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?

The Tribal Undertones Aren't So Subtle Anymore

“You can’t have an understanding with a man like that [Jawara]. He never means anything he says. He’s a liar. He’s a rascal – low born and low bred. You see, the PPP are all Mandinka people, and Mandinkas only understand money, meat and groundnuts. They are all lazy. Character and honor is meaningless to them.” This was P.S N’jie going on the record for a foreign journalist; Berkeley Rice to share his thoughts on the short-lived political “understanding” between his UP party and the PPP.

See, we have been here before, somehow in the midst of political disagreements tribe has a role to play and it’s always the Mandinkas that are to blame. Aside from the fact that an aspiring candidate for the presidency could hold such unsavory and bigoted views about a majority of the constituents he’s vying to lead, being so naïve as to lay at the feet of a western journalist that our post independent nation will crack along tribal lines was the perfect answer for his quest of proving that The Gambia was an improbable nation.

You can try to defend P.S N’jie as much as possible, or try to infer a different meaning from the above statement, but utter them he did! Either to gain a favored view from the colonial administration or position himself as the most honorable candidate can only be speculated upon, but his contempt for the Mandinkas was safe to share with a foreign journalist, or so he thought.

It could also be argued that his contemptuous view of the Mandinkas, who are mainly provincial, was reason enough for him to be okay with the status quo and not advocate for the extension of the franchise to the rest of The Gambia beyond what was termed the colony. The British thought of the Africans as lesser beings and so should lord over them as subjects. Limiting the franchise to the colony area was to perpetuate the colonial mindset and offset any resistance by creating the illusion of participatory democracy, where the privileged few like N’jie will not see the institution as being the bad omen that it was. This omen will be undone by the emergence on to the political scene of the Protectorate People’s Party.

An amalgamation of provincial natives who refused to yield to the status quo, advocated for the inclusion of all in the political process. This means extending the franchise to their provincial relatives who had hitherto been neglected and alienated from the political process of their homeland. A condition that was okay with the political elite of the colony area. The sustained and far reaching campaign for universal suffrage introduced Sir Dawda K. Jawara and the PPP to the sidelined Gambians who would embrace him and the party wholeheartedly and remain loyal for decades. This obviously put them at an unmatched advantage over the rest of the players and so their names and personalities won no favors.

Fast forward to the second republic; with no political experience or education for that matter, Yahya Jammeh knew from the onset that when the political space opened up, he stood little to no chance against the seasoned politicians from both the ruling and opposition parties of the first republic. With the potential of absolute power and a desire for wealth dangling before him, nothing was about to get in the way of his ambition and so he outlawed the participation of all political players from the first republic except the PDOIS duo in the political process that was due to start in 1996. This move disenfranchised and alienated all party supporters and sympathizers of the PPP, NCP and GPP; history on replay yet again. With their leaders barred from political participation and coupled with dormant structures, the parties were effectively dead leaving behind supporters with no one to turn to.

Lawyer Ousainou Darboe emerged on the political scene to fill a vacuum. His emergence would rally the supporters and sympathizers of these parties around him giving birth to the United Democratic Party. The UDP gave the people another choice besides the military junta. The party emerged from non-existence to pose the greatest threat to Yahya’s schemes. From that day on attempts to kill off the party were set in motion.

The lifting of the ban on the previously banned parties at subsequent elections was a move aimed at exploiting old loyalties in order to fragment the UDP to no avail. Intimidations, assault, jail terms, killings and disappearances all failed to dislodge the party. The people have proven, yet again that loyalty can be bought with care and consideration. When all else failed, claims of tribal motivation for the formation of the UDP emerged and had only been gaining momentum ever since. These accusations of tribal bigotry was for no otherr reason than to put the Mandinkas on the defensive and leave them with only one option; show your lack of tribal bias by denouncing the UDP in favor of another party, preferably the junta.

The narrative has not changed much from over fifty years ago. How a difference in approach and political ideology could warrant implications of tribal affiliations is beyond the comprehension of most.

Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, a man who gave it his all to see the restoration of democracy in The Gambia is suddenly the villain just because his party has a different view of things and wants to approach the next phase of our democracy in a manner not in conformity with what Halifa Sallah prefers?

Gambians, especially those with platforms need to move away from politics of personalities and be issue centered. There is no doubt, both Darboe and Halifa mean well for The Gambia, but because Darboe has a different approach means he deserves vilification, and by extension his tribe? How does one reconcile that? Actions, they say speak louder than words. Calling for ‘no tribalism’ whilst every statement and analysis on air is rife with veiled anti-Mandinka rhetoric is evidence to the contrary.

As much respect as Halifa deserves, unreservedly; he should not be sanctified as being beyond having the wrong approach. In a democratic space, criticism and differences of opinion is not tantamount to disrespect. An alternative view is always worth looking into for its merits and de-merits before being adopted or cast aside. It is safe to say, that Halifa coming out at the time he did and casting the UDP and NRP position in seemingly bad light before all the options are fully explored to a conclusive end,  has effectively poisoned the well putting those two parties on the defensive, that is wrong. And now the surrogates feel the need to attack, vilify, and insult the person of Ousainou Darboe for daring to hold a different view, where is the democracy we call to? And if we are being fair, why does Hamat Bah’s name and tribe not surface in the shouting matches and insults? It’s not as if the NRP is a drag along party of the UDP.

We can list all the sacrifices Halifa and the PDOIS made to help us to this point and it will be a long list. The same is true for Darboe and the UDP, so this is not a contest of who gave up more. But lest we forget, until his release from prison, the UDP had a leadership vacuum when Adama Barrow yielded to popular demand and resigned as party head of the UDP to run as an independent candidate to head the coalition. The UDP yielded away from their party led position, sacrificed a vacuum in the leadership of the party to see us through. The least we can do is to give them a chance to lay out their approach for contesting the National assembly elections and judge their position on its merits. That is what mature political discourse requires.

Let us use caution lest we create a political culture and a nation divided along ethnic lines in a manifestation of self-fulfilling prophecy. The Mandinka loyalty lie with The Gambia, if the only way to proof that is by embracing a non-Mandinka then we are asking for trouble. The veiled tribal bigotry and tribal undertones need to cease.