Hamjatta,
It is fair for you to insinuate that intellectual honesty should be tempered
with intellectual humility. Each of us has something to teach the other.
It would, however, be appreciated if you contextualize my position with
regards to scholarship. You would recall that I am diagnosed by Ayittey to
be suffering from "intellectual astigmatism". Ayittey does not know me.
Would it constitute bragging to refer him to consult with people he may know
in African academia? I thought that I was engaged in self defence instead of
bragging. However, I take note of the fact that what I assumed to be an
exercise in self defence appeared to you as a display of intellectual
pomposity. I take note of your observation and hope that it would reflect in
my handling of issues of this nature in the future.
Furthermore, you did not deal with the basis of my exposition. I stated very
clearly that Ayittey and Co. raised the wrong point, that is, whether
Nyerere is a saint or a knave. You know as much as I do that he neither. My
intention was not to review Nyerere's and Nkrumah's achievements and
shortcomings but to defend their integrity. My agenda was not hidden and I
believe the fact that Ayittey has made Nyerere an exception to those leaders
who looted their national coffers and totally betrayed the confidence and
appreciation of their people confirms that my intervention was not entirely
futile. I am glad that your summation is that we were saying the same thing
in different ways. I hope that all of us have seen the matter from that
angle. The theme Ayittey and Co chose, their introductory remarks and their
conclusion certainly did not give me the impression that they wanted to keep
Nyerere's contribution as a part and parcel of the history of the liberation
of the African people. It seemed to me that what they were trying to convey
is that Nyerere should simply slip away from the historical scene. I am glad
that all of us have acknowledged that that should not be.
You, however, indicated two postulations which are highly contentious. First
and foremost, you indicated that my prejudices run deep for both Nyerere and
Nkrumah because they were "old left Socialist Africanist".
I clearly do not believe that there is anything called African Socialist.
Social systems deal with production, distribution, accumulation as far as
economics is concerned. Politics is about power; who controls it; how it is
utilised and in whose interest. Culture is the way of life of a people - how
they relate to each other in all aspects of human existence.
How societies organise their production systems facilitate accumulation for
reproduction as well as distribute their products can easily be studies and
explained. This is the object of social science.
How power is concentrated, who wields it and in whose interest constitute
political science which can be studied and understood. How people relate on
the basis of social status; how they organise their marital system, child
raring, recreation or make use of their leisure time takes us in the realm
of culture which can be studied and understood. All this constitutes the
millieu within which social scientists conduct their tasks of apprehending
reality and explaining social phenomena.
A social scientist cannot believe in social systems. Belief falls in the
realm of faith and religion. Social systems give us an indication of the
type of life of a people, and ideas about social systems are mere tools that
enable us to understand social reality. Which tool we are to utilise to
solve the problem of rural and urban poverty in post colonial Africa is a
matter of debate and we are engaged in that enquiry and debate.
That is why in my respond to Cherno Baba, which you may have read by now, I
raised the question that scholars of Africa should ponder why is it that
rural Africa wears the same uniform of poverty and degradation irrespective
of whether their leaders claim to be Marxists, Capitalists, Socialists or
Democrats. Should we not set aside these terms now and leave them to
individual choice while we concentrate on trying to find out the causes,
consequences and solutions to the poverty of our people and their lack of
power which enable elites to brood over them like tyrants.
Frankly speaking, my school of thought varies from that of Nyerere and
Nkrumah. We converge only in our love for the African continent and people
and our desire to see to it that "Africa rises like a star among the world
constellations of nations", to quote a famous statement by Garvey who also
had his own approach to the liberation of the African people. I hope you
will not accuse me of lacking humility to utter that I have love for Africa
and her people like the Nyerere's and Nkrumahs.
I believe what I am trying to do, Hamjatta, is to give reasons why we should
appreciate all those who have given most of their life to liberate the
African people or improve their conditions. It is my sincere view that such
people should be treated with respect, and we should see their shortcomings
as lessons that should prepare us not to repeat their mistakes.
However, to criticise them continually with words without doing so in deed
by providing solutions to the problems they sought to solve constitutes, to
me, gross hypocrisy. I believe the challenge for Ayittey, myself and those
of you who are young and vibrant is to begin to take the road of those whom
we considered to have been inadequate in fulfilling them.
Lastly, you indicated that sometimes I do apply prose and cold logic when
dealing with Jawara but tend to lose this when dealing with Jammeh because,
according to you, Jammeh subscribes to some crude form of Pan-Africanism. I
would like you to provide concrete evidence to confirm your postulation. I
would want you to quote anywhere that I have used prose and cold logic to
deal with Jawara and the contrary to deal with Jammeh.
I believe your postulation is a by-product of mere speculation. It is clear
to all those who have been following our publication that we criticise the
parasitic bureacracy which existed under Jawara and still exists under
Jammeh; the failure to enlighten the people that existed under Jawara and
still exists under Jammeh; the reliance on taxes to scrape the backs of the
people to maintain a parastic bureacracy which existed under Jawara and
still exists under Jammeh; the wastage of resources on foreign travels,
ceremonies, etc. which existed under Jawara and still exists under Jammeh.
In fact our posture has been that in substance there has not been any break
in policy between the two regimes.
How then can anybody accuse me of favouring Jammeh because of Pan Africanist
sentiments. Where has Jammeh elaborated a Pan Africanist agenda? I am not
aware that any African leader is seriously contemplating on a Pan African
agenda.
A Pan African agenda becomes a mere rhetoric if it is not rooted in a clear
formulation of strategic economic, political, social and cultural policies
which should guide the establishment of a union of African states. I am not
aware that Jammeh has any notion of the type of economic, political, social
and cultural policies that should predicate the expression of Pan Africanist
sympathies.
Frankly speaking, no African leader exists at the moment who has expounded a
view on this score. I do not know how you got your impression.
One thing that is very clear is that our angle of taking up issue with
Jammeh is fundamentally different from our angle of taking up issue with
Jawara. This is obvious. Jammeh is not Jawara. Jammeh is in the defensive on
the issue of democracy, good governance. Jammeh took over power, abolished
representative institutions and imposed a council on the Gambian people. Do
we have to convince anybody that this was an undemocratic exercise of power
and that Jammeh started to rule without any democratic credentials? Was the
whole struggle during the transition period not about moving from an
undemocratic and unconstitutional setup to one that was constitutional and
democratic? Which sane Gambian will say that the transition is complete? Is
Jammeh still not trying to convince people of his democratic credentials?
Did Jawara have to convince anybody of his democratic credentials? Did he
have the same starting point with Jammeh?
Here it should be clear that once Jammeh succeeded in conducting the coup,
his undemocratic credential was taken for granted. On the other hand, once
Jawara came to office, his democratic credentials was taken for granted. It
was left to time to prove the affirmative or the contrary.
Suffice it to say, Jammeh has not hidden his extravagance to anyone. His
foreign travels, the expenditure on those foreign travels amounting to
hundreds of thousands are constantly exposed at the National Assembly. His
salary and incomes have been discussed at the National Assembly and is
common knowledge.
These are the things we used to expose under Jawara's regime. The only
difference at that time is due to the fact that they were not public
knowledge and we were seen as exposing secrets by indicating the President's
salary, allowances and so on and so forth. I know you are quite sure that we
were the first to publish the whole Auditor General's report for public
knowledge. Jammeh met a population which is already awaken. That is why
nothing is hidden in Gambian society today. Even the members of the ruling
party in the National Assembly are expressing disquiet after reviewing the
Auditor General's Report.
Hamjatta, there were Auditor General's reports under the Jawara regime. They
were never discussed in the House of Representatives. We used to take these
matters to try to tell the Gambian people what was happening. This is why
the impression is given to people that we used to expose more. The reality
is that we constituted the main source, if not the only source, of exposure
of the regime at the time.
Suffice it to say, unlike Jammeh, who has to convince people that he is
willing to be tolerant and open, Jawara was already seen as a democratic,
tolerant and open leader who respected the rule of law. We went to the
countryside and saw only tyranny. PPP chairmen having more power than
chiefs, commissioners and could even send civil servants on transfers. We
saw peasants being put on trucks and humiliated by the Cooperative Union
personnel for failing to pay their loans without any resort to the courts.
We saw chiefs passing on judgments and imprisoning peasants in seed stores
without the peasants knowing that they have a right to appeal to the
commissioner or the Supreme Court. We saw arrested people detained in jails
and could be slapped and brutalised any time without anyone protecting their
civil rights. Face to face with people administering the bureaucracy, the
peasants were mere serfs. We looked at the electoral system and discovered
tyranny in the countryside where opposition parties were banned from having
meetings in certain villages by villagers who claimed allegiance to the PPP.
We had the duty to explain all this to the people, but today it is common
knowledge that the APRC regime utilises money, privilege, threaten public
servants and relied on the July 22nd Movement to try to consolidate its
political agenda. It made no secrets of these things and they are known to
all. Its leaders stand before people and tell them that votes cannot remove
mansas from power
Hence, the reality is that what we were trying to expose under the Jawara
regime, because of the dormance of civil society, are now common knowledge
under the Jammeh regime. This is the difference. What we have been trying to
do is to show the people that change of personalities does not necessarily
lead to a change of system; that if people want to change they must
understand the system they want to change and the system they want to build;
that this will enable them to be able to make informed choices as to what
programme and political trend they should support. This is the point.
I know you are quire aware that we have never attacked Jawara's personality.
I may be wrong, but we have never even accused Jawara of being personally
corrupt because we did not have concrete evidence to make such a direct
allegation. What we used to carefully do is to point out the state's
decision to pay 72.8 million dalasi to The Gambia Commercial and Development
Bank for bad debts and so on and so forth to accuse him of maintaining a
corrupt regime. Of course, if we had concrete evidence, we would not have
hesitated to call a spade a spade. The same thing goes for Jammeh. We can
only point out to the extravagance and mismanagement of the country in
thousand and one ways and would call a spade a spade any time we have
concrete evidence to be able to satisfy the legal burden of accusing any
person to be personally corrupt. Since Jawara's days we have never been
careless with comments that could question the integrity of persons. We
would like to think that our conduct has always been tempered by a sense of
social responsibility.
I hope my points will be taken in good fate. You are, however, free to raise
more questions so that we can provide more clarification. Please read the
piece to Cherno Baba. May be that will throw more light on the Nyerere
issue.
My schedule was to deal with Saul Khan and O.B. Silla. However, being
convinced of the sincerity of your criticism, I had to give your piece a
prompt reply.
Greetings.
Halifa Sallah
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
