Saul,

I was just going through your memorandum of 10 February after it is printed
and discovered that I have not dealt with one of your contentions. It reads:

"On yours, I was really hoping you will qualify your principle.  Because as
I understand it, murderers, rapists, thugs, drug king pins, gun-toting
military dictators, looters of public coffers under past regimes, should all
qualify to vote, or run for public office because they're Gambians. How on
earth can any nation that operates like this survive? Where is the
accountability, or justice for the decent law abiding citizens? What would
deter anyone from undesirable behaviour when it obviously pays to be
unscrupulous? Specific to my argument is the case of Lt. Yaya Jammeh, the
military dictator. You're now saying that because of your principle, and
because he is Gambian, there is nothing wrong with him running for office.
Really?...."

"But, when I look at your principle, I'm forced to ask myself, isn't this
very convenient? Let's just say any Gambian can run for office. No
qualifiers. The larger picture -the public good, is apparently totally
irrelevant. How on earth can we go on like that as a nation? Are you being
liberal, or do you have an ulterior motive? Are you being prudent, or are
you being asinine? Are you naïve, or are you sticking it to some people for
past slights? Is this a recipe for true democracy, or a prelude to chaos?
You tell me! In any case, if this is your believe, address this simple
question: should known murderers, thieves, and drug dealers also be allowed
to run for office? If no, why not? I'll await your reply to this last
question."

Saul, why do you wallow into issues that you are not competent to handle?
Science and common sense are not synonyms. You have said that "justice
hinges on equality". However, you turned the concept into an empty phrase by
questioning the principle I have laid that in a sovereign republic each has
the right to be anybody's representative. This underscores a basic principle
of equality.

You proceeded to display the hollowness of your conceptions by asking the
following question: "Should known murderers, thieves and drug dealers also
be allowed to run for office? If no, why not?"

Saul, where do we usually find known murderers, thieves and drug dealers?
The simple answer is prison. How do we determine who are the known murders,
thieves and drug dealers in any decent society? Is it not by trying them?
Are we not talking about the existence of courts of laws of a system of
justice of constitutions which should be the embodiment of the collective
will?

Of course, the people are the embodiment of power. They are the ones who
could establish the yard stick by which they are to determine their
representatives. In a genuine democratic society, the principles through
which just power can be derived are embodied in a constitutional framework.
In a situation where constitutions were suspended, what constituted the
yardstick by which anyone would decide who was to participate in an
election? Isn't this the precise reason why power ultimately decided who was
to stand? Are you not now questioning the integrity of that very exercise of
power?

Hence, to talk about banning anyone from participating in an election
through arbitrary means is to invite tyranny.

You see Saul, we are not engaged in an academic exercise. We have studied
what we need to. We know exactly what we want and we know exactly what to do
to achieve what we want to achieve. You know what our political views are.
History has shown that people with monarchical dispositions have taken the
posture of Socialists and established monopolies over power to the exclusion
of others independent of the will of the people. We have always criticised
these monarchical dispositions as alien to any system which aims to
eradicate exploitation and oppression. We are totally committed to power
determined by the will of the people and the type of justice that is derived
from the consent of a just, conscious and organised people embodied in
constitutions and laws that are depositories of the will of such a people.

We do not subscribe to symbolic justice. We subscribe to substantive
justice. Since you subscribe to symbolic justice, this is why you are
condemning those who had done what you saw as right. What remarkable
foresight!! Or was it a display of telepathy?


Greetings.


Halifa.

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

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

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