G-L Community: Here are the last two sections of the paper I promised to send earlier. For those interested in the longer paper, feel free to contact me privately. As usual comments and criticisms are welcome. "The Gambia and the Political Economy of Globalization: Prescriptions for a "New Order in the Twenty-First Century." III. The Gambia At a Crossroads: Prescriptions for the Twenty-first Century. At the dawn of the Twenty-first century, The Gambia and Gambians find themselves in an unenviable position both politically and economically. The Gambia is at a crossroads in which the choices are simple and clear. The Gambia and Gambians can continue to leave their affairs of state and economy to be managed from the outside by international financial institutions or go back to the drawing board to create a new vision of relative economic prosperity and political stability. The inherited economic and political structures from earlier centuries were not the making of Gambians and thus, cannot be expected to serve them well. It would be equally naïve to expect the IMF and the World Bank, in spite of their rhetoric and ideology to serve the interests of Gambians and Africans alike. They were not created to serve that purpose. Since World War II, the propagation of Western values and interests have been so much a part of development discourse. The unwitting adoption of this ideology by many Third World leaders and policy makers must change, and change it must in The Gambia. This is because aid and technical assistance continue to be framed in ethnocentric narratives. It is also clear that Western aid, technical assistance and altruism disregard Third World philosophical and moral assumptions and assume that failed development policies initiated and imposed by the West are in the end better that what “developing countries” would have otherwise initiated. The West has enjoyed this hegemonic power and takes it ideas and strategies as the only viable response to domestic global circumstances. Many Western policy-makers have also ceased to consider alternative strategies appropriate for countries like The Gambia. This, Gambians must do for themselves. Thus, The Gambia and its people must reclaim the power that was long surrendered to outsiders and use it confidently to determine what development and political arrangements most suit their needs and interests. After all, The Gambia and its people have been “independent” for over thirty years and must now decided and graduate from having others decide for them. Technical assistance and economic aid will have lasting positive effects only when it complements a well thought out and articulated national policy. It is in this context that Gambians from all walks of life must dialogue about the future course of the country and take “the road less traveled.” This is not to suggest, however, that Western interest is always cynical or self-serving or do not have a role to play. Rather, what I am arguing is that The Gambia and Gambians must move away from the footless posturing as spectators to the proactive role of participants in decisions that will shape the future of The Gambia and its peoples. At the helm must be a creative leadership that is willing to experiment and possibly fail before a desirable outcome is realized. A leadership sophisticated enough to debate and be informed by the resulting information. This could result in freshly developed visions for The Gambia. Consequently, the skills, knowledge of all Gambian, but especially Gambian intellectuals and students must be utilized. The art of debate and critical thinking in particular, the deconstruction of relations of power, control in the domestic and international systems must be made clear and understandable to all. Increased awareness based on critical analysis and assessment of global forces are important. Without it, the road traveled could be treacherous. This requires a political system premised on freedom of expression and academic freedom to challenge held dogma. Gambians must rebuild a democracy based on the long cherished principle of “debate” as reflected in the “Bantaba” (Mandinka) or “Datte” ( 'ollof). Improved political and economic systems that have at their core the provision of basic needs for all Gambians and all who may reside within its borders must be given priority. It is this caliber of leadership that is most suited to guiding The Gambia into the twenty-first century. International institutions and partners who can help achieve these goals would be welcome, but the policy-makers must critically analyze the aid and technical services provided. Aid must not be accepted just because it is rendered, especially if it has potential of distorting national goals and objectives. More importantly, The Gambia must get off the international welfare line and break the cycle of dependence on handouts. This “culture of dependence” stunts creativity and saps national-self-reliance initiatives. Gambians are a proud and hardworking people who have been failed by their leaders and time has come when their interests take priority. The new leadership’s first priority must be to reestablish fundamental freedoms, rehabilitate the economy and once more provide opportunities for self-improvement. This must not be left to market forces alone. While the latter has encouraged some important productivity gains, it is by no means clear that laissez-fair capitalism is the only, or the most effective, way to provide for human security and democracy. Moreover, neoliberal strategies often minimize deliberate efforts to reduce inequities that result from social and economic arrangements. In fact, neoliberal policies have often exacerbated rather than alleviated suffering and pain of the poor (Scholte, 2000). And unlike economic policy of both republics, new government policy must be active in rooting out gross inequalities. If these important national priority objectives are left to the forces of globalization alone, it would more than likely serve the interests of the privileged and undermine the position of the weak. A redirection of globalization away from neoliberal policies is therefore desirable and notwithstanding the rhetoric, substantial possibilities exist to develop policy tools and political support to pursue alternatives to globalization. The answer may lie in a dual and somewhat paradoxical strategy that involves the expansion of democracy and democratic norms to change the policy structures of international agencies and fora while at the same time increasinging the scale of production in order to institute self-management nationally and locally. Increasing the scale of production would entail among other things, a shift toward more inward looking economic strategies, but also forming new economic relations of cooperation with Senegal and neighboring states in the sub-region. Powerful minds, people and institutions must be changed and resources be committed to this endeavor. Approaches to globalization and restructuring could be reoriented internally so as to give priority to the provision of health, food security, shelter, employment and human dignity. Debt relief monies could target these national goals. The Gambia’s relatively small size, ethnic harmony, abundant human and natural resources are a good basis upon which to build a solid foundation to achieving these national goals. The democratic process must be enhanced to give voices to the marginalized. A new leadership must not only be committed to removing the crippling vestiges of gender inequality, archaic cultural practice and exploitation, but the government must be perceived to be active in bringing about their end. The program of reform sketched out here represents a viable but by no means the only alternative to neoliberalism and unchecked globalization. Yet, there are powerful advocates who support the continuance of the status quo with fundamentalist fervor. These vested interests cannot be easily moved and it will take clarity of vision, creativity and the goodwill of Gambians at home, the Diaspora and its international supporters to see these reforms through. Institutional capacity is of the essence. Today, unlike the immediate period after independence, Gambian nationals are trained in all the professions and have acquired and continue to acquire skills and sophistication to be effectively utilized in this period of national reconstruction. Inducements to these individuals to return home must be made attractive by government. But the political and other infrastructure must be put in place to earn the confidence of this population. Those that cannot return immediately could share their knowledge as technical experts. Ultimately, the encouragement by government must be for Gambians abroad to be more active in promoting development in the country of their birth. A thoughtful, stable and people-focused, domestic policy framework for the twenty-first century, is the surest way of attracting Gambians in the Diaspora to both invest hard earned financial capital and skills. This is one way for The Gambia to benefit from the process of globalization. To be sure, implementing an alternative development strategy and vision for The Gambia could face major political obstacles from groups in society, powerful states and global institutions that have vested interests in keeping the status quo. It will take skill, confidence, not arrogance and honesty to sell this alternative strategy and vision. IV Conclusion This paper sought to assess The Gambia’s prospects and limits for development in an increasingly integrated world economy. It addresses the “new thinking” needed in The Gambia to arrest and reverse, the country’s deepening poverty and “culture of dependence” on “development partners,” the IMF and World Bank. It contends that the incorporation of the Senegambia region and The Gambia, in particular, into the global capitalist economy of the mid-1800s, must be the starting point of any serious analysis of the country’s post-colonial political and economic challenges. The paper also contends, paradoxically, that The Gambia needs to position herself to leverage the opportunities from “globalization.” For this to occur, however, a new leadership is required, a leadership that is both assertive and creative to think “outside the box” of received dogma to satisfy the basic needs of the Gambian populace. This comes at a time when The Gambia is going through major crises, and finds itself at a crossroads between two stark choices. The first choice is to continue in its current development trajectory and harvest the same woes that have afflicted it since independence. The second choice is to chart a new course of development action that has at its core the needs and interests of Gambians, and convince The Gambia’s true “development partners” to support this new vision. This is important, because the current neoliberal rhetoric of open markets and a minimalist state system often reinforce existing suffering and pain for the most vulnerable in poor countries. Additionally, the state must take an active role in social and economic policy to ameliorate pre-existing and continuing vestiges of inequality and exploitation. Regrettably, neither the first republic under Jawara, nor the second under Jammeh, sought to overcome these problems despite the promises of the “Gateway Project” and the rhetoric of “Vision 2020.” These development schemes could never have had their intended outcomes because of their unrealistic basic assumptions. This is because, the economic experience of most African countries since independence has been rooted in their continued dependence on exporting agricultural commodities or minerals whose prices have fluctuated frequently on the world market (Khapoya, 1994). This must be reversed and gradually replaced with an inward looking strategy derived from Gambian norms and culture. Furthermore, an important reason why these projects("Gateway" and "Vision 2020") have not succeeded, is because their underlying assumptions are alien to the social and economic system they sought to improve (Saine, 1997). The time has come for The Gambia to be assertive about what it wants as opposed to being dictated to by lending agencies that reduce her policy-makers to bystanders. Also, Western ethnocentrism as reflected in both the ideology and practice of development aid must be countered by alternative and practicable visions of development. This is where new thinking is most needed and all Gambians have an important role in this task. In this regard, it is crucial that a culture of open expression, debate, tolerance of different views and critical thinking be engendered to overcome decades of intellectual dependence and unproductivity. And to encourage discussion and dialogue that aims at deconstructing power relationships in the domestic and global political economy in order to make them understandable to the populace. Because these reforms are bound to be opposed by domestic and international voices that have a stake in their maintenance. And because the reforms will require sacrifices, the population’s support and understanding of underlying goals would be crucial to success. Today, unlike any other time in its history, The Gambia stands at a fork on the road. Gambians can take the easy way out or take “the road less traveled.” But unlike the years following independence, today Gambians at home and abroad have amongst them well trained professionals who, together with the new leadership, can begin to put in place reforms to avert an impending disaster. Government must, therefore, establish programs to induce Gambians abroad to return home to share their varied talents and to enable those that cannot relocate immediately to consult and share their expertise in their chosen professions. The time is long gone to continue to think of The Gambia as a poor country. Size notwithstanding, the country is endowed with human, water, marine and other resources that when wisely utilized can begin to turn around the tide of underdevelopment. And unlike many countries in the world, The Gambia is not riddled with bloody ethnic, religious, racial and other tensions or severe social inequalities. These serves as a good foundation on which to build this new vision and strategy. The Gambia’s location, and its water and marine resources unlike Chad’s for instance, is a major boon for development. And contrary to the generally held view, there is no evidence to suggest that countries better endowed on the continent are any better of socially and economically. In fact, in many of these countries in Africa and elsewhere, abundant wealth has been the fuel for civil wars and ethnic cleansing. Additionally, there is little evidence to suggest a positive correlation between wealth and happiness, or between how much wealth one accumulates and personal happiness. And as we enter this twenty-first century, it is important to determine what is truly important both at the personal and national levels. For The Gambia, the answers could lie in sensible political, economic and social policies that build upon our most cherished values, i.e., belief in God, love of family and progress through hard work. Abdoulaye Saine Department of Political Science Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 (513) 529-2489(O) (513) 529-1707(fax) <<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>> To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] <<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>