The Author

In one of my series on nationalism, I outlined the functions of nationalism in modernising a state and its economy. Rostow, examining the history of European and Asian countries, points to the effectiveness of reactive nationalism towards effecting the modernisation of a country. Some strong coalition that is intent on modernising and industrialising the country is needed to bring out the "take off.."

However, the mere presence of supposed nationalist groups in a country does not guarantee modernisation. The reason: Nationalism may dessipate its energy on other objectives, and fail to bring about a change in the roots, a radical change in the economy. We are seeing this happen. Hence, the need for a close scrutiny of all so-called nationalistic drives.

Rostow gives various examples: "It (nationalism) can be turned outward to right real or believed past humiliations suffered in the world scene, or --- nationalism can be held inward and focused on the political consolidation of the victory won by the national over the regionally based power, or nationalism can be turned to the task of economic, social and political modernisation----."

Unless nationalism does devote itself to the last task, namely that of modernisation, it will have done us little real good. And so we see that not everything that has been baptised with the name of "nationalism" is necessarily going to be good for the country. It is not going to be good for the country, if all it aims at, is being nationalistic, in other words, if it looks on nationalism as an end in itself. Nationalism is not its own norm.

Nationalism if it means anything, is for man, for country, and for the country’s progress. Will it make our country a better country and more progressive? If it does, well and good, let us go for it. If it does not, the move is merely pseudo-nationalist, charlatantry. Each case has to be studied on its own merit, quietly and dispassionately.

Listening to the President’s New Year message and his dialogue cum interview with Kebba Dibba, one can see feel frustrations, disappointments, failures and an out right about face in most of the nationalistic pronouncements. It is a pity that things have gotten out of hand, through mismanagement, to get us to this most difficult point in our history.

For example turning the despair and pessimism, which presently affect wide circles of people inside and outside of the country, into hope and optimism for the future will only be possible if we are made to account for all our corrupt practices since 1994. The politician, the administrator, the manager, the academic and the civil servant, all have their part to play in making nationalism real and worth dying for. This is pure nationalism. We can only proceed on a clean sheet if our affairs are premised on cleanliness. Anything short of this is tantamount to documenting and "filing" the "anger" under the door mat.

For nationalism to mean anything, the human factor, the Gambian, has to change in many ways. This change, especially bad habits, will only come with changes in education, received in the family as well as the peer group (vous) and in the school.

The quality of nationalism in the Gambia is influenced by our inability to accept differences. There are many countries where the notion of "difference" has become a kind of basic and not a secondary principle of society. If we are able to accept the same basic principle, then nationalism would achieve a lot. In one of his books President Obasanjo of Nigeria said that in Africa the difficulty is that African languages do not know the word or concept for "opposition". It is rendered by the word "enemy". Consequently if I am in a position of power within the Government, the person who has no power and opposes me is the enemy. The notion of opposition could exercise a creative tension. This would be particularly educative and important if we wish to move towards a nationalism capable of managing differences. The Central Bank issue was mentioned in the papers as early as 2002 by an opposition candidate. But somehow, the government mouth piece, mouthed it as propaganda. But today its real. How can that mouth piece be taken seriously much more credible, especially now that he has fallen out of grace? Who qualifies as a pseudo-nationalist? The best manifestation of nationalism is loyalty to The Gambia and Gambians. If only the opposition opinion was taken seriously, the magnitude of the Central Bank anomalies may not have been as grand as they are found to be today.

Food For Thought
It is necessary to stress over and over again that nationalism, if it means anything, is the realisation that one must do his own thinking, one must accept his welfare as his own, and no one’s responsibility. Implicit in this approach is the truth that in the final analysis we cannot blame anyone else, if we are dominated and shackled, but our own selves.

A nation like a human being must above all things strive for integrity. By integrity we mean wholeness. The integrity of a person consist in that the whole of his life is of one piece. It is consistently guided by a principle, or a set of principles that are in turn consistent. We say of the man of integrity that he is true to himself and to others, that he is sincere. No man is of course perfect, lapses will always occur. The man of integrity will recognise the lapses as such and will not try to rationalise them. He will endeavour to correct himself and avoid a second failure.

The person who lacks integrity is essentially the opportunist. He operates to seize the opportunity of the moment. Having gained his point he explains it by some argument or other that can atleast give him the feeling of righteousness (no man can live with himself otherwise).
The essential prerequisite to integrity is shame. The shame needed is not external, but internal. It is shame of soul, of spirit. It is shame from passion, from fear, from greed, from data manipulation, in short from every single influence that can distort the judgments of the mind and make blind desire a substitute for reason.

Another word for this is self-possession. I have possession of my self when I can make all of my faculties operate properly, without being swept in panic either by the actions of others or my own undisciplined feelings.
If I am free and self-possessed, I have the foundations for integrity, although self-possession does not of itself guarantee that I will be a man of integrity.

Well, Just as a man must seek self-possession and integrity, so must a nation. For just as it is only the man of integrity who can move about in society properly and to the benefit of society, so also is the nation with integrity the only kind of a nation that can operate tall in international society with any benefit to that society. When our principal financial institutions like the Central Bank and the Department of State for finance and Economic Affairs have lost credibility and covered with nameless disgrace who are we to want to walk tall in the international arena?

The proper object of nationalism is precisely this, to seek for a nation its sense of pride, of oneness, of wholeness, of integrity. For this it must first of all strive for shame of spirit and for self-possession. A people without nationalism are amorphous, without character. Nothing can be done about them, for them and much less by them. Membership in the family of nations should start with committed nationhood, investing a people with a personality that will not be merely a fiction of law, but a reality.
But if nationalism is the search by a people for self-possession and integrity, then it must begin with the self. Principally it must be a matter of self-discipline. Self-discipline is fast disappearing in the society, especially in the tax payers civil service.

Self-discipline will begin in the Gambia when we realise that our welfare is our own responsibility and no one else’s. Moreover we must understand that no one will hand it over to us on a platter, silver, glass or gourd. If we expect this to happen we are just silly. Not only must we understand that we of our own selves must achieve our own growth, but we must understand that we can do it. This of course is the biggest of all obstacles to our growth. Too many of us are convinced we cannot do it because of the exclusion of the competents thus giving way to the rising tide of mediocrity. Public sector institutions, in particular, have deteriorated in performance during the past ten years. Hitherto, these institutions were ranked the best in the African continent. In the process we have paralysed and incapacitated those very institutions that have the ultimate responsibility for promoting and managing national development. What is seemingly evident is the trend that the state is loosing its role as an instrument of development.
Are these the fruits of nationalism?
No wonder that in the country nationalism has fallen into disrepute.
We could have done something honourable, something deeply worthy of our selves and of our traditions. And we have failed.

Binneh s Minteh