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