Halifa,
       I hope you wouldn't mind that I am interjecting myself in this
discourse. It is indeed a defining moment in our political struggles. Our
attitudes to politics, therefore, is either driven by interest or is
selflessly motivated. This is where we identify with each other. This is also
where we struggle against each other. The struggle for change in the Gambia,
I believe, is motivated by interest. Some aspire to change the present
leadership, only to replace it with one that is not different, if not worst.
Others aspire to change the political environment to perpetuate the
realization of an ideal: the establishment of a genuine democracy where civil
liberties are respected, and power truly resides with the people who owns it.

     I sincerely share the sentiments express by Musa with respect to PDOIS.
I think we also need to acknowledge that there is a lot of frustration,
anger, hopelessness and powerlessness, and understandly so, with the
governing situation in the country. The reports of abductions, repressions,
summary dismissals, the deteriorating economic situation, intimidations,
corrupt activities and other civil and human rights violations, necessitated
the reaction of citizens, particularly those outside the Gambia, whose voices
have found expression through the medium of Gambia-l.  Gambia-l, therefore,
has assumed a very important role as the vehicle of expression for our
dissent, conscience, optimism and opposition, that has constructively and
passionately engaged the political developments in the Gambia wishing to make
an impact; wishing to create a difference.

   It is, therefore, necessary that those on the ground should listen to
these voices as you are doing. They should also not hesitate, as you are
doing to make clarifications on issues that concerns you, or engage in debate
to make your position more clear. This is another indication of the type of
democracy that could be nourished under a PDOIS leadership.

  The government, unfortunately, should have been more receptive to these
voices. The Gambia-L is providing them with a unique opportunity to reassess
and reevaluate their position on the issues of governance, power, human
rights, the economic situation, tolerance and a host of other issues that it
is continually bringing to their attention. Their positive reactions to these
issues, and others that you are campaigning for on the ground, will only
engender a stable political climate. The government should express concern,
and do everything to allay people's fears and win back their trust,
particularly the cloud looming over the coming elections. They should
compliment your efforts to ensure that political stability could be
maintained in the country.

   With respect to your position on civil disobedience and demonstrations,
the arguments you gave to justify your position is reasonable and realistic.

   "However, if the collective actions of the people, through civil
disobedience, the engendering of an ungovernable situation, mass
demonstrations and strikes, could cause a government to surrender its
illegitimate authority to govern by resigning, and return the authority to
govern back to the people, if "by all means necessary" is within this
context, it is a right that the people not only possessed but can exercise".
I wrote these words sometime ago.

     By writing these words, I was making the following statements: a) that
the people choose those whom they have empowered to government them (through
elections), and also maintain the right to revoke this empowerment to govern
(through elections), whenever a government doesn't serve their interest. b)
That when the people make a determination to revoke a government's authority
to govern (through elections), and the government blatantly refuse to
surrender power, then the people not only possessed the right but can
exercise the above quoted remarks to take back their power.

   The main thrust of this argument, however, was to remove other elements of
force (by all means necessary) outside the collective will, to remove a
government, and put it back squarely on the shoulders of the people. In this
way, nobody can act outside the collective will on behalf of the people
without their consent, and assume to be their saviors as is the case in coup
d'etats etc. This is the reasoning that was behind that remark.

     Others may contend, that if the people cannot remove a government
through elections, neither can they force them to resign through their
collective actions of civil disobedience and demostrations to surrender their
illegitimate power, then it is right, proper or whatever for others to do
that for them without their consent, through coup d'etats. This eventually is
what we are desperately trying to avoid, hence your instructive statement:

    "Where a government obstructs the holding of free and fair elections and
seek to impose its will on the people, it will ultimately alienate the people
and will have to bow down on pressure or leave room for undemocractic means
of overthrowing through coup d'etats or rebillions".

    My sincere regards.

    Rene

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

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