Ebrima,

Thanks again for the very insightful piece.

It is true that a transition does limit the liberties that  the present
government can take in terms of taking the law into their own hands.As a
civilian government, they will have to heed the voice of the international
community, or at  least be liable for prosecution either in a Gambian court
of law ( no high hopes there) , or an international one once they are out of
power, instead of getting away with crimes under the guise of "emergency
powers".That is the only saving grace here.

 It  still leaves the Gambian  people with a very sad situation though,
"between a  rock and a hard place" as they say,and l believe that this is the
point that was being put forth. We did  have a new  constitution, but yet,
did  not the government make some changes  in it, on their own  to protect
themselves? Have they not continued  to have incidents like that of Mr
Nyassi, as well as continued stifling of free speech in various forms?  l
think he  was released, not because the government thought they would be
answerable in a Gambian court of law, but because the incident was publicised
 World-wide and at least the British government made an intervention for his
release. Infact, the NIA officers  who testified at the hearing knowingly
lied about having anything to do with his whereabouts. The Judges'  findings
based on the evidence  led him to the conclusion that those representing the
government  were infact lying. Has Mr Nyassi had his day in court to address
the abuse he was subjected to? Did Citizen's FM really have a fair and
impartial  hearing on their case?
Are the reported seizure of passports being investigated? What about missing
funds, or  Koro Ceesay's murder? Where are the Gambian courts of law, and are
they free  to pursue these cases on behalf of the people without any fear
from the repercussions? All these incidents took place after so called
"civilian rule".

In short, we still have  long way to go, and statements like those made by
Yankuba Touray regarding the outcome of elections, definitely seems to
indicate to us that we have gone deeper into the belly of the beast. The
reasons described here as the ones that led to Jammeh being voted into office
leaves me with a profound sense of sadness. Here we were clearly forced or
intimidated into voting for him just to avoid the wrath of his military goons
on the general populace, and it looks like they will go to any lengths to
stay right where they are. Their's  is clearly still a military dictatorship
in civilian clothes, a wolf in sheep's clothing  if you will, and l   truely
wonder just how much better off we really are. We all wonder how much better
off we really are.

Jabou Joh

 Gambia L,

 As I stated in a previous posting to the L, I am not holding a brief for Mr
 Jammeh on this matter.

 However, for the sake of a healthy debate, I'll react to the points/concerns
 raised by brothers Musa Jeng and Saiks Samateh.

 But before giving my reaction, I must say that for me it is very encouraging
 to observe that the Gambian mind has now become more fact-finding, more
 cross-questioning and more empirical.

 Gambians are now, more than before, asking very relevant questions,
 listening more attentively, and dissecting issues more carefully, in order
 to be in a better position to discern the truth from the sham.

 It is also refreshing to observe on the L, nowadays, that despite our
 differences in thoughts and beliefs, we are now beginning to debate in a
 more healthy manner. That's very reassuring, and we certainly need to
 maintain the habit.

 Henceforth, let us try and listen to each other's views, even if one does
 not subscribe to such views. Tolerating your opponent's views, if I may put
 that way, does no harm to you, of course, provided that such views are
 expressed respectfully.

 In fact, I am reminded, at this point, of what the celebrated African
 American scholar, William E.B Du Bois, said in one his numerous speeches.

 To paraphrase it, he said that in order to get to the facts, it was
 necessary that we listened to not only what we believed, but also what we
 did not believe.

 Now, let me try and respond to the issues raised by Saiks and Mr Jeng.

 In my piece titled, "Some useful comments/observations", I had made the
 following statement: "That the fundamental question to be asked now, in my
 view, is whether a badly flawed transition was preferable to a continuation
 of undiluted military rule."

 I had concluded as follows: "That in my view, and in the view of many
 observers of the Gambia's political scene, in spite of all its
 imperfections, the change did mark a limited movement away from military
 dictatorship and toward a kind of 'liberalised authoritarianism'."

 Now, Mr Jeng wanted me "to revisit the thought process behind the phrase."

 Semantic aside, he also asked me whether the people are better of with one
 or the other. Lastly, he asked me whether both "could lead to the same
 political doldrums and socio-economic backwardness."

 First of all, let me say that phrases/terms such as pure authoritarianism,
 liberalised authoritarianism etc are used in Comparative Politics.

 There is more to these terms, but to simplify them, I would say pure
 authoritarianism, as the name implies, is absolute dictatorship and
 liberalised authoritarianism is still a dictatorship, but where people can
 make limited criticism.

 Mr Jeng, in my view, both liberalised authoritarianism and total
 dictatorship are all cruel systems which ought to be dismantled. No people
 deserve either of the two, because both systems are repressive.

 However, permit me to try and explain why I said that a badly flawed
 transition in the Gambian situation, in my view, was preferable to a
 continuation of undiluted military rule.

 Here, I must tell Saiks that I didn't imply that there was a significant
 difference between the Gambia during the transition period and now. I am
 aware of the injustices, the corruption etc in our Nation. I know that our
 Nation is still bleeding and only God knows what can save her.

 But, in my view, there were certain barbaric acts, permissible when the
 Gambia was under undiluted military rule, that cannot be permitted or
 tolerated now.

 I maintain that Jammeh's hands, as I stated before, are a little bit tied,
 now that he is a so-called civilian leader. Yes, as Saiks rightly pointed
 out, the opposition parties and the Gambian civil society are determined to
 see to it that their fundamental rights and freedoms are not trampled upon.

 But the transitional arrangements, as bad as they were, have provided the
 basis on which the opposition parties and the Gambian civil society can now
 challenge the "unlawful arrest, detention and torture" Saiks is talking
 about.

 Today, Lamin Waa Juwara, for instance, can criticise Jammeh, on a daily
 basis, and Jammeh will think twice, perhaps even three times, before
 ordering for the arrest of Waa Juwara, not because Jammeh is afraid of Waa
 Juwara, but because there is a legal frame in place restricting Jammeh.

 The new Constitution, as seriously flawed as it is, has restrained Mr Jammeh
 a little bit. Saiks talked about the kidnapping of Shyngle Nyassi.

 Now, if the Gambia was still under undiluted military rule, Shyngle will
 never have been released, and there would not have been any basis  on which
 his illegal detention could have been challenged.

 When the Gambia was under undiluted military rule, the junta had enacted a
 Decree, nullifying writs of Habeas Corpus.

 Habeas Corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest, or imprisonment, to
 be brought before a judge in a court of law, to investigate the legality of
 his arrest and detention.

 Now, during the transition period, when the Gambia was under undiluted
 military, Lamin Waa Juwara was kidnapped by the regime, and detained for
 over a year. Amnesty International, the Gambia's Development Partners, the
 Gambian civil society had all urged Jammeh to release Waa Juwara, but to no
 avail.

 However, this time around when Shyngle Nyassi was kidnapped, the
 transitional arrangements, as flawed as they were, provided the basis on
 which Nyassi's kidnapping can be challenged in a court of law.

 And when the Judge ordered the security forces to release him, they had to
 do so, I am sure, against their desire, but they had no choice.

 The transitional arrangements, as bad as they were, have also provided a
 National Assembly, where critical discussions of public concerns can now
 take place.

 Yes, the Speaker of the House, Mustapha Wadda, is partisan and has, in fact,
 used the powers of his office to block critical motions.

 But in an effort to get around this obstacle, opposition MPs, especially the
 MP of my constituency, Hamat Bah, having been making the most of the
 adjournment debates that occur at the end of each assembly session, and
 during which MPs may raise any issue they choose.

 Here I must point out that while these debates do not allow the introduction
 of new motions, or the questioning of Secretaries of State, they do,
 notwithstanding, provide a public forum for the criticism of government's
 policies and actions.

 Hamat Bah has been using this platform very effectively.

 From outside, it would be difficult to see any difference between the Gambia
 then and now, but those of us who were on the ground during time when
 decrees were being used to govern us would dare to say that a badly flawed
 transition was preferable to a continuation of undiluted military rule!

 Again, I'll not hesitate to repeat that, in my view, in spite of all its
 imperfections, the change did mark a LIMITED movement away from absolute
 dictatorship and toward a kind of a less harsher dictatorship, call it
 liberalised authoritarianism or whatever.

 One does not have to agree with me. In fact, why should he/she? But having
 said that I know, for a fact, that my views are in line with present day
 research on the Gambia.

 In conclusion, I must say that some people are yet to realise how DELICATE
 and volatile the transition period in the Gambia was.

 Many people don't still know that during the transition period, the Gambia
 could have easily become another Liberia, if we did not have people like
 Halifa Sallah, who could always come up, at the right time, with appropriate
 crisis management mechanisms, to diffuse a potential crisis.

 The situation was also helped by the fact that Jammeh, in the end, did win
 the election. At one point, the tension was so high and frightening,
 especially the week before the presidential election, that I, for one, had
 thought that an unrest was inevitable!

 I remember a senior diplomat telling me and Mick Slatter, the BBC
 correspondent who came to cover the presidential election, that for the sake
 of the continued peace and stability of the Gambia, he wanted Jammeh to win
 the election.

 This particular diplomat never liked Jammeh, whether his person or his
 policies, but having read the political situation in the Gambia at the time,
 he said if he were to vote in the election, he would vote for Jammeh not
 because he subscribed to his policies, but because Jammeh's victory would
 ensure the continued peace and stability of the Gambia.

 Yes, there is no dispute about the fact that the electoral process was
 extremely flawed, and it gave Jammeh massive advantages. But despite the
 unfairness of the electoral process, the opposition could have still won the
 election if the voters were sure that electing the UPD, for example, would
 not have caused an unrest in the country if you know what I mean.

 The electoral process was seriously flawed, but I sincerely believe that the
 actual counting of votes was free. People were fed with military rule, and
 they definitely wanted a change.

 In fact, I, for one, am certain that under normal circumstances, the
 opposition would have won the presidential election, even regardless of the
 fact the electoral process was badly flawed.

 But many voters decided, when saw the kind of tension that was brewing in
 the country, days before the presidential election, to vote for Jammeh for
 the sake of the continued peace, stability and tranquility of the country.

 Now, to understand the logic behind this change of heart by many voters who
 intended to vote for the opposition, I must recall a significant statement
 Darboe made during campaign period.

 He had said that if he won the election, the junta would have to account for
 their actions, during the transition period, despite the indemnity clauses
 in the new Constitution. That statement frighten the Ruling Military
 Council.

 And after Darboe uttered that statement, it was very clear to me, especially
 having listened to some of the remarks Captain Yankuba Touray was making,
 that the junta would have never handed over power if Darboe won.

 This was the period when Yankuba was announcing at rallies that Jammeh would
 win whether the electorate voted for him or not.

 What is clear is that many voters who did not want to see our country
 engulfed in turmoil, decided, at the 11th hour, to vote for Jammeh because,
 in their view, Jammeh's victory would guarantee the continued peace and
 stability of the Gambia.

 Mr Jeng, coming to your question on whether both liberalised
 authoritarianism and total military dictatorship could lead to the same
 political doldrums and socio-economic backwardness, I'll give you a very
 strong YES answer. To be  continued whenever time permits me.

 And next time I write on this subject, I'll explain why Jammeh and Captain
 Edward Singhateh, even though they may not necessarily be the best of
 friends, are still working together very closely.

 That's why I always laugh at reports that do surface, from time to time,
 that Jammeh is about to sack or arrest Singhateh.

 I remember a week or so before Captain Ebou Jallow defected to Washington
 DC, he met me AFRA FM on Kairaba Avenue, he then was overseeing the Ministry
 of External (Blaise Jagne was away), and he started lamenting about
 Singhateh, especially his behaviour in the then ruling council meetings.

 Ebrima Ceesay,
 Birmingham, UK.
  >>

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

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

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