System Change Vs. Regime Change

Sometimes one cannot help but wonder if there is a deliberate and calculated attempt designed to undermine The Gambia’s new found and much deserved freedom, or simply an orchestrated plot to disfavor some and any role they may play in the future. Clearly ignorance can be discounted as a premise for some of the narratives being peddled, judging by the caliber of some of the proponents of such narratives. What am I talking about?

From the claims that allowing the dominance of a single party in the executive as well as the legislative arms of government will serve towards the re-introduction of ‘dictatorship’ or the perpetuation of one man rule; to the claims that what we have in place now is a regime change and not a system change, we see a constant attempt to label what we have as ill-suited.

First of all, as evidenced by the democracies we aspire to be, no executive desires an obstructionist legislative arm and so they campaign to control both branches of the government in order to smoothly put their party policies to work. Now the question is; are those policies within the constitutional framework (legal), are they ethical, will they serve the interest of the nation? That determination is usually made at the Independent Electoral Commission where the parties are required to file a manifesto outlining their policies and programs for advancing the nation as a condition for registration as a political party. Therefore, any party that contests elections has by default met the required criteria. Control of both arms of government therefore does not necessarily qualify as a prelude to the introduction of a ‘dictatorship.’ Concerted and coordinated efforts need to be made to actually concentrate more power in the executive than where sovereignty truly resides; in the citizenry, and the good news is that such attempts can be protested against by citizens in a democracy and through independent courts which are currently being set up, so the ‘dictatorship’ narrative is a flawed one devoid of substance.

‘Dictatorship’ is being highlighted because it is a misused term; even in Yahya Jammeh, what we had was more akin to authoritarianism than full blown dictatorship; even if for the simple fact that in some situations he is limited by the constitution as to what he can do (crown himself king, declare a one party state, etc.). What we had was total submission to his authority by all our representatives and civil servants who dare not say or support any position opposite his. That is authoritarianism. The other reason for highlighting the term is that in the next narrative, the term ‘regime’ is being misused as well. Words matter and that is why it is earlier stated that one wonders whether we are being made fearful by design; duped if you like.

A government can be called a regime certainly, but the term is reserved for a disapproving government, one imposed from above; an authoritarian one. In our part of the world, it has become synonymous with militarily imposed authorities headed by ‘strongmen’. Our new dispensation most certainly does not qualify as such; it is a manifestation of the people’s mandate and we have witnessed thus far that they recognize that mandate and respect it. So that too is a flawed narrative, we have a government, as in a democratic one and not a regime as in an imposed one.

A system by nature is intricate, it’s complex and once in place takes a while to redesign, and that is where we are as a country. One of the aspects of the civil service is continuity, which by default means they have adopted strategies for operational efficiency across the various departments; together they constitute the ‘system’ of running the government. On the other hand, since we do not have an authoritarian regime but a democratic government not just in name means there is a complete system change. The judiciary is not taking directives from the executive, the legislature just opened it sessions but we can be hopeful it will be an independent body abiding by the constitution in procedure and oversight functions. The most symbolic of the power of the former regime is the security service and we know they have switched gears in their operations and dealings with the civilian population. For goodness sake we even work five days a week now and in the process eliminating so much waste and back log. What more system change are we advocating for?

Even in business, the introduction of new technology or operating systems require training and adjustment; a process of familiarization and gradual phasing out of the old. Change does not happen overnight and certainly it cannot be expected of a body as complex as the government of a state. Maybe there is need to shrink the size of government, get rid of redundant departments and personnel, break up the merger of some ministries or departments and converge others etc.

The fact is, there needs to be review and assessment of the system to determine where adjustments are needed; a hasty decision in that regard will yield consequences some of which can be long term. You cannot shock a system into change; you gradually phase out dysfunctional ones and institute lasting, more viable and productive ones.

With all that in mind, why are we constantly talking of the need for system change in such vague terms and drawing similitudes between systems that have nothing in common especially by people who are expected to know better; the so called ‘educated elite’?

Like in every narrative, some stand to gain and others stand to lose. If such narrative is upheld, the losers clearly in this case is the people being targeted for failing to institute a system change; the government of the day and by extension the majority of Gambians. Such a narrative is demoralizing and undermines our steady march towards building strong institutions that will serve everyone’s interest and not just a few. It is deceitful at worst and at best shows a lack of patience and gratitude for the monumental achievement we made together as a nation.

The worst is behind us and the rest will take collective concerted effort to achieve, enough of the bickering and untenable stance that pervades our discourse and time to be the change we desire.

Hon. Halifa; Is It Gratifying?

There have been claims made during the campaign season for the recently concluded National Assembly elections that if the parties to the Tactical Alliance approach did not win a combined majority in the National Assembly, then the Barrow-led coalition government will have an antagonistic assembly to contend with, which if challenged could impeach him. Are we witnessing a vindication of such claims just mere days after the process has ended?

Going by statements made by Halifa Sallah at his recent press conference, one could be forgiven for making such observations. Blame it on the choice of words or a misconstrued statement, but what he said is a statement of clear intent. And for a man so composed and so skilled at oratory, his words are always very carefully chosen and his statements cannot be easily passed off as gaffes at any time. I may be limited in my knowledge of his political life but I cannot recall reading anywhere that he ever retracted a public statement or apologized for having made a mistake in his choice of words. The point I am trying to make is that his words are always carefully chosen for precision, an asset to a politician.

Now, at the press conference, Halifa stated;

One problem that has been averted is the problem of threatening the executive in terms of legislative interventions. He said the National Assembly could pass a vote of no confidence on the executive but that could only be done with 2/3 majority. He said the 31 seats occupied by the United Democratic Party do not provide the legislative cloud to be able to threaten the executive. He said the same composition cannot give any particular party to make any Constitutional amendment without being passed by the 2/3 majority of the house members. However, he also said with the 31 seats of the UDP, if all of them refused to support any bill in the parliament then the other members cannot pass such bills. (www.standard.gm)

Why would it be a good idea to threaten the executive? Were there plans afoot to move a motion to pass a vote of no confidence and effect a change in leadership? The statement even calls into question the integrity of the members of the National Assembly, who Halifa assumes will not vote their conscience or the interest of the nation but will only vote along party lines. Why does the PDOIS have a Holier than Thou perspective on anything Gambian? The mere belief that only the PDOIS members are informed enough to put the national interest first is a fallacy and is lacking in humility; being a party member has already ingrained an ideology in you, the ideology you believe is the best for the country. Thinking that that is the only approach is insulting to the other stake holders at the very least. It is too soon to pass judgement on these members even before their first test. We should not be judges of character, just actions.

Less than three months after assuming office amidst the worst transition ever, it is disappointing to note that the main issue on Halifa’s mind is the length of time Barrow serves as president. For a man lauded as the Republican Constitutionalist of the highest order to speak of “injecting” a clause into the constitution in order to make the coalition MOU a constitutional instrument is disappointing too. Regarding the 3 year mandate as agreed upon by the coalition partners; he stated that constitutional amendments will be required in order to make legal Barrow’s resignation after 3 years. 

He stated; “But at the moment that provision is not in the Constitution therefore as it stands, Barrow has a 5 year term. But if it is injected in and he agrees then he would be able to resign after 3 years and presidential election would be held.” 

So what is the problem if the sacred constitution is not being infringed upon? Oh I get it, Barrow’s credibility. If Barrow decides to honor the terms of the MOU, that is commendable and will be welcome in many quarters. But if he decides to stay on to fulfill his constitutional mandate, the only dent that may be made will be to his image but the laws of the land will not be infringed upon in the slightest. That being the case let us focus on the institutional reforms and worry about crossing the 3 vs 5 year term bridge when we get to it.

Should we point to a lack of foresight at the drafting of the MOU or something sinister? If anyone else other than Barrow became the coalition flag bearer and subsequent president of the republic, could we say with certainty that there will be an “injection” into the 1997 constitution as is being advocated now? We can only speculate. One thing is clear though, Barrow was not an expected winner as flag bearer.

On the other hand, isn’t the whole debate around the appointment of the Vice President hinged on this notion of “injecting” clauses into the constitution to favor a certain approach; who was the loudest advocate against such a move? Suddenly it is convenient to tweak the constitution a little bit. By the way, in this specific situation, such an amendment will only be temporary because if all goes well we are not expecting another coalition of this nature. With a thriving democracy, which we aspire to; the political landscape will be ideal for healthy rivalry. The immoral law of setting an age cap on the other hand, will tackle discrimination in that sphere for good. But that is only looking to favor a certain individual which we cannot have, right?

And then comes my favorite; the political subterfuge hinged on fear mongering. We all know that across the political spectrum in The Gambia, everyone is in support of the introduction of presidential term limits as well as reforms to eliminate the simple majority first-past-the-post winner that currently obtains. So why is it constantly being drummed up in our ears that there is a potential for the reintroduction of tyranny/dictatorship or self-perpetuating rule? 

Halifa stated;

…the objective of the Coalition as far as PDOIS is concerned is to put an end to self-perpetuating rule and build a democracy which will allow the supreme Gambian people to make an undiluted choice of leadership. This is what directed PDOIS in terms of the National Assembly election so as to fulfill that three year mandate to be the bright example of how self-perpetuating rule would be amputated for good from the politics of this country. It was our conviction that if President Barrow leads the example of limiting his own term then no other leader will ever emerge again that will go beyond two terms,” 

In that regard wouldn’t the most important bill before members be the bill that introduces term limits for the president? Because in passing that bill, the problem will be solved once and for all, and FOREVER. In that statement too is the projection of the all too familiar PDOIS political grandstanding; alluding to the notion that without PDOIS in the National Assembly, such a feat could not be accomplished; that is mere speculation yet again; another way people feel insulted. The December 1^st 2016 choice that the supreme Gambian people made was undiluted. This is one reason why people are taking issue with Mr. Sallah’s statement that Gambia is yet to decide. The decision of December 1^st 2016 was probably the most important decision Gambians will ever make. The agenda was sold to remove Yahya, it was bought with no dilution. The same will be true in the new democratic dispensation, politicians sell their agenda and programs, voters buy those that appeal to them and in the process give mandate.

Here is my take; how many elections can The Gambia afford with her meager resources and dried out coffers? Part of the recommendations made by the election observers was to organize the Presidential and National Assembly elections in such a way that they coincide on the same day; this will save costs and reduce voter apathy. The turnout we now know is much lower for the National Assembly elections than was the case for the presidential elections.

So let’s say Barrow resigns in 3 years, 90 days later there are fresh Presidential elections in 2020, two years later there will be fresh National Assembly elections as the current mandate runs out in 2022. The next president’s mandate will run out in 2025, another 3 year period from the preceding National Assembly elections whose mandate lasts till 2027. Factor in the local government and council elections as well as the impending referendums to amend some of the entrenched clauses in the constitution; we are set to be going to the polls on an almost yearly basis. It is unsustainable, at some point someone else’s mandate has to be cut short or the constitution tweaked some more.

You prescribed a dose of humility for Barrow when you said “…the first humbling would have been to concede to the 3 year term agreed by the coalition…” this same dose I prescribe for you too Honorable Sir. I have no doubt that you mean well for The Gambia and her sovereign people and we Gambians owe you a debt of gratitude for your years of continued sacrifice and advocacy for our collective rights. But every once in a while it is a mark of humility to concede to popular will, especially when laws are not violated or rights impinged upon; we will get to that promised land but it is a gradual process and lots of concessions have to be made along the way.

We certainly do not want a rubber stamp assembly but the other extreme of that scenario that none seems to bother talking about is an antagonistic one that seeks to hinder every legislation out of spite, that too we do not want.

So I ask, is it gratifying to be the lone voice of opposition even when it seemingly is not necessary?