Suntou,
You have made some very pertinent observations, which have bearings on some of the old fashioned contradictions in formal strictures that have restricted public participation in Gambian politics. Though I cannot even pretend to speak on behalf of The Coalition for Change, I am motivated by the pertinence of some of your observations to respond.
During the colonial era civil servants were prevented from participating in politics because national politics was in contravention of their employer's ( colonial government's) agenda. The only option available to them if they wanted to participate in national politics was to resign from their positions in the civil service. At independence this practice was carried on without some radical review. Somehow it barred some of our best brains from directly participating in national politics leading to the anecdotal that " those with "E" grades in class", take part in national politics. This to a considerable extend was responsible for some of the below standard performances we recorded in our national development endeavours.
The policy should have been eradicated on independence day way back in 1965, but it still obtains in The Gambia. Its eradication would allow more high calibre individuals to at least periodically join the political fray, and later perhaps go back to their professional activities. Their individual professional expertise can only improve the quality of the national debate and make more professional skills directly available in solving political issues. The sum total would have been an absolute enhancement of representative government and good governance.
In The 1970s, Authorities in The Gambia started to make debilitating attacks on organized labour with intent to undermine its bargaining power, in line with the wishes of the capitalist estate. This prepared the grounds for mass workers retrenchment exercises in the 1980s, thanks to the horrors of the so called Economic Recovery Programme.
In modern times however, civil society organizations in the right environments have become the harbingers of relatively more democratic regimes. In the case of The Gambia, and in terms of our present needs, we have an almost empty space to fill. We need more civil society organizations like The Coalition for Change, which will radically pursue the interests of their respective memberships, as part of our overall struggle for national emancipation and development. Their roles shall become even more crucial in A New Gambia, where there are term limits for key political offices.
Thus depending on how The Coalition for Change defines itself and acts in pursuance of its agenda, there should be no contradictions or conflicts of interests. We need more such civil society organizations.
Best of regards,
Omar Joof.
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:25:35 +0100
Subject: [>-<] Coalition for Change, contradiction or complimentary?
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Our guys in the press are pushing on to direct participation in politics. The new outfit grouping, spearheaded by Ndey Tapha is a bit baffling. If Ndey Tapha is still the exile head of GPU Gambia, isn't it a contradiction, she is also the head of the Coalition For Change?I am only wondering. It is not wrong for journalist to dabble in politics, can they practice their trade independently and fairly whilst involve in affirmative action?Or is it my misunderstanding of the purpose of the group? Could it be that, a practising journalist can also be a politician (like Foroyaa staffers, i mean the senior editors)?This issue require thorough analysis..Can Ndey Tapha head two different organisation and not be bias towards one? GPU respective bodies are doing a good job. However, our difficult struggle is opening many windows...My thoughts
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤