Buharry,
After a closer perusal of your questions and some of the comments in that posting, i came to the
conclusion that your conceptions of me as an individual critic as opposed to an organization like
say, PDOIS, what you deem to qualify as "empirical" and whether my voice should discounted
simply on the basis that unlike organizations on the ground i'm less likely to see my views/ideas
implemented, were all sloppily conceived. You, like else, have made it a point to continually
equate or indeed, juxtapose me, Hamjatta, the individual critic, alongside organizations like say,
the UDP, NRP and PDOIS and hence posed questions which assumes that like these
organizations i have dispositions which equate with their propensity to effect changes on such a
scale expected of organizations that can mobilize on a mass scale. See, once you sloppily
construed as such, your questions, comments and criticisms become wide off the mark. To place
Hamjatta or Kebba Dampha, individual critics, along-side organizations and expect the same
chores and results from them is to mistake the tree for the woods. Not only is this making the
misplaced assumption that individuals have the capability of organizations, it also lacks a grasping
of the role of individuals in a society or a struggle as opposed to organizations. Not to romanticize
the individual critic, but in my book, the individual critic is Voltairean; not burdened by
organizational shackles to see beyond the conformity of like-mindedness, never playing to the
gallery of constituents that help sustain such organizations and a lone ranger: grubby iconoclast,
acerbic, witty, maverick, agitator and always on his feet pointing out inconsistencies in society and
indeed, at loggerheads with mainstream view.
Which brings to related issue of the individual critic and the place of his ideas in a struggle or
society at large. I think it would amount to gross ignorance and irresponsibility not to take
seriously dissenting voices on the periphery. It was thanks to the individual dissension of
Copernicus that geocentric cosmology associated with Ptolemy crumbled. Discounting the voices
of individuals who hold contrarian viewpoints has always been part of mainstream culture. Just
because Hamjatta is currently residing in the UK studying doesn't mean his judgements on the
Gambia cannot be profound and thus should be dismissed. The anti-thesis that individuals who
have credible ideas but are impeded by material limits, and are therefore, not worthy of attention
or should be discounted is grossly false and misconstrued and tantamount to sheer arrogance. It
misses the point i made earlier and above about the individual critic. Most or virtually all of our
current cadre of opposition leadership were at one point part of the Diaspora studying. And some
of them might have been involved directly/indirectly in some struggle on the African Continent.
Does this imply that their ideas should be discounted largely because they lack institutional
mechanisms on their own to implement the ideas they might have hatched in the process? Since
when has one's contribution to a struggle become determined by being on the ground or material
resources one has to implement ideas/strategies? Mbeki was at some stage here in the UK
studying whilst his comrades were in the front line of the naked aggression of Apartheid. I have
never read anywhere Mandela and else dismissing him as some arm-chair critic who lacks
understanding of South African situational realism. If anything, the likes of Mbeki in the Diaspora
were largely utilized by the struggle as conduits for feed-backs on ideas, tactics and strategies,
and selling the struggle to wider audiences.
Most misconstrued was your perception of the nomenclature "empirical". It seems that you and
those who keep parroting after you, conceive of "empirical" or empiricism to mean presentation of
only variables or statistical data to support ones postulates or thesis. This is a very narrow
conception of the terminology. Empiricism or "empirical" evidence as it applies to the social and
political sciences, is not narrowly confined to the presentation of variables and statistical data.
Suffice to say that tangible materials and or events can constitute "empirical" events at any rate in
the social and political sciences which is our concern. At preliminary or embryonic levels,
researchers/scientists of the physical and natural sciences certainly do make use of such tangible
observable materials and events and hence their qualification as "empirical" evidence. If evidence
involves real life tangible/observable experience, then it qualifies to be called "empirical". In fact
the early proponents of empiricism like Hume, Locke, Berkeley, et al were not natural or
physical scientists and did not necessarily use variables or statistical data in their works. Yet,
these three can without any fear of exaggeration be labelled as the founding fathers of "empirical"
evidence at any rate in Western Thought. In my posting, i gave such observable/tangible
evidences of the US Congressmen's Report, the IMF Scandal, the terrorist attack on Mr. George
Christensen's radio station and the continued harassment of the civilian population as "empirical"
evidences that the opposition strategy is not working and lack-lustre. I hope all these disclaimers
and clarifications would help in throwing further light on the answers i give to your questions
below.
#What has been your strategy since April massacre as a concerned citizen to ensure that
justice is served?
#This question makes me really wonder whether in essence you do read or follow my
writings on the subject of the Gambian political stalemate and its solutions. My views on
this subject is the less kept secret about me. In fact in the very posting you had responded
to, i had clearly stated my position, interpretations and strategies of the problem in the
Gambia. I shall for the sake of further clarity re-state my position here again. My position
has always and consistently been that of a sceptic who has realized that the way things are,
to put one's faith in the political process to remedy the ills of our nation, tantamount not
only to mis-apprehension of reality but gross negligence. Fact is, under the current political
arrangements, none expect blind fanatics to the political process, can expect elections to be
held under FREE and FAIR conditions. Not only is the body politic corrupted, discredited
and bankrupt by the reaches of the tentacles of the executive, but it so fundamentally
flawed and tilting favourably towards the incumbency that holding/participating in elections
under such circumstances is to commit political suicide. Since i have realized that the
political process as it is, is incapable of effecting the changes i and else desire, the next best
thing that legitimately and practically exists is to EXTRICATE oneself from such
arrangements and AGITATE for fundamental reforms of the body politic before one can
except to be attach to it again and expect genuine changes. Such AGITATION, calls for
not only the political opposition to bandy together, but the inclusion of all civil society from
the cultural to economic strands of Gambian existence to come under one big familial
unifying tent to fight the cause of the oppressed people of the Gambia. The AGITATION,
has to be peacefully and civilly conducted through sit-ins, peaceful marches/demos, rallies
and any other form of civil disobedience until our demands for justice and fundamental
reforms are instituted to the body politic inorder to see a relative peaceful transfer of power
back to the People. In the very extreme, if such agitation fails, then force, even if we are
opposed to it, becomes not only attractive and seductive but inevitable. It is better if such
gallant, moral and progressive force is courted by civil society rather than isolate it from the
mainstream. The great Kebba Dampha was the first to point out this fundamental truth and
precisely why he is endeared to me. As he cogently observed, such a force, if it is ready to
cleanse the current system and replace it with free institutions needed for a genuine political
process to take-off once again, need not be ridiculed, side-lined and put at loggerhead with
civil society or the opposition. Rather it should be courted and made to realize how
common all our objectives are: a free and prosperous Gambia. I believe and like him, that
such moral, gallant and progressive force should be wooed and reminded how together
we can restore peace, decency, respect and freedom for all in the Gambia. If as some are
saying, that this is "closet adventurism", so be it. We make no apologies. Truth is the
problem in the Gambia is not only a political problem, but a national crises of survival. And
politics as it is now in the Gambia CANNOT solve the problem.
#How is it different from PDOIS'?
#Well, if you read my answer above, you will realize that whilst PDOIS still has faith in the
current political arrangements and indeed, fanatically pursues it, i have stated that the
current arrangements are not only fundamentally flawed, but are discredited, bankrupt and
corrupted and therefore, no genuine changes can come out of it. Whilst they haven't made
up their mind yet on AGITATION, i have already said we have got to start AGITATING
NOW! Infact we are getting late with the AGITATION.
#How have you implemented the strategy or how do you intend to implement the strategy?
#Buharry, get real. Does my stating of an alternative strategy and the acceptance of the
profundity of my judgement depend on the material resources needed to implement? A
debate about our country's problem is going on here and i have stated a position, should it
suffice to say just because i'm a young struggling student in the Diaspora, so my judgements
should be discounted? My views should not be discounted simply because i as an
individual on my own cannot implement them. I refer you here to my introduction on the
individual vis-a-vis society and the struggle.
#Can you guarantee or at least gauge whether the results of your strategy will have a higher
success rate than PDOIS'?
#As Ben Franklin memorably noted to his friend Jean Bapiste Le Roy, nothing in this world
can be said to certain or guaranteed save death and taxes. No, i have no guarantees for
you though my good sense of history tells me what i have suggested had been implemented
in similar situations and had succeeded in averting national disasters and freed oppressed
peoples from oppression without resorting to bloody social and political upheavals. Indeed,
history is littered with examples of victims of oppression no longer seeing themselves as
victims and organized themselves effectively against such oppression.
#What do you base such predictions or pronouncements on?
#On precepts in history as i outlined above.
#What alternative approach can you proffer to deal with the current political impasse in the
Gambia given that PDOIS' approach is not, in your opinion, working?
#A repetitive question. I refer you back to the answer to question number one.
#How do you intend to institute your alternative?
#Another repetitive question. Again, i refer you to the answer of question number three.
#What do you expect PDOIS and the other political parties to do in the meantime?
#First, EXTRICATE themselves from their commitment to current political arrangements.
Second, join hands together with all other stake holders in the Gambian family, from the
cultural to the religious strand, and AGITATE for change. EXTRICATING themselves
from their commitment to the present arrangement doesn't mean that they will idly watch as
events pass by them. No. They will directly, if not lead the AGITATION for change.
#Given that you feel that political process is not a workable alternative, do you believe that
the available or workable option would be a violent overthrow of the government?
#Yes, i believe the body politic and in extension the political process are enfeebled by their
inherent flaws, bankruptcy and corruption and as such, it would amount to Peter Pan
Idealism to expect genuine changes to ensue from them. However, contrary to your
perception or insinuation, a call for AGITATION to effect changes, is not a call for violent
overthrowing of gov'ts. When the likes of Dr. King Jr. and Lech Walesa were
AGITATING for change, they did not involve or incite their followers to violence. There
was no violent overthrow of the US gov't during the Civil Rights AGITATION of 60s and
70s America neither were there any such acts in Poland when Solidarity was AGITATING
for change. When change came, it was because oppressors could not COPE with the
pressure that AGITATORS had unleashed on them. I'm obliged here to play semantics to
refute the charge that force inevitably leads to violence. Whilst it is susceptible to violence if
not properly dispensed with, force is not synonymous to violence. Force that is used on
moral grounds and professionally conducted can gallantly effect peaceful changes in a body
politic. Force can be another form of patriotism if it's rationale as i discussed above, is to
cleanse institutions of evils and help create new and free institutions. The philosophical
rationale of my position, as i explained to you earlier, is based on my sense of history.
#When? What if that is not possible in the next one, two, five, ten years?
#Buharry, such extrapolation doesn't help anyone. Any struggle that sets time frames within
which it expects to effect changes, is ridiculously constraining itself. In the AGITATION of
Walesa and King Jr., they never constrained themselves within time frames. They merely
maintained and sustained the tempo of their AGITATION until when the oppressors were
no longer able to COPE with it and change inevitable came. I see it the same way.
#Should the political parties stop all operations and wait for the alternative you propose or
do you believe that they are obliged under the Constitution of The Gambia and their own to
propagate their beliefs?
#Here again, i have to refer you to the answer to question number 8. I will, however take
you on what constitutes lawful in societies/States that are lurching towards anarchy and
where the masses are brutally oppressed on a daily basis. In my book, and i dare assert in
common sense, any law that goes on to help oppression of the masses even if it derives
from seemingly legal authorities, is ILLEGAL and needs to be defied by conscientious
beings. Any movement that seeks to liberate the masses from such daily oppression
CANNOT be made illegal by any form of authority be it in the Gambia or beyond.
#Since Yaya is still in power doing as he pleases despite the presence of all stake holders,
would you agree that not only the "failure" of PDOIS' policies but also that of all the
stake holders in and outside the country including me, you, the other opposition parties and
every other concerned Gambian? If you do not agree, what do you base your
disagreement on?
#Here we are in agreement. I have never shelved the whole blame of the crises in the
Gambia on PDOIS strategy or lethargy. We all share varying degrees of responsibility in
the tragedy unfolding in the Gambia. What i have always gone after is their tendency to be
self-righteous and impervious to credible criticisms.
#Agreeing totally with Karl Popper's quote [thanks by the way for bringing such a heavy
quote to my attention] and accepting in principle also the opposition parties' refusal to
engage in civil disobedience measures, what should we all do pending the solution you
propose?
#Here again i sense repetition. However, if the opposition refuse to accept our suggestions,
then we still positively engage them until they begin to see the inevitability of our strategy.
Events in the end will prove us right that a tyrannous evil will never willingly give up without
a tussle. Yet, inspite the profundity of our position, we must be engaging and not
condemning of the opposition. For to be very frank, they have it in them more than us in
the Diaspora, to practically bring to end the crises in the Gambia. We must patiently
persuade them and indeed, continue engaging them positively until such time it dawns upon
them that the political process as it is, is ineffective in bringing about real changes in the
Gambia.
#a la Realpolitik or realistically speaking, how do we go about bringing meaningful change
when the forces that can bring about the change you espouse do not feel that the time is
right for them to employ the methods you propose? Would there be any possibility for you
to lead and to bring to fruition the methods you espouse, would you agree with me that as
the opposition parties are able to bring to fruition the methods you espouse, no matter how
"ineffective", they are within their rights not to accept your proposal no matter how
brilliant or no matter how much of a panacea it is to the Gambia's problems? If you do not
agree, could you please tell me why?
#Let me state two disclaimers here: One, i have said anywhere that the ideas that i
contribute online are a "panacea" to the Gambian problem neither have i pretended to have
all the answers. I'm like all Gambians contributing towards the debate. I do not have any
monopoly over ideas. Secondly, i have never stated anywhere that the opposition have to
accept my proposals by force [as if that is ever possible]. You are right, they are with in
the purview of their rights to do as they wish and what their consciences dictates to them as
the best plausible thing to do. There is moral equation i wish to take up here: The idea that
those who are in the Diaspora or at any rate not in the glare of the naked aggression of the
oppressive gov't, do not have no basis to dictate to those on the ground and indeed, facing
the brutality on a daily basis. In my view, the relationship between the concerned and
anxious Diaspora and those faced literally with the real thing on the ground should be
based not on outright condemnation of victims of oppression for not organizing or even
where they are forced into collaboration, rather it should be on a mutual basis of morale
boosting, logistic support and above all moral persuasion for victims to stand up to
repression. Whether those on the grounds accept such gestures is their prerogative. There
is a reference is to bring to your attention. A similar moral controversy erupted between the
writer Hannah Arendt when she asserted in her 1962 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A
Report on the Banality of Evil, that the lack of resistance amongst European Jews does
bear a measure of responsibility for the Holocaust. This coming from someone who during
the war was perched in her relative comfort and peace of New York. Her assertions
infuriated the Jewish world, especially Isaiah Berlin, who had lost some of his family in the
Holocaust. In an unpublished conversation with Ramin Jahangbeloo, Berlin decried
Arendt's assertions as a "piece of monstrous moral conceit". He went on further to note
that: "No moral judgement whatsoever was possible from condition of safety of human
being in conditions. Even active collaboration could not be condemned outright." Whilst i
agree with Berlin's judgement, i see sense in Arendt querying why victims of Hitler never
organized themselves against repression. Whilst it makes sense to say that Jews should
have organized themselves, it becomes ridiculous when one looks at the fact that Jews
were at any rate minorities in Europe and cannot conceivably form a credible bulwark
against the Nazis. That however, is not the case in the Gambia. In the Gambia the
oppressors are a minority whilst the oppressed form the majority. A majority with a
coaching from steely and pragmatic leadership can conceivably form a credible bulwark
against the repression of Jammeh.
#Can you "empirically" prove that PDOIS' party strategy is not working especially in relation
to but not limited to the April massacres? Which variables did you use?
#I refer you to my introduction where i went out of my way to explain the nomenclature
"empiricism".
I trust i have done justice to your questions. You might have observed an exchange i had a one
Mr. Amadou Kanteh, whose uncharacteristic and exceptional impertinence have made me
remark that i will only be sending my reply to you in private since he was threatening me with
deleting anything bearing my imprint if i don't answer you ASAP. I was merely stating a point:
That none is under no obligation to respond to none or contribute anything, not especially to those
who are lurking and prowling in the corridors of Gambia-L, yet have no positive contribution to
make here. They should either digest what comes in their mail boxes or simply zip up if they don't
like what comes their way. And another thing. I have noticed also the impatience of incorrigible
programmed fanatics like Samba Jow who simply would not desist from reminding me that i have
a duty to answer your questions. Somehow, him and his ilk think you have had me cornered and
there is no escape. So one hear them piping in posting after posting, " come on answer the
questions." I can only snort out laugher after laughter. Talk about blind fanaticism. Programmed
fanatics indeed!
Hamjatta Kanteh
Hamjatta Kanteh
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Get your free e-mail account with *unlimited* storage at http://www.ftnetwork.com
Visit the web site of the Financial Times at http://www.ft.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
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
