enjoy
Malanding
Examining OJ's Rhetoric
Email This Page
Print This Page
Visit The Publisher's Site
The Independent (Banjul)
OPINION
April 28, 2003
Posted to the web April 28, 2003
Solomon Gomes
Asmara, Eritrea
I took time off peacekeeping duties with the United Nations Mission in
Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) to browse the Internet. I read an article
carried by The Independent and posted on the web on 22 April 2003, entitled
"Jammeh has lost Right to Rule". I found the article interesting and noted
the assertions that had been attributed to OJ. I wish to share with your
readers my thoughts on the article in general, the assertions attributed to
OJ, in particular, and the "crude oil deal".
Every Gambian is entitled to their opinion, even if we don't agree with it.
What I found fascinating were his use of the words "rule" and "govern". The
former conveys a sense of arbitrariness and disregard for democratic
principles, while the latter refers to the conventional concept of
"governance" that is being an attribute of Constitutional government. Our
choice of words would reveal our real political disposition towards
President Jammeh and his Government.
The way we use particular words can either enlighten or confuse people.
My question: Do Presidents govern or rule? The answer is that they may
choose to do one or the other. Can they do both? That is an open question
and it leads to the distinction OJ made. He is quoted as saying on the one
hand: President Jammeh has lost the right to rule. He is subsequently quoted
as saying, "the Jammeh regime has lost the moral right to govern".
The sense I got from both statements is that at times President Jammeh
rules, and at other times, the Jammeh regime governs. Is the President
separate from or is a part of his Government? Whatever, the true situation
is, President Jammeh should be given credit because even his critics
recognize that he is doing something, even if they do not like what he is
doing.
Whether a President governs or rules, the fundamental question to be
answered is when does a sitting President lose that "right" to be Head of
State, and who makes the determination that the Head of State has lost that
right?
There is a Constitution of the Gambia that is its law. It is by virtue of
that law that the Gambia has a representative government whose
representatives are elected, albeit imperfectly at times, to exercise
political power on their behalf. The political concept signifies government
by the people through their elected representatives.
Theoretically, it means that the people are sovereign, and that the
President and his Government are subject to the will of the Gambian people.
It is this, in fact, that characterizes the Gambia as having a
representative form of government.
From a Constitutional point of view, therefore, the Gambian Parliament is
one body that can make the case for or against President Jammeh in terms of
whether he has lost the right to govern. Even then, it is the judicial
system (Gambian Courts) that would ultimately make that determination on the
basis of Constitutional law.
The arguments attributed to OJ to support his assertion that the President
has lost the right to rule included the following:
?"Abdication of responsibilities to the Nation";
?"Embezzlement of the wealth and resources of the people";
?"Failure to deliver on its [AFRC] manifesto to improve the living
conditions of ordinary Gambians";
?"Gambians families have been impoverished thanks to embezzlement of public
monies "
The above reminds me of the saying, "the more things change the more they
remain the same". This description could have been made in the Seventies,
Eighties and Nineties.
A perplexing assertion (attributed also, to OJ), reads, "The Jammeh
Government is not a government of the people, but a government of dishonest
and unscrupulous self-serving elites, unprofessional civil servants, private
entrepreneurs, politicians and cohorts and cronies etc.
If these exist in the year 2003, as alleged, we need not look further than
to attribute the trend to the existence of a negative political sub-culture
that pre-dates the Government of President Jammeh. It is a negative
sub-culture that puts a premium not on public service or protecting the
public interest, but on the embezzlement of public funds and the gross
mismanagement of public resources.
The allegations attributed to OJ are very serious. While some may be
inclined to believe them, the people have to be shown the facts to convince
them. The credibility of each of these allegations has to be established by
the one who makes the allegations. It is not enough to call someone a thief,
if you cannot prove that they are. A great service would be done to the
Gambian people if these allegations were not substantiated. Conversely, it
would a gross disservice to the people, if the allegations cannot be proved.
It is not enough to allege that someone is a thief unless that can be
proven.
My limited knowledge of politicians (and it does not really matter where
they are in this planet) is that they are in general self-serving. They have
a propensity to embellish issues, promise what they cannot deliver, and once
in office tend to forget what public service demands of them, namely,
dedication, honesty and commitment to improve the lives of the people.
Hardworking, honest politicians are an exception to the rule. The hard
working, honest and dedicated public servants, who subsequently leave
office, become almost always, invisible members of society, because they
refused to misuse their office for personal gain. Those who leave office
with amassed wealth raided from the public treasury or through corrupt
deals, scurry around in vehicles bought from ill-gotten gains, collecting
rents from houses they built with public monies.
The allegations being levelled at the Government of President Jammeh, could
easily be applied to some current and past African Presidents and
Governments. How many Gambian Ministers, Parliamentarians, and Civil
servants (who were members), of the erstwhile ruling party enriched
themselves at the expense of the Gambian people? How many previous Ministers
of Government can now stand up and take an oath that they had never abuse
the public trust or state that their hands and wallets have never been
dirty.
This brings me to another question: why did the military seize power in
1994? My personal view, is that the coup took place because the very people
former President Jawara trusted and had confidence in, betrayed him and as
well as the public trust. It is these individuals who have lost the
political and moral right to hold public office. The good thing is that the
people know who they are.
The old biblical saying, that "he that is without sin let him cast the first
stone", is advice that should be well taken.
Every Gambian is entitled to his/her opinion and OJ certainly, does.
However, as a current "standard bearer" of the Peoples' Progressive Party
(PPP), his interesting and at times informative statements are tinged with
anger. I get a sense that his political crusade is personal, but I may be
wrong.
Is what has been alleged (a) really true (b) partially true or (c) totally
untrue? Each one of us would have to make up our minds on this, provided we
know what the facts are. We are reminded always that the "Truth will set you
free".
On the matter of the serious social and economic problems that the Gambian
people are confronted with, the challenge is for both Government and civil
society, It is, the people in the final analysis, in partnership with the
Government that would bring about meaningful change. It appears, from what
the article has outlined, that the Gambia is in a State of Emergency. Being
in the opposition does not mean that one merely criticizes. A constructive
Opposition party must join hands with Government and exchange ideas on how
to address the current problems that face the Gambian people. This is a
moral obligation.
What are the facts about the so-called "crude oil deal"? The matter of the
"crude oil deal" that has been on the information highway, for quite some
time. "Where there is smoke" we are told, "there is fire." This particular
matter warrants the cooperation of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The
Government in Nigeria owes the Gambian people a full investigation of what
really happened, who was involved and who did what, but only, if the crude
oil was intended for the people of the Gambia.
If the "crude oil deal" was not intended for the Gambian people, the
Government should also, say so.
The Nigeria-Gambia relationship is not predicated on sitting Governments of
the day, but on the brotherly and sisterly peoples of the two countries. It
is for this reason, and morality demands that the Government of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria consider the matter and do the right thing. The rest
would hopefully be done, by the Gambian people.
If the Government of President Jammeh is culpable, as a result of the
actions of one or more Party or Government officials the issue of whether
the Government has lost the "moral right" to govern would have to be raised.
What your readers and interested parties should consider are the following,
if (1) it is proven that the crude oil was for the Gambian people, (2) that
Gambian officials sold it in the oil market and shared the money and (3)
someone in the Office of the President knew about it and sanctioned the
deal, Gambian justice must take its course.
It will be left in short, in the hands of the legislature (Parliament), to
make a determination that incontrovertible evidence exists, and that the
judicial system (Gambian Courts) should address the issue of criminal
action. The Parliament would have the task of making a finding as to whether
the evidence calls for the resignation of the Government, but only after the
Courts make a ruling on the evidence relative to the "crude oil deal." In
such a situation the Parliamentarians would be legally and morally obliged
to uphold the political principle that loyalty to the State supersedes
loyalty to political party, because the "crude oil deal" is a matter of the
national interest.
Outside of the above, it is the people of the Gambia who will ultimately
decide through the ballot box, the next time around, whether President
Jammeh and his Government have lost the right to govern.
In the meantime, the imperative is for the opposition to join hands with
Government and civil society, and do the best they can to address the
current socio-economic crisis in the Gambia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Make allAfrica.com your home page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Top | Site Francais | Site Guide | Who We Are | Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Copyright C 2003 The Independent. All rights reserved. Distributed by
AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). Click here to contact the copyright
holder directly for corrections -- or for permission to republish or make
other authorized use of this material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Questions or Comments? Contact us. Read our Privacy Statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
