Hi!
    I have read a lot of messages propagating violence as the only available
means of bringing about a change of government in The Gambia. I have also
read how those who propagate other means especially peaceful ones are deemed
to be living fantasies. I would like to suggest that those propagating
violence from the comfort of homes in Europe and America are living a
fantasy as much as those advocating peaceful means. One can be anyone one
wants to be behind a computer keyboard. One can be Rambo, one can be Malcolm
X, and one can be Bin Laden. One can even be Ghaddafi if one wishes. That is
the beauty of the cyber identity. Then comes reality! The reality is that
one may not be as tough as one portrays from a keyboard. One can be the
greatest coward and the weakest "lefe lefe" there is yet the implications of
their macho messages can be far-reaching and even devastating.

 If the ones preaching violence as the only available means of bringing
about change are comfortably sitting in Europe and America, who is going to
bring about that violent change for them? I would be more convinced if those
people were on the ground in The Gambia living what they are preaching. I
would pay more attention to their message if it were Halifa Sallah, Lawyer
Darboe, Shyngle Nyassi or any Samba or Demba living in The Gambia who was
preaching what they are preaching. I would be more convinced, perhaps even
converted if they truly believed in what they are preaching and pack up and
go back home to be in the midst of the violence they are preaching. Apart
from that I just say, "Practise what you preach".

 The repercussions of the violent prescriptions these people are prescribing
won't take place in a vacuum. The Gambia is not an empty space. Look at the
results of violent confrontations in our sub-region. Look at Casamance,
Liberia and Sierra Leone. It is very easy as stated earlier to sit thousands
of miles away and prescribe violence knowing fully well that one is far
removed from its effects. In other words, it is not their hands, feet or
tongues that are going to be cut off. Yes, it might be their parents',
children's etc. but it is still not the same. One can walk even if one's
brother's legs are cut off. I would be more convinced if these people go
back home and put their feet, tongues, hands etc. at the risk of being cut
and still preach what they are preaching.
 There have been many cases in the recent past that have outraged many of us
not only in their brutality but also even in their deliberate assumption of
Gambians' stupidity. The answer to those acts cannot only be violence.
Measures have been taken that have yielded results. Why do you think Yaya
didn't react in his normal way after the student massacres? Why do you think
all the arrested students were released? Pressure, man, pressure! Pressure
that has had some effect no matter how much one wishes to downplay those
effects.

 To those advocating violence I ask: do you have any organised means of
bringing about a violent change? Do you have the finance to support a
violent movement? Do you have a network somewhere to co-ordinate the
activities of your movement? In short, what do you have in place apart from
empty rhetoric? I say empty rhetoric because to propagate violence and
dismiss the diplomatic approach as fantasy really smacks of a lack of
understanding of how wars are fought. Ask the Arabs. When Israel was
declared a state, the Arabs went bonkers and showed their absolute fury by
attacking Israel. Yes, Israel had the military capability with the help of
the West to defend itself. It however invested in a more important
ingredient of war: propaganda and diplomacy. Because of the Jews' presence
in broadcasting and publishing, they succeeded in transforming world opinion
in their favour. That is why Israel gets away with basically anything today
whilst the Iraqs, Yugoslavias etc. are bombed to smithereens for lesser
sins. The importance of propaganda makes it imperative for guerrilla
movements to have political organs that put a diplomatic face on the
bombings and other atrocities perpetrated by their armed movements. To
underestimate the importance of the non-violent aspect of the machinery of
change displays a gross lack of understanding of the mechanisms of change.

 To cut a long story short, those who are advocating a violent change in The
Gambia need to come up with action plans. They need to show us how they are
going to bring about that change and if possible with the least loss of life
and suffering possible. To lack an action plan yet instigate unarmed people
to have violent confrontations with armed-to-the-teeth security personnel is
irresponsible to say the least especially when one is sheltered some
thousands of miles away. Self-defence is a natural right but instigating the
UDP to form vigilante groups knowing fully well that they would not be
granted firearms licences when they would be pitched against armed police
and soldiers seems like a recipe for disaster. Maybe those advocating a
non-violent response to the activities of the government do not have a
panacea to all Gambia's ill but neither do those advocating a violent
response. The issue therefore should be meet at the crossroads and maybe
work out something that would be in the interests of The Gambia for surely
violent confrontation, war and civil strife are not in our country's
interests. Thanks.

Buharry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------