 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 01:16:11
|
This is a forward from Allgambian.net. Please enjoy reading. Thanks
OPINION
Halifa's Anguish: "The Unrealized Dream"
By: Burama FL Jammeh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 28, 2006
Halifa and Sedia resigned from the Government of The Gambia with unusually long resignation letters. These unnecessary long writings have since become a hallmark of Halifa's public writings. The most recent of such are the Halifa/NADD Press Statement on the alleged March 2006 coup. That document went around and ended up with nothing. The letter to IEC on the supplementary registration could simply be replaced with a copy of the constitution. How about Halifa/NADD response to NRP/UDP proposal. There is no room for Halifa's person and it could have been helpful to provide counter proposal and recommend for a meeting rather than condemnations and an invitation for a public debate at Father Farrell Hall or at one of the Cinemas. This is exactly what he did to Waa some 6-7 years ago. It is easy to see that there is no NADD but Halifa. The analysis on Kombo-East by-election was good in sticking to the subject but wrong in most of the conclusions. A good communication has to be relevant, precise and complete and that is what good communicators strive to achieve.
The duo formed the PDOIS with their colleagues. Jawara wasted no time to brand them as non-believers, socialist, reckless kids without direction and total disregard to our cultures and traditions. Among other reasons these has made PDOIS an ineffective political organization for their 20 years or so challenge to PPP rule. Consequently PDOIS was never able to bag more than 2-3% of the votes. However they seem to resonate well with the literate young mainly in the Greater Banjul Area. This bloc was not enough to make them a reckoning force in our body politics. In fact this support usually dwindle as they grow older, increased in academic levels and overall understanding of issues. That is one reason there is not significant growth of PDOIS support base and the other being the tight grip of Halifa over the organization.
They became very enterprising in their efforts. They incorporate business into their politics by establishing preschools/schools, newspaper/information bulletin, do consultancies. These are not typical of a political organization but I guess there is nothing wrong with it. In fact these have enabled the PDOIS clique to maintain independence and resist a lot of inducements of PPP and AFPRC/APRC because those enterprises are self sustaining. I believe over the last 30 years or so these people or PDOIS has amassed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Dalasis. However it is public interest to know if such incomes are declared for tax purpose. Are they considered party funds or individual incomes? It is important to shade light on this because they might in fact owe Gambians a lot of unpaid taxes. Hopefully, we will know Halifa's worth at nomination. In the previous nominations Sedia claimed to worth almost nothing and that kept one wondering about the classification of their income versus our tax laws.
Over the years PDOIS has proven to be the most undemocratic political organization that I know from UP to NRP. All the parties have their down sides which are more of the products of our society's undemocratic tendencies rather than the deliberate effort of those organizations. For instance PPP, NCP and UDP will hold congress to elect their leader but we know who this leader will be. This is a democratic process that is only affected by who we are. At PDOIS everything is Halifa and nobody else and he is the Mr. Right, know-it-all and has-it-all. Halifa has never bought into others ideas or suggestions and he always stick by his. This is OK but democracy is majority view/position.
The events of July 22, 1994 came as a big surprise to most Gambians especially to those who take Jawara to be a God given to Gambians as Jesus was sent to the Jews. Jawara's demise was fast and quick for many reasons. Yahya capitalized on those reasons to set the stage for his rein. Halifa ran into trouble when decrees touch on one of his sources of income. He and Sedia where arrested, charged, tried and found guilty. They were fined. They had to separate Forroya from PDOIS to be able to operate the paper which they did. Thereafter, Halifa's approach to the soldiers was some sort of luke-warm appeasement by comparisons to PPP era and the long letters address to Mr. President. At one point it looks like PPP wrong doings are justification of AFPRC/APRC wrongs. Intended or not this has provided some comforting cushion for the military junta. After the transition period was agreed upon followed by the daft constitution Halifa and his PDOIS machinery wasted no time to go into action. Surprisingly they promoted the document more than its author (AFPRC). What were their fears that warrant such an investment for a yes vote that AFPRC will do with national resources? First they compared the draft with the 1970/71 constitution and told Gambians it is much better. They provided softer explanations of the most contentious provisions such as minimum age requirement, term limit to presidency, the indemnification clauses and the notorious decrees. They opined that the soldiers are players and their interest should not be over looked, that with or without those options we can vote anyone in or out and that accepting the constitution and end the military rule is better than sending the constitution to the drawing board that is likely to be a cause to reason for increasing the length of the transition period. The constitution was ratified and signed into being the supreme law of the land.
The question being asked is that why a guy who claimed his cause is to champion sovereignty of the people give in (convinced us) for the sake of cutting short or ending the transition period. We also need to closely look at Halifa's pro-stand for a deficient constitution (supreme law of the land) but insisted on a perfect (his way) opposition union. Is he mad? Who is he mad at (the voters or his colleagues in the opposition leadership)? The fact is that Halifa has worked more than AFPRC to convince Gambians to accept a deficient constitution because his assessment is that PDOIS is the only old and known political group left for people to hang on. This was his dream and anything that can stall early election is refuted. Theoretically, this has put PDOIS in an advantage seat but because politics is a social science the outcome was different. It is even more interesting if you connect it with current issues. There are interesting contradictions, selfish arguments and even unconstitutionality in the guy's positions. The whole nation was told to accept a deficient constitution on the argument that we will fix the problems later. Today the NADD MoU could not pass such fluid argument. Is that not what Hamat said during his recent US visit (those matters will be left for the elected president to decide)? Oh, may be Halifa has learned his mistakes? No, because he is still insisting on a 5 year transition period, earlier on it was 2 years. This is OK except that it is unconstitutional for MoU to attempt to deny a Gambian his/her fundamental constitutional right to run, support or vote for any office of his/her choice. This is not enforceable by any law in the Gambia. Again isn't it obvious by now that if NADD could not be establish in 3 years how can you set up functioning democratic institutions in a nation like ours within 2-5 year period.
People were silent by the decrees but were closely monitoring the developments. As the lift on ban on political activity draw closer they have gone into secret consultations to prepare themselves for the possible outcomes. Instead of choosing Halifa and cliques at PDOIS they gave birth to UDP. Halifa must have been devastated by the crowd that would not let their new leader (Ousainou) to get out of his truck to address his first rally at Brikama. They ended up labeling them as angry people from PPP and NCP. This is ridiculous because every Gambian has a free right to choose where to belong. Been in PPP or NCP yesterday has no and should not have any bearing on where one want to be today or tomorrow. After all it was Gambia before those organizations therefore they a making of Gambians like any other organization and not those organization make Gambians. The results of the elections in less than a month must have been very agonizing because all the new comers secured more Gambian support than Halifa's camp. This is a lesson for Halifa and everyone for that matter, that the choice of the people is what matters most and not what you think you are.
Before the next elections (5 years later) the ban on the old parties and politicians was lifted. This has created some temporary uncertainty among the opposition because of questions like should we rekindle our old camps or stay together. The later won the day. At the inter-party talks for a unified front the following positions emerged; Sheriff Dibba/NCP/UP want to lead because he was the main opposition camp before the coup - not a good reason for the majority and he left, Halifa/PDOIS contended for the leadership of a nonpolitical quantity and a 2-year transition - not good enough for the majority they left, NRP was absent - I don't know why but I think Hamat was in Dakar and the rest agreed that UDP is currently well established political organization with nation wide structures and over 140,000 votes in the last election - hence a UDP led coalition is a more feasible approach under the circumstances. I cannot agree more to this reasoning. They did not win but not because it is party led. The result of that election and all previous elections are more to do with systemic flaws of our system than the arrangements at organizational level. Again Halifa's dream for political supremacy has eluded him as the new groups and alliances are enjoying more Gambian support. He will not give up.
Almost 5 years later he (Halifa) came back through his disciples to form a political union. Instead of building on our experiences, it is NADD we got. This is another serious attempt to re-ignite the dream by bundling names and organizations in the bag under his armpit. The package was methodically framed in a manner that they believe any attempt to quit will be a political suicide. The main reason advanced for this quest was because the APRC led National Assembly has deleted the second round election provision from the constitution to a simple majority. This reason is not good enough. The need for a union or not is the same before and after the constitutional amendment. The only difference this time is that he's in a leadership role and that he thought he would manipulate to control. The dream faded when Ousainou pulled the strings and it did not result to any political suicide. He must be mad at Ousainou. The project collapsed with Waa and OJ sticking out with PDOIS. It is funny by looking at the recent past. Sedia dropped by his boss without the due honor and he took over his organization. Political alliances rely on numbers to remove the common opponent and establish compromise governance. Halifa manipulated NADD formation with MoU that could not even yield a compromise candidate. Remember that he was selected on an adopted selection procedure and not the original procedures. He registered the alliance without the consent of everyone and against the advise of a lawyer. He recently claimed he wasn't in Banjul when NADD was registered but is a blessing in disguise. This is no good explanations because he doesn't need to be physically present to get NADD registered. On the other hand there may be a loose cannon in NADD if all of them are distancing themselves from the registration that turned very costly for this young organization? Halifa strongly refuted the court's judgement on the matter and he is wrong as he is on all previous positions/actions on this matter.
Halifa is making a living out of our predicament but not the least interested to see or contribute to effecting a change through the wishes of Gambian people. If I am wrong why can't he go along with the wishes of the voters? Otherwise turn to another Foday Sanko. He fought for the survival of his Forroya because that is one stable source of his income. That fight was not for me and you but his pocket. He wrote nicely worded long papers to market his skills to attractive consultancies and foreign trips. The status quo is to Halifa's advantage. Politicians go to voters and ask for votes. This is important because if they could not make it to office they cannot implement what they believe is better. He has and will not do this but keep dragging us into unproductive arguments and sometimes on his person. The NADD meeting at the Buffer Zone and Brikama Pray Ground was jammed packed when they are all together. After the fall out the meeting at the tight space between Brikama Fire Station fence and the road did not even interrupt the flow of Kembujeh-Brikama traffic. This is no statistical measure but it indicates quite well that Halifa and those remaining in NADD are not vote-drivers for the opposition. It is very much okay and constitutional to stay your cause but do not derail people into arguments and debates. Always remember that Yahya is our problem and no one else, at least for now. Realizing the dream lies in the hands of people you refused to meet and bring yourself to their level and go from there.
I understood NADD has scheduled a nomination meeting for Saturday. I also learnt that a pick-up is going around asking people to attend. This must be Waa or OJ strategy because that is uncharacteristic of PDOIS. I am a little concern that one of the agenda is to explain to voters why they cannot work with NRP/UDP alliance. This is a legitimate topic for that meeting but caution should be exercise not to turn it to a bitter personal war. The outcome of such will not help either side. The likely long term effect is a new National Assembly without Halifa although he is yet to demonstrate his effectiveness at the assembly. Furthermore, if his AU assignments are anchored at being in the National Assembly then this is another reason not to start a war that cannot be won. Once more bee reminded that Yahya and APRC are the problem and nobody else. Good luck and let us stand by the calls of our National Anthem.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 10:10:26
|
| In my opinion, full of hatred, abhore grieviances, personal attacks and ever frustrating efforts to discredit and tarnish someone's image in the eyes of the public. Nothing useful or beneficial for public consumption. Thanks! |
Edited by - kobo on 30 Aug 2006 10:39:00 |
 |
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 17:34:54
|
Daffeh,
Thanks for the forward. It is a very insightful article. I have been saying here for the longest that Halifa will lose his Serrekunda Central seat come the next parlimentary election. He won largely because of UDP/NRP supporters. However that alliance will be fielding a candidate for that seat and Halifa will be the loser. Criticizing Halifa's role and actions is always interpreted by his followers as hateful san Kobo's reaction above. But on the hold I think the article was accurate. That is my bureh and butut.... |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 18:06:28
|
NYARIKANBANNA:
Your writing is long , incoherent ,repetitive just like you have said of Halifa's. Furthermore you have distorted facts but i will leave that for intelligent people to appreciate.
The only area i would like to comment on is the DRAFT CONSTITUTION by the AFPRC.All the level-thinking people in the Gambia and out side at the time who wanted to see the end of military rule and the return of democracy supported the draft constitution as the lesser of two evils.I spoke with a political science professor the days before the referendum and he reiterated the same position Halifa and others advocated for. I do not know why you cannot understand that rejecting the draft constitution will only prolong military dictatorship , because a new constitution has to be drafted and the long cycle repeated. Is that not what Jammeh and his junta wanted at the time ? NO constitution is perfect , they get improved over time. You probably did not know that the original document of the U.S. constitution did not have the BILL OF RIGHTS , it got added to it much later.
Thanks . |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 18:35:28
|
The US constitution may not have a bill of right initially, but the declaration of independence which preceded the constitution did mention the rights of citizens and even went as far as" .... the right to the pursuit of happiness". So it was embodied into the constitution. What the bill of rights did was to simplify it into bullet points and categories because some states were interpreting the law differently. A similar case was when segregation was stopped in the army; various states interpreted it differently including unit commanders and Generals. The president had to make a specific speech to the American people as to what the law meant and that there cannot be a different understanding.
The bill of rights was already implied in the constitution and guaranteed " .. inalienable rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness" as drafted in the declaration of independence. The bill of rights was necessitated by the various state interpretations of the law rather than it not being present in the constitution. It came into effect to clearly indicate to those who would not want to understand or see the right of others like minorities, freed slaves, education, property, commerce, employment etc and started interpreting rules differently. However all these are enshrined in the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as drafted into the declaration of independence, which even, preceded the constitution.The right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a simplified version of the bill of rights. There is nothing in this sentence that you cannot find in the bill of right.
You are right in that governance requires diligence and working on problems continuously. That principle of governance is better indicated on the United States one-dollar bill. At the back is an incomplete pyramid which means that developing a nation is never a complete adventure, you just keep building and working on it till the end of time.
I hope this does not lead us the question of the egg and the chicken. I stand to be corrected.
|
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 18:50:36
|
KONS:
You are right. But what i am trying to say is that THE BILL OF RIGHTS which is the ten amendments to the U.S. constitution is a later addition and it is an improvement .
The Gambia could do a similar amendment to it's constitution to improve it instead of lamenting ( complaining)that we should not have accepted it at all.
This is where we differ with Nyarikangbanna. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 18:51:12
|
| you are right Kayjatta |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 18:54:18
|
| Thanks , Kons. I think my friend Bronx agrees with that too , eh ? |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 19:13:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
Thanks , Kons. I think my friend Bronx agrees with that too , eh ?
That is something else . Both of you are titans, and i am just a small fry that does not want to end up on the dinner table |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 19:16:55
|
You are funny , but no you are the man , Kons.I respect Bronx a lot also.
I am just learning a lot from all of you.
|
|
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 20:37:31
|
Kon & KB,
I understand and agree that the US constitution has evolved with the passage of time. Amendments were made to reflect the changes in the socio-political environment. It should be noted that a constitutional conference was held in Philly to hash it out.The drafted Gambian constitution of 1997 came out of the NCC.People made it clear what they want in it. The committee submitted its draft with the will of the people expressed in it. The junta decided to take two of those provisions out and put an indemnity clause in it. Some people decided that this was not a big deal, they vigorously campaigned for its promulgation. Their only excuse was: well we can always amend it or it is better than the 1970s. They accepted a mediocre document and the junta took off their uniform and the rest is history.
In summation, I agree that constitutions are fluid in a democratic society. However the role played by folks in getting the drafted 1997 constitution past shouldn't be glossed over either. That will constitute trivializing history. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 20:38:31
|
| You are right Bronx. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
