Jabou,

You've spoken for me! I was going to say exactly what you've said. Thank
you.
Saul.


>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Some useful comments/observations
>Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:12:53 EST
>
>Ebrima,
>
>Thanks again for the very insightful piece.
>
>It is true that a transition does limit the liberties that  the present
>government can take in terms of taking the law into their own hands.As a
>civilian government, they will have to heed the voice of the international
>community, or at  least be liable for prosecution either in a Gambian court
>of law ( no high hopes there) , or an international one once they are out
>of
>power, instead of getting away with crimes under the guise of "emergency
>powers".That is the only saving grace here.
>
>  It  still leaves the Gambian  people with a very sad situation though,
>"between a  rock and a hard place" as they say,and l believe that this is
>the
>point that was being put forth. We did  have a new  constitution, but yet,
>did  not the government make some changes  in it, on their own  to protect
>themselves? Have they not continued  to have incidents like that of Mr
>Nyassi, as well as continued stifling of free speech in various forms?  l
>think he  was released, not because the government thought they would be
>answerable in a Gambian court of law, but because the incident was
>publicised
>  World-wide and at least the British government made an intervention for
>his
>release. Infact, the NIA officers  who testified at the hearing knowingly
>lied about having anything to do with his whereabouts. The Judges'
>findings
>based on the evidence  led him to the conclusion that those representing
>the
>government  were infact lying. Has Mr Nyassi had his day in court to
>address
>the abuse he was subjected to? Did Citizen's FM really have a fair and
>impartial  hearing on their case?
>Are the reported seizure of passports being investigated? What about
>missing
>funds, or  Koro Ceesay's murder? Where are the Gambian courts of law, and
>are
>they free  to pursue these cases on behalf of the people without any fear
>from the repercussions? All these incidents took place after so called
>"civilian rule".
>
>In short, we still have  long way to go, and statements like those made by
>Yankuba Touray regarding the outcome of elections, definitely seems to
>indicate to us that we have gone deeper into the belly of the beast. The
>reasons described here as the ones that led to Jammeh being voted into
>office
>leaves me with a profound sense of sadness. Here we were clearly forced or
>intimidated into voting for him just to avoid the wrath of his military
>goons
>on the general populace, and it looks like they will go to any lengths to
>stay right where they are. Their's  is clearly still a military
>dictatorship
>in civilian clothes, a wolf in sheep's clothing  if you will, and l
>truely
>wonder just how much better off we really are. We all wonder how much
>better
>off we really are.
>
>Jabou Joh
>
>  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.
>   >>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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

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