Foroyaa, Can you check or empty your mailbox we at www.gamraleigh.com are finding it hard to send you an e-letter. Thanks, Gamraleigh.com <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Halifa's Reply to Hamjatta - (A Pox On Halifa's Semantic > Sophistry) >Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:37:02 -0000 > >Hamjatta, > >Your posting of December 19 is quite interesting. It appears that you do >acknowledge that the 1997 Constitution is superior in content to the 1970 >Constitution. However, you proceeded to ask the question: "Where did you >get >the lopsided idea that we have raised issues of any kind that makes >comparative analysis of the 1970 and 1997 Constitution?" You further asked: >"Was there any dispute about the development of the 1997 constitution over >the 1970 constitution?" You then proceeded to state categorically that: >"Fairly and squarely, the 1997 constitution did away with much of the >monarchical proclivities, gender discrimination and most of the democratic >deficits that were inherent in the 1970 constitution." Interesting. Isn't >it? > >Why then are you asking me to explain why I gave support to the 1997 >Constitution. Of course, you did give an answer. According to you, I made a >postulation which was never raised. Furthermore, you indicated that: "It >was >a deliberate deviationist ploy and intellectual dishonesty on your part to >bring up a point that was never in dispute; that of the 1997 constitution's >developments over the 1970 constitution. The idea that Saul and I found the >1970 constitution preferable to the 1997 constitution is a figment of your >feverish imaginations and very hallucinatory brought up solely to gain >cheap >points." > >Now, now, Hamjatta, angry invectives aside, I know you are more intelligent >than this. It is true that I have been very provocative. I quite understand >that the trend of discourse does not help you to easily digest the points >at >issue because of the language like 'pedantic' and others which impinge on >your self esteem. I have been doing so because of the prevalence of uncouth >words like 'hog wash' in your own correspondence, fit only to be utilised >by >one who has allowed his or her language to degenerate into lumpen parlance. >I would like to apologise for giving the wrong impression that everything >you say is empty in content. It is my duty to encourage you to sharpen your >critical faculties since you constitute the foundation for a future Gambia. >In actual fact, the right thing to do is to enhance your self esteem >instead >of impinging on it. > >Let me now get to the point. You know as much as I do that there can be no >constitutional order without a constitution. Hence, in order to restore >constitutional rule after the coup, Gambians had two options, that is, to >restore the 1970 Constitution which had been suspended or come up with a >new >constitution. > >Furthermore, constitutions are drawn up within a given contextual >framework. >In our case, it had to be worked out under the government of the day or >under another government which could only have been possible at the time by >overthrowing the AFPRC. > >The fact that you accused me of deviationist ploy by bringing the relation >between the 1970 and the 1997 Constitution into play seems to indicate to >me >that you did not fully understand the mandate which brought the 1997 >Constitution into being. > >Let me refer to the terms of reference of the Constitutional Review >Commission which were spelt out in section 5 of Decree No. 33. They read: > >"(1) The terms of reference of the Commission shall be; > >"(a) to formulate proposals for a Draft Constitution for The Gambia taking >into account: > >"(i) the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, 1970 for purposes of >determining its adequacy or otherwise for the good governance of The >Gambia; > >"(ii) Laws passed after the enactment of the Constitution of 1970 whose >provisions or part thereof merit inclusion in the draft Constitution; > >"(iii) Views and comments of members of the general public including >professional and other bodies and associations; > >"(iv) Matters which in the opinion of the Commission are reasonably related >to this section; > >"(v) Such matters as may be referred to it by the Council. > >"(b) Submit to the Council a draft Constitution which shall form the basis >of a new Constitution for The Gambia; and > >"(c) To present a report of their activities which shall contain >recommendations and such other matters that merit consideration by the >Council." > > >Hence, it should be abundantly clear that it was the fundamental role for >the Constitutional Review Commission to review the 1970 Constitution and >determine its adequacy or otherwise for the good governance of The Gambia. >This was one of the principal task. > >Furthermore, the Commission was to take note of recommendations of other >bodies. > >A draft constitution emerged out of the exercise. Gambians had the option >to >accept or reject the draft constitution. There would still have been >elections under Decree 78 regardless of whether Gambians accepted or >rejected the draft constitution. In fact the presidential and national >assembly elections took place before the constitution came into force. > >Suffice it to say, if the draft constitution was rejected, the Party which >won the elections would have had the mandate to prepare another >constitution >or restore the 1970 constitution. On the other hand, by accepting the draft >constituion, any party which took over would have had to abide by that >constitution but would also have had the capacity to consult the people >again to bring about a new constitution. > >You have already agreed that the 1997 Constitution is superior to the 1970 >constitution. Relying on this conclusion you have drawn, it would, >therefore, not be an option to you to restore the 1970 Constitution. > >Now, if we rejected the draft constitution, it would have meant that after >winning an election, the same AFPRC would have ruled by some form of >transitional instruments based on decrees until we promulgated a new >constitution. The acceptance of the 1997 Constitution provides a yard stick >by which the performance of the AFPRC could be gauged, and the instruments >available such as the courts, auditor general's department, the Independent >Electoral Commission made operational. > >As a Gambian, I was of the opinion that it was best to have a constitution >which has elements that were superior to a constitution that I have >functioned under for 26 years at the time. > >I did also alert my mind to the concerns you raised. According to you, your >"dispute was premised on the blanket Indemnity Clause, the term limit and >age of the presidency, how still the executive (presidency) still has >enormous monarchical dispositions that the Constitution Review Committee >has >not fundamentally stripped off the 1997 constitution...." > >I am sure you know that in my memorandum to the Constitutional Review >Commission, I had exposed and opposed all the monarchical characteristics >of >constitutions using the 1970 constitution as an example. Furthermore, there >is no Gambian, except those who have something to hide and lose, who would >support an Indemnity Clause. However, the issue was whether to accept the >draft constitution with these flaws or reject it on the basis of those >flaws. > >In my view, I had lived with those flaws under the 1970 constitution. >Hence, >if I could get a constitution with more advanced provisions to the 1970 >Constitution with the same flaws all the better. It is on this basis that I >supported the 1997 Constitution. I am sure you do know that there was no >term limit under the 1970 constitution which kept Jawara in office for over >two decades. I am sure you do know that the age (30 years), qualification >for a presidential candidate is the same under the 1970 constitution as it >is under the 1997 constitution. I know you do know that the 1970 >constitution did not bar state of emergencies from being called and >Indemnity Act established as the one after the 1981 coup absolving >government and its agents from any liabilities to any commission or >ommission of an act under the Emergency Regulations. > >Needless to say, you have already acknowledged the monarchical >characteristics embedded in the 1970 Constitution. What is your problem now >and why do you find it difficult to understand why I, personally, supported >the 1997 Constitution? I do not know what Saul's position would be; whether >he also holds that the 1997 constituion is superior to the 1970. Otherwise, >I would have gone into greater details to make a comparative analysis. This >is the first point. > >Now, on the Koro case, you wrote: > >"Particularly, I did find offensive your petulant ripples of >holier-than-thou afterthoughts in your closing remarks about the Koro >tragedy. You wrote: "we did everything that was possible to get to the >facts >and we concluded as everybody is concluding now, that there should be a >coroner's Inquest. If it fails to do so, anybody can speculate whatever one >wants. However, no one has the moral authority to question our integrity >because of the manner we approached this." Oh yeah. Good gracious. What a >banquet of sanctimonious tosh!!!!!! How can you claim to have to done >"everything that was possible to get to the facts" when you overlooked the >obvious circumstantial evidences that I mentioned above and did you carry >out any forensic DNA examination of the site to scientifically ascertain >whoever were present during Koro's death? Do you now see the sham that is >coming out of your pretentious attempts to look smart and professional >investigative journalists? Do you now see why I called you a novice >journalist on his/her first assignment. Halifa you don't have the resources >or the training to carry out a scientific forensic scrutiny of the site >that >Koro was found. The State could and should have done this even if it means >acquiring help from outside the borders of the Gambia. What was at stake >was too much to be left in the hands of muted silence and in the puerile >hands of your investigations that reeked from the outset of absurdity, >naivety and simplicity? > "Halifa if you fail to follow the lead I just offered you, I will >have >every moral authority question your integrity. And get this: you shall lose >my confidence and consequently my vote come the 2001 elections." > >Now, now, Hamjatta, your political maturity is higher than this. You know >you have as much right to be a candidate for election as I have. In fact, >you people should be preparing yourselves to assume such mandate at the >earliest possible time, and I hope you will begin to develop the tolerance >you are preaching, and not feel offended by the exercise of my freedom of >expression. > >It is my view, that "we did everything that was possible to get to the >facts >and we concluded as everybody is concluding now that there should be a >coroner's inquest." We indicated then that if the State fails to do so, >anybody can speculate according to one's whims. This is the plain fact. >Since I have promised not to utilise any language to impinge on our >integrity, I must, however, ask you whether you have contradicted my >assertions by asking the questions: "Did you carry out any forensic DNA >examination of the site to scientifically ascertain whoever were present >during Koro's death? Do you now see the sham that is coming out of your >pretentious attempts to look smart and professional investigative >journalist. Do you now see why i call you a novice journalist on his/her >first assignment?" How did you conclude? You concluded by confirming my >assertions as follows: "Halifa you don't have the resources or the training >to carry out a scientific forensic scrutiny of the site that Koro was >found. The State could and should have done this even if it means acquiring >help from outside the borders of the Gambia. " > >In short, my assertion is that we have done everything possible and now you >are pointing out our failure to do what you have indicated is impossible >for >us to do because of limitation of knowledge and resources. Moreover, we did >not constitute a State. > >Are you being fair with us? Hamjatta, am I the one who should follow your >lead or the State? Have you tried to contact the forensic experts where you >are and inquire what they could do at the moment? What basis would you have >for questioning my integrity or threatening to withhold your confidence and >your vote? You know that I am not in the business of bartering for votes. I >do not want to be anybody's President or representative. I only have a >national duty to perform like every single Gambian. To serve one's country >is a duty. It is left to the people to decide who can best serve their >interest. > >As far as I am concerned, there is new evidence regarding Koro's death. >Instead of engaging in a wild goose chase, according to your lead, it is >best for us to continue to do the inquiry that is necessary without hoping >to make political capital out of the death of a compatriot. > >Lastly, you dealt with the issue of Pan Africanism as a social scientific >concept and Pan Africanism as a belief. After consulting your dictionary as >to what 'HOLD' means in the context of my assertion, you went on to >indicate >the following: "I hope you will come up with a clearer and unambiguous >statement on where you stand with Pan Africanism." > >I thought everything is clear, but apparently it is not to you. I noticed >that you have not made any attempt to refute the view that science is the >pursuit of the known and the knowable whilst belief may protrude into the >unknown and unknowable. This is the clear distinction I tried to make. > >To have a Pan Africanist belief is to hold the concept as a dogma which >must >be pursued irrespective of whether it is viable or not. I have simply >stated >that this is not my view of Pan Africanism. To me, it is not a dogma. It is >a by-product of the historical realities which have been woven by our >colonial experience which has tied all our economies to a metropolise which >continue to utilise our countries as sources of raw materials and markets >for their manufactured goods. This gave rise to a common political >experience. > >Needless to say, African countries need investments and Africa has >tremendous resources. With the pooling up of resources, the strength of >regions and countries could be enhanced and our collective economic >development ensured. > >It goes without saying that colonialism left countries divided into ethnic >groups which sometimes occupy land that goes across national boundaries. >The >post colonial State has not brought the people together and give them a >national consciousness. Hence, Pan Africanism, as a political concept, is >inconceivable without the elevation of the consciousness of the African >people and their enlightenment to realise the economic, political and >cultural initiatives that they need to take in order to forge an all >embracing union that could ensure their collective survival in liberty and >prosperity. > >I do not think it is necessary to go any further. What is however essential >is to explain what I mean by asserting that I belong to a different school >of thought. > >My emphasis is that before we can solve Africa's problems, we must begin by >studying our societies and fully apprehending why they are the way they >are. >A person like Nyerere, like many African Socialists, felt that African >societies have certain communal residues which can be built upon to create >societies based on cooperation. The rural area was not examined on the >basis >of the economic and political realities which had been engendered through >the colonial experience. Rural development was seen as a priority and the >way to do it was seen to be bringing the rural people together so that >educational, health and other services could be brought to them. It was not >fully realised that the countryside is not completely isolated but was >linked to the towns and an international economic system. > >The creation of towns which relied on taxation of the whole country to be >constructed and developed and the creation of a colonial bureaucracy which >depended on taxation of the whole population to be maintained led to an >uneven development between countryside and town. The repatriation of profit >made by the colonial merchant houses created an uneven development between >colonialised territories and those of their colonisers. > >How to bring schools, hospitals, roads, electricity, water supply to the >countryside and pay those employed by the State became a major dilemma. >Some >countries nationalized industries and other services not realising that >many >of them were not linked to the agricultural base of their economies and >were >not serving to provide consumer goods to the ordinary farmer. Others did >not >nationalize industries and services. > >However, irrespective of whether industries owned by foreign companies >were >nationalized or not, no development agenda was in place that could >eradicate >poverty in the countryside. Instead the bureaucracy continued to increase. >The cost of living in urban areas continued to rise. The standards of >living >and the level of dependency continued to increase giving rise to the >diversion of tax money to consumption by the bureaucracy. > >The countryside continued to depend on the production of raw materials >which >continued to earn less in comparison to the rise in the prices of >manufactured goods. This led to the impoverishment of the countryside and >pockets of development in urban areas. > >On the other hand, in countries where industries were not nationalized, the >growth in the parasitic bureaucracy also led to high level of corruption >where nominal industries and companies survived mainly by getting contracts >from State bureaucracy through patronizing bureaucrats. The countryside >depended on the sale of raw materials in the face of escalating prices of >commodities. > >In both cases, the saturation of the tax base lead governments to borrow >more and more to finance development projects. > >In my view, development can come to African countries by understanding the >law of balanced and proportionate development which calls for policies that >run contrary to the law of uneven development. What this simply means is >that the countryside cannot be developed by simply bringing hospitals and >schools without a productive base to sustain them; that development in the >countryside should be linked to development of the productive base of >communities. It is to recognise that each community is a production unit >and >they can be made to collaborate in different forms of cooperation to >produce >their basic necessities such as food, housing and processed goods which >would have otherwise been imported. Through cottage industries, milk >products, oil, canned vegetables and fruits can be produced through the use >of appropriate technology. So each community must seek to be self reliant >in >producing the basic necessities and also in producing what it can sell to >other communities including the international community to be able to earn >more for social development. The law of balanced and proportionate >development calls for a linkage between public servants and the productive >base. > >As the communities develop their social institutions, the number of public >servants will increase with the growth of those community institutions. in >this way, the public service becomes a working body which is linked to the >productive base. Instead of a parasitic bureaucracy you end up with a >productive branch of the national economy with specialisation in services >of >all sorts. > >This development of the community productive base could be linked to a >national productive base where resources could be invested in light scale >industries to process goods for consumption. With such a self reliant >economy, development can proceed without terrible dependence on external >aid >for any development project. > >It goes without saying that such community development must go hand in hand >with total ownership of the community by the people. This calls for >empowerment of the people so that they are involved in the adminsitrative >lives of their communities. Community members would participate in >different >committees in order to facilitate the construction of services by taking >part in planning, in receiving resources, in making decision on tenders, in >keeping stores, monitoring the construction of public services, giving >feedbacks to the community and delivering final products to the communities >with explanation of cost and so on to ensure transparency and >accountability >thus making the community an agency to prevent corruption. > >Clearly, if each African country moves in a similar direction, then their >economies which are well organised internally could have collaborated to >ensure the maximum development of their potentials by pooling up their >monetary resources, make investments in the right sectors and complement >each other's economies through mutually beneficial trade. > >With the people empowered everywhere, their political unity could also have >been ensured since managing a society would have seized to be the privilege >of tyrant and would have been a mere task imposed on reliable people >chosen >by the people. Such people would not allow anybody to overstay and >misrepresent them. > >In my view, Kwame saw the Pan African agenda and had hoped that through the >unity of the continent from above, continental institutions such as armies, >central banks and so on could have been created. However, he did not >realise >fast enough that the real task was to build up the countryside to ensure >their self reliance and their empowerment; that this constituted the >bastion >on which continental unity could emerge. > >This is my view of Pan Africanism. I hope my position is now clear. > >Have all your questions been answered now? Can I now go on with my >historical analysis of the whole coup period? I believe other people may be >interested in my analysis of the whole coup period for the sake of >posterity. > > >Greetings. > > >Halifa Sallah. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L >Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------