Hamjatta,

I should commend you for answering the questions raised by Buharry.  I was
however, disappointed by your last paragraph in which you wrote, "I have
noticed also the impatience of incorrigible programmed fanatics like Samba
Jow who simply would not desist from reminding me a duty to answer your
questions.  Somehow, him and his ilk think you have had me cornered and
there is no escape."  The essence of my insistance that you should answer
the questions raised was simply, because these questions were raised during
a debate at which you challenged PDOIS and its supporters on the L. So any
attempt to have answered these questions by sending a private mail to
Buharry was not to me a sign of your willingness to do a diservice to the
members of the L.  For if one criticizes an individual or and organization
in public one should always be ready to hear the case of the individual
criticized or the organization in public.

What I would want to know is how do you come to the conclusion that I am
incorrigible and a programmed fanatic.  Does any of my postings on the L or
the articles that I have written whilst in the Gambia carry any message that
suggests that I am programmed?  What I would want to make clear is that I am
a man of my own with a critical mind who gives things critical analysis so
as to make an informed judgement.  It is true that I am a supporter of PDOIS
that I believe that Halifa, Sidia, Sam, Amie Sillah, Sheikh Ndow, Swaebou
Touray to name a few amongst the PDOIS membership are dignified, honest,
dedicated, and patriotic Gambians who are sacrificing every day, every
minute, every second of their lives for the betterment of the Gambia.

Since its inception in 1986, PDOIS has always taught and continues to teach
that people should own their minds they should not allow anybody to own them
that they are part owners of their country and should never surrender their
birth right to determining the manner of which the Gambia should be run to
few individuals called politicians.  No PDOIS member has ever claimed to be
a saint or a prophet who needs followers or deciples.  There is no
TALOUBEISM in PDOIS's language.  In fact it is against the policies of PDOIS
for any member or supporter to see any other member as a lord who controls
him or her, all PDOIS members are humble servants of the people.

Mr Hamjatta, I want to make it categorically clear that I am nobody's
deciple, follower, or TALOUBE.  I am an independent man with an independent
mind.  What is however more disturbing is your categorization of Mr. Amadou
Kanteh as someone "lurking and prowling in the corridors of Gambia-L, yet
have no positive contribution to make here.  They should either digest what
comes in their mail boxes or simply zip up if they don't like what comes
their way."  This, Mr. Hamjatta, to me is a clear manifestation of how much
you cannot take criticisms from others, it also proves that you are not as
democratic as you claim to be, for almost everybody who does not agree with
you always ends up with a funny name from you in fact I believe this is why
you are branding all PDOIS supporters as programmed fanatics.  This Mr.
Hamjatta does not help your intigrity in fact I believe it undermines it.

When I joined the L I promised myself never to engage in any form of name
callings for the simple fact that it does not serve any purpose.  It is very
clear that we are all interested in putting an end to the dictatorial and
despotic regime of YAHYA JAMMEH.  It is always important to note that we
shall never agree on the same way that we believe change should be effected
in the Gambia, so it is important that we become more tolerant of our
critics so that we can agree to disagree in order to be able to have a
Gambia that is free from domination, intimidation, dictatorship, corruption,
etc.

Peace

Pasamba Jow Coach


>From: Hamjatta Kanteh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Buharry's Questions
>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:41:42 -0700
>
>Buharry,
>
>After a closer perusal of your questions and some of the comments in that
>posting, 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. You, like else, have made it a
>point to continually
>equate or indeed, juxtapose me, Hamjatta, the individual critic, alongside
>organizations like say,
>the UDP, NRP and PDOIS and hence posed questions which assumes that like
>these
>organizations i have dispositions which equate with their propensity to
>effect changes on such a
>scale expected of organizations that can mobilize on a mass scale. See,
>once you sloppily
>construed as such, your questions, comments and criticisms become wide off
>the mark. To place
>Hamjatta or Kebba Dampha, individual critics, along-side organizations and
>expect the same
>chores and results from them is to mistake the tree for the woods. 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. Not to romanticize
>the individual critic, but in my book, the individual critic is Voltairean;
>not burdened by
>organizational shackles to see beyond the conformity of like-mindedness,
>never playing to the
>gallery of constituents that help sustain such organizations and a lone
>ranger: grubby iconoclast,
>acerbic, witty, maverick, agitator and always on his feet pointing out
>inconsistencies in society and
>indeed, at loggerheads with mainstream view.
>
>Which brings to related issue of the individual critic and the place of his
>ideas in a struggle or
>society at large. I think it would amount to gross ignorance and
>irresponsibility not to take
>seriously dissenting voices on the periphery. It was thanks to the
>individual dissension of
>Copernicus that geocentric cosmology associated with Ptolemy crumbled.
>Discounting the voices
>of individuals who hold contrarian viewpoints has always been part of
>mainstream culture. Just
>because Hamjatta is currently residing in the UK studying doesn't mean his
>judgements on the
>Gambia cannot be profound and thus should be dismissed. The anti-thesis
>that  individuals who
>have credible ideas but are impeded by material limits, and are therefore,
>not worthy of attention
>or should be discounted is grossly false and misconstrued and tantamount to
>sheer arrogance. It
>misses the point i made earlier and above about the individual critic. Most
>or virtually all of our
>current cadre of opposition leadership were at one point part of the
>Diaspora studying. And some
>of them might have been involved directly/indirectly in some struggle on
>the African Continent.
>Does this imply that their ideas should  be discounted largely because they
>lack institutional
>mechanisms on their own to implement the ideas they might have hatched in
>the process? Since
>when has one's contribution to a struggle become determined by being on the
>ground or material
>resources one has to implement ideas/strategies? Mbeki was at some stage
>here in the UK
>studying whilst his comrades were in the front line of the naked aggression
>of Apartheid. I have
>never read anywhere Mandela and else dismissing him as some arm-chair
>critic who lacks
>understanding of South African situational realism. If anything, the likes
>of Mbeki in the Diaspora
>were largely utilized by the struggle as conduits for feed-backs on ideas,
>tactics and strategies,
>and selling the struggle to wider audiences.
>
>Most misconstrued was your perception of the nomenclature "empirical". It
>seems that you and
>those who keep parroting after you, conceive of "empirical" or empiricism
>to mean presentation of
>only variables or statistical data to support ones postulates or thesis.
>This is a very narrow
>conception of  the terminology. Empiricism or "empirical" evidence as it
>applies to the social and
>political sciences, is not narrowly confined to the presentation of
>variables and statistical data.
>Suffice to say that tangible materials and or events can constitute
>"empirical" events at any rate in
>the social and political sciences which is our concern. At preliminary or
>embryonic levels,
>researchers/scientists of the physical and natural sciences certainly do
>make use of such tangible
>observable materials and events and hence their qualification as
>"empirical" evidence. If evidence
>involves real life tangible/observable experience, then it qualifies to be
>called "empirical". In fact
>the early proponents of  empiricism like Hume, Locke, Berkeley, et al were
>not natural or
>physical scientists and did not necessarily use variables or statistical
>data in their works. Yet,
>these three can without any fear of exaggeration be labelled as the
>founding fathers of "empirical"
>evidence at any rate in Western Thought. In my posting, i gave such
>observable/tangible
>evidences of the 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 as "empirical"
>evidences that the opposition strategy is not working and lack-lustre. I
>hope all these disclaimers
>and clarifications would help in throwing further light on the answers i
>give to your questions
>below.
>
>    #What has been your strategy since April massacre as a concerned
>citizen to ensure that
>      justice is served?
>    #This question makes me really wonder whether in essence you do read or
>follow my
>      writings on the subject of the Gambian political stalemate and its
>solutions. My views on
>      this subject is the less kept secret about me. In fact in the very
>posting you had responded
>      to, i had clearly stated my position, interpretations and strategies
>of the problem in the
>      Gambia. I shall for the sake of further clarity re-state my position
>here again. My position
>      has always and consistently been that of a sceptic who has realized
>that the way things are,
>      to put one's faith in the political process to remedy the ills of our
>nation, tantamount not
>      only to mis-apprehension of reality but gross negligence. Fact is,
>under the current political
>      arrangements, none expect blind fanatics to the political process,
>can expect elections to be
>      held under FREE and FAIR conditions. Not only is the body politic
>corrupted, discredited
>      and bankrupt by the reaches of the tentacles of the executive, but it
>so fundamentally
>      flawed and tilting favourably towards the incumbency that
>holding/participating in elections
>      under such circumstances is to commit political suicide. Since i have
>realized that the
>      political process as it is, is incapable of effecting the changes i
>and else desire, the next best
>      thing that legitimately and practically exists is to EXTRICATE
>oneself from such
>      arrangements and AGITATE for fundamental reforms of the body politic
>before one can
>      except to be attach to it again and expect genuine changes. Such
>AGITATION, calls for
>      not only the political opposition to bandy together, but the
>inclusion of all civil society from
>      the cultural to economic strands of Gambian existence to come under
>one big familial
>      unifying tent to fight the cause of the oppressed people of the
>Gambia. The AGITATION,
>      has to be peacefully and civilly conducted through sit-ins,  peaceful
>marches/demos, rallies
>      and any other form of civil disobedience until our demands for
>justice and fundamental
>      reforms are instituted to the body politic inorder to see a relative
>peaceful transfer of power
>      back to the People. In the very extreme, if such agitation fails,
>then force, even if we are
>      opposed to it, becomes not only attractive and seductive but
>inevitable. It is better if such
>      gallant, moral and progressive force is courted by civil society
>rather than isolate it from the
>      mainstream. The great Kebba Dampha was the first to point out this
>fundamental truth and
>      precisely why he is endeared to me. As he cogently observed, such a
>force, if it is ready to
>      cleanse the current system and replace it with free institutions
>needed for a genuine political
>      process to take-off once again, need not be ridiculed, side-lined and
>put at loggerhead with
>      civil society or the opposition. Rather it should be courted and made
>to realize how
>      common all our objectives are: a free and prosperous Gambia. I
>believe and like him, that
>      such  moral, gallant and progressive force should be wooed and
>reminded how together
>      we can restore peace, decency, respect and freedom for all in the
>Gambia. If as some are
>      saying, that this is "closet adventurism", so be it. We make no
>apologies. Truth is the
>      problem in the Gambia is not only a political problem, but a national
>crises of survival. And
>      politics as it is now in the Gambia  CANNOT solve the problem.
>    #How is it different from PDOIS'?
>    #Well, if you read my answer above, you will realize that whilst PDOIS
>still has faith in the
>      current political arrangements and indeed, fanatically pursues it, i
>have stated that the
>      current arrangements are not only fundamentally flawed, but are
>discredited, bankrupt and
>      corrupted and therefore, no genuine changes can come out of it.
>Whilst they haven't made
>      up their mind yet on AGITATION, i have already said we have got to
>start AGITATING
>      NOW! Infact we are getting late with the AGITATION.
>    #How have you implemented the strategy or how do you intend to
>implement the strategy?
>    #Buharry, get real. Does my stating of an alternative strategy and the
>acceptance of the
>      profundity of my judgement depend on the material resources needed to
>implement? A
>      debate about our country's problem is going on here and i have stated
>a position, should it
>      suffice to say just because i'm a young struggling student in the
>Diaspora, so my judgements
>      should be discounted? My views should not be discounted simply
>because i as an
>      individual on my own cannot implement them. I refer you here to my
>introduction on the
>      individual vis-a-vis society and the struggle.
>    #Can you guarantee or at least gauge whether the results of your
>strategy will have a higher
>      success rate than PDOIS'?
>    #As Ben Franklin memorably noted to his friend Jean Bapiste Le Roy,
>nothing in this world
>      can be said to certain or guaranteed save death and taxes. No, i have
>no guarantees for
>      you though my good sense of history tells me what i have suggested
>had been implemented
>      in similar situations and had succeeded in averting national
>disasters and freed oppressed
>      peoples from oppression without resorting to bloody social and
>political upheavals. Indeed,
>      history is littered with examples of victims of oppression no longer
>seeing themselves as
>      victims and organized themselves effectively against such oppression.
>    #What do you base such predictions or pronouncements on?
>    #On precepts in history as i outlined above.
>    #What alternative approach can you proffer to deal with the current
>political impasse in the
>      Gambia given that PDOIS' approach is not, in your opinion, working?
>    #A repetitive question. I refer you back to the answer to question
>number one.
>    #How do you intend to institute your alternative?
>    #Another repetitive question. Again,  i refer you to the answer of
>question number three.
>    #What do you expect PDOIS and the other political parties to do in the
>meantime?
>    #First, EXTRICATE themselves from their commitment to current political
>arrangements.
>      Second, join hands together with all other stake holders in the
>Gambian family, from the
>      cultural to the religious strand, and AGITATE for change. EXTRICATING
>themselves
>      from their commitment to the present arrangement doesn't mean that
>they will idly watch as
>      events pass by them. No. They will directly, if not lead the
>AGITATION for change.
>    #Given that you feel that political process is not a workable
>alternative, do you believe that
>      the available or workable option would be a violent overthrow of the
>government?
>    #Yes, i believe the body politic and in extension the political process
>are enfeebled by their
>      inherent flaws, bankruptcy and corruption and as such, it would
>amount to Peter Pan
>      Idealism to expect genuine changes to ensue from them. However,
>contrary to your
>      perception or insinuation, a call for AGITATION to effect changes, is
>not a call for violent
>      overthrowing of gov'ts. When the likes of Dr. King Jr. and Lech
>Walesa were
>      AGITATING for change, they did not involve or incite their followers
>to violence. There
>      was no violent overthrow of the US gov't during the Civil Rights
>AGITATION of 60s and
>      70s America neither were there any such acts in Poland when
>Solidarity was AGITATING
>      for change. When change came, it was because oppressors could not
>COPE with the
>      pressure that AGITATORS had unleashed on them. I'm obliged here to
>play semantics to
>      refute the charge that force inevitably leads to violence. Whilst it
>is susceptible to violence if
>      not properly dispensed with, force is not synonymous to violence.
>Force that is used on
>      moral grounds and professionally conducted can gallantly effect
>peaceful changes in a body
>      politic. Force can be another form of patriotism if it's rationale as
>i discussed above, is to
>      cleanse institutions of evils and help create new and free
>institutions. The philosophical
>      rationale of my position, as i explained to you earlier, is based on
>my sense of history.
>    #When? What if that is not possible in the next one, two, five, ten
>years?
>    #Buharry, such extrapolation doesn't help anyone. Any struggle that
>sets time frames within
>      which it expects to effect changes, is ridiculously constraining
>itself. In the AGITATION of
>      Walesa and King Jr., they never constrained themselves within time
>frames. They merely
>      maintained and sustained the tempo of their AGITATION until when the
>oppressors were
>      no longer able to COPE with it and change inevitable came. I see it
>the same way.
>    #Should the political parties stop all operations and wait for the
>alternative you propose or
>      do you believe that they are obliged under the Constitution of The
>Gambia and their own to
>      propagate their beliefs?
>    #Here again, i have to refer you to the answer to question number 8. I
>will, however take
>      you on what constitutes lawful in societies/States that are lurching
>towards anarchy and
>      where the masses are brutally oppressed on a daily basis. In my book,
>and i dare assert in
>      common sense, 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. Any movement that seeks to liberate the masses from such
>daily oppression
>      CANNOT be made illegal by any form of authority be it in the Gambia
>or beyond.
>    #Since Yaya is still in power doing as he pleases despite the presence
>of all stake holders,
>      would you agree that not only the "failure" of PDOIS' policies but
>also that of all the
>      stake holders in and outside the country including me, you, the other
>opposition parties and
>      every other concerned Gambian? If you do not agree, what do you base
>your
>      disagreement on?
>    #Here we are in agreement. I have never shelved the whole blame of the
>crises in the
>      Gambia on PDOIS strategy or lethargy. We all share varying degrees of
>responsibility in
>      the tragedy unfolding in the Gambia.  What i have always gone after
>is their tendency to be
>      self-righteous and impervious to credible criticisms.
>    #Agreeing totally with Karl Popper's quote [thanks by the way for
>bringing such a heavy
>      quote to my attention] and accepting in principle also the opposition
>parties' refusal to
>      engage in civil disobedience measures, what should we all do pending
>the solution you
>      propose?
>    #Here again i sense repetition. 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.
>      Events in the end will prove us right that a tyrannous evil will
>never willingly give up without
>      a tussle. Yet, inspite the profundity of our position, we must be
>engaging and not
>      condemning of the opposition. For to be very frank, they have it in
>them more than us in
>      the Diaspora, to practically bring to end the crises in the Gambia.
>We must patiently
>      persuade them and indeed, continue engaging them positively until
>such time it dawns upon
>      them that the political process as it is, is ineffective in bringing
>about real changes in the
>      Gambia.
>    #a la Realpolitik or realistically speaking, how do we go about
>bringing meaningful change
>      when the forces that can bring about the change you espouse do not
>feel that the time is
>      right for them to employ the methods you propose? Would there be any
>possibility for you
>      to lead and to bring to fruition the methods you espouse, would you
>agree with me that as
>      the opposition parties are able to bring to fruition the methods you
>espouse, no matter how
>      "ineffective", they are within their rights  not to accept  your
>proposal no matter how
>      brilliant or no matter how much of a panacea it is to the Gambia's
>problems? If you do not
>      agree, could you please tell me why?
>    #Let me state two disclaimers here: One, i have said anywhere that the
>ideas that i
>      contribute online are a "panacea" to the Gambian problem neither have
>i pretended to have
>      all the answers. I'm like all Gambians contributing towards the
>debate. I do not have any
>      monopoly over ideas. Secondly, i have never stated anywhere that the
>opposition have to
>      accept my proposals by force [as if that is ever possible]. You are
>right, they are with in
>      the purview of their rights to do as they wish and what their
>consciences dictates to them as
>      the best plausible thing to do. There is moral equation i wish to
>take up here: The idea that
>      those who are in the Diaspora or at any rate not in the glare of the
>naked aggression of the
>      oppressive gov't, do not have no basis to dictate to those on the
>ground and indeed, facing
>      the brutality on a daily basis. In my view, the relationship between
>the concerned and
>      anxious Diaspora and those faced literally with the real thing on the
>ground should be
>      based not on outright condemnation of victims of oppression for not
>organizing or even
>      where they are forced into collaboration, rather it should be on a
>mutual basis of morale
>      boosting, logistic support and above all moral persuasion for victims
>to stand up to
>      repression. Whether those on the grounds accept such gestures is
>their prerogative. There
>      is a reference is to bring to your attention. A similar moral
>controversy erupted between the
>      writer Hannah Arendt when she asserted in her 1962 book, Eichmann in
>Jerusalem: A
>      Report on the Banality of Evil, that the lack of resistance amongst
>European Jews does
>      bear a measure of responsibility for the Holocaust. This coming from
>someone who during
>      the war was perched in her relative comfort and peace of New York.
>Her assertions
>      infuriated the Jewish world, especially Isaiah Berlin, who had lost
>some of his family in the
>      Holocaust. In an unpublished conversation with Ramin Jahangbeloo,
>Berlin decried
>      Arendt's assertions as a "piece of monstrous moral conceit". He went
>on further to note
>      that: "No moral judgement whatsoever was possible from condition of
>safety of human
>      being in conditions. Even active collaboration could not be condemned
>outright." Whilst i
>      agree with Berlin's judgement, i see sense in Arendt querying why
>victims of Hitler never
>      organized themselves against repression. Whilst it makes sense to say
>that Jews should
>      have organized themselves, it becomes ridiculous when one looks at
>the fact that Jews
>      were at any rate minorities in Europe and cannot conceivably form a
>credible bulwark
>      against the Nazis. That however, is not the case in the Gambia. In
>the Gambia the
>      oppressors are a minority whilst the oppressed form  the majority. A
>majority with a
>      coaching from steely and pragmatic leadership can conceivably form a
>credible bulwark
>      against the repression of Jammeh.
>    #Can you "empirically" prove that PDOIS' party strategy is not working
>especially in relation
>      to but not limited to the April massacres? Which variables did you
>use?
>    #I refer you to my introduction where i went out of my way to explain
>the nomenclature
>      "empiricism".
>
>I trust i have done justice to your questions. You might have observed an
>exchange i had a one
>Mr. Amadou Kanteh, whose uncharacteristic and exceptional impertinence have
>made me
>remark that i will only be sending my reply to you in private since he was
>threatening me with
>deleting anything bearing my imprint if i don't answer you ASAP. I was
>merely stating a point:
>That none is under no obligation to respond to none or contribute anything,
>not especially to those
>who are lurking and prowling in the corridors of Gambia-L, yet have no
>positive contribution to
>make here. They should either digest what comes in their mail boxes or
>simply zip up if they don't
>like what comes their way. And another thing. I have noticed also the
>impatience of incorrigible
>programmed fanatics like Samba Jow who simply would not desist from
>reminding me that i have
>a duty to answer your questions. Somehow, him and his ilk think you have
>had me cornered and
>there is no escape. So one hear them piping in posting after posting, "
>come on answer the
>questions." I can only snort out laugher after laughter. Talk about blind
>fanaticism. Programmed
>fanatics indeed!
>Hamjatta Kanteh
>
>Hamjatta Kanteh
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________________________________
>Get your free e-mail account with *unlimited* storage at
>http://www.ftnetwork.com
>
>Visit the web site of the Financial Times at  http://www.ft.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
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.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
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface
----------------------------------------------------------------------------