Given that i've already made known my intention to leave the List after the
elections, i may be the wrong person to raise this issue: the legitimacy or
lack thereof of Gambia-L "Management". But seriously, if there is anything
both sides of the political divide agree on, it is the extent to which the
List "Management" is viewed and accorded with suspicions, accusations and
queries that manifestly tells a story of mistrust between two parties.

When it comes to personal liberty, especially in e-mail forums, my stance is
somewhat a libertarian one with a moderate bent. Let's face it: in an e-mail
forum, self-regulation ACTUALLY works. Consider the most vexatious issue that
invariably divides opinion in an e-mail forum, that of delisting members who
only mouth obscenities in posting after posting. I want to believe that most
of us read our mails in the comforts of either our work places/college
libraries or homes - privately. In lieu of that, the worst that can happen to
anyone who receives a mail that comes choc-a-bloc with obscenities is shock
and horror; perhaps, a bit of stress and anger. You might - if you have a
very weak heart - in the extreme suffer from heart attack. But really that's
about it.

E-mail forums are not like such real-life forums like village "bantabas" or
houses of parliaments, where arguments can invariably lead to violent
confrontations - literally. When tempers flare in e-mail forums, and lead to
emotional cul-de-sacs, they will never lead to bloodbaths or violent
confrontations - literally. Besides in e-mail forums, we are massively
protected: we have our 'delete' keys on hand if we know for certain that we
are going to be entertained with filthy and or offensive stuff; and we don't
have to live to with the harassments - literally. Suffice to say that when it
comes to protecting ourselves in e-mail forums from stuff that we find
offensive and harassing is to protect ourselves by doing on our own what we
feel - as individuals - as to being the right answer to the said offenders
and their offensive stuff, without a third party authority intervening and
making moral judgements on behalf of anyone; and in the event drag us all
into incessant arguments about the merits or demerits of their actions. None
should, therefore, be delisted by anyone in an e-mail forum for their
behaviours. Rather, it should be left to us to individually judge them
according to our individual moral appropriations; whilst the perpetrators of
the said offense will be left with the responsibilities of their deeds or
acts - offensive or otherwise. This is one of the ways to cut through the
moral jungle that is currently this List "Management".

Which takes me to the question of subscribing new members to the List -
dubious or real. Here again the libertarian principle of laissez faire
regulation applies. The subscription request - as in the case of the request
to be taken off the List - should be set at what Milton Friedman flippantly
called "auto pilot" - when he described how monetarists should set interest
rates. That is to say that subscriptions and unsubscriptions to and from the
List should be automatically set so that third party interventions and or
moral regulations are free from the way people are added or removed from the
List.

If for practical reasons these measure are felt to be inadequate and or
impractical, then we ought to at least have a show of hands as per the
constitution of the List "Management" and their deliberations to ensure some
degree of legitimacy to those purporting to moderate the List. Democracy or a
modicum of democratic values ought to be introduced along these lines:

1. Annually - or every two years - announce "elections" of a new "Management"
that will ensure that the composition of the List "Management" is
democratically determined and not just a clique of 'pally' Gambia-L old
timers undemocratically "electing" each other;

2. or at the very least introduce a modicum of democratic values - like
transparency, probity and accountability - in the way in which the List
"Management" deliberates on such salient issues like removing and or adding
members to the List; or consulting List members in the event they want to
introduce new rules and regulations.

If democracy is to stand a good chance in Africa, it most certainly should
begin with the future and current educated elites to conduct all public
duties as befitting a democratic age that demands consent and legitimacy from
those who lord over them. To this end, and along the spirit of a show of
hands, i propose that the current List "Management" be scrapped after the
elections, and new democratic measures be introduced that will address the
legitimacy question that surrounds the present List "Management".

Hamjatta Kanteh

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

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

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