Hi Hamjatta!
  I apologize for the delay in replying. I must state here that I was overwhelmed by your kind remarks and I thank you. I'll try to deal with the issues you raised. You highlighted the fact that it was poor reading on my part with regard to some of the issues you raised and that they were not intended as they read to me and I accept that. You wrote:

"The emphasis should have been on the word "potentialities"; therein the passage would have meant that the so-called PDOIS/Foroyaa 'enlightenment' invariably - as in most cases - churns out fanatics who have little or no regard for dissenting views and do not bother themselves questioning the rationale for PDOIS policies and positions."

I am glad that you have you have first of all highlighted "potentialities" . I however wonder whether what you wrote above tallies with what you wrote on Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:54 PM. What you wrote reads:

"This, again lays bare a judgement i earlier passed on the UDP: the
fact that its communication and presentation skills leave much to be desired for. To correct this deficit, the UDP ought to emulate the shining example of their compatriots, the PDOIS, who have always done a very good job in selling their position to an informed electorate."


You also wrote:
"Can you kindly humour me on your differences with PDOIS?"

I'm afraid I am going to disappoint you here because I have to pass as I have not yet entered the humour business especially when it relates to issues of such importance as those under discussion.

You wrote:

"Do i detect ripples of relativism here? . i strongly believe that there are good and bad ideas; and that through rigorous disinterested rational enquiry, we can differentiate between the good and the bad. So yes one can critically look at PDOIS' policies and come to the rational conclusion that they are based on bad or good ideas."

No, I am not implying that there is nothing like good or bad ideas. However, in most cases what constitutes good or bad ideas has a lot to do with the point from which one is looking at things. Let me give you an example. The procedures used during the creation of the alliance you currently support in Gambian politics was deemed by many as a bad way of bringing about different groups but you vehemently defended it. You defended it because you are a supporter of the alliance and those who disagreed with it did so because they were not satisfied with the way the procedures were handled. Now, who is right in this case? You see, what constitutes good or bad to people in some instances has to do with the point from which they are looking at things. 

Who has carried out the rational, disinterested study that you based your conclusion on? Was it you? If it was you, can you truly say it was disinterested? Was it carried out on PDOIS policy model or was it carried out on the former East German model, the former USSR model or the North Korean model? If it was carried out on the these models, can you truly conclude that they are applicable vis a vis the PDOIS model? Based on what?

You further wrote:

"I ask you this: should the PDOIS as a responsible political party hold on to views and policies that have been decisively repudiated by vast swathes of empirical evidence?"

Which views and policies have been repudiated by empirical evidence? Socialism? Co-operatives? Please tell me which views these are so I can respond appropriately.

You wrote:

"i never said that cooperative societies are un-profitable. There are, indeed, indications that they can be profitable."

Why are you against their implementation by a PDOIS government then? You wrote: "Now, for economic simpletons - as most programmed fanatics are anyway - and unreconstructed leftists, this is the magic formula for that idyllic egalitarian paradise leftists hanker for. But for sophisticated folks, the equation that purports to undergird this policy thrust doesn't simpy add up. Far from it. Liberals only become suspicious of these things if they are State contrived and susceptible to pork barrel politics." If there are indications that co-ops can be profitable, why condemn them? Do you know how a PDOIS government is going to handle the creation and
management of such? Did they say anywhere that they are going to create a co-operative completely owned and managed by the state? Would it not be better to ask them for the blueprint and then take positions based on what is written there? Isn't Gamtel a parastatal? Isn't it one of the model businesses in the country? Aren't many telecoms and other companies in Europe parastatals? Aren't they equally and in some cases even more profitable than private competitors? You even alluded to this when you wrote that some countries have "relatively successful public sector economics." One cannot issue a blanket condemnation of all state enterprises just because they have failed elsewhere. There are many private enterprises equally and in some instances even more riddled with corruption and mismanagement. Should private investment be condemned on this basis? I say no. Everything has to do with how an enterprise is managed.

You also wrote:

"As per how i know that PDOIS wishes to emulate the Bakau Women's 
Horticultural Gardens' model, let Sidia Jatta, their presidential candidate, 
answer the question:

""imagine if ten women are working in that farm, each of them would at least 
have a share of D20,000." Mr. Jatta said if such gardens are decentralised 
countrywide, the Gambia could stand a better chance in combating mass 
dominant poverty in the country." 

That was Sidia talking about the success of the Banjulingding Horticultural Gardens to the Point newspaper recently. I'm all ears but each time PDOIS talks about their economic plans, it is invariably about emulating and or decentralising the successes of both Bakau and Banjulingding Horticultural Gardens. This is why it is difficult not to resist the conclusion that the central plank of their economic programme is agriculturally driven and centred."

You have therefore not read anywhere that they want emulate the Bakau Gardens. When you wrote the following, were you therefore speculating that they would emulate the Bakau Gardens? You wrote thus: "according to them, they are committed to enhancing personal income through the agricultural economics of cooperative societies like the ones you find in Bakau where women have their horticultural gardens. Well, that is it." When you wrote "according to them", you are attributing that statement to them when they have not said that. You should have written that you are guessing or assuming that they would support gardens based on the Bakau model.

You also wrote:

"Needless to that this is what PDOIS has consistently been arguing about vis-a-vis their economic plans; and hence an incontrovertible fact that the central plank of their economic programme is ala the cooperative economics of the Bakau Horticultural Gardens. Give me reason to believe other wise. Where are their monetary and fiscal policies? Where did they state an indepth break-down of the macro-economic framework that incorporates industrial and commercial policies to reflect current socio-economic realities? Go ahead i'm 
listening."

As said above, you are guessing or assuming that the PDOIS co-ops would be á la the Bakau Gardens and your conclusion that this is the central plank of their economic policy is also speculation and guessing because they have also stated other areas of a nation's economic life. In a mail titled "On PDOIS' Economic Programme" posted here on Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:14 PM you wote:

 "Halifa,
The way i see it, the central plank in PDOIS' Economic Programme is an urgent sense of renewal. It is a renewal of the type you have never seen wholly implemented in the Gambia before - even if in practice, it rhymes with some key elements of the PPP's economic edifice or strategy, especially as it relates to agriculture..The point here is not so much the similarities - in both design or intent - between the 'mildly socialist' PPP's old and repudiated agricultural economics and the central plank of the PDOIS' Economic Programme. Far from it. The point, though, is that by its prognosis and diagnosis and placing so much emphasis on an 'informal' farming-led resuscitation of the dilapidated Gambian economy, the PDOIS Economic Programme would fall in the same consequential and structural trap that eventually befell the PPP."

On this day, you wrote that the central plank of PDOIS' economic program is similar to the
key elements of the PPP's economic program and over a week ago you wrote that the central plank of PDOIS' economic program is akin to the Bakau Horticultural Gardens. Which one is it and how did you arrive at such a conclusion? Even if you mentioned that the similarity is related to agriculture, I ask you whether the PPP's economic program was limited to horticultural gardens á la Bakau. If it was wider, then how can you say that the central plank is similar to the PPP's and narrow PDOIS' down to horticultural gardens? Isn't this contradictory? If the PPP's economic program was limited to horticultural gardens, was it also as unwise even though it was implemented by the PPP? 

When you wrote: "Where are their monetary and fiscal policies? Where did they state an indepth break-down of the macro-economic framework that incorporates industrial and commercial policies to reflect current socio-economic realities?", I ask you the same. Where are those of the alliance that you support? When did you see them? When the UDP posted their election manifesto? You have argued that the alliance has the solution to the country's problems before the manifesto was made available. I saw you posting suggestions for the alliance but not writing what the alliance stands for. What did you base those pronouncements on? Why didn't you ask for an in-depth breakdown of the UDP's or alliance's macro-economic policies because just a few months ago, you wrote the following about the UDP that suggests that you didn't know much about the party:

Sat, 5 May 2001 19:39:44 EDT
"Barrow & Toure, Brothers, i share your view that the UDP is capable inconsistencies that if left unchecked would in the long run seek to undermine its combative-ness vis-a-vis in the struggle against the Dictatorship."  

"As it is, the legitimacy question that was surrounding Roberts - at least in practical legal terms - is virtually non-existent because Roberts has been legitimised ironically by two of the same parties contesting his legitimacy: the UDP and the NRP which campaigned honorably alongside the UDP during the by-elections. This is all thanks to the ripples of arrogance that one sometimes can't help in detecting coming from the UDP direction."

"Aside, there is also the issue of engaging those who share their concerns about the Gambia but do not fully get the picture of where the UDP is coming from. In my opinion, they need to do more in demarcating facts from fictions surrounding their alternative programme to the APRC and their underpinning political philosophy. Criticising the worst excesses of Jammeh and or the APRC doesn't by itself constitute a clear demarcation of where the UDP stands on the crucial issues and where it wants to take the Gambia if it does end up winning the mandate to govern."

"Coming out as it did in saying that it shall contest the Kiang East results after officially - at least in an implicit Orwellian double-talk - that the by-elections fared relatively well and in fact alluded a clean bill of health to the by-elections, surely exposes that something is fundamentally amiss in the messages the UDP occasionally sends out."


Mon, 7 May 2001 02:45:41 EDT
"The gist of my argument was that the UDP is inconsistent afflicted at times and most of the vital bread and butter issues concerning the economy, security, social and political issues that will grip a post Jammeh Gambia has not been clearly articulated by your party." 

"Here one can see that your party leadership's declaring of the by-elections free and fair albeit a few hitches was not only contradicted but reveals the hubristic tendency of your party's communication of vital information. UDP should have communicated this development forthwith soon as it became a reality and not dithered in public by saying different things that clearly contradict the actuality of things that chanced during the said by-elections. Perhaps the choice of words should not have been inconsistencies but **incompetence** i.e., incompetence in presenting their case appropriately and tactfully to the Gambian peoples and the world outside."

"If you have strong reservations about the integrity of Gabriel Roberts et al to fairly and freely conduct elections, then how come you engage Roberts in the said by-elections and in the process TACITLY legitimising the illagal chairmanship of Roberts? It reeks of both inconsistency and hubris to participate in by-elections that are administered by an outfit whose membership you aptly described as "handpicked by Jammeh" and are virtually his yes-men and turn still say you view those members as illegal occupants of a public office and contesting their ligitimacy in court. My point remains unrefuted: By contesting these by-elections, the UDP's legal and moral case against the IEC has lost its backbone."

"But with the UDP and arguably the NRP, this is a no-winner for the moral and legal backbone that had in the early days of the crisis fortified their case has been decimated by their participation in the by-elections administered by Roberts whose legality they are still contesting in the courts. Suffice for me to say here that the participation of the UDP and the NRP in these by-elections and their acceptance of the result(s) has TACITLY legitimised Roberts."

"This, again lays bare a judgement i earlier passed on the UDP: the
fact that its communication and presentation skills leave much to be desired for."

Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:28:49 +0200
"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." 

You see, gauging from the above statements, your knowledge of what the UDP stands for was very limited or even non-existent. 

You wrote:

"Now, there are two fundamental economic reasons why these wouldn't have that much of an impact on the alleviation mass poverty, especially in the urban areas. First, their argument takes as a given that there are enough arable land in the urban areas to accomodate the replication of such a policy application."

Where did they intimate that their policy is going to be centred around the urban areas? Aren't you guessing here also? Even if one is to go by the urbanisation figures that you gave, have you paused to consider that the reason for the migration to the urban areas is lack of jobs and the economic hardships of the rural areas and because all economic opportunity is centred around the urban areas? Don't you think that the migration to the urban areas will be curbed or reduced if improved economic opportunities are made available in the rural areas? You see, even if you are correct that the central plank of their economic program is based on co-ops, applying the urbanisation figures to suggest that the policy is fallacious due to anticipated dwindling of the population in the rural areas does not hold water.

You also wrote:

"Secondly, PDOIS' arguments vis-a-vis the replication of these horticultural gardens betrays their innocence in economics..Did anyone ever inform them of a very simple and basic Econ 101 principle: economies of scale, i.e., when gardens are decentralised and replicated on the scale thay they are arguing, they will invariably result to diseconomies of scale and cannot compete with the output and economic efficiency of the 1000 hectares agricultural garden owner?"

I ask you again, do you know how they plan to implement these projects or are you assuming here? Do you know whether they are talking about planting tomatoes in all the gardens or whether they are talking about diversifying and planting different things in the different gardens? If they are talking about duplicating the same crops eg., tomatoes, and the same model of the Bakau project, then you can talk about a glut and the attendant inefficiencies bound to follow. If they are however talking about specialist and diversified co-ops which even if they are modelled on the same structures will produce different products, how can you conclude that their profitability will end up dwindling? This is why I keep asking you whether you know how PDOIS intends to implement their policies. If you do not know, then all you keep saying will be based on guessing and speculation.

Thank you for making it clear that you do not attribute communism to PDOIS.

On the issue of laymen and formally trained people, you made some good points. You however assume again that PDOIS members are beginning and fingering. You even assume that they have "late night seminars at the party's Churchill's Town HQ dissecting Karl Marx' Das Kapital." You also wrote that "it is to affirm what i wrote earlier that we cannot leave comprehensive economic edifices in the hands of a trio assemblage of jacks-of-all trades and their grope-in-the-dark methodology to solve intricate economic problems." Who told you that they are groping in the dark and fingering? These assumptions and speculation attributing to PDOIS what is not based on fact is rather unfair and unfortunate.

You also wrote:

"I can only hope that eventually such a noble principle would be emulated by PDOIS and its supporters, who are very intolerant of those who subject their views to a foresic scrutiny. In my humble opinion, PDOIS' biggest problem is a fundamental lack of introspection. This is why it can't help posing haughtily and adopting holier-than-thou postures."

I don't agree that PDOIS or its supporters are intolerant. Which other political party in the country bothers to debate their policies and have a representative on the L and deal with all types of insults and abuse? I don't think PDOIS is intolerant or averse to criticism. It is a political party with principles and will defend itself against misrepresentation. The party and its supporters should not and will not silently sit by and watch it misrepresented. No party will. The alliance, NCP, NRP etc. and their supporters will not accept it. If I were to constantly misrepresent here what the alliance stands for, would you or the alliance silently sit by and let me get away with it? I would be disappointed if you do. Why should PDOIS? The party is consistent and principled and maintains its principles no matter how difficult a situation is. It is not fad-driven. You even accepted this fact when you wrote the following:

Mon, 7 May 2001 19:37:33 EDT
"True, in the case of the PDOIS, this is still an honourable position to stake; legally, morally and political defensible. But with the UDP and arguably the NRP, this is a no-winner for the moral and legal backbone that had in the early days of the crisis fortified their case has been decimated by their participation in the by-elections administered by Roberts whose legality they are still contesting in the courts. Suffice for me to say here that the participation of the UDP and the NRP in these by-elections and their acceptance of the result(s) has TACITLY legitimised Roberts."

"Sadly and regretably, the Opposition position was to be weakened by inconsistency - bar the PDOIS - and relentlessness in all the case of all the parties. Secondly, participating in the elections, as the UDP and the NRP did, only made the IEC case to fizzle right in front of them - morally, politically and legally." 

"The party that has stated conditions under which it would be prepared to consider a coalition is the PDOIS; conditions that even i, a strident critic of the PDOIS, sees much sense and honour in."

So you see, PDOIS acts based on principles and that is why it is always vindicated in the end. 

I apologise for the long post and wish you a good evening. Thanks.
                                                                                                                                      Buharry.

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

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

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>