Yus,

Brother, let me make it emphatically clear that i don't regard your
engagements as acts of hostility and to a degree welcome it even if i'm
beginning to suspect that there is no way you can be convinced otherwise by
our version of what chanced during the by-elections.  By the way, i'm a
Critical Rationalist and criticisms are a way of life. We not only welcome
criticisms, but we cherish and imbibe from it as well.

After going through the defense you've mounted this time around, i'm afraid
you are still on the same shaky ground; nothing much has changed. Except of
course i detected how you 've garbled voter apathy with voter alienation.
First a fundamental flaw in your methodology of demarcation. You want us to
accept as an article of faith a proposition that is conjectural and reject at
hand what is plausibly an empirical-laden proposition. We know for a fact
that votes were actually bought. Now, this is no guess work or any
conjectural mental display cannily crafted to suit our political positions.
It has been reported in the local papers before and after the by-elections.
We have APRC bigwigs like Kebba Joke and Baba Jobe who confirmed that votes
were bought even though of late Joke tells us it is negligible and couldn't
possibly overturn the APRC majority; never mind the fact that a single vote
illegally acquired tantamounts to an illegal influencing of the outcome of an
election and a breach of the electoral laws of the Gambia and, therefore,
legally nullifies the said by-elections.  This is not a conjecture but based
on empirical evidence - a far cry from the conjectural hypothesis you have
built in defense of the voter apathy assumption to explain away the
mysterious 1000 votes not casted.

Contrary to your assertions, i didn't arrive at the vote-buying theory the
second i heard the by-election results. It was a tentative move in its
initial stages of coming into being as i considered all possible options -
voter apathy included. In fact, as i waded through the figures of the
by-elections early Sunday morning, i briefly entertained thoughts of perhaps
UDP supporters just didn't go out there to vote and hence the dismal figures.
But there was strong logical and circumstantial evidence that pulls its
weight down on this. First of all, UDP supporters have every reason to go out
and vote rather than stay at home; the seat being contested was held by a
tragically fallen representative and hence it is very emotive to go out there
and pay decent respect to him by replacing him with a like-minded fellow
selected by the deceased representative's own very party. Secondly, this is a
region heavily affected by the current farming crisis and farmers were in no
doubt that the blame lies squarely with the APRC gov't and some were very
outspoken about it.  Thirdly, farming being the cash nexus of these areas,
the economic woes on them piled up and they were in no doubt who was
generally responsible about that as well. Fourthly, the APRC's records in
other spheres like governance and human rights are non-starters for a
theorist that wants to build on a voter apathy hypothesis. If any
constituency is going to attract voter apathy, it certainly isn't Kiang and
any other rural constituency for that matter. I will grant that other factors
like voters, because of their sense of frustration that their votes casted
might not make any difference whatsoever, can stay home. But psephologists
would not call such a situation voter apathy but voter alienation. There is a
huge difference here. In voter alienation, voters feel totally hopeless with
effecting changes through the electoral system and generally lack faith in
politicians. Whereas with voter apathy, as the term implies, there is a
general indifference towards elections as the electorate might be feeling
sated with their condition or simply trusting the devil they know rather than
switching to the angel they don't know.

At any rate, voter alienation is more likely if voters feel they have
alternative means of correcting the status-quo and or sending a message to
the political leaders responsible for their plight by refusing to cast their
vote. Whilst with voter apathy, voters might detect hiccups in the incumbency
but because of so and so improvements in their general welfare, would rather
not be bothered by elections. Such scenarios, are more likely in Britain's
2001 general elections than a by-election in rural impoverished Kiang. This
is because today in Britain, certain sections of voters are relatively quite
sated about their state of affairs even if they have some question marks over
some key Labour party policies; to make their point, they would rather pack
their holiday bags and board the next plane to Madeira, Spain, than join a
polling queue. Whilst a section - mainly from the younger generation in the
inner cities and college/university students still venting their radical
steam - wouldn't vote because they believe alternatives exist in which they
can challenge the establishment mainly through street agitations. The first
case is that of voter apathy whilst the second represents voter alienation.
These are Tony Blair's greatest nightmare. Yet with Kiang, what has the
impoverished farmers got to prove to the gov't of the day - that is
responsible for their woes - by staying at home and letting the gov't reap
yields from their unwillingness to go and protest their disgust of the APRC?
What alternatives exist to them that we no know for a fact that they would
readily employ to challenge the establishment?

This is the fundamental flaw with your hypothesis: giving a solid reason that
is backed by evidence why amidst their wretchedness, voters would prefer to
stay at home rather than go to polls where they have been given an opportune
moment to send a message to those responsible for their problems. In short,
the whole voter apathy assumption trades on highly questionable and
unsubstantiated conjectures. Whereas the beauty of the vote-buying assupmtion
trades on no such thing; evidence exists that duly informs us that votes had
been bought. True, the number of votes bought is unlikely to be known to the
point of exactitude. Yet this is a non sequitir: insofar as we established
that votes have been bought, it doesn't matter the amount bought; for that
alone, by itself, legally nullifies the by-election results. This is the
point. If you can refute this evidence, then go ahead and we'll listen.
Alternatively, if this proves to be asking too much of you, then back your
voter apathy assumptions with something more solid to go with so we can
genuinely scrutinise it and see whether it suffices for us to accept that
voter apathy was responsible for the dismal by-election results.

All this is to not say that the Opposition should'nt work hard to avoid voter
apathy and alienation - of all sorts - come October 2001, if the elections do
ever take place. You are right we must make that a point and guard against
complacency. You are right also about the fact that the Opposition needs not
only to reach out to floating voters but also hesitant APRC supporters to
widen their base. All these are important points and i hope the Opposition
takes it smartly on board and have contingency plans in place in the event
these and such issues like them arise.

If anything, fraternal discourses like these should be tools to foster
understanding, cooperation and reciprocal respect amongst peoples on the same
side and not help breed ill-will, hostility and un-necessary ad hominem
tirades. Despite all the hisses and foot-stamping coming from some quarters
like that of Minos et al, Kebba Dampha and Saul Khan are very tolerant,
selfless, humble and generous Brothers that i admire for their steadfastness
in the convictions that drives them to speak out against evil. We must be
grateful to their relentless pursuing of justice for the Gambian peoples. As
i'm sure there are countless others, i haven't named, but whom we ought to be
grateful to for their contributions to the struggle.

Finally, Yus, i ask you to forgive me for misspelling your surname; it was an
error and i shall take the rectification on board. Please remain informed
also that highlighting your name the way i did was not mischieviously
intended. If it caused any form of damage, again i ask for your forgiven-ness.

All the best,

Hamjatta Kanteh

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

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------