a man of my own with a critical mind who gives things critical analysis so >as to make an informed judgement. It is true that I am a supporter of >PDOIS >that I believe that Halifa, Sidia, Sam, Amie Sillah, Sheikh Ndow, Swaebou >Touray to name a few amongst the PDOIS membership are dignified, honest, >dedicated, and patriotic Gambians who are sacrificing every day, every >minute, every second of their lives for the betterment of the Gambia. > >Since its inception in 1986, PDOIS has always taught and continues to teach >that people should own their minds they should not allow anybody to own >them >that they are part owners of their country and should never surrender their >birth right to determining the manner of which the Gambia should be run to >few individuals called politicians. No PDOIS member has ever claimed to be >a saint or a prophet who needs followers or deciples. There is no >TALOUBEISM in PDOIS's language. In fact it is against the policies of >PDOIS >for any member or supporter to see any other member as a lord who controls >him or her, all PDOIS members are humble servants of the people. > >Mr Hamjatta, I want to make it categorically clear that I am nobody's >deciple, follower, or TALOUBE. I am an independent man with an independent >mind. What is however more disturbing is your categorization of Mr. Amadou >Kanteh as someone "lurking and prowling in the corridors of Gambia-L, yet >have no positive contribution to make here. They should either digest what >comes in their mail boxes or simply zip up if they don't like what comes >their way." This, Mr. Hamjatta, to me is a clear manifestation of how much >you cannot take criticisms from others, it also proves that you are not as >democratic as you claim to be, for almost everybody who does not agree with >you always ends up with a funny name from you in fact I believe this is why >you are branding all PDOIS supporters as programmed fanatics. This Mr. >Hamjatta does not help your intigrity in fact I believe it undermines it. > >When I joined the L I promised myself never to engage in any form of name >callings for the simple fact that it does not serve any purpose. It is >very >clear that we are all interested in putting an end to the dictatorial and >despotic regime of YAHYA JAMMEH. It is always important to note that we >shall never agree on the same way that we believe change should be effected >in the Gambia, so it is important that we become more tolerant of our >critics so that we can agree to disagree in order to be able to have a >Gambia that is free from domination, intimidation, dictatorship, >corruption, >etc. > >Peace > >Pasamba Jow Coach > > >>From: Hamjatta Kanteh <[log in to unmask]> >>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list >><[log in to unmask]> >>To: [log in to unmask] >>Subject: Buharry's Questions >>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:41:42 -0700 >> >>Buharry, >> >>After a closer perusal of your questions and some of the comments in that >>posting, i came to the >>conclusion that your conceptions of me as an individual critic as opposed >>to an organization like >>say, PDOIS, what you deem to qualify as "empirical" and whether my voice >>should discounted >>simply on the basis that unlike organizations on the ground i'm less >>likely >>to see my views/ideas >>implemented, were all sloppily conceived. You, like else, have made it a >>point to continually >>equate or indeed, juxtapose me, Hamjatta, the individual critic, alongside >>organizations like say, >>the UDP, NRP and PDOIS and hence posed questions which assumes that like >>these >>organizations i have dispositions which equate with their propensity to >>effect changes on such a >>scale expected of organizations that can mobilize on a mass scale. See, >>once you sloppily >>construed as such, your questions, comments and criticisms become wide off >>the mark. To place >>Hamjatta or Kebba Dampha, individual critics, along-side organizations and >>expect the same >>chores and results from them is to mistake the tree for the woods. Not >>only >>is this making the >>misplaced assumption that individuals have the capability of >>organizations, >>it also lacks a grasping >>of the role of individuals in a society or a struggle as opposed to >>organizations. Not to romanticize >>the individual critic, but in my book, the individual critic is >>Voltairean; >>not burdened by >>organizational shackles to see beyond the conformity of like-mindedness, >>never playing to the >>gallery of constituents that help sustain such organizations and a lone >>ranger: grubby iconoclast, >>acerbic, witty, maverick, agitator and always on his feet pointing out >>inconsistencies in society and >>indeed, at loggerheads with mainstream view. >> >>Which brings to related issue of the individual critic and the place of >>his >>ideas in a struggle or >>society at large. I think it would amount to gross ignorance and >>irresponsibility not to take >>seriously dissenting voices on the periphery. It was thanks to the >>individual dissension of >>Copernicus that geocentric cosmology associated with Ptolemy crumbled. >>Discounting the voices >>of individuals who hold contrarian viewpoints has always been part of >>mainstream culture. Just >>because Hamjatta is currently residing in the UK studying doesn't mean his >>judgements on the >>Gambia cannot be profound and thus should be dismissed. The anti-thesis >>that individuals who >>have credible ideas but are impeded by material limits, and are therefore, >>not worthy of attention >>or should be discounted is grossly false and misconstrued and tantamount >>to >>sheer arrogance. It >>misses the point i made earlier and above about the individual critic. >>Most >>or virtually all of our >>current cadre of opposition leadership were at one point part of the >>Diaspora studying. And some >>of them might have been involved directly/indirectly in some struggle on >>the African Continent. >>Does this imply that their ideas should be discounted largely because >>they >>lack institutional >>mechanisms on their own to implement the ideas they might have hatched in >>the process? Since >>when has one's contribution to a struggle become determined by being on >>the >>ground or material >>resources one has to implement ideas/strategies? Mbeki was at some stage >>here in the UK >>studying whilst his comrades were in the front line of the naked >>aggression >>of Apartheid. I have >>never read anywhere Mandela and else dismissing him as some arm-chair >>critic who lacks >>understanding of South African situational realism. If anything, the likes >>of Mbeki in the Diaspora >>were largely utilized by the struggle as conduits for feed-backs on ideas, >>tactics and strategies, >>and selling the struggle to wider audiences. >> >>Most misconstrued was your perception of the nomenclature "empirical". It >>seems that you and >>those who keep parroting after you, conceive of "empirical" or empiricism >>to mean presentation of >>only variables or statistical data to support ones postulates or thesis. >>This is a very narrow >>conception of the terminology. Empiricism or "empirical" evidence as it >>applies to the social and >>political sciences, is not narrowly confined to the presentation of >>variables and statistical data. >>Suffice to say that tangible materials and or events can constitute >>"empirical" events at any rate in >>the social and political sciences which is our concern. At preliminary or >>embryonic levels, >>researchers/scientists of the physical and natural sciences certainly do >>make use of such tangible >>observable materials and events and hence their qualification as >>"empirical" evidence. If evidence >>involves real life tangible/observable experience, then it qualifies to be >>called "empirical". In fact >>the early proponents of empiricism like Hume, Locke, Berkeley, et al were >>not natural or >>physical scientists and did not necessarily use variables or statistical >>data in their works. Yet, >>these three can without any fear of exaggeration be labelled as the >>founding fathers of "empirical" >>evidence at any rate in Western Thought. In my posting, i gave such >>observable/tangible >>evidences of the US Congressmen's Report, the IMF Scandal, the terrorist >>attack on Mr. George >>Christensen's radio station and the continued harassment of the civilian >>population as "empirical" >>evidences that the opposition strategy is not working and lack-lustre. I >>hope all these disclaimers >>and clarifications would help in throwing further light on the answers i >>give to your questions >>below. >> >> #What has been your strategy since April massacre as a concerned >>citizen to ensure that >> justice is served? >> #This question makes me really wonder whether in essence you do read >>or >>follow my >> writings on the subject of the Gambian political stalemate and its >>solutions. My views on >> this subject is the less kept secret about me. In fact in the very >>posting you had responded >> to, i had clearly stated my position, interpretations and strategies >>of the problem in the >> Gambia. I shall for the sake of further clarity re-state my position >>here again. My position >> has always and consistently been that of a sceptic who has realized >>that the way things are, >> to put one's faith in the political process to remedy the ills of >>our >>nation, tantamount not >> only to mis-apprehension of reality but gross negligence. Fact is, >>under the current political >> arrangements, none expect blind fanatics to the political process, >>can expect elections to be >> held under FREE and FAIR conditions. Not only is the body politic >>corrupted, discredited >> and bankrupt by the reaches of the tentacles of the executive, but >>it >>so fundamentally >> flawed and tilting favourably towards the incumbency that >>holding/participating in elections >> under such circumstances is to commit political suicide. Since i >>have >>realized that the >> political process as it is, is incapable of effecting the changes i >>and else desire, the next best >> thing that legitimately and practically exists is to EXTRICATE >>oneself from such >> arrangements and AGITATE for fundamental reforms of the body politic >>before one can >> except to be attach to it again and expect genuine changes. Such >>AGITATION, calls for >> not only the political opposition to bandy together, but the >>inclusion of all civil society from >> the cultural to economic strands of Gambian existence to come under >>one big familial >> unifying tent to fight the cause of the oppressed people of the >>Gambia. The AGITATION, >> has to be peacefully and civilly conducted through sit-ins, >>peaceful >>marches/demos, rallies >> and any other form of civil disobedience until our demands for >>justice and fundamental >> reforms are instituted to the body politic inorder to see a relative >>peaceful transfer of power >> back to the People. In the very extreme, if such agitation fails, >>then force, even if we are >> opposed to it, becomes not only attractive and seductive but >>inevitable. It is better if such >> gallant, moral and progressive force is courted by civil society >>rather than isolate it from the >> mainstream. The great Kebba Dampha was the first to point out this >>fundamental truth and >> precisely why he is endeared to me. As he cogently observed, such a >>force, if it is ready to >> cleanse the current system and replace it with free institutions >>needed for a genuine political >> process to take-off once again, need not be ridiculed, side-lined >>and >>put at loggerhead with >> civil society or the opposition. Rather it should be courted and >>made >>to realize how >> common all our objectives are: a free and prosperous Gambia. I >>believe and like him, that >> such moral, gallant and progressive force should be wooed and >>reminded how together >> we can restore peace, decency, respect and freedom for all in the >>Gambia. If as some are >> saying, that this is "closet adventurism", so be it. We make no >>apologies. Truth is the >> problem in the Gambia is not only a political problem, but a >>national >>crises of survival. And >> politics as it is now in the Gambia CANNOT solve the problem. >> #How is it different from PDOIS'? >> #Well, if you read my answer above, you will realize that whilst PDOIS >>still has faith in the >> current political arrangements and indeed, fanatically pursues it, i >>have stated that the >> current arrangements are not only fundamentally flawed, but are >>discredited, bankrupt and >> corrupted and therefore, no genuine changes can come out of it. >>Whilst they haven't made >> up their mind yet on AGITATION, i have already said we have got to >>start AGITATING >> NOW! Infact we are getting late with the AGITATION. >> #How have you implemented the strategy or how do you intend to >>implement the strategy? >> #Buharry, get real. Does my stating of an alternative strategy and the >>acceptance of the >> profundity of my judgement depend on the material resources needed >>to >>implement? A >> debate about our country's problem is going on here and i have >>stated >>a position, should it >> suffice to say just because i'm a young struggling student in the >>Diaspora, so my judgements >> should be discounted? My views should not be discounted simply >>because i as an >> individual on my own cannot implement them. I refer you here to my >>introduction on the >> individual vis-a-vis society and the struggle. >> #Can you guarantee or at least gauge whether the results of your >>strategy will have a higher >> success rate than PDOIS'? >> #As Ben Franklin memorably noted to his friend Jean Bapiste Le Roy, >>nothing in this world >> can be said to certain or guaranteed save death and taxes. No, i >>have >>no guarantees for >> you though my good sense of history tells me what i have suggested >>had been implemented >> in similar situations and had succeeded in averting national >>disasters and freed oppressed >> peoples from oppression without resorting to bloody social and >>political upheavals. Indeed, >> history is littered with examples of victims of oppression no longer >>seeing themselves as >> victims and organized themselves effectively against such >>oppression. >> #What do you base such predictions or pronouncements on? >> #On precepts in history as i outlined above. >> #What alternative approach can you proffer to deal with the current >>political impasse in the >> Gambia given that PDOIS' approach is not, in your opinion, working? >> #A repetitive question. I refer you back to the answer to question >>number one. >> #How do you intend to institute your alternative? >> #Another repetitive question. Again, i refer you to the answer of >>question number three. >> #What do you expect PDOIS and the other political parties to do in the >>meantime? >> #First, EXTRICATE themselves from their commitment to current >>political >>arrangements. >> Second, join hands together with all other stake holders in the >>Gambian family, from the >> cultural to the religious strand, and AGITATE for change. >>EXTRICATING >>themselves >> from their commitment to the present arrangement doesn't mean that >>they will idly watch as >> events pass by them. No. They will directly, if not lead the >>AGITATION for change. >> #Given that you feel that political process is not a workable >>alternative, do you believe that >> the available or workable option would be a violent overthrow of the >>government? >> #Yes, i believe the body politic and in extension the political >>process >>are enfeebled by their >> inherent flaws, bankruptcy and corruption and as such, it would >>amount to Peter Pan >> Idealism to expect genuine changes to ensue from them. However, >>contrary to your >> perception or insinuation, a call for AGITATION to effect changes, >>is >>not a call for violent >> overthrowing of gov'ts. When the likes of Dr. King Jr. and Lech >>Walesa were >> AGITATING for change, they did not involve or incite their followers >>to violence. There >> was no violent overthrow of the US gov't during the Civil Rights >>AGITATION of 60s and >> 70s America neither were there any such acts in Poland when >>Solidarity was AGITATING >> for change. When change came, it was because oppressors could not >>COPE with the >> pressure that AGITATORS had unleashed on them. I'm obliged here to >>play semantics to >> refute the charge that force inevitably leads to violence. Whilst it >>is susceptible to violence if >> not properly dispensed with, force is not synonymous to violence. >>Force that is used on >> moral grounds and professionally conducted can gallantly effect >>peaceful changes in a body >> politic. Force can be another form of patriotism if it's rationale >>as >>i discussed above, is to >> cleanse institutions of evils and help create new and free >>institutions. The philosophical >> rationale of my position, as i explained to you earlier, is based on >>my sense of history. >> #When? What if that is not possible in the next one, two, five, ten >>years? >> #Buharry, such extrapolation doesn't help anyone. Any struggle that >>sets time frames within >> which it expects to effect changes, is ridiculously constraining >>itself. In the AGITATION of >> Walesa and King Jr., they never constrained themselves within time >>frames. They merely >> maintained and sustained the tempo of their AGITATION until when the >>oppressors were >> no longer able to COPE with it and change inevitable came. I see it >>the same way. >> #Should the political parties stop all operations and wait for the >>alternative you propose or >> do you believe that they are obliged under the Constitution of The >>Gambia and their own to >> propagate their beliefs? >> #Here again, i have to refer you to the answer to question number 8. I >>will, however take >> you on what constitutes lawful in societies/States that are lurching >>towards anarchy and >> where the masses are brutally oppressed on a daily basis. In my >>book, >>and i dare assert in >> common sense, any law that goes on to help oppression of the masses >>even if it derives >> from seemingly legal authorities, is ILLEGAL and needs to be defied >>by conscientious >> beings. Any movement that seeks to liberate the masses from such >>daily oppression >> CANNOT be made illegal by any form of authority be it in the Gambia >>or beyond. >> #Since Yaya is still in power doing as he pleases despite the presence >>of all stake holders, >> would you agree that not only the "failure" of PDOIS' policies but >>also that of all the >> stake holders in and outside the country including me, you, the >>other >>opposition parties and >> every other concerned Gambian? If you do not agree, what do you base >>your >> disagreement on? >> #Here we are in agreement. I have never shelved the whole blame of the >>crises in the >> Gambia on PDOIS strategy or lethargy. We all share varying degrees >>of >>responsibility in >> the tragedy unfolding in the Gambia. What i have always gone after >>is their tendency to be >> self-righteous and impervious to credible criticisms. >> #Agreeing totally with Karl Popper's quote [thanks by the way for >>bringing such a heavy >> quote to my attention] and accepting in principle also the >>opposition >>parties' refusal to >> engage in civil disobedience measures, what should we all do pending >>the solution you >> propose? >> #Here again i sense repetition. However, if the opposition refuse to >>accept our suggestions, >> then we still positively engage them until they begin to see the >>inevitability of our strategy. >> Events in the end will prove us right that a tyrannous evil will >>never willingly give up without >> a tussle. Yet, inspite the profundity of our position, we must be >>engaging and not >> condemning of the opposition. For to be very frank, they have it in >>them more than us in >> the Diaspora, to practically bring to end the crises in the Gambia. >>We must patiently >> persuade them and indeed, continue engaging them positively until >>such time it dawns upon >> them that the political process as it is, is ineffective in bringing >>about real changes in the >> Gambia. >> #a la Realpolitik or realistically speaking, how do we go about >>bringing meaningful change >> when the forces that can bring about the change you espouse do not >>feel that the time is >> right for them to employ the methods you propose? Would there be any >>possibility for you >> to lead and to bring to fruition the methods you espouse, would you >>agree with me that as >> the opposition parties are able to bring to fruition the methods you >>espouse, no matter how >> "ineffective", they are within their rights not to accept your >>proposal no matter how >> brilliant or no matter how much of a panacea it is to the Gambia's >>problems? If you do not >> agree, could you please tell me why? >> #Let me state two disclaimers here: One, i have said anywhere that the >>ideas that i >> contribute online are a "panacea" to the Gambian problem neither >>have >>i pretended to have >> all the answers. I'm like all Gambians contributing towards the >>debate. I do not have any >> monopoly over ideas. Secondly, i have never stated anywhere that the >>opposition have to >> accept my proposals by force [as if that is ever possible]. You are >>right, they are with in >> the purview of their rights to do as they wish and what their >>consciences dictates to them as >> the best plausible thing to do. There is moral equation i wish to >>take up here: The idea that >> those who are in the Diaspora or at any rate not in the glare of the >>naked aggression of the >> oppressive gov't, do not have no basis to dictate to those on the >>ground and indeed, facing >> the brutality on a daily basis. In my view, the relationship between >>the concerned and >> anxious Diaspora and those faced literally with the real thing on >>the >>ground should be >> based not on outright condemnation of victims of oppression for not >>organizing or even >> where they are forced into collaboration, rather it should be on a >>mutual basis of morale >> boosting, logistic support and above all moral persuasion for >>victims >>to stand up to >> repression. Whether those on the grounds accept such gestures is >>their prerogative. There >> is a reference is to bring to your attention. A similar moral >>controversy erupted between the >> writer Hannah Arendt when she asserted in her 1962 book, Eichmann in >>Jerusalem: A >> Report on the Banality of Evil, that the lack of resistance amongst >>European Jews does >> bear a measure of responsibility for the Holocaust. This coming from >>someone who during >> the war was perched in her relative comfort and peace of New York. >>Her assertions >> infuriated the Jewish world, especially Isaiah Berlin, who had lost >>some of his family in the >> Holocaust. In an unpublished conversation with Ramin Jahangbeloo, >>Berlin decried >> Arendt's assertions as a "piece of monstrous moral conceit". He went >>on further to note >> that: "No moral judgement whatsoever was possible from condition of >>safety of human >> being in conditions. Even active collaboration could not be >>condemned >>outright." Whilst i >> agree with Berlin's judgement, i see sense in Arendt querying why >>victims of Hitler never >> organized themselves against repression. Whilst it makes sense to >>say >>that Jews should >> have organized themselves, it becomes ridiculous when one looks at >>the fact that Jews >> were at any rate minorities in Europe and cannot conceivably form a >>credible bulwark >> against the Nazis. That however, is not the case in the Gambia. In >>the Gambia the >> oppressors are a minority whilst the oppressed form the majority. A >>majority with a >> coaching from steely and pragmatic leadership can conceivably form a >>credible bulwark >> against the repression of Jammeh. >> #Can you "empirically" prove that PDOIS' party strategy is not working >>especially in relation >> to but not limited to the April massacres? Which variables did you >>use? >> #I refer you to my introduction where i went out of my way to explain >>the nomenclature >> "empiricism". >> >>I trust i have done justice to your questions. You might have observed an >>exchange i had a one >>Mr. Amadou Kanteh, whose uncharacteristic and exceptional impertinence >>have >>made me >>remark that i will only be sending my reply to you in private since he was >>threatening me with >>deleting anything bearing my imprint if i don't answer you ASAP. I was >>merely stating a point: >>That none is under no obligation to respond to none or contribute >>anything, >>not especially to those >>who are lurking and prowling in the corridors of Gambia-L, yet have no >>positive contribution to >>make here. They should either digest what comes in their mail boxes or >>simply zip up if they don't >>like what comes their way. And another thing. I have noticed also the >>impatience of incorrigible >>programmed fanatics like Samba Jow who simply would not desist from >>reminding me that i have >>a duty to answer your questions. Somehow, him and his ilk think you have >>had me cornered and >>there is no escape. So one hear them piping in posting after posting, " >>come on answer the >>questions." I can only snort out laugher after laughter. Talk about blind >>fanaticism. Programmed >>fanatics indeed! >>Hamjatta Kanteh >> >>Hamjatta Kanteh >> >> >>___________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>Get your free e-mail account with *unlimited* storage at >>http://www.ftnetwork.com >> >>Visit the web site of the Financial Times at http://www.ft.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 >>You may also send subscription requests to >>[log in to unmask] >>if you have problems accessing the web interface >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.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 >You may also send subscription requests to >[log in to unmask] >if you have problems accessing the web interface >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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 You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask] if you have problems accessing the web interface ----------------------------------------------------------------------------