 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11513 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Aug 2021 : 13:04:33
|
The Debate without Results
By Madi Jobarteh
I have no congratulatory message for either Halifa Sallah or Ismaila Ceesay. Just to take part in a political debate does not deserve any commendation in a democratic republic. Rather they fulfilled their duty as politicians to speak to issues that concern our society. They have an obligation to tell me, as a citizen their political agenda in order to obtain my vote.
The fact that they took part in the debate serves their interest, first and foremost. For those politicians that may fail to debate can only harm their own political interests since I will not vote for a politician who fails to sell his or her agenda to me.
A political debate is significant but it is only one of many democratic avenues that politicians have to canvass for votes. We hope there will be more political debates which are usually organized by media, academia and civil society entities. Politicians who know better and have something to offer do participate to achieve their objectives. So there’s no need for congratulations.
In this debate, the topic was unfortunately sidestepped for which Halifa Sallah, Ismaila Ceesay, Harona Drammeh and the journalists present must be blamed. The whole purpose of the debate was to address the claim that Coalition 2016 was a failure by its leaders. Hence I expected to hear from Halifa how this was not the case and to hear from Ismaila how this failure was the case.
Unfortunately, Halifa did not respond to that issue but picks the story from the long distant GOFER issue in 2015 and electoral reforms. He went further to pontificate about the strategy and bravery of Coalition 2016 to the removal of the Tinpot Dictator. He made a clearcut distinction between the winning of the election and the reforms that were to be made as per the Coalition MoU and Manifesto. He either avoided or downplayed that aspect which is in fact the very subject of the debate.
The truth of the matter is that Coalition 2016 was about system change. Regime change was the first step which was to give birth to system change. Read the MoU and Manifesto of the Coalition and Candidate Barrow to see how clear and smart deliverables were listed to bring about system change. But as soon as they assumed power in which Coalition parties and politicians became the holders of key positions in both the Executive and Legislature, they failed to bring about system change until today! They abandoned the agenda.
Therefore Ismaila, who raised the allegations in the first place, also failed to go far enough to expose how Halifa and the Coalition leaders failed in bringing about system change.
For example, I expected Ismaila to raise several questions to Halifa such as why was the MoU not signed as alleged by Ousainou Darboe but countered by PDOIS leaders. I expected Ismaila to point to the drifting away from the MoU in terms of the formation of the Cabinet. Why was the Coalition Executive Committee not set up or become functional, not to mention the various Coalition committees that more or less also dissolved into thin air as soon as the election was won.
Furthermore, I expected Ismaila to challenge Halifa as to what did he do to ensure that these Coalition structures and processes were set up and adhered to. In other words, how did PDOIS and Halifa actively defend the Coalition from disintegration which was actively perpetrated by UDP and Ousainou Darboe and all other Coalition parties and leaders, especially Fatoumata Tambajang, Isatou Touray, OJ, Hamat Bah, Ahmad Mai Fatty and the rest.
This means I expected Halifa to be direct and open by stating what he did to ensure that the Coalition and Pres. Barrow stayed on track. In that case, I expected him to also name names as to which Coalition parties and politicians played what part to enhance or prevent the Coalition from succeeding and who defended or failed to defend the Coalition and how?
Even when he shunned a Cabinet position and went to the National Assembly, what did he and other NAMs from other Coalition parties do to bring about system change through constitutional and legal reforms? Apart from that, how did they ensure that the Executive is law abiding, transparent and accountable? What is apparent is that this National Assembly has been ineffective in disciplining the Executive, rather they have continuously overlooked the notoriety of the Executive in flouting the Constitution. The latest evidence is the SAB they passed last week.
To me, this debate is a platform for transparency and accountability to render account to citizens. As the chief convener of the Coalition, Halifa owes it to citizens to tell us who and what was responsible for the successes and failures, if there are. Thus I am disappointed that he refused to name names but rather sending innuendos and insinuations.
Then the moderator, Harona also failed to play the role of the true captain by ensuring that the debate did not drift into something else. Harona and the journalists should have focused on the Coalition MoU and Manifesto and take note of their performance since 2017 to date so that the right questions are asked.
At the end of the debate, there was no serious interrogation of the Coalition successes and failures beyond the election. That should have been the issue, in the first place. Surely Ismaila Ceesay knows that the Coalition won the presidential election, hence when he talked about the failure of the Coalition it was not about voting day. Rather it was about the implementation of the MoU and the Manifesto whose objectives were to bring about system change. The fact that the MoU calls for the presidential candidate to be an independent and serve 3 years indicates that the goal was system change which was explicitly outlined in both the MoU and the Manifesto.
Thus the moderator and the journalists present should not have allowed the debate to drift away into PDOIS and CA party programs especially about the economy. That was not the topic. That’s for another debate.
The moderator and the journalists should have pinned Ismaila down to express how and why the Coalition failed and also pin down Halifa to state how and why the Coalition was not a failure, but if so, what and who was responsible including the role PDOIS and Halifa played to ensure success and to defend the Coalition.
At the end of the day we are still in square one as to the successes and failures of the Coalition as far as the political leaders are concerned. To me, the Coalition is a classic failure and only its constituent parties and politicians reaped the benefits to the total detriment of the masses.
I am also ready to debate anyone on earth about that!
For The Gambia Our Homeland
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11513 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2021 : 20:15:31
|
Hon. Suwaibou Touray take on Dr. Ceesay/Halifa Sallah Debate on Coalition 2016 and the Economy.
I must first thank Dr. Ceesay profusely for igniting the whole debate and thank Halifa for wasting no time in accepting the challenge. I think the two have done justice and made history for being the first to embark on an initiative long cherished by the PDOIS without avail. I could remember how Sir Dawda shied away from debates with PDOIS in the 90s. Sam Sarr once challenged him on democracy relating to Chieftaincy elections and that was the last time Sam was accepted in any of state press conferences.
I also thank the moderator Mr. Harona Daramy and those who sponsored and supported the initiative including Pastor Forbes as well as participants that provided the excitement and tempo needed in such public debates.
I think the question whether the Coalition was betrayed by all political parties and leaders has been very much settled by the debate. Interesting that many might thought that revelations as to who did what to destroy it has not been debated rather the debaters dwelt on a general explanation of their views regarding it.
I think the second phase of the coalition arrangement should also be debated by Dr. Ceesay and other coalition partners especially those who subscribed and partake in the executive presidency as opposed to the collective leadership in running the government during the transition. It remains to be seen who among them will bell the cat so that it becomes doubly clear as to who might be the architects for its destruction.
The Economy
I think the most exciting part of the debate was centered on key areas in the programme mentioned by Halifa and which Ceesay tried to refute relating to Cooperative Banking, Sovereign National Wealth Fund as well as the fusion of central planned economy with cooperative banking as if one cannot go without the other.
My surprise is when Dr. Ceesay vehemently opposed central planning as if that is entirely a bad thing not knowing that the planning is an important aspect of economic development and hence its superiority over lazier faire economy. The first, second and third national development plans under Sir Dawda went very well and created wealth and employment. Things began to fail when they transit to ERP unprepared.
Planning is important and even under capitalism large companies or what are called mega companies in the likes of say Amazon, Walmart etc are engaged in large scale planning. What we should oppose is planning without doing it democratically. PDOIS is a democratic party and would implement everything in a democratic way including the planning of the economy and that would surely be an alternative to the status quo. I only hope that Dr. Ceesay is not opposed to planning because without planning, I don’t know how one would be able to cater for all sectors and bring about proportionate development.
He was being asked to be open-minded as not to equate PDOIS and such one party undemocratic states that imposed their will on the people.
I think a combination of other reasons such as bureaucracy and cold war competitive wars that went on draining the much needed investments as well as whether the economy is centered on the people or on other considerations inimical to people’s concerns were some of the major reasons.
He should ponder on why the Gambia failed and further asked whether it’s also due to central planning.
Dr. surprisingly kept on mentioning China in his list of failures despite the fact that only China has successfully eradicated absolute poverty in the world despite their large territory and population. And at the moment, it is being watched for its continuous average annual GDP growth of 9% percent for the last 30 years.
Does it occur to the doctor that China and Vietnam were carrying out centrally planned economies before transiting to market economy? What he did not know is the linkage between centrally planned and market economy.
It must be noted that blindly adopting market economy without preparing one’s country for it to compete globally is not very rewarding because one would simply be an importer of everything else and not exporting anything and be broiled in endless trade and budget deficits. China and Vietnam catapulted to emerging economies quickly because of their five-yearly plans to ensure that they acquire finished products to become competitive in the global markets.
Role of Cooperative Bank
Dr. Ceesay speaks of cooperative banking and said he does not subscribe to that because in his opinion that is central planning. I want to inform him that irrespective of what ism one adopts, cooperative banks whether they are state owned or private are meant to satisfy certain objectives such as generating the economic development of the people. This can be done by extending cooperative activities in the areas of food processing, poultry breeding, milk production, juice processing, fisheries, music industry and many other fields.
All that is needed is to provide the policies and training and guidance necessary for the development of qualified and efficient work force to run them.
What Halifa was emphasising was that if we want to move towards social justice and quickly, we must focus on employment and the eradication or alleviation of poverty and this is better done through introducing Cooperative Banking. Note that both China and Vietnam and India are engaged in cooperative banking.
The long-term credit requirements of our small scale farmers for the purpose of development can easily be addressed through cooperation of people in similar fields and the capital can be generated from the state, deposits of members, loans and overdrafts, etc.
Cooperative banks accessible to all those engage in the productive and small enterprises can go a long way in building or promoting entrepreneurship in the country. Once that is done, the country will eventually produce sufficient home-made products ready for an export economy. With sufficient number of middle income entrepreneurs they would be able to provide the much needed taxes to the state as they acquire the necessary incomes from their enterprises which would enable the state to provide the necessary services to the citizenry. Only if Dr. Ceesay appreciate the linkage would he appreciate the establishment of the cooperative bank.
Sovereign National Wealth Fund
Dr. Ceesay kept on asking for an example of a country establishing sovereign national wealth fund and he was told about Norway. At one moment it appears he is opposed to the idea of sovereign national wealth fund, and when he was asked where he is going to get the money for investment to diversify the economy to create the 100 000 jobs; he jumped to embrace foreign direct investment (FDI), bonds, treasury bills, etc. He did not know that he was falling in the same trap as the three governments before him. He was told that these are loans and loans are meant to be paid. At one point he said he was lost and I believe he was genuinely lost as he was confusing collectivisation with cooperative banking.
It’s a surprise that he was asking for examples of countries that established sovereign wealth fund which appears too strange for him but so many countries irrespective of ideological considerations do established this types of sovereign funds. In fact most of the countries engage in sovereign wealth fund are found in Asia led by China and Hong Kong and followed by Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates (UAE) More than 100 countries engage in sovereign wealth fund to invest globally attracting trillions of dollars.
Dr. Ceesay should know one best way of attracting bonds, stocks, real estate, etc is to set up a state owned investment fund and invest in financial assets which include all the above including precious metals mined at Batokunku. One could also invest in alternative investments such as private equity fund or hedge funds which are forms of sovereign national fund meant for global investment and helps to stabilise the economy through diversification and the creation of wealth for the future generations.
By and large, I think Dr. Ceesay scored a point relating to the failure of the Coalition in the second phase which was agreed by Halifa but failed to advance any facts to prove that PDOIS is indeed responsible for those failures. His body posture in my view indicates that he is convinced when Halifa said ‘’ we did not participate in the second part which is the running of the government and therefore cannot accept responsibility for any such failure as we are in parliament’’.
Interestingly enough, when he was questioned by an erudite law practitioner whether he has consulted legal expert opinion before nursing the idea of resorting to court action against President Barrow’s decision to serve a constitutional mandated five-year term instead of the 3-year agreed term by the Coalition; he responded that irrespective of what the court would rule, he would still resort to court and its left to the court to rule otherwise. I am not sure if Dr.Ceesay weigh the merits and demerits of such an action to resort to courts when one is unsure of the merits because that places a mighty dent on one’s reputation or integrity as a political leader.
His position on the way forward for the economy is no different from the previous governments and Gambians will continue to suffer under his stewardship as he, like others before him heap loans upon loans that would not be ploughed back to the productive sectors of the economy and thereby ended on heaping untold suffering on the average Gambian.
end
Source: Kexx Sanneh |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11513 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2021 : 20:28:03
|
Drum-besting politics must end!
By Basidia M Drammeh
Veteran politician Halifa Sallah and political pundit Dr. Ismaila Ceesay must be commended for mustering courage and audacity to square off in a first-debate of its kind in Gambia’s history. The debate adds nuance to Gambia’s democratic dispensation and sets the tone for the 2021 presidential elections. Gambia’s politics has long been characterized by drum-beating, fanfare, empty promises and character assassination rather than focus on issues and policies to address socio-economic challenges in a country beset by abject poverty and bedevilled by endemic corruption and bureaucratic ineptitude for more than half a century since the country attained (in)dependence.
Since the debate was announced following Dr. Ceesay’s brazen challenge of members of the Coalition, there had been feverish anticipation for the debate involving two political luminaries. Dr. Ceesay accused all members of the Coalition of failing Gambians who reposed their trust in them to deliver the new Gambia after the uprooting of the former dictatorial regime of President Jammeh. Honourable Sallah, widely seen as the mastermind of the 2016 Coalition, wasted no time in accepting the challenge.
The two gentlemen have not only deliberated over the 2016 coalition, which was the genesis of the debate but they were also engaged in heated exchanges over policy and the way forward to pull the Gambia out of its economic woes and stagnation.
To me, both gentlemen have won by beating mediocre politics and raising the bar for other politicians in the country.
Veteran journalist Harona Drammeh deserves commendation for professionally moderating the program and raising all the relevant issues and pertinent questions. It goes without appreciating Kexx Sanneh for facilitating the debate.
I hope this momentum is maintained by extending invitations to all presidential aspirants to participate in presidential debates to highlight their policies and programs.
Politics of personal attacks, insults and character assassination must stop. Drum-beating politics should come to an end and make room for debating issues affecting the lives and the livelihoods of the masses. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
The Debate between Halifa and Dr. Ceesay
