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.
No comments:
Post a Comment