Buharry,
    Please allow me to make these observations. From the political literature
I have read, to the speeches that I had listened to, I have never read or
heard stipulated anywhere in a PDOIS's material, that they are communist,
marxist or what have you. I strongly have the impression that they don't
believed in dogma, as dogma is the believed in rigidity. Although they may me
guided by some of the finest principles underlying these political
ideologies. They believed in Socialist principles, notwithstanding the fact
that this is measured to take into consideration our circumstances and
realities. They will defend public enterprises and make them more profitable.
They want to ensure that policy considerations, both national and
international, are determined and guided by favourable public opinion, as
evidence that power is being exercised from below. They are also cognizant of
the fact that, development given our circumstances could both be undertaken
by public and private stakeholders, and I believe, in so much as the interest
of the nation is always paramount. Yes, public and private initiatives of the
productive sectors would be encouraged to create jobs, and help the economy.
This is outlined in their Agenda for Democracy and Development, and I quote:
"Public and private initiatives will be relied on to engage in fishing,
processing, construction and other services to generate employment, boost up
trade and development."

    Besides all the governance issues of democracy, transparency and
accountability, they want to manage an inexpensive, people centered and
development oriented government. As such, I believe their overall development
agenda is primised on these braoder perspectives. Given that our economy
largely depends on agriculture for exports, how this production is organized,
and how what is produced is distributed is fundamental to their economic
policy. Thus they want to encourage farmers to form genuinine cooperatives to
facilitate the mechanisms to store and market their produce. It is also
important that agriculture is linked to industry. Thus the creation of public
and private enetrprises to undertake light scale industrial activities to
process some of these farming produce and create more jobs. This can expand
the market base for these produce, for they can be converted from their raw
state to their finished products. A lot of other secondary enterprises can
emerged from this, ranging from marketing to distributing outlets. And more
jobs to be created. It should also be noted that these cooperatives are to be
replicated in certain geographic locations of the country, identifying each
location to the produce it is best suited to cultivate. Thus if a cooperative
is to produce corn, that is all it produced.  And there must be an industry
linked to the production of this corn.

    I guess the argument has always been, who can better utilize and organize
resources, whether the government or individuals, and is central to what kind
of economic policies to promote. But, since the political ideology of
economics is becoming more and more blurred, and interspersed between what
governments can and cannot do, in the one hand, and what self-serving,
profit-conscious motivated individuals can do, on the other hand, the
interest of a country and its people should be paramount,  should governments
and individuals find a way to work together. Thus I find it more appealing
for a government to provide the financial guarantees for an indiviual to set
up a company that produces something and employs people, invest in other
activities in the economy, rather than one that is service oriented and
accrues all the remuneration to itself.

   Rene

 NB: I stand to be corrected if I misrepresented PDOIS's position anywhere in
this post.

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

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

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