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.



______________________________________________________
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

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