My Fellow Gambians and Friends of The Gambia,
The Gambia is at a critical stage as we approach the 2006 Presidential elections, and it is vital that Gambians everywhere play a much more pro-active role in the affairs of our beloved country. We should all be contributing to the rescue of our country from a dictatorship based on murder, brutality, fear, corruption and mismanagement. Some of us can help by offering money, others by offering ideas, others by offering leadership. Each of us needs to contribute what we can towards the restoration of democratic ideals and the reinstitution of human rights in the The Gambia.
All of us have a part to play in exposing Yahya Jammeh on the international level as well as to Gambians at home. Let leading Gambians in international institutions, like Dr Lamin Jalamang Sise (Head of Political and Legal Affairs at the UN, and one of Kofi Annan’s senior advisers) and Abdoulie Janneh (Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa based in Ethiopia) use their influence to work for change in The Gambia. Let them work to make a better Gambia in whatever way they can, whether by offering advice or by exposing him as a murderous and corrupt leader of a failed regime.
It is no secret that since 1994, I have been working to see a restoration of democracy in The Gambia, and have been urging Gambians to use the ballot box to rid themselves of a corrupt regime and an even more corrupt leader. It has always been my view that the election box holds the key to peaceful change.
However, recent events in The Gambia, culminating in the arrest and detention of our NADD leadership on spurious evidence, are making me reconsider my position. I am now coming to the view that a well-coordinated boycott by all the opposition parties could in fact have a better impact than taking part in elections which will certainly be flawed and which will see Yahya returned to power.
There seems to be little point in taking part in a competition when Jammeh is both a key player and the chief referee. We are all well aware that elections in The Gambia since 1994 have been rigged: the playing field has not been level and there has been widespread bully-boy tactics used indiscriminately alongside monetary hand-outs to ensure the desired pro-APRC result by the regime.
The NADD leaders are already feeling the full force of Yahya’s fear of defeat, and they are languishing in prison even before the election campaigns have started in earnest. How much worse will it become when the campaign gets underway. Heaven help our opposition then (remembering a favourite phrase of my former boss, Mr Kenneth Best) – even ordinary Gambians will be at severe risk of injury, imprisonment or worse if they dare to show favour to the opposition.
In 2002, the UDP boycott of the National Assembly elections did not have a huge impact, but there is an ideal opportunity coming within the next few months for a united opposition to work together to totally discredit Yahya and his regime. For the opposition to contest the Presidential election only to see electoral defeat because of election rigging and interference in the electoral process by the incumbent candidate, will mean that the opposition have given legitimacy to Jammeh. International observers will see elections taking place, will witness another “victory” by Jammeh and will assume (as they do so erroneously now) that The Gambia is a functional democracy and that the people have freely elected the candidate of personal choice.
There is a rich literature on elections in Africa. One of the chief commentators on the political scene, Naomi Chazan, has suggested that African elections belong to one of three types. There are non-competitive elections which serve to confirm the status of current office holders without any competition. There are semi-competitive elections which provide for competition for legislative office but not for control of government or the regime in power, and there are competitive elections which have the possibility of changing both office holders and the regime in power. Using Chazan’s typology, we can say with certainty that Gambian elections since 1994 are of the non-competitive type, and only serve to re-elect the incumbent leader.
Chazan goes on to point out that elections in authoritarian states have a significance which should not be ignored: "we assume that elections in authoritarian states have little or no meaning at all, but where democratic principles are not predominant, elections may still have meaning as a legitimating mechanism" (N.Chazan writing in the Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 17 (1) 1979 pp 137-141).
F.M. Hayward agrees with Chazan. He says that "the requirement of legitimacy is universal. Although there is variation in the extent to which it poses a serious problem for a particular regime, its importance is almost always recognised. Even the most autocratic of states must face the imperative of legitimacy. We see repeatedly that legitimacy is something people give, not something governments assert or decree." (F.M.Hayward, Elections in Independent Africa, Westview Press, 1987).
It is becoming increasingly imperative that Gambians no longer give legitimacy to Yahya Jammeh’s regime. By contesting the 2006 elections, the united opposition will be giving legitimacy to the victor. We are none of us in doubt who the victor will be. As usual, Yahya will use every trick in the book, every dalasis in the public purse, and every bully boy tactic and thug in the pay of the APRC, to achieve his goal of becoming president again. The result will be that the elections are perceived by the international community as the legitimate wish of the majority of Gambians, and they will consider The Gambia to be a functioning democracy as they already do now.
How much better for the Opposition to refuse to lend legitimacy to the elections. By a general boycott, NADD will make its refusal to bow to Yahya Jammeh abundantly clear to the world.
I urge people to consider this policy of non-cooperation with the regime as a genuine alternative to contesting the actual elections.
Decisions do not have to be made yet on the best course of action to take, and NADD will doubtlessly be working tirelessly as we approach 2006 and considering every option open to them.
A boycott of the elections will certainly see Jammeh remain in power, but he will lack legitimacy in The Gambia and in the international community. He will no longer have reason to assert that he is the people’s president of choice, and he will become far more isolated in international politics than he is at present. That in its way will give MORE power to our opposition, and more weight to our pleas on the international stage for help in returning our tiny nation to democracy.
I repeat that I am not calling now for an immediate boycott of the elections, but I am urging people to consider this as a viable alternative to making a powerful political statement and a good means of de-legitimising Jammeh.
Ebrima Ceesay,
Birmingham, UK