Hi Hamjatta!
          I thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions and
apologize for the delay in responding to your response. I am a bit busy
trying to fit a backlog of video footage editing which have to meet a
deadline and creating a homepage for one of Gambia's premiere musicians,
Musa Ngum, who is currently in Stockholm, in my spare time. I'll post the
address on the L once it is finished. I would also like to seize the
opportunity to inform you all that Musa Ngum is currently in studio here
recording a killer cassette. I have heard the songs and I promise that this
cassette, once it comes out, will rank among the best in Senegambia. Watch
out for it!
     Before going to the issues you raised, I'll take the opportunity to
concur with Jassey-Conteh and register my disappointment with the tone of
your response. You invited the people who praised Halifa to quantify their
assertions and I tried in my small way to do that and then asked you some
questions. In answering the questions, you made some wild assertions
bordering on misrepresentation. People urged you to answer the questions
publicly because when you asked us to quantify our beliefs, you didn't tell
us to send the answers to you privately. We enumerated our beliefs on the L
and it is only fair that you respond to our concerns where we responded to
yours. It seemed as if you chose to ignore the questions and embarked on
critical tirades and blanket condemnation of those who have the tiniest
sympathies for PDOIS culminating in the unjustifiable labelling of such
people as programmed fanatics all based on your perception. That is why
people urged you to answer the questions. For you to believe that people
like Samba Jow thought you were cornered is your prerogative. Whether you
felt it or not should not have much relevance. You are however within your
rights to choose your style of response.
 That aside, you wrote:

". i came to the conclusion that your conceptions of me as an individual
critic as opposed to an organization like say, PDOIS, what you deem to
qualify as "empirical" and whether my voice should discounted simply on the
basis that unlike organizations on the ground i'm less likely to see my
views/ideas implemented, were all sloppily conceived..Not only is this
making the misplaced assumption that individuals have the capability of
organizations, it also lacks a grasping of the role of individuals in a
society or a struggle as opposed to organizations."

Where did I say that your voice should be discounted? Please show me. The
conclusions you arrived at are as wide off the mark as being wide off the
mark can be. If you did not understand the questions or why I asked them,
you could have simply written and asked me to clarify why I asked the
questions. I did not write the questions to imply that your views should be
discounted just because you are not capable or on the ground. I wrote the
questions in the hope that Hamjatta the critic would metamorphose into
Hamjatta the constructive critic. You see, it is quite easy to be a critic
criticising everything PDOIS does or stands for but it is much harder to be
a constructive critic showing where PDOIS went wrong and coming with
realistic suggestions as to how to remedy those wrongs. I constructed those
questions the way I did so that you will not only say I disagree with this
or that but you will also have to justify why you disagree. That way, you
can at least attempt to provide an alternative and propose ways of realising
your alternative or admit that you are unable to put your ideas into
practice and therefore accept that those who are able to put their ideas
into practice have a right to put into practice alternatives different from
yours.
     On the issue of the individual critic, I am as well as everyone else,
aware of the fact that you do not have the capability of putting your ideas
into practice. I asked you those questions to make you understand just that
whilst hoping that you will also understand that pending your ability to put
your beliefs into practice, you have to respect the rights of the political
parties in The Gambia to choose what to put into practice and what not to
put into practice. They have programmes and committees that put into
practice their programmes. Those committees, I am sure, are aware of and
discuss all the implications of a particular situation and then make
decisions as to which course to follow based on the principles which guide
their existence. To keep hammering on and making blanket, unjustifiable
criticism and dismissing the parties' achievements just because the parties
do not seem to be doing what YOU, Hamjatta want them to do reeks of
something I would not like to describe for fear of bringing an unhealthy
dimension to the debate. Have you ever paused to ask yourself whether the
parties see things as you do? Have you ever paused to ask yourself whether
it is fair that you keep hammering on the parties to put into practice what
YOU, Hamjatta think is the solution to the problems facing the country? If
you have ever paused to think about these things, you would realise that
what you have been doing here is not acting as a constructive critic who
disagrees and suggests alternative solutions, but rather as one who is
unable to put his ideas into practice and is trying to "force" others to do
it for him.
     On the issue of being "empirical", even the most liberal interpretation
of the term cannot take away from it the basic tenets of scientific enquiry
upon which it is based. Among the basic tenets of scientific enquiry are
objectivity, reliability, validity, causality, relation etc. The
relationship between concepts, variables, measuring instruments and units of
measurement is also basic to empirical research. You see, the discipline of
the research process requires not only clear and focused thinking but also
careful and reliable measurement of the variables to be investigated.
Without measurement, clear and comparable statements cannot be made thus
making it impossible to separate general impressions from disciplined,
systematic and representative observations. Empiricism does not deal with
vague impressions but with systematically measured and recorded
observations. When you asked us to "empirically" prove that PDOIS' strategy
is working, I wrote that it is impossible to "empirically" prove such an
assertion because it would be very difficult to isolate the variables to be
used thus making it impossible to apply the tenets of scientific enquiry.
There is the ever-present danger that there would be the influence of other
variables thus negating one's findings because the result was simply due to
something else. You wrote back and implied that we were unable to
"empirically" prove the success of PDOIS strategy. That is why I asked you
to "empirically" disprove the success of their strategies, which would have
been done through the use of Karl Popper's description of falsification.
     Regarding empiricism in the social sciences, I can assure you that I
know the difference between qualitative and quantitative research, between
research in the natural sciences and research in the social sciences. My
discipline, which is Human Resource Management, in which I did my Masters,
falls within the category of the social sciences. That does not take from it
the requirement to abide by the rules of scientific enquiry. You see, the
methods of research in the social and behavioural sciences, which include
observation, interviews, and the examination of records and documents
provide measurable, countable answers. How measurable and countable are your
assertions with regard to PDOIS and the other political parties? Conan Doyle
once said: "it is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data". I
suspect you might have committed that capital mistake by theorising without
collecting data. What you have provided  (US Congressmen's Report, the IMF
Scandal, the terrorist attack on Mr. George Christensen's radio station and
the continued harassment of the civilian population) is not data collected
in any empirical manner supporting your assertion that "the opposition
strategy is not working and lack-lustre" but your general impressions which
cannot by any means be said to be responsible for the spate of events in our
country.  You have not engaged in critical subjectivity, i.e., recognising
your own views and experiences but not allowing yourself to be overwhelmed
and swept along by them. You have, in short, not engaged in empiricism which
according to Roy Preece, is "the opposite of subjectivity, and closely
allied to objectivity." Preece goes further to say that "an objective
judgment is one made by testing in all ways one's subjective impressions".
Did you in any way test your subjective impressions before coming to your
conclusions?  I might not be as erudite in research issues as Sir Isaiah
Berlin, but I have been exposed to research and I have functioned as a
project supervisor for three consecutive project groups in one of the
schools I taught here in Sweden. So I am aware of the difference of
requirements in research with regard to the natural and social sciences. I
however implore you to show me where social science research says that the
basic tenets of scientific enquiry should be discarded. If you go by the
assumption that "if evidence involves real life tangible/observable
experience, then it qualifies to be called "empirical"" and sit in Oxford
and "observe" events which happened in The Gambia without the participation
or ability of the opposition parties to influence them and claim that such
observations were made in an empirical manner, I think there are some
aspects of empiricism which you do not understand.
     I'll attempt to comment on your answers. You didn't answer the first
question properly because you probably didn't understand it. You hammered on
PDOIS' response to the April massacre and I wanted you to tell me what your
strategy has been in relation to the massacre to ensure that justice has
been served. Since you didn't state your strategy with regard to the
massacre due to a misinterpretation of the question, I'll comment on your
response. You stated that your strategy is agitation but accepted your
inability to put what you preach into practice. That is fine as long as you
realise your limitation and also realise that the opposition parties, which
are not constrained by the factors which stop you from realising your aims,
have a right to choose the path to follow no matter how lack-lustre it might
be to you. You claim that your solution is to agitate. Who will do the
agitation for you if the political parties like PDOIS and UDP have gone on
record to say that agitation is not feasible for them? You see Hamjatta,
agitation will not take place in a vacuum and therefore needs to be properly
thought out and planned. There are many factors to consider. Factors such as
material, risk of injury and even death, risk of imprisonment, risk of
declaration of a state of emergency, risk of being fired from work, risk of
plunging the country into further chaos etc. All these things are not
textbook theories but risks that will be taken by real people and the
implications shall affect real people. Who can even say that heads of
households with responsibilities for dozens of people will agree to go out
in the streets and risk being killed or imprisoned? When you wrote: "i have
already said we have got to start AGITATING NOW!", I couldn't help but
chuckle. Should the opposition parties jump to their feet and start
agitating just because Hamjatta says "AGITATE NOW!"? Do they have a right to
ask "who is Hamjatta to tell us that we have to start agitating when we have
already discussed our strategies at the Central Committee meeting and came
to the conclusion that the strategies we are adopting will not be helped by
confrontation"? I couldn't help but chuckle also when you wrote: "In my
book . any law that goes on to help oppression of the masses even if it
derives from seemingly legal authorities, is ILLEGAL and needs to be defied
by conscientious beings." If the opposition leaders organise mass
demonstrations that spiral out of order and endanger the stability of the
country and are charged with criminal offences under the Constitution of The
Gambia, would they be freed when they say, "I was just following Hamjatta's
Book"? You see, your book does not have much bearing on the realities of The
Gambia. Whether you deem the laws provided in the Constitution as "ILLEGAL"
or not is irrelevant to reality. What is relevant is that the Constitution,
no matter how flawed, is the LAW, the book that matters in legal issues in
The Gambia. Do the people you are directing your criticisms at know that
there is a Hamjatta or Hamjatta's book? The day you are able to implement
what you preach will spell the day that your book will be implemented.
Pending that, opposition parties have a right to go by their books.

    You said you did not have guarantees that your proposals will work but
your "good sense of history" tells you that they will. Do you expect people
to risk being killed, imprisoned etc. just because Hamjatta's "sense of
history" predicts that his proposal will be successful because they have
been implemented in similar situations? As individual critics, you or I, who
have no responsibility for the lives and well being of supporters, can
propose "strategies" based on a "good sense of history" but Halifa, Ousainou
Darboe and others have to be more realistic when asking their supporters to
engage in activities which might endanger their lives or freedom.

     An official from the South African embassy in Oslo made a comment
during his presentation at the Gambian Cultural Week conference that has
made a real impression on me. He said something along the lines that it is
nice to have martyrs but even nicer to have those martyrs alive. He said
that it is nice to think of Chris Hani as a martyr but it would be even
better to have the organisational and other skills of Hani contributing to
the development of South Africa today. In short, it is better to have Hani
alive. Just as it would be nice to think of Halifa or Darboe as martyrs who
gave their lives to struggle for Gambia's freedom, I would rather have
Halifa writing letters, educating Gambians, taking care of the social and
other projects instituted by PDOIS. Halifa would contribute more to his
country that way than as a dead martyr. Is it even fair to ask the political
leaders to engage in activities that put their lives at risk?

     With regard to Kebba Dampha, I think there is a fundamental difference
between him and many others who propagate violent means here. Kebba Dampha
does not wrap textbook theories in flowery eloquence to unjustly bash or
condemn opposition parties back home or argue positions that even to the
least learned of people would seem unrealistic. He stated just a while back:
"I also try very hard not to disparage the party leaders back home that are
trying very hard to eradicate the tyranny we all face." Kebba also argues
from a point of experience of the realities of both The Gambia and the
world. That is why I have come to take his postings more seriously and
respect his postulations even where I do not agree with him.

    I never asked you to set time frames on any struggle. What I asked was
what the opposition should do pending what you term the solution. I asked
what if the solution you propose is not feasible within one, two.ten years?
Should they have the right to do as they see fit until the situation is
remedied according to your design?

    You wrote: "I have never shelved the whole blame of the crises in the
Gambia on PDOIS strategy or lethargy."
Do the following statements that you made in earlier exchanges tally with
what you are saying now?

"Their shameful complicity in strengthening the hand of Jammeh is a stark
emphasis of what i earlier called the relativism they employ when it serves
their ideological stripes and purposes."

"The biggest surprise however came from the PDOIS/Foroyaa elites who
wittingly and unwittingly have given this barbaric regime both comfort and
allure to their poses. For reasons perhaps best known to themselves, they
appointed themselves resident intellectuals of a so called transition
process, continuously tossing about favourable feelers to Jammeh and even
openly calling upon him to stand for elections to legalise himself."

"Their shameful complicity in strengthening the hand of Jammeh is a stark
emphasis of what i earlier called the relativism they employ when it serves
their ideological stripes and purposes."

You also wrote:
"However, if the opposition refuse to accept our suggestions, then we still
positively engage them until they begin to see the inevitability of our
strategy.we must be engaging and not condemning of the opposition."
Check out some of the things you wrote below and tell me in plain English
how you have positively engaged the opposition. If what you wrote denotes
positive engagement, I'll say some serious prayers for the opposition when
you engage them negatively.  Anyway, I apologise for the long post and wish
you a good evening. Thanks.

"Instead, we have a lacklustre opposition stuffed with it's self-importance
who would rather drool about elections that experience and hard-nose logic
demonstrates that will never be free and fair if  they ever happen.All we
get is opposition figures either whiling away precious time in party HQs
writing posh letters to an ignora! mus who never reads such missives or
granting endless interviews that merely chafe the surface of the country's
problems.unlike you and i, the local opposition do not have an inkling as to
what they are faced with here."

"Sadly local opposition is all talk and no muscle. When i read people
rattling off these absurdities about elections being the only credible
alternative, i wonder to myself whether these people really wish to see
Jammeh gone or are just guilty of gross naivety?"

"So long as local opposition is timourous, lethargic or half-hearted in
making it plain that Jammeh's is a tyranny."

"i do not exaggerate when i call some PDOIS supporters as blind, programmed
and fanatical who could never see beyond the Gospel according to  Saint
Halifa of Churchill's Town."

"That the PDOIS/Foroyaa "enlightenment" have in many cases churned out
programmed fanatics is not in doubt. Save rehearsing the Gospel according
Saint Halifa, many of these people can barely look beyond what they are
told."

"We have heard platitudinous excuses from people claiming that unification
of all Gambians what-ever their differences ! to battle Jammeh as being
unfeasible because political parties have different strategies and or
principles. Cobblers."

"All this is attributable to the fixative, lethargic and soft response of
the local opposition to the Gambian crises. Far from realising the
unfeasibility of  employing dry rhetorics and using tidy means to respond to
a Fascist order, the opposition to this very day remain unrepentant on the
unfeasibility of their strategy."

"As if these were not enough, engaged in intellectually shoddy and
pseudo-scientific pretentious "investigation" into the murder of Koro Ceesay
and the question of the Gambia's missing millions siphoned off to
Switzerland by Jammeh of which the New African Magazine did a very lucid
reporting of. From ferocious critics of Jawara, they metamorphosed into low
risk and soft critics of the Jammeh era."

"The UDP, at any rate, after virtually almost 4 years of existence as a
political force, still borders on the ambiguous. It is hard to culminate
it's pulsating political philosophy that runs in it's veins; it's cementing
ideology or world view. It's funny position of being a crossover and
hurriedly patched up ragtag fraternity of at best strange political bed
fellows who have struck an alliance to battle the common enemy."



Buharry.

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

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