BABILIMANSA; THE VENGEFUL EGOMANIAC

Back in 2009 at the launching of the Q-Cell head office on Kairaba, sitting in the audience I can still clearly recall getting angry and barely being able to contain that anger when I heard Yaya say something along these line;

“When I say that the sky is the limit for the Gambians, I mean it. I must add that if you get to within a few meters of the sky, wait for me to get there first since I am your president.”

“This is a beautiful building; I challenge Muhammed Jah to build a similar one in Medina (Niumi). Come to Kanilai next year, there will be an even taller building.” These statements of course are paraphrased, meaning the words did not flow in that exact sequence but the meaning has not been lost even after all these years.

I was not at the launch of Q-City but I bet similar sentiments were not expressed in that the president did not see himself as being in competition with industrious citizens whose entrepreneurial skills have paid off.

Why am I making this frame of reference? Having seen very recent pictures and videos on social media presenting Banjul and the sorry state it is in; another aspect of Yaya’s vengeful nature is exposed yet again. Yaya is typifies the classic egomaniac, but more than that he has been consumed by hate and jealousy for most if not all of his life. Here was a man whose ultimate goal for seizing power was to unleash misery and suffering on innocent people because he blamed society at large for his humble beginnings and the misfortunes that such a life wrought. Remember his attitude towards former officials of the PPP government; the continuous reference to their “flamboyant lifestyle” and how they beat their chest accompanied by “do you know who I am” scenarios he referenced? That was the hate in him speaking and henceforth his mission was; I go show them peppeh! Sadly, “them” became every Gambian he viewed as a threat to his primitive mode of consumption. “When they were practicing their dirimo-cracy you benefitted and now you want to challenge ME?” That right there embodies Yaya’s whole outlook on opposition and dissent. To the Banjulians he said “now it is time for you to taste what the rest of us have been enduring our entire lives.”

This attitude also, in part explains the neglect of Banjul. You see, Yaya may be primitive, but he is shrewd. Yaya knew very well that Banjul, or at least Banjulians benefitted the most under Sir Dawda; remember he was close to that seat of power and was very abreast with the comings and goings within the corridors of power. He will sweet talk the capital into aligning with him but in his mind he was plotting to take everything away from them, unless some direct benefit was in it for him. We dare even go a little further and claim that the roads he built were partly a political bait but partly because he needed to travel on them. That may be a stretch but by now we have wizened up to know that we should never put anything past him as being incapable of. Look at the Arch, a monument he dedicated to himself and only he drove under it for the longest time. 

An egotist like Yaya likes to bask in his own perceived grandeur; just take a closer look at his lifestyle and choices of material objects. I bet he drives on those roads, have those street lights shone on him and thinks to himself, "wow I definitely made it." Those items all served as reminders to him, who he was before July 22, 1994 and who he became. “Dekka bi maako morm” sums it all up for us. When he inaugurated those street lights he claimed them to be his and categorically stated that any driver who accidentally veers into one of them will pay for it. Even his investments in Kanilai were just for him, he enjoyed having people grovel at this feet and having the power to either give them or turn them away. Yaya’s whole attitude was to thump his chest and say “I am the guy.” And since no one else can claim such or be seen to be of similar status as him, his colleague council members had to be eliminated, humiliated, or rendered irrelevant, all hail Yaya the mighty Babilimansa!

So those claiming that “this is how Yaya started and became a dictator”; in reference to President Barrow, take a closer look and you will see that from the get go, Yaya was never well meaning or well intent. Yaya was a vengeful egomaniacal tyrant. Ask those who knew him from childhood and through his adult life and you’ll see a man full of himself. Even in the Gendarmerie, his mates will tell you he took pleasure in “punishing” arrestees which included beatings; the man likes to exert authority and likes being on top.

Seeing folks trying to paint a saintly picture of benevolence go to show how misunderstood Yaya the man was, he is a case study for psychologists. Or are such attempts at drawing similitudes with President Barrow out of insincerity and selfishness? I am not saying President Barrow is perfect, incorruptible or beyond reproach, but going so far as saying there is no difference between him and Yaya is a manifestation of ignorance as to who Yaya really was, or that one does know who Yaya was but out of some personal motive tries to make comparisons where none exists.

With an independent city council about to emerge, the Mayoress will have all of the tax money collected in Banjul used to give a face lift to the city and hopefully with a generous augmentation from the central government.

This was just a simple reminder, a dedication lest we forget! We will NEVER forget.

System Change Vs. Regime Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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