Let me reveal this: Ebrima Cessay and I are very good friends and former
colleagues at the Daily Observer. There, we enjoyed a good working
relationship, and endured some excruciating pain - of a malady afflicting
many an African journalist, struggling to be free and honest in a political
environment well-marinated in authoritarianism. Our bad experiences with the
Jammeh regime brought, and continue to bring, us closer together.
Oftentimes, our views do share a lot in common.

However, I do not agree with some of his arguments in his comparative
assessement of the good of civilian as opposed to the bad of military, rule
in The Gambia. While the central idea of his article has some tangibility,
it may not be churlish to say that his arguments do not follow the guided
accuracy of thoughtfulness and careful scrutiny. Ebrima is certainly right
that there now exists a modicum of liberalism that was absent during the
transitional period. This liberalism is a consequence of the tender mercies
of civilianism, not Jammeh's own making.

True, time was during the transition, when military despotism held captive
our society's political imagination. Our nation was gripped by the
psychological trauma of the mysterious deaths of former finance minister
Ousman Koro Ceesay and former AFPRC spokesman Sadibou Hydara. And the
November 11, 1994 "counter coup" in which a crop of officers of the Gambia
National Army perished. And the human rights violations. And the rampant
soldier-beatings in the streets. As a reporter roving the neighbourhoods, I
chanced upon numerous cases of soldiers taking the law into their own hands
and bullying innocent civilians.

In front of the Daily Observer building - a newspaper house! - I once saw an
army seargent come out of his car, wrestled a bicyclist on the ground and
hurled him numerous slaps. His only crime, after I investigated the
incident, was that he had simply crossed the driveway of the army seargent.
In an another incident, I saw three young men lying on the floor inside the
NIA headquarters, being trampled upon and kicked by a phalanx of NIA agents.
When I tried to investigate the matter with the NIA, I was also meted out
the same punishment, dragged all the way to a detention room.

Ebrima is right about the dangers inherent in the transitional period. M.C.
Cham and others couldn't travel in those days, O .A Jallow couldn't
challenge the constitutionality or lack of, the decrees of the military
regime. The liberalism now enjoyed, according to Ebrima, is making all these
people do what they couldn't during the transition. He said he saw M.C. Cham
at the airport the other day, traveling to The Gambia?

Evidently M.C Cham can now travel, but what about the deputy secretary
general of the UDP Yaya Jallow? He has not been able to travel overseas to
see his children because the authorities reportedly hold his passport. And
those of his colleagues, too. The AFPRC clamped down on the press, fired
judges at will, violated human rights with impunity during the transition,
and the same excesses are being perpetuated in the Second Republic.

Ebrima sounds very apocalyptic about the uncertainties of the transitional
period. But it is not as if The Gambia were enveloped in Cimmerian darkness.
It is not as if the AFPRC were a sickly-famished bear lying in wait in the
woods, ready to devour any unsuspecting stranger. And it is not as if the
Gambian people willingly submitted themselves to the bestiality of the
AFPRC. They crafted ways of expressing their feelings and guarded whatever
was left of their few freedoms and liberties.

Never mind the despotism of the transitional period, it arguably had some
semblance of positivity that the "liberalised authoritarianism" has not
given us. During the transition, Gambian optimism was heightened by Jammeh,
who rode to power on a crest wave of national euphoria. He mulled the idea
of presidential term-limits so that no other person could rule us
perpetually like Jawara. He promised a new era of accountability,
transparency and probity. He promised to respect press freedom. He promised
that he and his council members would face commissions of inquiry in a bid
to show exemplary conduct of accountability and transparency. At least,
Jammeh sounded a democrat during the transition, and Gambian hopes were
buoyed by his promissory declarations. Which, in itself, was arguably a
healthy lubricant in the functioning of our body politic in those tense
moments.

But civilian rule has meant nothing in this regard. Jammeh's contempt for
democracy is openly displayed. He has not actualized his promises. He said
commissioners who didn't support his government risked dismissal. And as if
ordered to emphasise Jammeh's warning in trenchant tones, Youths and Sports
Minister Yankuba Touray, told an APRC rally that Gambian civil servants were
to bestow total allegiance on the APRC government or risked joining the
firing line.

So, in both the transitional period and current-day, we observe the
prevalence of the good and the bad in each case. But if we focus too much on
this dichotomy, we are bound to lend absurdity to our rationality. Examining
the political undercurrents of the transitional period and its aftermath in
a broader perspective, enables us to go beyond polarizing specifics and
concentrate on the totality of the military coup and its concomitants.

What "liberalised authoritarianism"? To what extent has it translated into
the greater good for Gambian society? It means little or nothing as long as
this modicum of liberalism is the handiwork of institutional framework, not
necessarily the free-will offering of an unreformed, unchecked leadership.
All good governments are grounded in the sacredness of accountability and
transparency to its citizenry. And the primary function of any government is
to protect the liberties and freedoms of its citizens. But where a
government is more powerful than its citizens, refuses to be accountable and
transparent, refuses to reform itself, the presence of any liberalism,
however scanty, remains only a facade, not a reality enshrined in the
collective conscience of the leaders and the led. That is the sad reality
about The Gambia.

Ebrima says that Gambians voted for Jammeh simply for the fear that his
defeat would have caused "turmoil." That is preposterous to me. But if
that's indeed the reason for voting Jammeh into power, then woe betide us.
In my opinion, Jammeh was voted president not because his defeat would have
triggered unrest, but out of mass gullibility and ignorance, a political
culture that Jawara bequeathed to Jammeh. And which, Jammeh - perhaps
irremediably, but certainly willingly - shoved deeper down the arteries of
our nation's political psyche, much to his advantage. The tragedy
continues...

Coach, no hard feelings, man. Just trying to speak my mind. Thanks for the
article. At least, it is generating a healthy debate.

Cherno Baba Jallow
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI

From: Abdoulaye Saine <[log in to unmask]>

>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Some useful comments/observations
>Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 18:26:21 -0500
>
>Ebrima Ceesay, Musa Jeng, Jabou Joh, Bakary Sonko, Katim Touray and
>Saiks Samateh:
>
>The ongoing debate is healthy and I commend you and all those who
>responded to my earlier posting "It is Time To Heal." I have compiled
>the responses to the posting and will provide a summary of the various
>comments and suggestions.
>
>Regarding "some useful comments/ observations" by Ebrima Ceesay, I could
>not agree more with his analysis. John Wiseman and I have made similar
>comments elsewhere.  Wiseman, who is British, has written a lot on
>Gambia.  It is this "opening" in Gambia's political landscape that we
>must use as an entry point.  We can debate the modalities later. Ebrima,
>keep up the good "comparative" analysis!
>
>Abdoulaye Saine
>
>Keep up the Good work!
>
>Abdoulaye
>
>
>ebrima ceesay wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

______________________________________________________
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

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