WHY ARE OUR RURAL COMMUNITIES ONLY GOOD FOR BOOSTING VOTE COUNTS?

One thing we are hopeful the current dispensation will accomplish better than the previous one is delivering the goods to the poor rural communities of the Gambia, after all President Barrow rode on the back of their support and sacrifice to get to the State House. Picking up where the PPP government of Sir Dawda left off, in terms of agricultural development and expanding the benefits to include all aspects of national development. The days of bundling packages up and delivering them to the poor without their input are over, it is time to listen to and address their needs as is specific to them. The elitist mentality of “we know what’s good for you so we decide for you” will no longer be the norm. The ‘elites’ and the entire governance structure are the children, the people are the parents, in traditional African terms we know what that means.

In the very recent past, we hear of stories where rural communities had their livelihood in the form of livestock and grains scraped off entirely in the middle of the night never to be traced. With no other sources of income or sustenance, these poor villagers are left to fend for themselves. Amidst all the neglect, they remain true and loyal to their country, time to give back to them their fair share of the proverbial national cake.

What is glaringly evident and not the focus of a lot of discussions surrounding the issue of security is the complete absence of law enforcement personnel and outfits in our rural communities, almost entirely; communities whose citizens are not spared from contributing their hard earned monies into the national coffers out of which these institutions are funded. This is in addition to the lack of basic amenities needed for a decent standard of living; clean water, access to healthcare, food security, etc. and yet they remain good loyal citizens.

Gone are the days when we can rely on good community cohesiveness to not even think about crime. It is a different generation now, and with entrenched poverty and a widening gap between the poor and the rich, who proudly flaunt their ‘wealth’ without care for the conditions of the former; crime will continue to be on the rise unfortunately. What with the very institution that ensured good community relations and served as arbiters in times of conflict being under assault?

When it is said that “It takes a village to raise a child!”, we live that in rural Gambia, or should I say lived? The institution of the village head and heads of kaabilolu (Council of elders) have been stripped off of their traditional roles and politicized to the extent that we are now talking about electing Alkalolu which will further divide the already polarized communities. If the current trend continues, we are headed for gloomier days ahead. Empowering that institution and re-assigning some of the politically assigned functions is one way to go, but more importantly, provide security for rural communities.

How are these communities supposed to have their grievances resolved if the nearest police station is miles away? So unserved that the children and elderly tremble in fear for seeing a uniformed personnel and yet we claim they are citizens being served by their government.

Every community deserves the presence of law enforcement even if it be informal. Within the various security outfits today, there are personnel from all corners of the country, why must they serve in the urban areas and other far flung corners of the country while their own people are left at the mercy of thieves and armed robbers? Yes, crime may be higher and more sophisticated in the cities than in the rural areas, but does that make the villagers any less deserving of our collective protection and service? Why can’t the city dwellers enroll in the service and be the vanguards of the security of their own areas? Policing is better done by those familiar with the area, where the hotspots for trouble are and what sort of crimes to expect.

What is meant here is that the police recruiting process should be reformed such that career days are a regular occurrence in secondary schools across the country where citizens are encouraged to enroll, trained as police officers by the national police force and then deployed back to their communities to police their local areas. Similar requirements should in fact be made for teachers, agricultural field workers, and medical personnel. People will sympathize more with their kin than they would being deployed to areas where they have no affinity to the locals other than executing a task.  Of course there is the tendency for corrupt practices and complacency but measures to avert them could also be developed, this is where technocrats can put their expertise to use.

These officers will be quickest at spotting any unusual or clandestine activities within their areas; and with very porous borders, these are very likely and could go unnoticed until it is too late. In the big cities and urban centers, instead of police officers reporting to barracks for non-existent work, they could be mounted on bikes patrolling the streets armed with short range radios for back up calling and basic self-defense gadgets. This will limit the use of motorized vehicles to rapid response emergencies only, thereby cutting on the fuel costs of the department. These officers should also be from the areas they are assigned whereby they wake up in the morning and go to work in the community. Incidents of torture and police brutality will be a thing unheard of if we take into consideration the social dynamics of the country. Unnecessary arrests will be averted because the officer knows who to let off with caution and who to ‘contain’ easing the burden on state resources.

Knowing there are police officers on almost every street corner; hanging out at attaya vous; on 24 hour patrols, will minimize incidences of crime and criminality as well as safe children’s lives from reckless driving. Trained, experienced and skilled police officers can determine what contingencies and best practices need to be put in place to make this strategy effectively work.

Being deployed to far flung corners of the country may be a deterrent to many from joining the force, but being asked to be in charge of protecting and securing your own locality could be a motivating recruiter. The cost associated with rent and other costs that come with being deployed can be cut significantly both at the institutional as well as personal level. This is also more feasible than the numerous check points around the country. A local command center (station) should be located within so many kilometers of each other where officers will report to for daily briefings and assignments. At the end of their shift, they go back to base and give written or recorded reports that could be transcribed into written records from which a crime database could be developed to help law enforcement in their policy formulation and resource allocation.

One of my late father’s favorite admonishments was to say; “Use a corn stalk as a cane until you can lay your hands on a bamboo stick.” Meaning; what you have may not be ideally suited or even undesirable, but hold on to it until you find something better. This is how systems are built to as close to perfection as possible. With all the flaws that this approach will reveal, the technocrats can brainstorm and come up with ways to remedy such flaws, and with time a functional, professional and dedicated force can be built. Watch any western movie and recall the days of the town sheriff and his deputies, that is what gave birth to SWAT and all the law enforcement elites in western democracies. With all their shortcomings and biases, the system is operational and responsive.

We do not need a perfect system to start; let us work with what we have and build on it. We are unique and so our methods should be unique to us. We do not need to tear down our social fabric in order to enforce the law. Sometimes all that is needed is redirection in a compassionate way to have somebody comply with the law. This will be Community Policing at its best.

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.

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?

Are We Being Ungrateful

History is replete with events from which we could learn, and that in essence is the purpose of history; to serve as a source of learning for current and future generations. Through this, we learn to avoid the pitfalls of others before us and improve on their gains. The ‘game’ of life and living never changes, the players change (different generations, different cultures, different environments etc.). History therefore is indispensable if we are to chart a better future.

For the literalist though, history is just a narration or even myths with no bearing on current events, this is more so in the spiritual sphere. The stories of the Prophets are increasingly being seen as fables of old, but as people of faith we find relevance in these stories if we reflect on them and dig deeper for the message contained.

As humans, we are social animals and no society functions without some form of organizational order which means we are all subject to some authority; be it parental, spousal, natural, or some centralized form of authority.

In the story of Moses and the Pharaoh (because Gambians are mainly adherents of Islam and Christianity), we see a tyrannical and oppressive king who faced off with the Prophet Moses in the latter’s attempt to have him reign in his oppressive ways and rule justly. The unyielding king saw his authority as absolute and should not be challenged, but as the story unfolds he fell to the wrong side of history while the divine injunction of human dignity prevailed. In the story, we learn about his brutal and iron fisted rule and the misery he visited upon the Israelites that he enslaved. Moses became their savior, freeing them from generations of bondage and servitude and restoring their dignity.

With their new found freedom, their desires and goals shifted towards materialism and competition which was in conflict with Moses’ preaching of moderation and submission to the will of God, the God that chose Moses to lead them to freedom and away from the Pharaoh’s tyranny. With that conflict of interest, they defied their savior. The Quran teaches of the reminder sent to the Israelites lest they stray too far in their new desires;

“And (remember) when We rescued you from Pharaoh’s people who were afflicting you with the worst torment, killing your sons and letting your women live. And in that was a great trial from your Lord.” (7:141)

Perhaps the events leading up to this reminder could be found in the Bible which teaches that;

After the Israelites heard the reports from the twelve men who had explored Canaan, the people cried all night and complained to Moses and Aaron, “We wish we had died in Egypt or somewhere out here in the desert! Is the Lord leading us into Canaan, just to have us killed and our women and children captured? We’d be better off in Egypt.” Then they said to one another, “Let’s choose our own leader and go back.” (Numbers 14:1-4)

Whether genuinely out of fear of further oppression, or a distrust of authority, the Israelites have concluded that they were better off without Moses. The age old adage “better the devil you know” captures their reaction perfectly. Before that moment in history, ANYTHING was better than being under the tyranny of the Pharaoh but now that they’ve seen the Pharaoh and his people perish before their eyes, they have no further need for Moses and what he was calling to.

Being cautious and wary of entrusting people with your sovereignty is a natural human instinct, but being rational should precede all actions and thoughts.

We can draw similitudes from this narrative to our current situation in The Gambia. It is sad and indeed disheartening to hear people make comparisons between Yahya Jammeh’s authoritarian rule marked by sheer brutality and our two month old infant democracy. Some have gone as far as insinuating or outright saying we will be better off under Yahya Jammeh. One thing is clear from that, those making such statements have never been directly victimized by him, or have had their privileges cut with the departure of Yahya Jammeh. Evidently their claim of political awareness is lacking if political disagreements could frustrate them so easily.

Our political leaders and activist may not be Moses, but Yahya Jammeh clearly had the Pharaoh’s traits. For all their troubles and sacrifices, it beats the imagination as to why they are all of a sudden being vilified after decades of risking it all for country.

Worse yet, how could any decent soul wish misery and torment on any of them, especially Lawyer Ousainou Darboe that many have claimed would be better off in prison. How low can one go really? Here is a man who knew full well that him stepping out onto the streets meant not coming back home to his family, his instincts of what consequence awaited him inclined more towards being murdered than being imprisoned but he went out anyway. How soon we forget.

Politics is about ideologies and approaches to addressing social issues which is why there are varied parties, because ‘there are many ways to skin a cat’. Why is it so wrong to present an alternative approach, isn’t that what democracy is about, PLURALITY?

If you have ever uttered a word of contempt against this noble son of the land, and indeed any of the other political figures who braced a raging inferno to see us to this day, you owe him and each of them an apology. Apologize not for having a difference in opinion but for diminishing and trying to invalidate their contributions towards what we are all celebrating. Apologize for vilifying them and denigrating them. We are better than this, we are informed enough to discuss issues based on their merits or otherwise without being condescending or insulting to personalities.

Not everyone is passionate about the person or ideology you are passionate about, trying to render the other person’s passion irrelevant is disrespectful and calls for retaliation. That is how we degenerate into personal bickerings while sidelining the real issues.

Understanding The Gambian Political Landscape

Like everywhere else across Africa, Gambians resisted the imposition of alien values and morals on their societies. The institution of colonialism was resisted in all its forms and manifestations; even in such subtleties as refusing to enroll one’s kids in schools. People never willingly surrender their sovereignty to any person or authority without certain considerations; concessions that the colonizers were unwilling to make and so they used brute force, barbarity and political brinkmanship to maintain their rule.

The likes of Musa Molloh, Sait Matty Bah, Maba Jahu Bah, Foday Kaba Dumbuya, Foday Kombo Sillah etc. were all resisting the imposition of what in their view was an immoral culture in the guise of ‘democracy’. A system that was instituted by not only refusing to acknowledge  existing institutions and systems, but proceeded to systematically try to erase them and replace them with what in the view of the oppressed were  immoral laws devoid of any culture.

One thing that is notable amongst these figures of resistance is that they were educated in different schools of thought promoting different value systems from their western counterparts. They saw colonialism for what it was; exploitation. These men were the architects of what became known as the "Soninke-Marabout Wars". Of course, in typical invader fashion, these men were branded ‘Jihadists’ to poison people’s minds against them and in the process help further the colonial agenda. Sadly today we look at them in our institutions of learning through the lens of the oppressors and carry on the narrative of religious zealots when in fact their fight was to resist attempts to dilute the culture with alien concepts that only serves to promote foreign (minority) domination. 
 

Beyond The Gambia into other regions of West Africa, the likes of Umar Taal, Uthman Dan Fodio, Samori Toure, Sheikh Ahmad Bamba, etc. were all notable figures in this struggle for self-determination and resistance to colonialism. 

Of all the earliest resistance leaders to colonialism, the overwhelming majority of them were Muslim scholars and clerics influenced by their world view as shaped by Islam and culture. Gaining scholarship from Islamic institutions in a wide range of subjects, they were armed with alternative world views as evidenced by centuries of a dominant Islamic culture from Asia to the Mediterranean. These people will not submit to the exploitative agenda of the colonialists whose roots can be traced to Europe’s Feudal societies without a fight.

The feudal system privileges a few and oppresses the masses, and from experience the colonizers knew it is always resisted. Knowing full well that such resistance will continue, the colonizers adapted and gave privileges to a few individuals and portrayed the illusion of ‘representation’ and ‘inclusion’. The philosophy behind the crafting of the ‘colony’ and the ‘protectorate’ was nothing short of an apartheid system. Those in the colony had certain privileges, they and their privileged positions were used to pacify the majority in the ‘protectorate’ from agitating for change and representation. Privileges like access to ‘education’ through which could be earned a job in the lowest echelons of colonial administration; having representation in the governance system, and being considered a ‘citizen’ of Her Majesty’s realm were all part of the package. Those in the protectorate, fellow citizens of the territory referred to as The Gambia, were labeled as ‘subjects’; unworthy of any of the privileges accorded the ‘citizens’.

Sadly, and unfortunately for all, the ‘political class’ were perfectly at ease with this dispensation. They viewed their fellow country men and women the same way the invaders did; less deserving of the privileges accorded to them. The sole exception to this in the case of the Gambia was Edward Francis Small who was less of a politician and more of a trade unionist who traveled the length and breadth of the country agitating for workers’ rights and campaigning on his platform of ‘no taxation without representation’.

This was our ‘democratic’ culture that we inherited. Those who sat in a classroom; can make their case in a language the invader understood without the need for a translator stood between the system and the masses only advocating for his share and not the masses. That sense of entitlement and loathing for the commoner who was only seen as an agitator, shaped the political mindset of many and still manifests in various forms. The believe that the tendency for conservative and traditionalist leanings of the majority makes them deserving of being lorded over by the 'educated elite' who are always 'progressive' leaning and by default believe that they can think for the masses and know what's best for them. After all, the majority are not 'educated' enough to make informed choices. Perhaps the most glaring evidence of this manifests in how we sideline the masses, talk about them instead of to them and generally view their concerns as backward and not progressive enough.  In this era of the internet and social media, one needs only to follow the discussions centered around our politics and society to see that the yardstick used to determine what is progressive or democratic is always, without exception the democratic standards of the most advanced nations of the world - The West. Who knows what those standards are? - 'The elite'. Never mind the values of the 'illiterate'. there is nothing wrong in aspiring to be like the perceived best.

In the midst of that apartheid system of sorts, the protectorate natives resident in the colony for commerce and labor purposes, who still maintained very strong ties with their kin in the hinterland, coalesced and advocated for the inclusion of their part of the country in the decision making process. This did not settle well with the administrators or those who claimed exclusivity in politics up to that point. The weight behind any candidate endorsed by the protectorate was certain victory at any polls; the people’s voice will be heard. This move by the “Protectorate People’ to storm the political scene brought to the political forefront a protectorate native Dawda Kairaba Jawara. Their inevitable success spelled doom for the privileged and so all attempts to maintain the status quo was made to no avail; when the inevitable was evident accusations of tribalism were levied, but the people would not be deterred. Their concerns will finally be heard and their majority voice will be represented by one of their own. 

What Mr. Jawara’s emergence and ascension to political power will prove was that marginalized people (who are always the majority) were not as politically unaware as they are often portrayed to be. For the longest time, the protectorate people are viewed as uncivil, uncultured and uneducated, especially in political matters. Even today, provincial people are taunted for varied reasons but mainly because ‘city’ dwellers view them as not smart (modern) enough. For that reason, the ‘educated’ see their world view as more deserving of controlling the narrative thereby falling into the same trap as the early politicians. Although the protectorate/colony divide has been bridged with expanded access to education, in the new dispensation, the ‘educated’ took on the role of the old colony ‘citizen’ and designated the provincial dweller as the‘illiterate’ fellow citizens who should take on the role of the old‘subjects’. The battle for democratic institution rages on, and as always; the ‘illiterate’ controls the narrative because of their majority status.

When the military emerged on the scene of Gambian politics, to increase their chances of success, they banned all politicians and political activity. When the ban on political activity was lifted, all but two politicians of the old era were allowed to continue operations. In the midst of this disenfranchisement and alienation of those citizens who hoped for a return to democratic representation and welcoming back their silenced leaders; an unlikely candidate rose to the scene. Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, like Sir Dawda before him, became that candidate around whom most of the disenfranchised citizens would rally. The emergence of the UDP and its leadership filled a vacuum for them and they showed their appreciation with their loyalty to the party.

The embrace of Darboe is just a trend, and for the foreseeable future, only those politicians who understand this political culture will earn the trust and loyalty of the majority of the citizens. The rest can cry foul along tribal, regional, or religious lines but the fact remains that the Gambian people are generally appreciative and will remain loyal to those who sympathize with their needs in tangible ways.

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.

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.