The People Will Resist ‘Democracy’

If we lose sight of, or fail to deeply reflect on the evolution of politics and governance systems in Africa, we only create room for replacing one authoritarian leader with another.

As long as we cite western value systems as models in our quest to strengthen democracy, the people will resist that encroachment on their values.

As long as we keep repeating the colonial narrative as to what governance means, the people will resist.

Africa before the coming of the European invaders was a society with institutions, value systems, and organized governance systems. Despite their claims of ‘civilizing the savages’ with the introduction of Christianity and opening avenues for the salvation of the ‘savages’ through the acceptance of Christ, the fact is that colonialism is exploitative in every aspect.

For it to survive, it has to be exploitative and oppressive because man by nature does not willingly submit his sovereignty to another. Economic exploitation, physical oppression, mental subjugation, and false indoctrination were the pillars upon which colonialism was built and sustained. Existing social and political institutions had to be dismantled to give way to the new system of exploitation. This of course was met with resistance of all forms from its inception to its demise in the so-called declaration of independence of the various states. But a few centuries of systematic and institutionalized exploitation leave in its wake visible scars and new realities.

In the mindset of the colonizer, the colonized is inferior both in intellect and human capacity and so belongs in subjugation. Out of that sense of entitlement and patronage enforced by oppression was borne the ‘democratic’ culture that we celebrate today; a democratic culture that has not progressed much beyond entrenched dictators and corrupt public servants for the past half century. Little wonder oppression and tyranny is the norm in Africa, a method inherited from the invaders further strengthened with new methods.

That sense of white supremacy is what made the colonizers feel entitled to impose their value systems on the African territories they invaded. That value system, which thrived on exploitation, oppression and individualism, is what the Africans rose up against and resisted; not democracy in the true sense of the word. Consider for one moment if all ‘citizens’ of the colonial territory were treated equal as it obtained in the home country of the colonizers? If that was not the case, and if what they had back home was democracy, then what was it that they have us inherit and push us to strengthen?

One can only wonder whether any of our so-called democratic proponents even take a moment to reflect on what systems were in Africa before the Europeans dismantled them. Do we study how democratic they were, or how efficient they were? We do not need a trip back into history to uncover what governance system was in place and how efficient it was. All one needs to do is look at a typical African village and the way it is set up. The only surviving traditional institution in many respects, is a replica of what used to obtain in the days of yore.

Anyone familiar with the roles of the Alkalo and the system of administration at the village level will tell you it is democratic. Why is it that we cannot extend that to the national level and govern based on our values and beliefs? The fact that the Africans believe in their systems and refuse the see the need to replace them is enough to inspire resistance. Democracy that reflects our unique realities and values is the only solution to Africa’s governance struggles, nothing else will work. Europe and the West are hundreds of years ahead of us in terms of where they are in their democratic process. If we want to be at par with them in that regard without building the needed foundations of knowledge and experience, we will fail miserably. Making use of existing systems and norms and reforming them gradually to suit our realities and goals is a prerequisite to building a sustainable and progressive democratic culture.

It is true that no system is perfect, but denouncing it all together for one wrinkle here or there is a disservice to all concerned. And until we take a pause and look within, we will continue churning out the same tyrannical leaders and corrupt public officials who care nothing for the welfare of the people and everything about their personal gains and status.

Yahya Jammeh’s Schemes To Cling Unto Power And His Downfall

Earning the people’s trust was a critical component of setting the stage for Yahya’s takeover of everything Gambian. How did he do that? Yahya Jammeh capitalized on our highly held Gambian values to serve his needs and then turned them on their heads. He will use our religion and religious leaders, use our elders and community leaders, our griots and their customs, sports, farming, traditional beliefs; everything Gambian had to go to work for Yahya Jammeh, literally.

With his goals set in his mind from the onset, he plotted against an entire nation whose trust he earned and set about to use it against them. In order to stave off any challengers come election time when the transition ends, he filled the Gambian airwaves with unfounded claims of how corrupt the officials of the former government were, how they never meant well for anyone but themselves and their families, dragged them in front of commissions with claims of making them accountable for all their past mal-administration. The stage was set for ridiculing our elders and we entertained it. We will play witness to many more similar cases throughout the next 22 years. Elders in Gambian society are held in very high esteem, almost to the point of reverence, but with Yahya Jammeh, this value will be cast aside for his selfish interest. Embarrassing an elder in public is worse than death and to avoid such embarrassment, a great majority of them will hold their opinions to themselves, and the few that get put in the spotlight will side with him on whatever stance he takes, granted there were those whose personal ambitions and coveting for favors will seek them through sycophancy and cuddling up to Yahya out of their own will.

Every time he mounted the podium, Yahya will not fail to call out the former government officials for all the ills of the country and their immense failures in delivering to the Gambian people. Thirty years of thievery as he would put it was meaningless and that Gambia became truly independent on July 22^nd 1994. Over the years, 18^th February will be stripped of all meaning except for being a public holiday, this was the day in 1965 when The Gambia became independent from British rule, to Yahya both the first republic and the colonial administration were the same, only difference was that the British were worse. Despite the historical inaccuracies, he’d claim that the British, who ruled The Gambia for “over four hundred years”, plundered our resources and left nothing for Gambians but two hospitals and two high schools.

The character assassinations of former public servants, the tough talking against imperialism, and the promise of a modern city state within a few years were all aimed at selling himself to the people; he was the ‘savior’ the nation had been waiting for. In the process, he branded himself a pan African for a larger African audience, which is why he dresses in the manner he does.

But with the already stated promise of going back to the barracks hanging over his head and the old guard politicians waiting to make a comeback since the commissions of inquiry didn’t find a great majority of them culpable for any embezzlement, the strongman persona and pan African branding was not going to suffice. His next move had to be staged in order to not be caught in a lie. 

In came the elders to ‘plead’ with him to resign from the army and contest the upcoming elections as a civilian on account of the numerous development projects he accomplished in a short time of two years. Groups flocked to State House on an almost weekly basis all pleading for the same cause and sure enough, GRTS was on hand to make sure the citizens heard and saw it all. Of course now we know it was all staged thanks to some politically shrewd allies out for their own gains. Prior to the staging of these calls for him to resign, he had to clean the space and make it receptive to his candidature.

With no political experience, or education for that matter, he 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. And so he outlawed their participation in the political process that was due to take place in 1996, after the mandated transition period. The political space was open to all except a targeted few, who we now know posed the real threats against whom he stood no chance against.

He targeted anyone who ever held a Presidential or Prime Ministerial position in the first republic (Jawara) was unqualified. Anyone who ever held a Vice Presidential position in the first republic (S.M. Dibba, A.M. Camara, B.B. Darbo) was unqualified. Anyone who ever held a ministerial position in the first republic (which was a parliamentary system, meaning Ministers can serve as parliamentarians as well), was unqualified. Every son and daughter of the Gambia who was known in the political space at a national level was suddenly unqualified except two (Halifa Sallah and Sidia Jatta). Overtures were made to the PDOIS leaders to serve in the cabinet of the junta after much praise was showered on them in the public space in those two years leading up to 1996. But principled as they are, and constitutional politicians that they are, the junta was no place for a republican, they turned down all offers and so they earned the wrath of the council.

One cannot help but wonder, if the tempo in the country was such that Yahya was guaranteed victory at the elections for the numerous 'developments' he accomplished, why ban all who fall in the above category? Truth is they were seasoned politicians, they were well known and popular and having them run against Yahya meant the end of his reign. The people by now realized that Yahya and co were no 'soldiers with a difference' just another wannabe tyrants. This move essentially killed the competition and Yahya look set to rule another five years with no one to stand in his way; or so he thought.

With evidence mounting in front of keen eyes that Yahya was setting himself up to be a long term ruler, the alarm bells rang out loud. An unlikely candidate then emerged on the scene and a shadow loomed over Yahya’s ambition.  Lawyer Ousainou Darboe up to that time, was a lawyer and a well-known one at that; qualified and capable to lead the fight for the restoration of democracy became the rallying candidate for all the disenfranchised supporters of the old guard, both opposition and ousted ruling parties. He took the fight to Yahya Jammeh and the crowd that followed him was overwhelming and was large enough to deliver the win for the 1996 election, in fact he was widely acclaimed to have won those elections, but with the might of the military behind him open intimidation and rigging were used to deny the Gambian people their will. Ever since that close call, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe and the United Democratic Party (UDP) became targets to be neutralized. But such a move had to be covert and the laws would once again be doctored to favor Yahya. First, the banned politicians had their ban lifted, this move was to fracture the UDP because it was hoped the supporters of the banned parties and politicians will flock back to their parties and candidates. in a simple majority system, this tips the balance in favor of the APRC. The second move was the institution of age limits for any aspiring presidential candidate while eliminating term limits.

But a party as big as the UDP does not look personality centered, so all likely successors need to be purged out of the party; M.L. Shyngle Nyassi, Femi Peters (effective political strategists) were arrested, jailed and tortured on several occasions to instill fear into the party to no avail. Not so stoic or principled was Ousman Rambo Jatta, who became youth mobilizer but ended up switching allegiances for political favors.  Amadou Sanneh, qualified enough to replace Ousainou Darboe as party leader became a target and would eventually be jailed on frivolous charges beyond the electoral season, but the UDP just won’t die. So in typical military strongman style, he chose to show how far he would go to stop the UDP once and for all by arresting and torturing to death Solo Sandeng, the youth mobilizer of the party for being bold enough to speak up for electoral reform to ensure a level playing field.

When news of his death in custody emerged, Yahya knew that Ousainou Darboe and the UDP will not sit about and do nothing, and he was right. Being the leader that he was, Ousainou Darboe summoned his entire executive and held a press conference to alert the nation to the happenstances and what their response would be. They would emerge from that press conference, arm in arm marching towards the police station in which Solo Sandeng was reportedly taken to demand his release, chanting “We need Solo Sandeng; dead or alive.” Sure enough, Yahya and his oppressive machinery were waiting and the entire executive of the main opposition UDP were pounced upon and thrown in jail. This was in April 2016, and with elections due in December 2016, the court case was sure to drag past December. Delighted at his fait accompli, he was sure the UDP was dead and buried. Yet again, Yahya would be proven dead wrong.

It would seem he had underestimated the will and determination of Gambians in general, and the UDP in particular. What happened next will again shock Yahya to the core of his being, and rightly so. Solo Sandeng, was a martyr after all, and Yahya would wish he had never touched him or the UDP so heavy handedly.

This move drove a wedge between Yahya and the fence-sitting Gambians by exposing his oppressive nature in broad daylight to which Gambians are not accustomed, even those in denial, or claiming legality to shield his excesses, took a pause and had to rethink their position. The next move was unanticipated and would spell disaster and an end for Yahya and his cabal.

To be continued.....

Is Pan-Africanism Dead?

Pan-Africanism, the notion that people of African descent share common interests and should therefore be unified. This of course was proposed at a time of great racial injustice both in Africa and against Africans in the diaspora. W.E.B. DuBois’s famous statement that “the problem of the 20^th century is the problem of the color line” was widely believed to be made with the clear knowledge that not only were people of color suffering in America, but even on the African continent under the yoke of colonialism.

To rid Africa of colonialism and fight for racial justice were largely viewed as inseparable. Marcus Garvey took it a step further by calling for the return of Africans back to Africa in his famous Africa for Africans slogan. Not only that, he believed that no person of color will ever have any dignity as long as Africa remained unliberated.

These ideas have picked up steam since then and eventually led to the political independence of African states in the mid-20^th century.

The idea of pan-Africanism started in the so called diaspora, of course in Africa there were individual struggles against colonialism to liberate specific territories. Names like Martin Delany, Alexander Crummel, and Edward Blyden are cited as early proponents of this idea.

W.E.B. DuBois though stands out more prominent and actually studied African history and culture, a concept he advocated amongst blacks. This gives the idea a more political and cultural outlook.

As the idea grew in popularity, so too were the supporters. The Honorable Marcus Garvey came on the scene with the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) in 1919 to 1924. His philosophy was for both economic as well as political liberation, although his Black Star liner wasn’t as successful as he hoped, coupled with his troubles in America, UNIA didn’t register much success, the idea of Pan-Africanism lived on and continued. Through the 1920s and 1940s C.L.R James and George Padmore were the most prominent proponents of the idea. By this time the idea was gaining a foothold on the continent.

Jomo Kenyatta, who was influenced by the teachings of George Padmore, in fact believed to be his disciple went on to lead Kenya to independence. There was Leopold Senghore, father of Senegal’s independence. This was by the late 1940s when the ideals were receding somewhat in America and picking up steam on the continent.

The most important figure on the continent for the movement was of course Kwame Nkurumah, who fervently believed that   colonialism could be totally defeated on the African continent. To prove it, he mounted a relentless campaign against the colonial institution in Africa and led his country; Ghana, to independence in 1957, the first sub-Saharan African nation to be independent.

Ten years later, all of Africa south of the Sahara will be independent with the exception of the Portuguese colonies and much of Southern Africa as well as the island nations. All in all, only nine out of the 48 nations of the mainland will remain under colonial rule, even then, by 1975, only Zimbabwe, South Africa and Djibouti remained to be independent.

Quite a feat knowing how entrenched the institution of colonialism was in Africa. This goes to show how a well-organized grassroots movement can create an impact, exactly what is needed at this time; a well-organized grassroots movement.

The various independence leaders of Africa can all be said to have Pan-Africanist views.

During his speech marking the independence of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah said; “the independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is connected with the total liberation of the entire African continent.” To this he dedicated his efforts culminating in the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on May 25^th 1963, (today celebrated as African Liberation day).

The OAU aimed to, amongst other things;

·         Intensify the fight against colonialism in the remaining territories of Africa, notably South Africa and Angola, two of the most brutal colonial outposts, and to end white minority rule.

·         To coordinate and intensify cooperation

·         The defense of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Africa.

Nkrumah’s mantra was “independence today, tomorrow; THE UNITED STATES OF AFRICA, and he was not playing. For him it was much more than winning political independence, economic liberalization and cooperation was as crucial if not more so. Total independence with non-interference and non-alignment as well as the ability to defend African’s sovereignty were his goal. You can see why he had to go. Unfortunately, disagreements on how to go about such a union created division in the OAU which impeded success.

Looking at Africa today, we see why he made the matter so urgent, his prophetic words; “unite now or perish” stand as testament to the urgency of the matter.

So we ask, is that a fight worthy of fighting and if so, what challenges are to be expected?

We are witnessing the rise of the far right in Europe and its move from the fringes into the mainstream. With the immigrant crisis and global terrorism, it is only a matter of time before it dominates the mainstream, especially in Europe. What then in that scenario as they are heavily anti-immigrant (non-white) and often promoting white supremacist ideals? Who would’ve thought people will march in the streets of Europe, in broad daylight, with dressed in Nazi regalia and displaying Nazi symbols and slogans in 2016?

Meanwhile in Africa, we seem to have no direction and our issues are only footnotes in the global mainstream media.

The goals and approach may be different in this day and age, but without some form of unity, Africa's condition and the suffering of African women and children will never end.