Rejoinder To Mbenga's Piece

When you know a person, you can be a good judge of his or her character through your interactions and observations from up close. If a person is a stranger to you, his utterances and actions determine how you perceive him or her. To those who know Ousainou Mbenga (I am not one of them), they may see a different side to him than what he uttered in a recent article. In his article misleadingly captioned; “No Agenda can Remain Hidden forever: United Democratic Party (UDP) Hegemony Declared.” Mbenga speaks the language of bigots albeit subtly.

 

So what if some guy in New York declared a “UDP government” what evidence is there for that? What about the tags emanating from without way before the New York meeting contemptuously calling the government a UDP government? Claims lacking the basic decency to respect the other members and stakeholders within the government. That aside, how many cabinet positions are there, how many went to UDP and how many went to the other parties? That shouldn’t be too hard a research to conduct. But No it’s not about the UDP and it did not take long for Ousainou Mbenga to reveal what was really getting him hot under the collar;

 

For all intent and purposes, the genuine struggle needs to intensify hundred-fold to prepare the Gambian masses with an unshakable fighting capacity to build the “new Gambia” rooted in our national advancement and not ethnic or tribal loyalties. Yes, the struggle continues. But against what? Tribalism and all forms of reactionary ethnic affiliations against our national interest.  – Ousainou Mbenga

Aha! There you have it, the real reason he was fuming. Just like the Barrow administration is disrespectfully branded a UDP government, so too is the UDP branded a Mandinka party. So replace UDP with Mandinka and you’ll see where Ousainou Mbenga is really aiming at. It is that simple. Why else will ethnic or “tribal” ‘anything’ surface in this write up; supposedly aimed at unmasking some government conspiracy afoot.

You think I’m exaggerating, read on…

Lets assume the claim that U.D.P is the majority party and won the elections. Does that mean that everyone should be under their boot? Conversely, so what if any one of the ethnic groups in the Gambia constitute the so called “majority”? Does it means [sic] you have absolute power with total disregard for the rest of us? In my view, this arrogance is more destabilizing than the mere constructive criticisms made of the regime. - Mbenga

Why else would these two scenarios fit together if not to reveal the underlying intent of the author? Ousainou Mbenga, at least in this episode perfectly represented the narrative of those hateful bigots that hide behind nationalism, patriotism, constructive criticism and equality to mask their hatred and condescension for their fellow countrymen, especially the rural Mandinka folk while behind closed doors and in comfortable company will let loose the oft-repeated line of the bigoted; The Mandinkas think they own this country! That is what that line about “majority party” and “majority ethnic group” referenced above really meant to say. He even referenced that supposed Mandinka sense of entitlement further on in his write up;

We must win the masses of our people to revolutionary politics to cultivate revolutionary leadership as oppose [sic] to “leadership of entitlement” grossly impregnated with tribal / ethnic backwardness. The Gambian masses must know where their interest lies and who serves their interest. Has “tribalism” ever served the interest of the down trodden masses who are historically misused as canon [sic] fodder by the opportunist elite politicians? Never did, never will. – Ousainou Mbenga

You see, you just have to read between the lines to get the message. Here's the tactic at play (not authored by Mbenga): Brand the government a UDP government, that way any failure (which they anticipate) will be blamed on the party to speed up its demise because the party is sectarian in their view. In the meantime with the government labelled thus, Hon. Ousainou Darboe can be singled out for all manner of resentful attacks to smear his name even in matters he has no knowledge of or a hand in. For good measure, throw in Hon. Mai Fatty to offset any accusations of singling Darboe out. 

Meanwhile, Hons. Hamat Bah, O.J, and Henry Gomez are looked at as non-factors even though everyone is absolutely certain that neither Hon. Hamat Bah nor O.J are drag along politicians who’d tow just anybody’s line. Dr. Touray is spared perhaps for fear of being labelled anti-feminist. The same way the bigots mask their contempt for Darboe and attempts at discrediting him and his party by labeling the government a UDP government; is the same way they label the UDP as a Mandinka party so that their contempt for the Mandinka can be shielded with claims of being “constructively critical" of a political party, what’s wrong with that? Nothing, except you’re not.

The roots of such contempt for rural Mandinka folk lies in that bitter political rivalry of the UP/PPP days that still lives on in many. Ousainou Mbenga has given credence to their claims even though he may not be one of them, but that much he has done. Instead of confronting their dissatisfaction head on, they try to mask it. That insincerity and lack of genuine discourse is why the issue of “tribalism” keeps surfacing its ugly head in our political discourse and until we are willing to take the bull by the horns, bring forth evidence pointing to such divisive mechanisms as are being claimed, it will remain an elusive topic; forever present yet never visible while in the process some of our folks are consumed by rage and hatred for a non-existent boogeyman.

To quote Mbenga one last time; “Let’s take possession of our brains and never relinquish it to opportunism.” I agree; one way to achieve that, I would suggest we take a look at issues within their right context and try to cultivate an understanding of issues from all angles possible. Every single political party in The Gambia has a cross-section of all the “tribes” in the country forming its support base.You know why that is so; geography plays into it, kinship, friendships, acquaintances etc.

During the UP days, PPP never had any hopes of winning in Banjul pre-independence, does that qualify as tribalism? See it is easy to dismiss ALL of the factors that led to the formation of the PPP and brand it along tribal lines; that is easy and convenient. If tribe was truly the motivation PPP will remain unopposed post-independence. The only opposition party of any clout against Jawara that was not headed by a Mandinka was the Gambia People’s Party of the late Assan Musa Camara, second Vice President of The Republic of The Gambia (God rest his soul). Foni, today erroneously branded “tribalist” by other sets of bigots was ever PPP’s for the taking.

Mbenga referenced the 1981 abortive coup; here’s a historical fact; Kukoi Samba Sanyang (God rest his soul) ran on an NCP ticket for the Parliamentary seat of Foni Kansala and lost to a PPP sponsored candidate. He went rogue after that. By virtue of his association with the NCP, Hon. Sheriff Mustapha Dibba, (God rest his soul) the party leader of the NCP was implicated in the 1981 coup. He was held in custody and later cleared due to lack of evidence.

When Yaya emerged, Foni went full blown APRC; no opposition allowed. Was any of that “tribalism” NO! Here’s why;

Power is the most coveted thing in the world. People generally want some affinity with power; the adage that power is intoxicating is very true. “Here was a rural native (in the case of Jawara for the rural folk of post independent Gambia) come to extend the franchise to us and he is one of us, let’s back him up” said rural folks (kinship). Then came Jammeh; “here’s a Foni  native ascended to the highest office in the land, we’ll lift him up and never put him down” said the people of Foni. Labelling that “tribalism” is naïve, for rural Gambia is native to every “tribe” just as Foni has Jolas, Mandinkas, Fulas, etc. who all embraced Yaya (geography - he's from our region). Now the difference between the two scenarios is; Did Yaya attempt to cut a demarcating line between the “tribes” to soar up his support? Of course he did in word and action; openly. THAT is “tribalism”- a systematic targeting, exclusion and domination, subjugation even, of others by virtue of their creed.

The people of Foni are not “tribalist” for supporting Yaya; he just gave them that sought after affinity to power through a shared language, culture and geography. That alone does not qualify as “tribalism”. If that qualifies as “tribalism”, well I’d be damned if you do not brand yourself racist for supporting Obama. Yes, black people the world over loved Obama, cheered him on, wished he’d win and celebrated his win. What’s better than being affiliated with the most powerful man in the world by ethnicity no matter how distant and unrealistic that may seem? Fact is it had a symbolic meaning, especially for black Americans. That’s the real fact. The problem would have been if Obama pandered to that narrative.

Yes, some people vote for candidates for the flimsiest of reasons. But besides Yaya, name a politician who courts voters along “tribal” lines. Our task should be to educate people on their civic duties and encourage them towards realistic goals that will motivate their actions and decisions. Educate them on such issues as policy and governance without faulting them for their choice; people want what they want.

Now, what we should especially task ourselves is to hold politicians to different and more rigorous standards; ergo if an aspiring or sitting politician ever opens his or her mouth on a political platform or beyond and utters incendiary or tribal undertones, or panders to such overtly (like Yaya) or covertly; we pounce on him or her and tear him or her down. With citizens, educate; educate; educate! After that we respect their choices and stop peddling this not so subtle bigotry thinly veiled in insincere utterances of UNITY, NATIOANLISM, or ONE GAMBIANESS when all you truly want is power and dominance to be the very thing you’re preaching against. What I can get on board with out of this whole write up is;

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE [all of the people]! ONE GAMBIA INDIVISIBLE (never has been)! DOWN WITH TRIBALISM!  [And bigotry of all forms subtly masked in self-deluding patriotism].

The reader comes to Mbenga’s article with hopes of finding evidence of some conspiracy at work that will be brought to light, when all it accomplished was speak the language of bigots. There was nothing neither critical nor constructive in it, just mere speculation and innuendo accompanied by implicit tones of anger and contempt. Yes, a person can love his land (be a patriot) but be contemptuous (bigoted) towards some of those he shares that land with.

Let’s not speak things into existence. The human subconscious can be a dangerous weapon against the person’s being itself. Everyone knows the Gambia is the most close-knit society you’ll find anywhere. Beyond politics we all know that to be fact. So that fabric of our society, if any politician or opinion leader attempts to rip apart, we need to call them out, bring forth the evidence of their plot and condemn them to irrelevance. Insinuating such division speaks to the subconscious that each group should retreat back to their kin and then it becomes an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ scenario that none will ever win, everyone loses.

Just as we do not speak of sectarianism based on religion because Christians are underrepresented in politics, let’s not peddle a similar narrative along tribal lines. Let’s be like Hon. Henry Gomez; believe in yourself, believe in the maturity of Gambians and their embracing nature, be bold and go out and seek what you desire, you have a right to it. You will always find support across the board. We are after all a diverse people; we can all celebrate our individual cultures, speak each other’s language and uphold our valuable customs without fearing domination by one group or the other. We have tasked ourselves to “Join our diverse peoples [together] to prove man’s brotherhood.” For that is what we are; brothers and sisters!

PERSPECTIVES ON HALIFA'S PRESS CONFERENCE

The much anticipated press conference came and went with much to digest. Credit must be given where credit is due. There is no arguing that Halifa Sallah is very passionate about his beliefs and steadfast in his quest. The press conference reflected that passion and much more, it was fiery even. Mr. Sallah’s patriotism is not in question as some would like to allude to. No one will dedicate as much time of their life as did the folks in PDOIS and beyond for naught, however politics is a game of differing views and not all share similar views in that regard. Challenging his political views and stance on issues therefore does not amount to attempts at discrediting the man, although in some quarters he may not be so favorably viewed but that too comes with the terrain. Mr. Sallah has been and remains one of the most respected political and opinion leaders in the country even among those who disagree with his politics. The recent reactions from Gambians can mainly be attributed to disappointment rather than disrespect. Disappointment in the decision to pull the entire membership from taking up any executive positions in the coalition government that they have been equal stakeholders in; granted that choice has to be respected and yes the National Assembly is an important institution of state in a democratic dispensation, but that move was not the very best of political moves and has left many disappointed, that too has to be respected. That disappointment speaks more to the people’s desire and believe that he, or any of the prominent PDOIS members will have only contributed to the executive rather than take away from it; that view too is likened to skirting responsibility for a collective achievement. So no, the spate of criticisms aimed at Halifa and the PDOIS is not borne out of hate as some would like to believe, not that this write up is likely to change that believe, that’s not the goal either.

Coming to the press conference, some issues have been elaborated on but more questions arose as well. The statement issued prior to the press conference was that some investigations will be made to confirm the origins of the press release that was said to have emanated from the office of the President and then a press conference held to give a “fitting response”. From the press conference though it seems the author of the release is unclear still, not that it should matter.

According to Halifa, the release has not been signed by anyone, that it just listed a contact person. In conventional terms though, I’d like to think that since the release has been attributed to the Office of the President and listed the Director of Press as the contact person should be enough to determine the origins of the release. Secondly, since the release aired on the national broadcaster and the said Office of the President has not come out to dissociate itself from the release, it is safe to say that indeed the release came from the Office of the President. Did Halifa reach out to the contact person listed on the release to verify its authenticity? Does listing a contact person at the end of the release suffice under law? Was the release on a letter head with contact details? All these are questions not clarified in that regard. Just as corporations are legal entities, so too are state institutions; that is the very reason why they can sue and be sued in a court of law. So if Halifa wants to take the matter to the courts for example, it will likely be ‘Halifa Vs the Office of the President’, so as to who actually put pen to paper or who dictated it becomes irrelevant. The office holder takes ultimate responsibility, that’s clear.

Next Halifa mentioned following up with the GRTS, but what really should be followed up with GRTS is to determine if they exercised due diligence as to whether the release was indeed from the Office of the President before airing it in order to not falsely attribute the statement to the wrong entity. That is as far as GRTS’s responsibility should go. As to whether they should have aired it or not is not even a question worth asking as we live in a democracy and the state as much as any party has a right to the airwaves with regards to clarifying issues.

Halifa also cited the section of the constitution as regards the conduct of public officials, but how has that code been violated with regard to the content of the press relaese was not cleared up.

The statement that generated this whole hullabaloo appears to have been clarified. In Birmingham, UK what Halifa was quoted as having said was; “what we have in The Gambia is regime change, not system change.” At the press conference he stood his ground but gave a little more clarity and context; “we have attained regime change but are yet to attain system change…” sounds a lot more relatable than the former. With the former, people grew disgruntled as a result of having had the impression that what Halifa was alluding to was that there was no difference between the Jammeh regime and the current administration just the difference in personalities; that was what was construed to having being said. Now with the latter, it becomes clearer that system change is a process that cannot be attained overnight. But by all indications, the current dispensation is by far much closer to our desired ideal than what used to obtain. How I wish the initial statement was that clear. Regime change by default is the prelude to system change and we are in the right direction; that too deserves acknowledgement.

Halifa highlighted, as an example, the fact the country still imports its entire stock of manufactured goods with virtually no capacity to manufacture its own wares; that this has always been the norm since independence. That is a fact. But that aspect speaks to specifics, not the overall system of governance. Beyond that, even in the developed world, the government is only a facilitator. Through the governance system that abides by the rule of law, the government facilitates the environment needed for citizens to unleash their creative minds and transform raw materials into finished good. The government ensures through laws and governance practice that the people are not short changed in transactions involving the use of our collective resources. The government may run some parastatals or partner with private ventures to maximize welfare and ensure the proper management of our shared natural resources. I as well as all well-meaning Gambians are completely; without reservations, in for a self-sustaining and truly independent country with prosperous citizens. The issue now becomes what policies better ensures such an atmosphere; this is where the governance policy comes into play but the government must not be viewed as a provider as opposed to a facilitator. So we should not expect such transformative economic gains to emanate out of government investment but rather from the abundant opportunity it facilitated for its citizens to compete and unleash their potential through laws and policy. The main task of any government should be to regulate and ensure fairness, as soon as it is viewed and relied on as the provider for the people, then it becomes such a large entity that it is in every aspect of the citizen’s life, the very anathema to a sovereign citizenry.

Finally there was the insight into the role of Halifa during the impasse and the overall mission and role of the larger PDOIS in The Gambia. I have always maintained that the PDOIS is akin to a hybrid between a pressure group and a civil society organization with no disrespect intended. Rather it is an acknowledgement of the role they have been playing in the country since inception, which is why I believe we get constantly reminded that position and power are immaterial to their cause as opposed to an enlightened citizenry. That is the role of a civil society organization; political parties sell their programs and agenda to the people in their quest to assume power and office. That factor qualifies them as a political outfit, but by their own admission they give more credence to an enlightened sovereign citizen than to being a party in office. Depending on what perspective one looks at it from, their efforts in relation to enlightening the citizenry could either be through enhancing access to information (which enlightens) or one through selling particular concepts (which indoctrinates), but that is discussion for another time.

On the role Halifa played during the impasse, the question remains thus; were steps taken in consultation with coalition partners or were they independent of input from other stakeholders? Was the President-Elect in the picture as to what Halifa was doing and gave his blessings, or did Halifa took what he deemed the best course of action? What consultations were done behind closed doors before Halifa emerged in front of cameras and microphones? Was there consensus to the positions he relayed over the media as the position of the coalition in his capacity as the spokesman, if not who objected to what position and why? How were disagreements resolved?

You see, it will be disingenuous of anyone to try to take away from Halifa as to what his role was within and outside of the coalition before all this. He earned our respect and he earned the credits given him, but to make it exclusively his and his alone is equally disingenuous if not more so. His love for country is not in question, his contribution thereto is not in question either; from the mid-eighties to date. His politics, his views, and his approaches are not beyond scrutiny or criticism just as any other citizen who dedicates him or herself to public service. Those views and approaches will be questioned, held to scrutiny and reproached even when necessary; and that he wouldn’t mind, that is why he would gladly debate anyone who disagrees with him; an opportunity to defend his position against ill-favored scrutiny.

Disclaimer: The views herein espoused are those of a private citizen with an equal stake in the country as any other citizen. They are not representative of any office or political grouping. Although the said citizen has political views and leanings, he has no capacity (assumed or assigned), to speak for on behalf of any political establishment within or outside of the country.

THE MAKING OF A TYRANT; ‘SUPPORTERS’ V ‘CRITICS’

Extremism and fanaticism in any of their numerous manifestations is never ideal. Even our most noble quality as humans - love cannot be excessive; for excessive love breeds obsession which is a negative quality. The ideal position in any instance is to be moderate.

These two words above are in inverted commas because they can be pushed to extremes in both cases and hence engender negative results. In our ‘New Gambia’ words have come to mean different things from what the originators intended for them to mean. Critics are whiners and supporters are sycophants, but we will stick to the two terms or supporters and critics to avoid controversy although there is some truth to both definitions.

What we hear a lot of in our discourse is how ‘blind support’ breeds tyranny and how we are constantly reminded that failure to criticize the current establishment will see a return to the Jammeh days of tyranny. There is some truth to that but it is not the whole truth, and half-truths are as dangerous as lies, if not more so. The opposite – excessive criticism, borderline whining could breed the same and even faster; here is an example.

“It’s frankly disgusting that the press is able to write whatever they wanna write, and people should look into it.” - President Trump

“Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged, and if appropriate revoked. Not fair to public [sic]’ - President Trump

The president of the United States, the “greatest democracy” according to some, that we all aspire for our various nations around the world to be like, recently made these statements regarding the press, or “Fake News” as he calls them due to non-stop criticism of his policies and even ridicule sometimes. The First Amendment of the U.S constitution clearly states that Congress shall not make any laws that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. Whatever one thinks of the man and his presidency the above statements points to one fact about to be highlighted.

People like to be respected and treated fairly. This need for respect is so embedded in our nature that some will beat it into you if they have to; for with respect comes dignity and disrespect is demeaning. Now this is not to say criticism is a sign of disrespect, far from it if the criticism is constructive. That is to say criticism meant to make better by offering alternatives but not one made from the perspective of I told you so; an ego booster meant to give the impression that one thinks them self or their choice better than the person being criticized or his choice. That kind of criticism is demeaning and condescending, devoid of substance.

If the United States, like all thriving democracies around the world does not have strong institutions like the kind needed to safeguard democratic gains and protect people’s rights, the president is sure to curtail press freedom and the associated freedom of expression just because he feels he is undeserving of the ‘criticism’ he receives daily. This amongst other issues typifies what the South African comedian, Trevor Noah meant when he jokingly labeled Trump, “…The perfect African President.”

With democracy still in its trial phase in most African countries, it is not unlikely that presidents wield enormous powers and effectively take control of all aspects of the nation state. Now this is by no means gratifying such tyranny or calling for its imposition, but it is evidence pointing to that innate human need to be valued, respected and treated with dignity. The curtailment of freedoms in Africa especially is partly due to corruption but party due to that deep seated African value that elders must be respected even if they have to beat that understanding into you. Now imagine a person with state power and machinery behind him feeling disrespected and is desirous of commanding the respect he thinks he deserves; Yaya Jammeh anyone?

On the opposite extreme end is sycophancy; the deliberate attempt that fail to see any wrong even when staring you in the face. You see, the two extremes need each other to survive; they feed off of each other. The extremists who constantly criticizes and who sees no good no matter how obvious, without thinking some ulterior motive is responsible for that good behavior. Such a stance invites the extremist from the other side to come defend that good action. When in fact a wrong is done, the extremist on the supporting side finds an excuse for it, that invites the extremist from the opposing side to come up with the “you see, we told you so” position; and on and on it goes. In between is the moderate observer, although biased towards one end, he/she is objective enough to see the facts and whichever side the facts leans towards, he/she becomes the darling for that side and hence is bundled and labeled by the opposing side as one of those on that side; a sycophant or a whiner (sellout).

Nelson Mandela is probably the most praised leader of our age; but did he turn into a tyrant, no. You can credit that to the ‘democratic’ (used sparingly considering apartheid) space in South Africa or to age. Whatever it is we know he has an upright character typical of a genuine African, especially one advanced in age. That sincerity of character, in my opinion is the single most important factor that determined his uprightness and his success in shaking off the temptations and entrapments of power, relinquishing it when he did; in dignity and eternal adoration. Otherwise, he had an opportunity to bask in the love of his people and the world and rule for life.

Now I am not comparing Mandela to anyone (a crime by new Gambian standards), but it is safe to say that a person’s character and inner self worth determines their actions more so than the environment they find themselves in. But certainly, a good trigger to bring out the opposite of their good nature is the feeling of being disrespected and undervalued within that environment.

“Hani baa naa dewung ta, akka king dirro kelleh.” A goat may bite if cornered and frustrated.

Truth is we are not always privy to all the factors that motivated a person’s decision or choice as opposed to other choices. In the game of sports, say football (the rest of the world kind of football) for example, the coach is needed to guide the players to a win because he sees the game from a perspective that the players can’t. He is essentially a critic. With all their skills and training, the players need the coach’s guidance. And with all his past experience and training as well, he cannot match the efforts of the players if put on the field, there he gets exposed to a different reality than what obtains from the sidelines. In the lyrics of the legendary Mutabaruka; “Wen ya not in pawa…, it is easy to say dis and dat; but wen you have pawa it is very different, a different sanky you have to sing.”- From the track People’s Court.

So let’s remember we the citizens are the coaches and our goal is to bring home the trophy. The fans lauding the players on the sidelines and booing the opponents are on the same side as the coach, just playing different roles. The cheering enhances performance through positive reinforcement. Let’s be moderate in all that we do, especially when we ‘criticize’ people; not in the criticism itself when it is warranted but in the tone of it. And let us always strive to make each other better not to bring people down or to massage one’s ego. Positive reinforcement helps more in improving performance, so don’t be afraid to praise when an action is praiseworthy. If we do that, Gambia dina dem!

A REBIRTH OF JAMMEH STYLE POLITICKING

The first sign of remorse is an admission of guilt. That is followed by an apology and then a move towards making amends. That shows sincerity on the part of the culprit; even if the crimes deserve punishment, at least the conscience is cleared.

The past 22 years have witnessed horrors that we cannot even dream possible in our worst nightmares; a stain on our national conscience for eternity. The human rights abuses, persecution of opponents and journalists, extra judicial killings within the ranks of the army and beyond, lost souls unaccounted for etc. Who knows what, who perpetrated what, who helped whom, who lied to cover a crime, are all questions to be answered and we will see that our nation is not so innocent after all. The economic crimes that are being unraveled at the Janneh Commission are leaving us all agape from shock and anger; the proverbial tip of the iceberg. As enormous as the sums are, these economic crimes will pale compared to the human cost yet to be revealed in the probe into human rights abuses.

To have emerged from that without a nation submerged in civil strife is noteworthy. Tragic though, is that so soon into the new dispensation when the probes into the affairs of the former regime have not even picked up steam yet, we have politicians mounting podiums and making statements tantamount to saying Yaya did nothing wrong. When it was said that the GDC and the APRC were cut from the same cloth, it was denied despite obvious links from the past. Today, they are both singing the same song; if we entrust their imminent alliance/collusion with our affairs, they will honor the Butcher of Kanilai with national honor and recognition as an ‘elder statesman’ with privileges accorded to former presidents paid for by our tax monies, including the monies of those he orphaned, widowed, and emasculated, a giant middle finger in our faces; and yet we urge them on. It may not be surprising to hear them speak like that, but to see elements of the so called ‘independents’ and PDOIS cozying up to them for political expediency is shocking. True, they are citizens and they deserve a voice and political representation; but to join forces with them while they stick to their old ways is telling.

Democracy can be a hard pill to swallow indeed; the democratic space is meant to bring out the best of us to the forefront in terms of ideas, appeal, and past performance; not the worst. In the new age, to see people who were directly involved in that mayhem of 22 years through active participation suddenly finding a voice to speak to our conscience as to what is right or wrong in governance is the height of shamelessness; worse is to have citizens of conscience giving them a platform to speak and even encouraging them to do so as if they have anything good to offer. In some societies, these are the people who will be running for cover to hide for their lives; not even their families will be spared but thank God ours is not such a society and for good measure. But even in ours, shame and regret should make such folks bow their heads down in remorse and seclude themselves in prayer and atonement. Wanting to re-emerge as a political force in our country is beyond insulting, yet we encourage them in the name of democracy. How about demanding an apology to start with in that case? An apology for their part in aiding and abetting criminality of the worst kind; state sanctioned and executed.

These players in Jammeh’s cabal of mayhem and of total destruction of all facets of our country are consciously urged on; BY CHOICE, by some of us citizens and political players; yet we cry “system change”. Here is Momodou Sabally gallivanting the streets of Banjul pounding his chest that he can’t be “caged” because we refuse to challenge him at every turn for his role in the decadence that came to be the Jammeh ‘administration’. Sabally the poster boy, Sabally the face of the regime is now the darling of some young people? A leadership mentor? How tragic indeed. I do not know what he perceives as caging, but if all your years of service to Jammeh did anything, it was to “cage” you in perpetual fear, cowardice, and spinelessness; being nothing more than a “yes” man even to things you do not subscribe to.

On the other side are Yankuba Kolley and Fabakary Tombong Jatta promising a comeback for the APRC and its old ways, urged on by none other than Mama Kandeh and his GDC. Both Kandeh and Jatta having had their hands in the same maggot infested rotten dish with the ousted tyrant and saw the ratification of some of the most obnoxious laws ever promulgated in the history of National Assemblies around the world. Are we that desperate for leaders and voices of dissent? Lest we forget when we spoke out against the most obvious forms of tyranny and persecution, these same people labeled dissenters as empty barrels and that everything was as it should be. They lied, they schemed, they deceived, they defended all manner of ill out of selfishness and cowardice, yet we embrace them as our new saviors. We need some soul searching as a people.

Lest I get misquoted; yes, they deserve political representation and a political voice as free citizens (for the time being), but they failed the test after being given the chance to proof themselves. The political ideology they subscribed to prove to be fatal to our body politics, yet some want them to be shortlisted for the next opportunity. Are we that starved for decent citizens? It is true, democracy accords all the same opportunities, but by God we as a people should not encourage people who have proven to us that they are rotten to the core, devoid of conscience, immoral, clothed in hypocrisy, live and breathe lies and deception.

And no, I’m not asking for them to be outlawed, of course the government has no right or reason to disallow political pluralism, but we as citizens can shut them up collectively by challenging them at every opportunity on their role in perpetuating the crimes against our people until they own up to their share of that mess. That much we owe to ourselves and our dear motherland. Just as we speak of holding public officials to account; so too must we hold any aspirant of that office of public trust to account any time they present themselves as interested.

What we are witnessing with the recent utterances by Fabakary Tombong Jatta regarding the detained soldiers is the re-emergence of the Jammeh–style of politics; ethnic-baiting! Again cheer led by the non-APRC aligned GDC (yeah right!).

So here’s a lesson; if you sympathize with Fabakary Tombong Jatta or Mama kandeh, or you want to defend their “freedoms” but not remind them of their responsibilities; then do not claim to object to what obtained under Yaya, for these two are the same exact replica of that monster: graduates of his political school of thought. You don’t believe me?

Quote either of them having ever said one thing critical of Yaya, then or now, no?

Show me a piece in which they pledged to do things different from Jammeh, none?

Point to a time they once called for the probing into any of the actions of Jammeh or even show any of his actions as ‘potentially illegal’, still nothing?

Ask them about the legality of the murders of the Mile II nine or about their thoughts on the murder of teenagers on April 10^th and 11^th and who is responsible.

Truth is, they will want these issues forgotten about, brushed under the carpet and tell us to forgive and forget as the Almighty Allah commands. That is why there was nary an objection to the Indemnity Act then or subsequently.

If you’ve been hired for a job and you got fired because you screwed up; if you want a rerun at that same position, you are expected to tell your employer what you would do different. Admit you messed up, explain why you did and offer to do different; but coming with the same old garbage and demanding your “rights” while conveniently ignoring your responsibilities is the kind of stuff that gets security called on you to drag you out of the building.

While we are not calling for anyone to be illegally persecuted or silenced, truth is the only thing the players in ‘Team Mayhem’ should have to say to us now is to explain their role in those acts of unmatched breach of fiduciary trust. Offering us the same poison in a different chalice should engender national outrage, not collusion or sympathy.

Ning Kankurangho yeh mamma faa, nee yeh tung wuleng jeh, ebori! (Be suspicious of anything that resembles a past tragedy).

THERE IS MORE TO DEMOCRACY THAN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The right to life and its preservation is the first and most fundamental of all rights, it reigns supreme above all other rights; for without life, what need is there to be free express anything?

Nothing in this life is free, absolutely nothing. Something as natural as breathing has a price; every breath you take is a breath towards that final breath. Every being has rights, and as citizens those rights need safeguarding, but with rights come responsibilities.

Our actions, our utterances, our conduct as citizens and members of societies are matters of choice but the general welfare and the greater good overrides any individual or group rights. That needs to be borne in mind anytime we act or utter a statement. Our individual choices however, are not so sacrosanct that when our shared values are potentially at risk, one’s actions or utterances should be ignored because it’s ‘their right.’

Irresponsible behavior and utterance by definition negate the duty of responsibility that comes with the rights one has been assured as a citizen or a member of the community. That responsibility is a promise every citizen made when they claimed membership of that community; when that promise is broken, through any act of irresponsibility, the culprit needs to answer for it because it is breach of the social contract that every member of the community is party to.

It seems we are currently so focused on our individual rights that we fail to take into account the potential ramifications of our utterances and actions as individuals or within a group. May be that is not such a bad thing in the case of ordinary citizens like you and I, but even in our case the very least that can be said of our irresponsible acts and utterances is that they are selfish and amount to a breach of the social contract that we must all uphold. The worst breach occurs when citizens who command support and loyalty set a course for potential catastrophe by being irresponsible, and that demands swift and urgent action.

The pseudo intellectualism we see being brandished all over the place seems to have lost sight of the fact that politicians do not get a free pass to set us on a trajectory aimed straight for doom and gloom in the name of freedom of expression. If the advocacy is for a kind of multi-party political environment is one in which anything goes, then maybe we are not ready for it, but I’d like to think different.

The claim that Mama Kandeh or Fabakary Tombong Jatta are being politically persecuted by the police is a flat lie and a dishonest analysis by all who claim such without exception. Is it a case of amnesia or blind hatred that we seem to forget the situation we are dealing with as country; the thorny path we are trying to navigate away from the toxicity that Yaya created? We are not the American or European democracy we keep getting thrown at us. Even the deaf heard Yaya loud and clear when he made his hateful utterance and did not stop there but acted to create clear divisions of favoritism and hatred amongst us based on ethnic identity.

The situation was so bad that most observers feared reprisals post Jammeh, not just towards those prominent in his administration but by extension towards those he shared the same ethnic background with. That fact was on the ground for all to see, but true to nature the pseudo intellectuals are never in touch with reality as far as the daily lives of our poor kin are concerned; badgering us with long incoherent monotony on their walls and blogs is the one thing they excel at.

Post Jammeh, our fears were allayed by a unified nation and political leadership who set out to immediately mend fences and build bridges as is expected of any responsible leadership. If today, Fabakary Tombong Jatta can use his position and influence to stoke the fuel of sectarianism and make people feel marginalized and targeted for want of political gain thanks to the free space we now enjoy that he and his ilk, including Mama Kandeh denied us as members of the national assembly the pseudo intellectuals are telling us to let them be; that it is their right?

What if the other parties start making similar utterances, each appealing to a sizeable constituency; where then are we headed? It is one thing for those who identify themselves as sympathizers of one party or the other to make such outlandish utterances, but it is entirely a different kettle of fish if a leader that wields influence makes similar claims, they carry a heavier weight.

So while you fight to preserve your well cherished freedom of expression that you have been denied for so long, remember the average Joe who’d suffer should tensions build up and boil over due to such irresponsibility. We get it, being gagged for so long and then having the gag removed makes you gasp for air, but for goodness sake look at the bigger picture here. See the potential for turmoil and join the people in preserving the fragile peace we have. Don’t be so obtuse that you fail see the impending disaster that we are headed for should the likes of Fabakary Tombong Jatta be given the space to spread their toxicity. Politics of issues is one thing but politics of ethnic baiting cannot be justified in any way, shape or form.

When it is said that “let us join hands and build the nation” or “let us all do our quota in nation building”, this is one such occasion. This is one such occasion where we join forces and in one unified voice condemn such blatant divisive politics; there should be no tolerance for it, period.

Bissi waay!

HAD WE LISTENED

Our beliefs, customs, traditions and values aren’t always steeped in mindless superstition as we are made to believe. Our ancestors valued wisdom above everything else.

You likely heard the saying “kayba kumo buka kotto bore”; “kayba kumo mu sulu buu jaaro letti”. In a nutshell, do not attempt to prove the truthfulness or otherwise of an elder’s statement. We live in times when deception is rife, but in such a conservative society as it obtained, deception as we know it was nonexistent. Material gains (main reason for deception) were secondary to everything else; welfare and honor were placed above all else.

Psychologists today have proven that fear is the most powerful motivator of all motivators. You see, our elders knew that; ever wonder why so many of our taboos have bad omens associated with non-conformity to upholding them? Now I’m not saying definitively that this is true for all cases, but what if….

In a recent Facebook post I asked about clan-based taboos prevalent among the Mande people and the responses inclined towards proving my theory. In articles 37 – 39 of the Manding Charter clear stipulations were made as to the need for the preservation of nature. But the question arises; in such a society, devoid of any organized law enforcement apparatus how does one enforce the laws or ensure adherence to them?

That is where the fear factor comes in; "do this thing and that negative thing follows; try to prove it and worse happens" etc. What if in their drive to preserve the environment and the animal species within the elders designed a mechanism to enforce the law, ergo the taboos we hear of. For example, Janneh is a prominent name in Manding; they are not supposed to kill or eat the flesh of the monitor lizard (Kaanaa). Touray too was prominent in Manding; they cannot use the “faaraa” tree as firewood or that they should not fear the python therefore no cause to harm it; Sagnia/Sanyang cannot harm the crowned crane (kumaareh) or the Jawnehs are forbidden from killing snakes. All these clans are prominent Mande clans, what if after the promulgation of those laws the various clans were each assigned an aspect of the fauna or flora to look after and preserve for posterity?

In which case you cannot harm that particular animal or cut down that particular tree as a member of that clan. No one can do the same in the presence of any member of that clan lest their action brings some bad omen or misfortune to members of that clan? What if that was the reason the elders crafted an elaborate story as to what misfortune befell some far gone ancestor from that clan for harming the ‘clan animal’, or made up a very convincing folklore about how a certain animal saved an ancestor of a certain clan and averted certain death thereby resulting in the bond between that clan and that animal. A closer look at these taboos, especially regarding trees will show you that most of these trees are useful for medicinal purposes and more, almost always without fail.

Here we are today all concerned with environmental preservation and rolling back desertification, had we stuck to that traditions handed down to us would the story have been different? Did someone decide along the way to “kotto bore” the ancestors and with no immediate consequence told everybody else; “see, it was all just superstition.” Others followed suit, the seal was broken and the contents spilled. Today we are living the consequences of their defiance. Is it possible? is it plausible? Does it make sense?

That was my theory that motivated the previous post on the topic. What do you think? We have been entrusted with a lot, but we took them for granted and now we are lost in the wilderness. Remember those famous lines every male child born into tradition will chant at initiation...

“N’tolu see ta kulo kang kulo farabali koto naalu seeta kulo kang kulo kaanaa fara….” Well, we failed!