Mr. Sallah,
This exchange is getting funnier by the day! What you've said about the
circumstances surrounding the '97 constitution, and your role in it's
formulation, makes sense -assuming that there were absolutely no other
choices. But indeed, there were! From what you're saying, Yaya Jammeh and
his cohorts had placed a take-it, or leave-it constitution before Gambians,
and there just wasn't anything anyone could do about it. So, you urged
Gambians to give in to the blackmail, or be otherwise condemned to living
under the '70 constitution or worse.
But, like I've alluded to, and Hamjatta has pointed out very clearly, Yaya
with all his fiery rhetoric depends on foreign (mainly Western) aid.
Khaddafi, as we all know, mostly gives out only his decades-old weapons as
"aid." So, honestly, I don't understand what you find far-fetched about us
believing that internal pressure, butttressed by external forces, would have
forced the AFPRC junta to succumb to popular demand that the new
constitution reflect popular sentiment. What is delusional about this idea?
It has happened in countless places all over the world. Besides, you've
always made a loud noise about being fearless. It's only "death that you
haven't tasted yet" you say. So, why compromise justice for "pragmatism" in
the case of the constitution? If truth be told, a fearless person would have
objected to the exclusion of the Term Limit clause in the constitution,
given that the overwhelming majority of Gambians demanded it. Forget the
Indemnity Clause.
The little tolerance that Yaya shows for the press, and the opposition is
not because he wants to, but because he HAS TO! Anyone with sense knows
that. I have absolutely no doubt that the political crisis/fallout that
would have resulted from their defiance of popular sentiment (if they choose
to ignore the wishes of the people in drafting an acceptable constitution,)
would have been so great that even the most lunatic among the defunct
Council would have hurriedly caved in to public demand. So, by enacting the
kinds of scenarios that you use to justify your support, you portray the
Gambian public as a helpless and hapless people, who just had to take
ANYTHING that Yaya Jammeh and his boys were generous enough to give them. In
doing this, you give more power to Jammeh et. al than they ever had, or
would ever have. This is the electronic age, the age of frontier blurring -
globalization- they call it. And you find it hard to believe that Yaya would
have caved in to a combined force of internal and external actors? As
Hamjatta has put it rightly, Yaya caved in after public outcry over the
initial 4yr transition time table. So, what is surreal about expecting a
replay of that scenario here? The Gambia, even by West African standards is
a small fry. You haven't said how Yaya would have withstood the type of
pressure we're talking about here.
Regarding your appeal for civility, I concur with that wholeheartedly. Only
I find your grumbling a little disingenous. Neither I, nor Hamjatta has used
any language in the latest correspondences that stand out in their
vulgarity. So, why the complain now? But more important, you've been
throwing around words like "pedantic," "crass stupidity" and so on, AT US
throughout this exchange. Not to mention the numerous self-righteous
indignation moments, when you rant about our sanity, and "hypocrisy." I'm
surprised the young people you referred to, did not have a heart attack upon
seeing such language coming from the great Halifa Sallah! Or, is this your
selective amnesia at work again?
I see your appeal to this List as a cry for help. For once, you've found
yourself in a jam (of your own making,) and you're appealing to your blind
followers. So far, everyone who has tried to defend you on this List, has
made a fool of him/herself. From sickening hypocrisy, to blatant lies,
they've engaged in all. The first person to rise for you, took a shameless
swipe at our intellectuals who "produce tons of worthless junk" in the West.
I was hoping that you'll tell him that your brother Dr. Tijan Sallah happens
to be one of those "junk" producers. The second and third persons to attempt
to do so, quickly retreated. And the final person to do so, proudly
proclaimed her concurrence with what supporter #1 had said ... intellectual
"junk" and all - I guess. It turns out, she's something of a loony, because
she can't even keep track of who she communicates with online. This is not
the best of companies I'd like to be with - I dare say.
On the other hand, I have no intention of revealing the names of several
people who have been sending me mesages in confidence, but if you think that
what we're asking you here are the views of a few people or "cronies of the
new unscrupulous political class," to paraphrase one of your defenders,
you're fooling yourself. For the past two months, I've met, chatted and
received mail from several Gambians who have been following this debate
keenly. They've all given "reasons" (excuses to me,) as to why they cannot
engage you directly. I've been told all kinds of cowardly, or totally
ridiculous excuses. But, the bottom line is, people are dying to know some
things. Because, the simple truth is, the Halifa Sallah who physically stood
in front of Pres. Jawara on Election day in 1987 at Serrekunda school, is
different from the one people have seen since Yaya Jammeh came to power. If
you have the integrity to tell people what's going on, you would do yourself
a big favor. This latest antics you're pulling, could only harm you, because
when the dust settles, you're the one who HAS TO convince people to vote for
you. If you cannot explain your behavior to independent-minded people
convincingly, that doesn't augur well for you.
When this exchange started, you claimed that you welcome the exchange, and
that this is the best thing that could happen to the Gambia -going into the
new millenium. Then you went on with your usual bragging about how soon
you'll silence us. That hasn't happened. The more phantoms you throw at us,
the quicker they're razed to the ground. We ask a simple question that
requires a direct answer. You see it necessary to provide a windy, and
totally convoluted reply that is meant to impress feeble-minded people. You
gave an analogy about the forest, and the individual trees. This is nothing
new. I remember your response to Suwaibu Conateh's single page, and very
succinct - criticism of PDOIS in the late 80s. The man took a ONE PAGE to
say exactly what he thought the whole PDOIS mystique is about. You took
FIFTEEN PAGES to reply, accusing him of "intellectual dishonesty" and all. I
was in the Sixth Form at the time, but by the time I finished reading your
reply, I was asking myself: "Has Halifa read what Suwaibu has written at
all?" This, because, what the man said, and what you were talking about,
were worlds apart. I admit to hypocrisy here, because I didn't mind your
circuitious reply, as it was meant for a PPP supporter. Little did I know
that I'll be the recipient of that deceptive style a little over a decade
later.
And now this new approach. It's your prerogative to say you won't answer
anyone's quetions. I'll respect that. But, don't blame your change of tactic
on the language anyone has been using to this point. I have a copy of every
note you've written since this debate began. There are countless ANGRY
INVECTIVES in many of them. So, Mr. Sallah, throw in the towel if you want
to, but don't go down this route!
Saul.
>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Halifa Responds
>Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:40:22 -0000
>
>Dear Lers,
>
>It appears that all that is left now is angry invectives. Every Gambian is
>entitled to his or her opinion about any personality. I have explained very
>clearly why the adoption of the 1997 Constitution was the most logical step
>for Gambians to take at a time when the AFPRC had absolute executive and
>legislative power and where decrees had supremacy over all laws.
>
>I have indicated that in putting the draft constitution before the Gambian
>people, we had the option of accepting it or rejecting it. If it was
>rejected, the APRC would have had to govern the country with decrees until
>a
>constitution was formulated by what would have been a National Assembly, as
>Hamjatta said a Constituent Assembly completely dominated by the APRC.
>
>One could imagine what type of constitution would have been placed before
>the Gambian people.
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
