“Seek ye first the political kingdom and all else shall be added unto you” is a popular saying attributed to the great Pan Africanist, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.
I guess the African continent heeded to this advice of Nkrumah and its countries fought to unburden themselves of the shackles of colonialism. Cunning as the colonialists or colonists were, especially the British, they first gave their African colonies “Indepencence” (a self delusional status of being free) and after few years they granted “Republican” status (final weaning from the mother but under her watchful eyes).
In reality, though, did The Gambia get the “Political Kingdom”? Was the attainment of “independence” or even Republican status the arrival of the “political kingdom”? If, yes, have we added all “others things” to our political kingdom? If no, why haven’t we established it?
Did Nkrumah mean by “political kingdom” merely the attainment of “independence” from British colonial rule? Or rather the development and strengthening of: democracy, its delivery structures and principles; good governance; respect for human rights and the rule of law; popular participation; rule by consent of the people; freedoms from want and fear; life of dignity, etc.? If these are some of what Nkrumah wanted to see in a “political kingdom” , my assumptions, can we honestly say they have been achieved by the Gambia since independence?
If we had achieved “political kingdom”, would “all other things” had fallen into place? Or knowing what we now know about The Gambia, would “all other things” have been in place by now?
What went wrong? Why couldn’t we deliver the “political kingdom”? Or did we invest all our energies in constructing the paraphernalia of the “political kingdom”, the super-structures, at the expense of the sub-structure, laying the strong foundation for a life of dignity, freedom and happiness?
Would the establishment of the “political kingdom” have automatically brought about “all other things” to us? Why haven’t the lives of the people significantly changed since independence? Why are youth unemployment, infant mortality, maternal morbidity, food insecurity, poverty, illiteracy, gender discrimination, etc. still so high?
The quality of our roads, health care and facilities, education system, housing, transportation system and life itself speak volume of our failure to put in place “all other things” after the attainment of a part of the “political kingdom”.
We pursue the political, civil and legal, sporadically and in a rather chequered way, at the expense of the economic, social and cultural. We violated the principle of “indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness” of rights. We turned a blind eye to corruption which undermined and destroyed all the political gains.
We promoted kleptocracy at the expense of democracy. Rule of law replaced rule by one man. Good governance, accountability and respect for human rights were replaced by impunity and violations. Poverty enveloped us all and while we had and still have the right to vote, many go to sleep hungry or preoccupied with how to give good health and education to their children.
While I agree that colonialism truncated our development as a nation and continent, it is difficult to understand why we are still poor, materially and developmentally; why a country as poor as we were at independence is richer and better than we are today; why the gap between the rich and the poor is widening and why a majority of the our people continue to be mired in poverty, poor health and illiteracy; why our cottage industries are still at the morning of their life and we continue to import eggs, chicken, old furniture, etc.
We achieved our political independence; no question about that. Have we established the “political kingdom”? Have we achieved the objectives of “independence” apart from being “free from colonial rule”? Have the lives of people significantly improved that one can write home about? Are the economic rights of the people secured that each lives in dignity?
Has the Political Kingdom Arrived for us? Berkley Rice was wrong about us but…..
Just look at that – Gambia imports eggs, chicken and old furniture. The ministry of agriculture’s and trade/industries’ shame. No governments in the Gambia had ever been anything more than a monumental load of suffering on its predominantly poor masses. No government to my knowledge ever had an idea of giving loans to young agriculturist, qualified joiners, carpenters and metal workers to start off because if they did they’d have none to embezzle. That’s the major point: “We turn a blind eye to corruption which undermined and destroyed all the political gains”. Bullseye!
Great questions Njundu,
I wonder what answers Dr Barrow, would give for these fundamental questions, to reassure people? Infact the UDP, PDOIS, APRC, PPP, NRP, NCP, NDAM and GPDP, every party that’s running for government, can answer these questions,
Even their representatives if they so choose.
Tilly Bo
I’m no rep of PDOIS but I think they have abundantly explained, not only what they want to do and achieve, but also provided the most crucial question of “HOW” they wish to do it. You may not agree with their approach, but at least, they are the ONLY party providing answers to that all important question.
In short, my understanding is that PDOIS wants a Public-Private partnership led development model, as opposed to the dogmatic Private Sector Led model, where our collective social (sovereign) wealth is used to equip workers and producers to stimulate development of the productive sectors. Workers/Producer cooperatives will be formed and a Cooperative Bank will be established to provide the funding that may be required, rather than wait for donors or rely on commercial banks, as seems to be the norm.
In education and training, the curriculum will be tailored to addressed the skills needs of the economy and once students acquire the skills and graduate, they will be formed into cooperatives, given all the support they need to produce, as well as provide marketing facilities. Government and private institutions and individuals will be encouraged to patronise local producers. For example, schools and offices can get their furniture needs satisfied by local producers, rather than depend on imported furniture.
Agriculture will be linked to a small scale cottage industry, where farmers’ produce will be bought on the farms and transported to the relevant industries, to add value to products. The same will occur across the economy, whether in the fisheries, horticulture or the trades sector. Public Corporations will also be established as income generation ventures to accumulate wealth. I know what Borne would be thinking of right now: CORRUPTION. Yes, it is an ever present danger, but a government whose leadership shuns corruption and opulence will eradicate this practice.
If I remember right, PDOIS wants to ensure that citizens will not only take charge of projects that come into their areas, but will be able to raise concerns at an appropriate state institution (may be an anti-corruption body) about any officials they suspect is living beyond their means. If officials have to be taken to task when they seem to live above their means, corruption will be minimised, if not eradicated.
Obviously, there will be a lot of resistance from the Capitalist neoliberal experts, but we must be defiant and do things our own way. This defiance, I pointed out elsewhere, is one of the factors that can be learned from the Singapore experience.
Our failure to build a country that guarantees prosperity and creates an environment conducive to healthy living is down to one thing ONLY: Poor Leadership. Our continent was unfortunate to have leaders, some genuine freedom fighters, but majority were pure opportunists, including our own Jawara, unfortunately, who lack understanding of what they were inheriting, had no clue what to do with what they inherited and had no clear vision for their newly independent nations, thus, most just rode with the flow of the times, like the rudderless boats (in the high seas) their administrations were.
The few that knew what needed doing were frustrated by the majority, eventually deposed with foreign assistance or simply assassinated. The populations, equally, for not knowing any better, just unquestionably followed behind anyone who managed to catapult themselves to the helm, like a herd of cattle, regardless of what they (the leader) represented.
Trouble is, the situation is no different today, with the emergence of new public office seekers who command huge support and following, but show no evidence that they are any different, fundamentally, from those they wish to succeed. They are new wine in old bottles.
In our case, these wannabe leaders, though they promise heaven on earth, don’t even bother to tell us how they want to turn our fortunes around and achieve these empty promises. Their political platforms are used for endless bickering, criticism without offering alternatives and appealing to public sentiments and tribal/regional/family connections to win support. Hardly any serious programmes and policies are talked about on their platforms.
For example, in opposition they criticised Jammeh for the youth migration due to youth unemployment, but in government they have done nothing (so far), except sign secretive deals to accept mass deportations. How else would there be deportations if no agreements were reached and signed, but they continue to lie about it? Equally, they criticised the poor standard in our schools under Jammeh, but they are almost three years in government and nothing significant has happened in that sector. Though the UDP, the most popular amongst those in government seeks to absolve itself from this failure by claiming that it’s not a UDP Government, such claims are not convincing at all. Simply because a party that cannot influence a government where they hold, not only the majority but majority in influential positions, with the chief executive belonging to their camp, why would anyone believe that they would do differently, even if they have 100% control of government?
So, leadership is the key factor to our failed attempts to build countries we can be proud of and unless we get serious with the task of choosing our leaders, there won’t be any light at the end of this long, dark , over half a century old tunnel, having celebrated 54 Years of Independence this week.
I think Mr. Sallah would have made a good education minister and Mr. Jatta a good trade and industry minister. Sadly, they never lobbied and were never offered either. A trial at least would have been something.
Bourne, I believe such a trial would have been a disaster, as Barrow would have sacked them or they would have resigned due to incompatibility. I do not think PDOIS Leaders will last long in a government whose leaders waste millions in overseas travels, including expensive chartered flights; not to mention the extravagance and endless fanfare.
Okay Bax,
It sounds like one of PDOIS policy, is redistribution of wealth, take from the few and give to the many.
Great system, once the country is not under sanctions or embargoes, as Venezuelans are experiencing now.
@Tilly Bo: “It sounds like one of PDOIS policy, is redistribution of wealth, take from the few and give to the many.”
As far as I know, PDOIS has NEVER stated anywhere that they will take from the few and give to the many. And I hesitate to point out that this, in fact, is one of the many false narratives and scare tactics spread about PDOIS since the first republic. You won’t believe how rediculous some of the allegations are, if you’ve never heard of them.
Yes, redistribution of wealth, but not by taking from the few and giving to the many. Rather, wealth will be redistributed by organising workers in cooperatives and empowering them to be the owners and shareholders of the ventures they work in, whether that’s a drinks factory, a fishing, a fabric or a construction company. Anything else is just false propaganda against PDOIS.
Take a construction company like Taf Construction. (Nothing against Taf; just an example) The workers who work in that company create wealth to enrich one man and his shareholders.
Imagine if we were to train youths in construction at GTTI, and upon graduation, help them create a construction company, provide the legislative and material support they need and patronize them by awarding them major contracts in the construction industry. Would those workers continue to be poor, or would they see changes to their conditions.
Look at the multimillion Dalasi conference centre in Bijilo. Who is building it? The Chinese? So they give you loans and then take it all back again because every penny paid to those Chinese (and other non Gambian) Contractors and Workers will leave our country.
Venezuela is not Gambia and Venezuela is not suffering because of sanctions, though sanctions have aggravated the problem.
Venezuela’s problem is two fold: corruption and total dependence on oil revenues. When global oil prices fell, due to the calculated cynicism of the Saudi’s to weaken Iran and Russia, by over producing oil, Venezuela saw a drastic fall in revenues and this coupled with the sanctions and the corruption of the elite, especially in the military, created the problem they face today. Venezuela failed to use the Boom period to diversify its economy and wean it from total dependence on oil revenues.
Bax, what was going to be that a disaster?
If they got their fingers sticky anyway during time in office before they may have to resign, that would be a disaster indeed! Apart from that, I have seen no threats of any kind of disaster. In fact contrary to a disaster, I think such an unfolding in imagination, would have been an opportunity for the main road man have a much better understanding of the PDOIS concept and also to widen the party’s base.
But you’re assuming that Adama and his Godfather wiil allow PDOIS to implement its policies in the government. I don’t think they will do that. As an example, PDOIS is very clear on how it will handle the purchase of farmers’ produce: buyers cooperatives will buy the produce from the farmers at their stations and transport these to designated sites.
The Barrow/Darboe regime (it’s a regime now since their attempt to sack sitting NAMs) is nearly THREE YEARS, but how are they addressing the challenged of sector.?
Bax,
Thanks for the clarification, I have no qualms with wealth redistribution, that will give everyone a chance with ambition and drive, to have a slice of the cake.
What other key policies are on PDOIS agenda?
Ok I’m on their website now, it’s full of information.
I wanted to donate to the PDOIS.
But it states, on their website, “only Gambians can donate to political parties”
Comrade Tilli Bo,
I guess you and Bax have already taken good care of the information supply chain.
If you would allow me to contact you through phone (WhatsApp message), I will tell you precisely how to donate to PDOIS without going through the website. Or even become a member who will be getting regular information and participate in decision making processes within the party.
This information is also relevant for anyone wanting to help the party, join the party, receive literature about the party and its development agenda.
I think that’s in compliance with electoral/campaign laws, which bars foreign individuals/entities from funding political parties. PDOIS website is a good source of information about the party, and as Mwalimu indicated, you can get more from PDOIS by contacting the party.
I honestly think Gambians who want genuine change will find that PDOIS is the party to achieve this. The rest are all the same: they stand for the continuation of the status quo and have no answers to address the challenges that we face. They would build infrastructure, through loans, grants & handouts and change the lives of a few connected to power, but that’s about it. Just like PPP, A(F)PRC nd now Barrow before them.
In my opinion, giving equal opportunities to citizens, to progress in their lives through a constitutional administration, is the most just and peaceful way of redistributing wealth (take from the few and give to the many) of a country. Robbin Hoods are thieves too cannot be the least great to rely on. I would say; it all comes down to – the bad king, his inner circle, his cronies > the predominantly poor scavengers< Robbin's spies, his band, and Robbin himself. See, the majority poor always seems to find themselves in or at the wrong place.
To 'redistribute wealth' to me, would mean nothing but: curbing corruption, creating jobs, get every citizen over 18 a TIN, tax revenues be properly accounted for, the government always having a 95% accurate unemployment rate data at their disposal, tax schemes be regulated and respected, the poor pay tax, the rich pay more tax and the richest to pay the most tax. When tax schemes are properly regulated and paid, then see now what 'redistribution of wealth' could well mean:- building infrastructure, improving agriculture towards food self sufficiency and economic growth, quality education, affordable and quality healthcare for all, and spending tax revenues in every other sector of government where taxpayers' money can be constitutionally spent to the benefit of the latter, and in their areas and communities. Any other form of "redistribution of wealth" will be a recipe in stock for political violence and unrest in any country. In a nutshell, Hugolution or Nicolution would be the worst than can happen to The Gambia.
No Bourne, I do not agree with this “the poor pay tax, the rich pay more tax and the richest to pay the most tax. ”
The government should nationalise, the countries natural assets and the utilities services, and manage them well, if managed well, the citizens, wouldn’t even have to pay income tax.
Good education would be free.
Good health services would be free.
Interest bearing loans could be next to free 0.25%.
Why should people slave hard to make a living and then pay income tax for governments to squander as they governments do now? In fact the amount of tax we pay now is unbelievable, VAT, is on top of everything, so we’re paying taxes (minimum 2 times) just to live.
Tilly Bo, in my view, democracy cannot be nurtured by flocking up citizens like sheep and turning them into lazy, dumb thinking liabilities of their own country. I think the only cross section of the Gambia’s society that should deserve the right to obligatory monthly social benefits should those with psychological and physical challenges. Then bit by bit, when economy grows because corruption is curbed and national resources well spent, an amount of unemployment benefit that will not encourage labor dodging, can be paid to unemployed citizens an other. All citizens of work age should be compulsorily allocated a TIN, when I put into consideration the fact that, it is every cititzen’s formidable duty to pay taxes. Every citizen after all may have to need or rely on public services one way or the other. To be frank, I am also not going to buy into any sort of idea of government that is going to end up sending people to almshouses and food rations queues. Tilly Bo, let it be about jobs, well regulated and respected tax payment systems and a dignified and free nation of people who don’t want fodder shoveled to them like four legged beings.
Bourne,
I’m 100% behind you people should work, how else, do they expect to buy all the niceties of life that one might desire, but this thing called income tax, that the UK invented to pay for wars originally, I’m totally against.
Quote@Bourne: “Any other form of “redistribution of wealth” will be a recipe in stock for political violence and unrest in any country. ”
I don’t understand this statement. Could you be more specific?
Bax, don’t tell me you don’t want to read the comment again because it won’t make some sense to you. To be specific, I have only expressed a sense of skepticism in the terms”redistribution of wealth/take from the few and give to the many”. If you did read well what was said before that quote, sad you didn’t make sense out of it. I wouldn’t budget for terms such as “redistribution of wealth/take from the few and give to the many”, for the fact they don’t sound that much a democratic tone to me. To put it short, what “redistribution of wealth/take from the few and give to the many” would mean to me would be those capable governments/administrations that would make the masses seen some prosperity in their life standards through the process and guidance of constitutional democratic dispensation. Bax come on please .., it’s not a thesis neither a speech ..
Bourne,
Far from not making sense of your comment, I just want you to tell me/us, how redistribution of wealth will lead to conflict. Mark you, redistribution of wealth is not the same as “taking from the few to give to the many.” That sounds like “Confiscation” to me, which has the potential to create conflict.
You know that the type of system we have, as indeed in much of the Neo-liberal Capitalist World, is one which concentrates wealth in the hands of the few, forcing the masses to scramble for the scraps that fall off their tables. (The trickle down effect they call it: a deliberate policy of Neoliberal capitalism). That is the reason why global trends are showing that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
This will not change unless deliberate actions that seek to reverse this trend by redistributing wealth are taken by our countries.
One way to do this is to use that same wealth, organise and equip workers, not only to increase their productivity and wealth generation capacity, but also make it easier for them to retain part of that wealth, as a reward for their efforts.
Such a system, overtime, will achieve a society where poverty is seriously alleviated, if not completely eradicated, because work would pay adequately.
No one is talking about free loading and handouts, though a prosperous society needs to protect its vulnerable members. A new Gambia, with the right leadership: a leadership that does not pander to sycophancy or free loading, would have been carrying out citizenship education by now to create a culture that is conducive to progress and development.
We are yet to be blessed with that quality of leadership, though we have persons that tick every box for this type of leadership.
A wrong idea of “redistribution of wealth” by a regime like that of Yaya Jammeh, who might have felt that the extreme poverty of him and his family is due to them not getting their share during the squander of national resources by the PPP, have led him to privatizing the national wealth for himself, family and bootlickers. I didn’t worry much what the difference between “redistribution of wealth” and “taking from the few and giving to the many” are, but what I am trying to forward is that, the country will be doomed once an for all if pretend or even give the impression that the Yaya Jammeh, Hugo chavez or a Nicolas Maduro type of “redistribution of wealth” or “taking from the few and giving the may” whatever.., is going to do us any good again. Reading through certain lines sometimes in forums, I tend to believe there is some amount of a concealed love of certain men of the country’s political hierarchy, for a butcher like Jammeh and his likes in the international community but, I think, any attempt to bring the country back to such levels again, will be nothing then but Turutumbung. Gambians need no one to would sneak into people minds to portray him/herself or themselves like mothers and fathers of the nation. In a few words Bax, I don’t like both terms. They sound sassy and at the same time spooky. Robin Hood the poor people’s Hero … Is all rubbish. He is the same as the bad kings. Both use poor people as pawn in the violence for power and prestige. “Equal opportunity” is for me the right term. No almshouses, no movements, no Yayekompins and no mini militias made of innocent youths to run errands for a government or administration but, functioning and viable public and private institutions will serve the best.
Bourne, will I be right to guess that your rejection of “redistribution of wealth”, is influenced by a preconceived notion that you hold about what you “believe” is associated with this term? This is due to the connections you seem to make between “redistribution of wealth” and Yaya Jammeh, Chavez and Maduro or the fact that you mentioned them in relation to one another.
This approach is reminiscent of people who hold preconceived notions. Often, they make the very worst of connections between a very bad player and whatever preconceived notions they hold. For example, when they mention “Socialism”, they point to Stalin, Maduro or North Korea. It’s always the very bad. No one points to the welfare states in Europe or the NHS in the UK, as ideas of socialism.
When they talk “Capitalism”, they point to Washington, London, Berlin; the very best of capitalism. They don’t point to Pinochet in Chile, who was a capitalist; they don’t point to Mubarak in Egypt, who was a capitalist , Idi Amin in Uganda or to Mobutu in Zaire, who were also a capitalists to the core.
In the same vein, you pointed to Jammeh, Maduro and Chavez, as representative of the idea of redistribution of wealth, but someone else could point to Singapore, as a fitting example of how “redistribution of wealth” can eradicate or alleviate poverty.
I think it is unfair to the idea of redistribution of wealth to be associated with what Yaya Jammeh did, which has no relationship to the idea, regardless of how many times he made such a claim, if he ever did.