Hamjatta,
An intelligent person who has read what I have dispatched so far would not
raise the type of questions you have raised. The answers are very obvious.
However, a person who has no understanding of political processes and
science would find it very difficult to understand issues of principle,
strategy and tactics. You are simply not a political practitioner. You
should just sit on your armed chair and express your opinions. If they are
relevant, I will take them. If they are irrelevant, I have my broom to sweep
them into the dustbin of history.
What you cannot get into you thick head is that no one could force the AFPRC
to do anything. They also could not do things just as they pleased.
Elementary knowledge of science teaches you that society does not develop
just as any individual pleases. It is the combination of forces at work
which makes certain quantitative and qualitative changes possible.
Individuals do not make history. They contribute to the maturity of the
forces at work, and thus make certain developments possible.
What was very evident when I met the then Minister for the Interior, Sadibou
Hydara, was that nothing was in place for the reduction of the timetable.
The proposals that were being made by the Democratic Front and the very
principle it declared was considered by the Minister to be in breach of
Decree No. 4. He made no secret of his opinion. It took series of long
discussions to get the point across, that failure to introduce some form of
national dialogue would lead to national disintegration.
The seriousness that was given to the discussion is reflected by the fact
that at one time even the Inspector General of Police was left sitting for
almost an hour waiting for the completion of a given discussion.
The position of the Democratic Front was that a national conference should
comprise representatives of political parties and other civic leaders. The
National Consultative Committee, which was established, was the brain child
of the AFPRC and I must say that Fafa Mbye must have played a great
influence in ensuring that its composition would nationally and
internationally be acceptable. This is of course an assumption.
Notwithstanding, it is the composition which nullified the relevance of the
Democratic Front. In short, if the Democratic Front insisted that the
composition should be made of representatives of political parties, as
envisaged, we would have been seen to be promoting a political agenda
instead of a national agenda. The NCC, therefore, led to the negation of the
Democratic Front. The fact that the AFPRC preferred to exclude the political
parties, was a clear indication that it had no intention of making them
players in the transition process. They knew their interest and conducted
reforms only when it served their interest even if certain actions coincided
with the national dictate.
The circumstances which prevailed before its convening is evident to all who
were following developments in the country. The euphoria had dissipated. The
Bakary Dabos had disappeared. November 11 had occurred. The British Travel
Advice had also added to the uncertainty. Many people seemed to have opposed
the four year transition period. even though no organised force existed at
the time which could get the people in the streets, the uncertainty which
prevailed could serve as enough pressure for any person managing the country
at the time to listen to sensible ideas.
What I have been simply saying is that we saw at the time that a logical
step to take was to establish a Democratic Front which was to serve as a
pressure group for the holding of a national conference. A radio
announcement after my meeting with the then Minister of the Interior,
Sadibou Hydara, later indicated that government was considering the
establishment of a consultative mechanism to review the timetable.
Thereafter, I also heard the establishment of the National Consultative
Committee.
I am simply telling it like it is. It is in fact people who have made me to
be giving these historical records. I am not looking for cheap popularity.
That is why I am capable of going against waves which are popular to be a
part of. I work with my conscience.
I hope my answers are clear. I also hope that you will commit to memory that
I am no longer willing to give you the latitude that I gave you before. An
armed chair critic has no credibility. The sooner you get this in your thick
head, the better for you.
My observations were very clear and consistent. We are not competing in any
way. You have not engaged in any form of practice during the transition that
one can gauge. You have every right to express your opinion regarding my
conduct during the transition period. I have the right to accept your
opinions or regard them as ill-conceived. The fact that you have tried to
ascribe to me the posture of a historical villain compels to hold you as a
charlatan of the highest order. Unless you withdraw those comments, my
posture remains the same.
If you have observations on the 1997 constitution in the year 2000, the best
place to direct your observations is the Law Reform Commission and the L, in
general. 1996 is no more. What we did and said are already on record. What
you did not say or do are on record.
What I hope you will now do is to do a point by point rebuttal of the claims
I made. I hope you will not sink into your usual tendency to evade the
points at issue and simply dwell on subterfuges, tirades and angry
invectives to cover up the barrenness of your conceptions on the issues of
principles, strategies and tactics. I have a bitter pill for such a
tendency.
Greetings.
Halifa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
