When i first perused SOS Jaata's Budget Speech, the first thing that came to 
mind was how well Jaata reads? I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is in 
the negative: Jaata is not a card-carrying economist and his ministerial 
chores aside, deep throat has it that he acts also as Jammeh's intellectual 
minder - he handles the president's sophisticated paper-work for him as well 
as being a personal adviser. Anyway, if he is an avid reader of contemporary 
economics and tries to lay his hands on every development economics 
literature in print, he probably would have heard of or even read the 
Peruvian development economist, Hernando De Soto's exciting new book, The 
Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere 
Else. [New York: Basic Books, 245pp, 2000, $27.00]. The more I wade through 
Jaata's vapid prose and its flair for florid understatements, the more I 
became convinced that De Soto's central theme in his new book is all the more 
important in development economics - especially in Africa. In The Mystery of 
Capital, De Soto forwarded the argument that in developing countries, there 
are two economies: the real/formal economy - which gets accounted in a 
nation's books and the shadow/underworld/informal economy which exists but is 
considered illegal and thus never accounted, overlooked or added to the 
nation's books. Now there is nothing new in this - this is fairly 
conventional wisdom and an on-the-face-of-it-evidence. What De Soto added to 
this fairly conventional wisdom is to argue very persuasively that the shadow 
economy that officially doesn't exist is depriving the real economy of far 
more investment than the foreign investment/capital, we are made to believe 
as the be-all and end-all of invigorating developing economies. Most of these 
internal investments - according to De Soto - is tied up in the form of 
capital inherent in informal property rights - arranged on informal customary 
laws which have not fully been instituted into the law proper and thus 
depriving the economy as a whole of much needed investment.
In his review of the De Soto book, the Newsweek and Washington Post 
syndicated columnist, Robert Samuelson, sums up De Soto's findings this way:  
"According to De Soto, clearly defined property rights generate what 
economists call positive externalities or benefits shared by everyone. Not 
only do property rights help people borrow more easily, because property can 
be pledged as formal collateral, they also create information needed by 
markets. If property rights are recorded, for example utility companies 
easily deliver power and bill customers more easily. But without such rights, 
markets are untapped and commerce is disconnected from much of the legal 
system. People deal only with those they know and trust or through informal 
associations that substitute for formal law. Extralegal arrangements flourish 
because they are essential for survival. Some of these arrangements are 
ethical, but others are corrupt. In Peru, for example, bribes raise the cost 
of running a small business by 10 to 15 percent. Aside from depressing 
economic growth, the denial of property rights destroys any constituency for 
popular capitalism." Implicit in De Soto's broadside vis-à-vis "popularising" 
capitalism and eradicating poverty is the knock-on effect the rule of the law 
has on not only in attracting foreign capital but also harnessing overlooked 
local capital. Even though I have respectfully taken issues with the sweeping 
optimism of De Soto's property rights theory and their lack thereof in 
developing economies, I bring it to the attention of people because:
1.) De Soto's dichotomy of two economics within one economy in developing 
economies will be very useful to understand what is happening in the Gambia.
2.) The most disingenuous statement in SOS Jaata's sodding Budget Speech was 
his cheap and hoary -slogans - like "good governance", "poverty reduction", 
"accelerated growth", "liberalisation of the economy" and the endless empty 
gimmicks of the new economy speak - on how far he and his gov't had gone in 
poverty eradication and sustaining good governance in the Gambia. [Indeed, 
the 2001 Budget Speech is entitled: Good Governance for Accelerated Growth 
and Reinforced Poverty Reduction.]
In introducing 2001's Budget Speech central theme, Jaata observed that: 
"Drawing from the prevalence of acute poverty across a broader section of our 
populace and the dire need to alleviate it, the theme of the year 2001 budget 
speech continues to centre on Poverty Reduction with particular emphasis on 
the importance of good governance for accelerated growth and reinforced 
poverty reduction." Splendid. On the same brazen length and in lieu of the 
aforesaid, Jaata then informed us that: "However, the attainment of sustained 
poverty reduction requires the existence of a good governance environment, 
which is found to be a prerequisite for successful participatory poverty 
alleviation programme. Good governance facilitates poverty reduction through 
promoting opportunities, facilitating empowerment, and enhancing security 
with the cumulative effect of increasing confidence in the Gambian economy."
Ah "empowerment"! That hoary slogan that African despots shamelessly rehearse 
in their sodding speeches whilst asphyxiating the body politic of whatever we 
call civic culture - a conditional ingredient of "empowerment" we have. And 
so how did Jaata's gov't "empower" Gambians and increase "confidence in the 
Gambian economy"? Ditto Jaata in Section I. paragraph 9 of the 2001 Budget 
Speech: "Mr. Speaker, facilitating empowerment involves the reform of the 
public administrative system (which is firmly
entrenched in our Local Government Reform and Decentralisation Program). This 
will make the delivery of public goods more RESPONSIVE ACCOUNTABLE and 
EFFICIENT through the ACTTVE and DIRECT PARTICIPATION of the citizenry. It 
would also involve the STRENGTHENING OF AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL SYSTEM as well 
as the removal of all barriers that borders on gender, ethnicity. regional, 
regional or social status. [All emphasis mine.]
It must be Krugman - I'll have to check this later when I'm freer - who 
cogently wrote that: sometimes you have to give points for sheer chutzpah." I 
hate to do this but I really have to pause here and duly give Jaata 10 points 
for his sheer nerve to remind us first hand what it is exactly we find 
opprobrious about this gov't. Now it is not out of boyish spite I laugh and 
spit in Jaata's above statement. There is a delicious irony and conceit in 
all the emphasised words and or phrases above, specifically the 
"strengthening of an independent legal system." Shortly before I came online, 
I did take a peek at my mails and the breaking news was - especially in the 
form of Brother KB's incisive commentary/analysis - of Jammeh throwing the 
"independent legal system" into further disarray by sacking several senior 
figures of the judiciary with Justice Lartey, the Chief Justice topping the 
list. Surely, if Jaata informs us in his sodding Budget Speech that the mess 
that is Africa can only be revamped into better by "empowering" her citizenry 
and diligently reminds us that: "facilitating empowerment involves the reform 
of the public administrative system (which is firmly entrenched in our Local 
Government Reform and Decentralisation Program). This will make the delivery 
of public goods more RESPONSIVE, ACCOUNTABLE and EFFICIENT through the ACTIVE 
and DIRECT PARTICIPATION of the citizenry. It would also involve the 
STRENGTHENING OF AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL SYSTEM as well as the removal of all 
barriers that borders on gender, ethnicity, regional or social status" we 
weren't only expecting him to talk the talk but more importantly, to walk the 
walk. All the things that Jaata cited above as the ingredients for 
"facilitating empowerment" has been grossly violated and abused by his gov't. 
At the time of writing this, Jaata's gov't had violated the basic tenets of 
"strengthening of an independent legal system": Jammeh's sacking of the Chief 
Justice and some of his colleagues have turned the judiciary topsy-turvy. As 
for "the delivery of public goods more RESPONSIVE, ACCOUNTABLE and EFFICIENT 
through the ACTIVE and DIRECT PARTICIPATION of the citizenry"', folks can 
just throw their hands up in exasperation: The gov't is forwarding pieces of 
legislative junk they wilfully call constitutional amendments that will roll 
back the frontiers of the already raped "good governance" tools like 
"accountability", "local empowerment", "probity", "transparency" and the rest 
of the shallow slogans Jaata was busy rehearsing. Oh and how could I ever 
forget this? The long awaited local gov't elections are still stuck in a time 
warp. All the basic principles that make up a gov't have been flagrantly 
abused and thrown into a cataclysmic overrun by Jammeh.
Since they have violated all the basic tenets of good governance", must it 
surprise anyone then when Jaata informs - and this is to his credit - that in 
fact they have failed in alleviating poverty: Instead under their 
supervision, poverty is on the lurch. As he puts it: "From 60% overall, in 
the ILO study of l999 the proportion of Gambians subsisting below the poverty 
line has increased to 69% in 1998." But then a gov't that breeds on lying to 
the public just can't itself even if it for once tells the truth; like a kid 
in a candy store, Jaata couldn't help but parade this silver-ware to deflect 
attention from his frankness over their dismal record on poverty alleviation: 
"Over the past year much have been devoted to this fight and one of the 
fruits borne out of this, is the improvement in the UNDP Human Development 
ranking which improved from 163 out of 174 countries in 1999 to 161 out of 
173 in 2000." Need anyone point out to Jaata that virtually all the states at 
the bottom of the UNDP Report are failed states embroiled in civil or other 
sorts of war - Sierra Leone, most of the countries in Great Lakes Region of 
Africa, the Horn of Africa, Sudan, Afghanistan, Liberia, etc. etc. are 
countries and regions that come to mind without checking them out. Talk less 
of the crucial point that the UNDP Report - whilst it remains the best around 
this end for measuring Human Development - is arguably afflicted with 
intellectually simplistic, sweeping, generalising and even misleading 
itinerary a ration is supposed to have taken during the period under review. 
If - and as Amartya Sen, who laid down the intellectual foundation of the 
Human Development Index, himself, puts it - human development is defined "as 
expanding the choices people have over of things they can do", is there any 
doubt about the manifest deterioration of things in the Gambia and how far 
farfetched it is for Jaata to claim any progress in reversing the rising tide 
of poverty in the Gambia'?
Yet, if political mismanagement by the Jammeh gov't had seen the Gambia 
lurching towards further economic malaise, what is it exactly had this 
situation done to the economy in real terms? First we need to try - if we can 
- and piece together what constitutes Jammeh's economic philosophy. Jammeh's 
Gambia is a tale of two economies: There's the shadow economy administered by 
Jammeh and what I shall call the Jammeh Cartel and the real economy that 
still is a continuity of the Jawara years
and administered by mandarins at the Dept. of State Finance and Economic 
Affairs and whatever directives come from the Fund and the World Bank. From 
the AFPRC to its metamorphosis into the APRC economic logic and or practice 
was largely rooted in this two-pronged approach: The economic continuity of 
the IMF and World Bank imposed panacea that they the AFPRC inherited from the 
PPP and there's the Peter Pan economics which is more or less Jammeh's own 
perception of how to stimulate growth and sustain it - now I'm having a good 
laugh at this assuming Jammeh can think that deep. But hey, seriously there 
was something called Peter Pan economics which holds that: borrow as much 
money as you possibly can, then pump it all into constructing public 
infrastructure and, well, you will be stimulating economic growth and - 
hallelujah praises are to "Allah's World Bank" - you would have done what 
Jawara failed ever to do in well over three decades: Job creation, 
improvement and radical increment of public infrastructure, ambitious renewal 
of some derelict projects that were fraught with cash, white elephant 
structures etc, etc. And so in an unprecedented manner, "projects" began 
sprouting all over the country to the amazement of the many who were 
predicting a cash strapped AFPRC to go bust in less than a year.
Why on earth did Jammeh embark on such a radical and unprecedented launching 
of "projects"? Aside from the weird idea that the role of gov't is to just 
take money from people through taxation and throw them into building schools, 
hospitals, roads, bridges, etc, etc, Jammeh's rationale is more to do with 
political expediency in strengthening Ins position especially legitimising 
himself in the eyes of those who view his regime as illegal. But how were 
these "projects" simply going to do to that? At the heart of Jammeh Peter Pan 
economics, is a simpleton's logic: Seeing is believing; people easily believe 
what they see not what they are told to believe by cynics and critics. Soon 
after these "projects" began to take shape, it easily won for Jammeh the 
propaganda war that he had been engaged with Jawara for much part of 1994 and 
1995: As far as Jawara is concerned, the public had switched sides and the 
era of Jammeh Musa had really begun. What surprised me about this whole 
thing, is how supposedly sophisticated people couldn't see through this scam 
and began heaping praises on Jammeh for his efforts in rescuing the Gambia 
from the clutches of oblivion the ancien regime of Jawara had thrown the 
Gambia into. However, pork barrel politics was not all this Peter Pan 
economics was about - if any thing it was really a very convenient way of 
killing two birds with one stone. Apart from winning public support, Jammeh 
was able with these "projects", to enter into business with new associates 
like Pierre Kujabi, Amadou Samba, Tariq Musa, his Kujabi cousins and any 
other shadowy figure in for a quick killing that could be trusted. Thus all 
these "projects" were never tendered and everything went to the Cartel Jammeh 
created together with Kujabi, Samba, Musa and his Kujabi cousins. Any pie 
that is hot in the Gambian economy and between them, they've got their 
fingers into it. Whilst ordinary business men and women complained about the 
rapid deterioration of the general economic situation, members of the Jammeh 
Cartel were busy lining their pockets and from a poor soldier, Jammeh quickly 
transformed - perhaps more speedily than Mobutu - as the richest Gambian 
ever. So Jammeh got his millions and managed to fool people that his is a 
decent and new era for the Gambia - but at a price.
The price of Jammeh's adventures at the expense of the taxpayer, is to 
deplete the Gambia's reserves whilst lying his head off about manna from the 
sky - "Allah's World Bank" - and plunged the Gambia further into the debt 
trap. Logic dictates that at some stage the dough he borrowed to fund his 
adventures had to be paid back to his lenders and its knock-on effects on the 
economy was to see debt-servicing gobbling more than a third of the annual 
budget. As Jaata informs us in his sodding Budget Speech, "The Gambia's total 
debt stock which stood at US$390 million in 1990 has by 1999 reached $566 
million representing a 45% increase in nominal value terms. Of this, 75% is 
external and 250o domestic debt this translates into US$425 million and 
US$141 million respectively. The external debt burden is expected to reach 
US$439.5 in nominal value terms by year ending 2000." Now I hope people will 
appreciate why I said earlier that Jaata's gloating of climbing two places up 
in the UNDP's league table is bit of a tongue-in-cheek when one looks at the 
whole picture. Here he informs us that the debt situation is depleting 
whatever they have to expend on human development but is brave enough to te

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

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------