Mr. Adama Barrow was clearly the democratic choice of the majority of Gambian voters in the December 2016 Presidential elections.
The electorate chose President Barrow over former President Yaya Jammeh thanks to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) reached by seven opposition parties.
The 3-year term limit that the opposition Partners offered was appealing to the electorate because the electorate finally wanted to do away with self-perpetuating rule.
We are all fully aware that the constitutional term of an elected President in The Gambia is five years, yet no one queried the unconstitutionality of the three-year transition period agreed by the Coalition Partners for what they promised is permissible under our constitution.
Given the way our politics had been evolving prior to the defeat of Yaya Jammeh, we cannot afford much time focusing too narrowly on the argument about the five-year term. I think we must be accommodating enough to see beyond the five-year factor.
Clearly, in healthy democracies across the globe, political leaders are elected based on specific manifestos sold to the electorate during the campaign season. Unless we claim to have forgotten, Mr. Barrow and his Coalition Partners sold to the voters a manifesto, which stated that if he (Barrow) won, he would hand back power to his successor in three years – there were no ifs and no buts to that promise.
Although the constitutional term in different democracies may be four, five or six years, there is no hard and fast rule that the winning candidate must serve a full term, since no constitution would force any elected official to stay in office upon death, retirement or resignation.
Indeed, having agreed to the terms of the Coalition MOU, there is absolutely no tragedy in our constitution for President Barrow to serve for a three-year term and during that transitional period, make preparations – as agreed- for fresh elections, which was artfully designed to help nurture our fledgling democracy.
Regrettably, all signs show that President Barrow is determined to renege on the Coalition agreement.
In my view, any objective observer will reach the conclusion that such a dishonest act may lead to ugly clashes between President Barrow’s supporters and honest Gambians who would like to ensure, at any cost, that the promise made to them is honoured; the people’s will is respected and restored; that there is an end to self-perpetuating rule and that our baby democracy is given a chance to thrive.
Some readers may be aware that in the UK, Mrs Theresa May of the Conservative party was mandated to form a government and deliver Brexit after the 2017 general elections. Interestingly, about two years into her term period of 5 years, Mrs May had to step down because she could not deliver Brexit.
One may wish to advance the very weak and lousy argument that we cannot compare apples and oranges as the UK does not have a written Constitution and the Gambia does.
Indeed the UK does not have a written constitution, yet the state functions; perhaps we should also seek to have an unwritten constitution so that our country functions too. Would we say that morality, dependability, and honesty (meaning and doing what you say) are not important hallmarks a Gambian leader must uphold or which we must never aspire in our leaders? We will succeed as a country if we abhor dishonesty, and do away with mediocrity.
In the run up to the December 2016 elections in The Gambia, the Coalition Party ran an extraordinary campaign, whose manifesto was defined by the Coalition MOU and the broader Coalition Manifesto. Unless we choose to forget, we know that the key elements of the Coalition MOU which were sold to the voters were among others 1) the three-year transition period and 2) the electoral and institutional reforms of the executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service and other oversight institutions.
The electoral reforms, something that Solo Sandeng courageously campaigned and died for, were designed to create among other things a level playing field, in that 1) the Coalition Partners agreed that the Flag bearer will not seek re-election; 2) Flag bearer is not expected to support any Party during the three-year transition period.
Essentially, without caveats/qualifications, the Flag bearer (President Barrow) is expected to act as a referee in the next elections, the ground work for which should have started a while back.
However, what is extraordinary now is that President Barrow does not only want to renege on heading the transitional government for 3 years, he wants to serve for 5 years and also contest in the elections in 2021.
Does this not cut across the grain of the self-perpetuating rule the Coalition Partners wanted to dismantle which was endearing enough to the electorate to vote for the Coalition; the democracy we fought and some died for which we would wish to protect and nurture; and the fundamentals of morality, integrity, and honesty we must need in a leader at all times?
We have constitutions, but election manifestos, elected representatives and the electorate have always influenced the term of elected leaders in democracies, without violating the constitution of the country. In 2016, the Coalition stakeholders, well-wishers, and supporters campaigned throughout the country and outside with one voice, a voice was underpinned by a solid promise to hand power back to the people in three years.
To say that the three-year transitional period was imposed on the Coalition Flag bearer (President Barrow) as stated by Mr. Omar Jallow of the PPP is completely untrue and it does not make any sense. I hope we will soon learn to stop listening and changing the way we walk to Mr Jallow’s jazz.
If democracy is about choice, then President Barrow was chosen based on the reforms he and the Coalition Partners promised and a key appealing part of that promise, to the electorate, was the three-year plan they aggressively sold to us as part of their manifesto.
We must be honest with ourselves and look at our democracy beyond the five-year factor, for sticking with the five-year factor would be old school! Most objectively-minded and informed individuals would be of the view that elections are more about manifestos and mandates than the narrow argument about the constitutional term and rights of an individual, elected to the highest office in the country, to renege on a promise.
This is scandalous! Furthermore, delivering on manifestos must be central in our politics if we want to develop into a vibrant democracy. Unfortunately, President Barrow and his team have yet to demonstrate to us that they can deliver on the Coalition Manifesto.
Notwithstanding, I think President Barrow may go down in history as a good leader, provided he is able to respect the key elements of the MOU, in particular remain true to the three-year plan that he and his Partners agreed and presented to the honest Gambian voters in the run up to the December 2016 elections which saw him beat Yaya Jammeh at the polls.
We cannot fail to notice that either President Barrow chooses to honour the three-year transitional period or he risks destroying what political legacy of his he may wish to protect. Worse, if President Barrow chooses to forget about the fight we fought to remove a brutal dictator- and all signs are that he has forgotten-, he risks a political confrontation with honest Gambian voters, in particular the three years jotna-movement.
I hope that cool heads would prevail so that we would avoid the slippery slope towards a potential fireball which could destabilise the country.
At least 3 participants in the coalition agreement have now publicly said they have withdrawn from the agreement and are in full support of 5 year term for Barrow. We all know the reasons for their decision, is mostly personal and calculated to improve their leverage and profit.
For example no one is surprised about all the side deals done at Tourism, sanctioned by the State and encouraged by the Executive for political capital. Not that it is unexpected. Nothing surprises me about the capacity of opportunist pretending to be Statesmen. They are all crooks.
@kawsu. Where have you been. What is happening is predictable and some of us said so 2 years ago. I personally would have been shocked if Barrow left office voluntarily after 3 years. Most Africans don’t walk away from power. We are genetically conditioned to DIE in office, or drag out of it screaming and yelling.
Gambians disappointment in Barrow is well deserved.
1. He is not competent for the position he holds.
2. He is not honest.
3. He has not made a lasting positive change in our lives by policy.
4. He does not have a plan for the average Gambian in key areas of employment, education, infrastructure and economy.
So forget 3 years and what it may or may not mean for Barrow.
What Gambians need to do is take our civic responsibility seriously. Ask if Barrow deserves our vote again. If he does fine retain him, if he doesn’t, vote him out. My sense is that he is a ONE term president.
In my opinion WHO we need are those who are capable, reliable and responsive.
@Sarr, to be fair the author has also been quite vocal on other social media platforms, e.g., Facebook- he’s a friend of a friend.
I think if Barrow can be yanked out of office without bloodshed after the 3 years, that would be better. I think it will be helpful to the young democracy for all aspiring leaders to know that Gambians will not set a precedent with Barrow – what is promised must be honoured; that’s no rabble rousing. It seems to me that the 3 l-year Jotna Movement is unstoppable- highly organised and determined and judging by the press releases I am seeing, Barrow is worried and he should be worried, for it looks like, in the words of the author, honest Gambians may join forces and remove him- if he yells, that’s his problem. Sadly the country does not need it, but the citizens may use it as the NAM will never ever do the right thing.
I agree that Barrow should honor the MOU. The reality is that he will not.
As a citizen, I want Barrow to resign NOW, not in December. This is why.
1. Gambians have a right to competence. He is not.
2. We have a right to honesty. He is not.
3. We have a right to a bright future. He cannot deliver.
At this point most Gambians can agree that we need new leadership. The real question is how and when. What is in our best interest.
Forcing Barrow to resign WILL NEVER happen. The only way forward is for Gambians to go to the POLLS. That can only happen in 5 years. All those who truly care about the future of our country must now begin the difficult task of finding and grooming capable leaders of the future.
For me, it is not when, it is who and how. The when we know is 5 years. The Who we don’t know, but we are hopeful it will be a “true leader”. The how is our children’s future. The success of our republic.
But one thing is certain, we as a people have suffered greatly under Yahya Jammeh, to those who still can’t see, it is absolutely true that our smiling coast was turned into a killing field. We don’t need such again. No way no how. It is NOT worth it. Two more years of Barrow is not worth a single drop of Gambian blood. Easy Easy Easy does it. Focus on the election.
God Bless The Gambia.
Dr Sarr, Gambians already have a true leader if we are serious about creating a genuine democracy, experiencing humble and selfless leadership and building a stable, self reliant economic foundation for the prosperity of our people, and we know who he is.
There is no single person, as far as I can see, actively and publicly involved in the political life of our country today, who is better suited to the job of leading our country than Honourable Halifa Sallah. Members who disagree can share their choice with us.
Honourable Sallah has the sincerity, the personality, the knowledge, the inspiration, the commitment, the humility and the clarity of vision to provide the type of leadership, I believe, that will be exemplary in the whole continent. He has the personality and is articulate enough to command the respect of his peers (even presidents) on the global stage and the intelligence and awareness to hold his own against any opponents on any forum.
Mr “amen, amen” (I mean), Lawyer Darboe, though the most popular politician (due to our Gambian “Kutunkanna yaa”) lacks the charisma, is not articulate enough, does not inspire, lacks clarity of vision and will most likely be a total disaster for our country, if he becomes the next leader.
Currently, there are reports circulating on social media that President Barrow’s State House consumes over $50,000 per month (D2million plus) on groceries. (and this is probably a more modest sum than the Jammeh State House used to consume).
The question is: Does anyone think any of the other political leaders, except Honourable Halifa Sallah, will end this parasitic practice?
You’ re wrong, if you think so, because except Honourable Sallah, all of them subscribe to the idea of a privileged First Family and ruling class, living off the back of the poor people. So, come 2021, the choice is ours:
A Gambia set on the path of unity and prosperity with Honourable Halifa Sallah heading a PDOIS Government or a Gambia set on the path to more of the same stagnation and potential upheaval with Lawyer Ousainou Darboe heading a UDP Government. Make no mistake, a UDP Government spells big problems for our country.
I respect HS. As I do some of our other public figures.
My problem with HS is.
1. Reluctance to consistently and publicly expose the excesses of Barrow and his Enablers, his age and over exposure in Gambia politics. I believe he would have made a better leader and our nation will be on solid fiscal foundation if he was the coalition choice. But that was not meant to be.
Regarding our future leader.
On qualification we need:
1. Generational shift. Young preferably below 42 and above 32.
2. Unsoiled by local politics.
3. Well traveled and quite comfortable with different world cultures.
4. Multi Lingual.
5. Well educated.
6. Psychologically stable and matured.
7. Has more money than our nation. By all measure already made his/her own millions. Stealing Dalasi will be an insult to such a person. Quite unnecessary.( ok forget #7 ) some don’t like it.
8. Apolitical. Only has the best interest of Gambia.
9. Clear vision.
10. Love of God and Country.
These is just a list and not “all or non”
That’s just the way I see it.
Good luck, Dr Sarr, even with 7 discounted.
As far as I am concerned, I think age has recently been an issue by many who just want to glamorise politics. (I don’t include you). It’s like the celebrity culture that has perverted so many societies today. We saw that in 1996, when the song, “We don’t need old pa” was used as a slogan. Age, unless it affects an individual’s output, should not be an issue in our choice of leader. In fact, it should be an attractive factor because with age comes maturity, experience, wisdom and patience, as well as the fear of the hereafter, as the rendezvous with the ultimate Dispatcher gets ever more closer.
Babu had all along been reiterating the same arguments. That, leaders must honour their promises to their electorate, whom they “begged” to put them in office.
After securing the electorates’ OK, they cannot renege on their promises, threaten the electorate with brutal police, military and financial power to forcefully stay in power. As Barrow said at his Brikama gathering: ” they like it or not I’ll stay for five years”.
What an insult to the Gambian people.
However, in December, he’ll learn a better language. In Shaa Allah.
Y’all listen to the wise counsel of Dr. Isatou Sarr.
I couldn’t put the narrative in more succinct terms!
Ya Heard!! That includes our pal Kawsu Ceesay!
This Haadama must go!!
Good contribution from Mr Kawsu Ceesay. Perhaps the most important issue raised yet again, as many have done before, is the rational behind the 3 Year Term of the flag bearer. The idea being to attempt to end self perpetuation by showing to the country, and perhaps the entire continent, that a president does not have to die in office.
The question therefore, has to be asked whether those coalition partners who met at whatever hotel to extend the transition term to 5 Years (from 3) and individuals (beginning with Lawyer Darboe) who challenged the idea of a 3 Year term of office based on the flimsy excuse of upholding the constitution, are really serious about ending self perpetuation. This should be a concern to anyone who wants to see an end to self perpetuating rule.
Another thing that caught my attention is the writer’s dismissal, as utterly false, of OJ’s alleged claims that the 3 Year term was imposed on President Barrow. I think one other person that needed to be included in that dismissal is Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, who seems to be saying the same thing, at least initially.
I was perplexed by the same Lawyer Ousainou Darboe when he admitted to Sheriff Bojang Jnr (Chronicle) that President Barrow will not be going against the constitution, if he resigns after 3 Years. Wasn’t the whole idea of the 3 Year term predicated on the VOLUNTARY (repeat: VOLUNTARY) resignation of the flag bearer? How could Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, after creating so much confusion and chaos, now admit that the MOU’s 3 Year Term, based on the voluntary resignation of the coalition flag bearer (President Barrow) did not contradict the constitution and was not unconstitutional? I do not know why any sane voters would wish this man to be the president of our country.
Bax, seemer down a Bit. Darboe always maintained that the president can -like in any profession or capacity- resign on his own accord. What he said at the time, was that barrow cannot be forced to resign. That he would ( on his own individual capacity) contest the legality of forcing barrow to leave the presidency as per coalition MOU.
Now we have discussed this many times and people have blamed Darboe for this utterance even within the UDP. Darboe continue to maintain that he made those remarks on his own capacity not as a leader of the party.
For me what Darboe said or not said about the 3Y jotna is irrelevant. He is no more in govt nor can he enforce the coalition MOU.
Today the ball lies with barrow to honor his agreement with the coalition partners on one hand and honor the election promise on the other hand. That is up to him.
UDP is best advised to concentrate on the constitutional sanctioned electoral circle. Gambia belong to all of us.
All the more reason that other pressure groups like 3y jotna are allowed to manifest themselves and hold barrow to his word.
Putting blame on Darboe for barrow‘s and by extension present gov‘t woes, won’t take us any where.
Kinteh (Kemo), ok bro, I will have a glass of cold water. I think that will do the trick.
Quote: “What he said at the time, was that barrow cannot be forced to resign.”
Listen, this line of argument is flawed. You know why? Because there was no issue with the 3 Year term at the time. No one had queried it. Even President Barrow had committed himself to the MOU and gave assurances that he will leave after 3 Years, claiming that he was a businessman; not a politician.
The MOU, you cited, was not about forcing Barrow to step down. On the contrary, every contestant at the Convention had committed themselves to a voluntary resignation after 3 Years.
The truth of the matter is that Mr Darboe misjudged Barrow, erroneously thinking that he could turn the coalition government into a UDP Government that will serve for 5 years and go into next elections, as the party in government. There is evidence to support this view point.
During his celebrations of success at the NA Elections, he was very clear when he equated Barrow with a village wrestler, who had represented his village to defeat a contestant. He said the wrestler naturally goes back to his home, after the contest. He then said President Barrow’s home was UDP, and having defeated Jammeh, he was coming home. This is on record.
There is also a video by Youtubber Serign Chapacholly, where Mr Darboe could clearly be heard, telling his audience, that they intend to transform the Cabinet into 100% UDP after Ramadan. He was in government at the time. So clearly, his rejection of the 3 Years was meant to consolidate the UDP in government before the next elections. Nothing to do with the constitution, as he very well knows that resignation does not violate the constitution.
Obviously, today it is President Barrow’s call, but the damage has already been done by Mr Darboe. I hope Mr Barrow sees sense, speeds up the constitutional reform process and steps down in December.
Kinteh Kemo,
“Darboe always maintained that the president can -like in any profession or capacity- resign on his own accord. What he said at the time, was that barrow cannot be forced to resign. That he would ( on his own individual capacity) contest the legality of forcing barrow to leave the presidency as per coalition MOU”.
Show us the evidence that this has been Darboe’s stance all along. Ousainou Darboe is a master at uttering statements of convenience that have turned out to be nothing but self inflicted wounds.
At the end of the day, Ousainou Darboe, like Haadama Barrow, MUST GO!
This fellow has outlived his usefulness in Gambian politics! No new ideas form the “Manding Prince”. He simply doesn’t have a PLAN and if he ever did, the plan has become STALE!!
WUSAINOU YEH FILLY NYAAMO MAA LEH DEH!!
Bax may well drink cold water and Andrew need to do more than identifying who is best suited to be president of our country.
The handicap that Andrew and Halifa Sallah, albeit the later being a seasoned respected politician, have in common is that both remain in their comfort zones.
So for Mr. Sallah, his base is limited to the urbanites (the socialist educated few) and the rural folks mainly settlements along the northern border to Senegal and Kandeh is surging in on here. The rest do not either understand him or he hasn’t been able to break the communication barriers. Pundits like Bax may argue that the UDP art of politicking is so toxic that Halifa cannot put his message through to the Badibu, jarras and kombos.
So Andrew‘s initiative to recruit new young leaders across the spectrum is not gaining traction. Based on the line he writes, it is easy to understand why. My speculation is that he doesn’t want to engage or seen to engaging folks , who to him, are just not trustworthy to co-hold a snake.
So what we have is a reciprocal antipathy that is derailing Halifa‘s goals and that of Andrew‘s dreams.
But as we seem to be made to believe , there is a reason for not reaching the folks. UDP/Darboe. Which is very simplistic!
Kinteh (Kemo), you’re entitled to your views about Halifa Sallah (PDOIS) and “pundits” like Bax, but they are in not reflective of the facts. For a start, I don’t know what you mean by stating that Halifa remains in his comfort zone. What’s his “comfort zone”?
The often repeated claim that the people don’t understand Halifa (PDOIS) is not true, because the message is simple and delivered in their own national languages. That is why supporters and opponents all agree on one thing about PDOIS: it is a party that speaks the truth. How could you tell someone speaks the truth, if you don’t understand what they say? So, that claim is not true. Here are a few questions for you:
1. Do you think farmers don’t understand when PDOIS says they will establish a cooperative bank and use it finance their farming activities?
2. Do you think women gardeners don’t understand when PDOIS says that they will be provided with the facilities they need to be highly productive and a market outlet for their farm produce?
3. Do you think the workers don’t understand when PDOIS says they will establish public corporations and sign performance contracts with them for wealth creation?
4. Do you think workers don’t understand when PDOIS says they will invest in the fisheries sector by establishing fishing companies and equipping them with trawlers to fish our waters?
5. Do you think the nation don’t understand when PDOIS says they will establish cottage industries to add value to our produce and create jobs and wealth, rather than always export raw?
6. Do you think the voters don’t understand when PDOIS says they will map out the available natural resources, extract where viable and deposit proceeds in the national coffers?
7. Do you think communities don’t understand when PDOIS says they will establish community treasuries, where all funds from their community (not individual) economic activities, royalties and government subventions will be paid into for their community development aspirations?
Kinteh (Kemo), the idea that the UDP and Darboe are perceived as the reason their political opponents (often PDOIS) are not succeeding, though utterly baseless, is quite common within the UDP and I am not surprised that you have repeated it here. I challenge you to produce a statement from PDOIS (or “pundit” Bax) that directly blames UDP and Darboe for PDOIS’ electoral performances. I listened to Ousainou Darboe’s interview with Sheriff Bojang Jnr (Chronicle) and he repeated the same thing on several occasions, when asked about difficult questions on his role in the current crisis: that it is prejudices against him and the UDP that is responsible for these views. Why can’t it be differences of opinion and perception, rather than prejudices? Why is a political leader allowed to use language that closes debate and encourages enmity between opponents? Does anyone remember a certain Yaya Jammeh and how he viewed his opponents as being prejudiced against him because of his tribe? We all know where that led us to, and here again, it is surfacing within a possible future government and people aren’t even taking notice.
You are right about one thing, though: that PDOIS has not been able to break barriers, but you got the nature of the barrier wrong. It is not the communication barrier that PDOIS has not broken.
It is the POLITICAL CULTURE and PRACTICES that PDOIS has not been able to break across the whole country, but even they knew at the onset, that breaking that entrenched barrier is not an easy task, especially when everyone else religiously practiced it, such that it is seen as an oddity not to practice it. The good news is that there is hope, as more and more people become aware and shun politics of bribery and loyalties of different forms and categories.
Jack,Bax,Dr Sarr & Co,
I agree with the Halifa argument that he could be a good leader; incorruptible,selfless, devoid of telling LIES,hardworking, conscientious….
I’m looking for such leaders. Leaders who are running with the current tide of development and progressive foresights
Not leaders whose Fatoumata Bah would take buddies to Mecca, unnecessarily construct a police station in Mankamang Kunda on the poor taxpayers’ money and lie about the 3year agreement.
By the way, I learnt of a group set up to make public debates of candidates at our elections a permanent fixture of our elections (campaign) calender, starting 2021. I am excited by this initiative and I give it all my blessings. I hope I am around to witness the maiden event.
It is an opportunist group set up to delay, undermine and tentatively crush the efforts of the 3-year Jotnah Movement.
They will not succeed. Their effort to bring presidential candidates at a round-table policy debate will be blessed after the corrupt, tribalist buffon is flushed out in December. Let them keep their mind-twisting and hypocritical effort till after December.
Barrow surrogates, well-wishes and 2021 advocates will be seriously disappointed with their efforts to maintain a THIEF, a LIAR surrounded by a batch a family and tribesmen CROOKS in high public office.
We’ll surely get incorruptible, competent, patriotic leaders who will NEVER sell our sovereignty to Senegal, the Arabs, China and the West. Leaders who are development oriented with schemes to make the Gambia an economically self-sustaining country totally free from tribal, ethnic, regional and family favours/inclinations.
December 2019 will surely set the pace!!!
Babu, yes barrow is incompetent ..admittedly a failure of judgement on the part of UDP to put up someone his calibre.
But your line of arguement, as usual, is poor. Ask yourself why Jammeh, your ideal leader for Gambia & Africa, was not suited for nor sustainable as a leader?
Don’t go around blaming the west or the killed Lt. barrows (personifying the mandinka zealots) of the past. Just answer the question à la Ensa Faal!
Women’s vegatable gardening (horticulture) is not “Untested.” Those who live in the Kombos can see the enormous loss that these women suffer season after season, due to a variety of reasons, all related to the lack of facilities to preserve, means of transport, lack of markets, devaluation (due to over supply) and absence of strategic planning for the sector. Providing the strategic planning and the requisite funding and logistics the sector needs may never have been done before, but surely, you are not going to hold the view that this is unrealistic. I honestly hope not.
Horticulture is a very interesting sector and a useful one as a case study for this I am pleased that you brought it up.
I believe and in line with UDP decentralization drive for representation and taxation, area councils are best suited to provide the regional specific needs of both investing in garden infrastructure and also in building market stalls/ Lumos to enable successful exchange of the garden produce into cash or kind.
A direct central govt intervention have shown to be totally inadequate. The policies and goals are tailored to political loyalties and are ill prosecuted because the „declared“ beneficiaries have no power to contribute to the implementation of the projects.
Jammeh‘s tractors ended up in the homes of his own handpicked chiefs or governors.
And i dont see how the same won’t happen if we don’t ensure independence of elected local govt councils to have independence over how to utilize tax money and subsidies from central government.
A pdois govt wouldn’t fare better if Sallah instead of elected local officials, is the custodian of projects that aims to improve the lot our horticultural Farmers. The intent is not disputed but the actual implementation of the goals, noble they may be, is susceptible to misappropriation by pdois political stalwarts vying for political/economic profit.
That is why UDP stand for taxation and representation!
Quote: “A pdois govt wouldn’t fare better if Sallah instead of elected local officials, is the custodian of projects that aims to improve the lot our horticultural Farmers.”
1. Kinteh (Kemo), either you suffered a slip of the tongue here, or you are engaged in a deliberate misrepresentation and distortion of PDOIS Policy on supporting farmers. Where is the evidence that under a PDOIS Government, Halifa Sallah, rather than elected local officials will be the custodian of projects that aim to improve the lots of horticultural farmers? Please provide a statement (written or oral) from PDOIS/Halifa that even remotely alludes to this claim of yours.
On the contrary, there is ample evidence to show that PDOIS promotes the idea of a people oriented development model, by organising workers and producers into cooperatives that will be supported by government to fulfil their potentials and benefit from their efforts financially and materially.
The people own the development projects and government’s role, as far as I understand, is providing the resources and leadership necessary to pursue the development model that is in line with the party’s agenda, as contained in their Manifesto.
2. Identifying local councils as best suited to provide investment in the horticultural sector to maximise its wealth creation potential is an alternative development plan, but I will not be engaging you on which of the two is more suited to our country, until you can prove that you are not plucking policy for UDP from thin air, least I go on a wild goose chase.
In other words, I want to be certain that what you stated above is UDP Policy and not the figment of your own imagination. So point me to the relevant section of the UDP Manifesto where this policy pledge is made.
3. I don’t know why you’re bringing Yaya Jammeh and “his tractors” into this discussion as an example. Yaya Jammeh has no place where serious discussion on systems and models of development is taking place because he subscribes to nothing and provides no examples one should want to learn from or emulate.
Quote: “……is susceptible to misappropriation by pdois political stalwarts vying for political/economic profit.”
(Baari, Kinteh (Kemo), yaamiira imang fili nyaamo maa bang! ) Just substitute PDOIS with UDP in this quote and you will truly reflect the situation in the Barrow Administration. Do you want me to call names? They are truly inexhaustible, beginning with a certain Adama Barrow.
Kinteh(Kemo),
Barrow is not only incompetent, he’s also the greatest traitor to the Gambian electorate and his coalition partners, an Ali Baba(the Thief), a tribalist, nonentity….
Jammeh’s achievements are present, you like it or not. I don’t have to enumerate them.
The only ousted leader who has maintained popularity like the late President Mandela.
Give him access to the polls and he’ll defeat any contender.
Kinteh(Kemo),
You are deliberately bias. Where are the Jammeh tractors now?
They were all seized by the CORRUPT Barrow administration and sold/given away to their buddies.
Who did the worst, Jammeh or Barrow? The farmers in my district who benefitted from that benevolent agricultural programme just suffered under the STUPID vengeful reaction of the IDIOTIC Barrow administration.
Why can’t you say that? Why hide the truth?
Bourne,
Mindset is good a starting point. The Gambia Psyche is still held back in time. The cultural shift hasn’t happen yet. The national consciousness is yet to ripe. When I dwell on the narrow-mindedness of the politicians and general population, people tend to be embarrassed by it and try to deny them. Denial is a tested strategy to look away from the obvious.
Here is a mirror image of Gambia (Senegal as well) in terms of national-socio cultural consciousness.
Recently I attended (part of the organizers) my local Gambia association (apolitical, non-religious, for all) tobaski event. While mingling with every one, I realise that sensitive discussions (political, family, financial etc) are discussed mainly along ethno-linguistic lines although many of the participants are multi-lingual in the Gambian languages.
We continue to be more comfortable sharing sensitive views with people we perceive to speak or understand or share our cultural instincts. We have difficulty still to forge a lasting relationships with fellow Gambians across ethno-linguistic lines except marriage relationships or professional relationships. Our friendship circles are populated with people who we assume feel us and understand our cultural values and non-verbal indicators.
So how would a country evolve in which the majority of us share a uniform reference point? The till dato much acclaimed “all Gambia are brothers and sisters” has being unmasked as a total deception by the testimonies of abject cruelty at TRRC proceedings.
I think that is what is holding us back. And the abject brutality of jammeh has set us 22 years back. And the abject incompetence of Barrow, who by virtue of his background transcending the ethno-linguistic barrier, has turned out to be an outer failure on all expectations rested on him.
Bax, I am not just „plucking policy for UDP from thin air”. The empowerment of the local govt governance has always being a UDP policy heavyweight. This policy is in the manifesto and is manifested in the following concrete testimonies:
1. Selection of NAMs By local Party delegates. This is meant to ensure accountability of NAMs to their districts.
2. Actively participated in local gov’t elections. UDP is now actively formulating and implementing policies through its Mayors and area council Chairmans to deliver for their respective People regardless of Party affiliations.
Again, to develop farming, horticulture and indeed the wider agricultural diversification drive (anchored in the UDP manifesto), you need to give the People the political Control over locally generated tax and declutch from political consideration subsidies coming from the central govt. Think-tanks within the UDP are also working on a formula that would try to legislate into law the allocation of subsidies from the central to the local gov’t such that these subsidies are freed from political considerations or influence.
Getting people (party delegates) involved in the selection of NAMs or developing policies that help UDP reps to deliver to the people, regardless of party affiliations does not really prove your claim, does it? I don’t know what your Think-Tanks will come out with, so we’ll have to wait and see.
I am actually looking at UDP Manifesto 2016-2021 policy guidelines on agriculture at financing (sub-heading (iii)) and I will post it verbatim to prove that you’re plucking policy from thin air for UDP.
Quote @UDP Manifesto 2016-2021:
“iii) Improve Credit Service. Access to credit is an important determinant in increasing productivity. Today the credit needs of the farmers have not been addressed satisfactorily. We shall work with the commercial banks and other lending agencies to develop a differentiated and responsive credit system that addresses the various credit needs of the various categories of the farming community.”
There you have it. No mention of local government. Instead, it’s credit facilities from commercial banks and lending agencies (Loan sharks) that will be the source of funding for vulnerable, poor farmers.
Here’s a verbatim quotation from PDOIS Manifesto 2016
Quote@ PDOIS Manifesto 2016:
“3. ON WOMEN’s UPLIFTMENT FROM POVERTY
That women, making up half the population, are mostly engaged in farming, or horticulture, without access to inputs and reliable markets. To address the problem of the vast majority of women, a Cooperative Bank and Cooperative marketing establishments will be commissioned to provide all the inputs for gardening, aquaculture , animal husbandry, petty business and cottage industries to enable women to earn income sufficient for improved living and further purchase farm produce to promote value added production through processing to generate employment.”
Very clear and unambiguous. No mention of loan sharks (commercial banks and lending agencies) and abandoning our vulnerable farmers to their greed for profits at all cost. It’s all about using the funds that we generate to support our most productive citizens to be even more productive and generate more wealth. It’s called putting your money where your mouth is.
By the way, I noticed that UDP Government will also provide funds (subsidies) from central government to farmers (according to your imaginary policy), through the local councils, but I see a bias here: whilst you are convinced that PDOIS stalwarts will use political clout to benefit from funds to agriculture from central government under PDOIS, you have no such concerns for same funds, from same central Government, though this time UDP, to local councils. May I ask why?
Lastly, I dispute your claim that the UDP Government will provide subsidies to farmers because they CANNOT do it unless they change their ideological leaning. You want prove? Go to your Manifesto, under the heading, “ECONOMY” and read.
You will find that, not only did your party praise the disastrous 1980s ERP (Economic Recovery programme of PPP, which eradicated all forms of subsidies) as a success, you have committed yourselves to “fiscal, monetary and structural” policies. Well, structural policies are INCOMPATIBLE with subsidies for dependent, developing, Third World countries that receive advice and guidance from the Brett and Woods Institutions. It’s a TABOO.
You can’t just decipher the agriculture policy in UDP manifesto in isolation.
Let’s leave the word subsidies aside. I mean central govt money ( either through taxation or kind). This money belong to all regions of the country. How do you distribute these funds?
We in the UDP are saying creating a formula for sharing these funds and legislate that formula into law whereby the funds utilization at local level goes through the treasuries of the local govt area councils.
These councils must be democratically elected as a condition for receiving funds.
Then they are responsible for utilizing these funds from central government and the local tax money to craft and implement their own development needs. Under the credo representation before taxation.
Commercial banks are separate entity. Since we are talking about individual agricultural entities ( except pdois wish to nationalize the farmlands), individual innovations can be supported by enabling a favorable credit lending environment for both voluntary cooperative or individual owned farms.
Quote: “( except pdois wish to nationalize the farmlands),”
There is no longer any doubt in my mind that you did not suffer a slip of the tongue earlier when you made the claim that Halifa would be the custodian of projects under a PDOIS Government. I have viewed you, all along, as a genuine critic of PDOIS and Halifa, but how wrong I was.
Nevertheless, I will not tire to demand prove from you, if you do care, to substantiate your recent claim. Until then, I will discontinue this engagement for now.
So Bax, every lending institution is a “Loan Shark”?
What would the cooperatives do differently? Where would the novelty be?
Cooperatives, with a few exceptions, do not work well in Senegambia largely on account of what I’d call the frailties of the human nature for want of a better term.
Gambians in particular just don’t do well with monies destined for the common good! It’s either public officers tipping the kitty, citizens collude with officials to steal public funds or vultures of Gambian politicians come scrounging around like bottom feeders! With the exception of Hon. Sidia Jatta and Halifa Sallah! We know the good ones Bax!
Yes Andrew, commercial banks and lending agencies modelled after the Bretton Woods institutions are Loan Sharks, indeed. They are not in business for altruistic reasons. They are in it for the money and the easier the kill, the better. And you won’t find a much easier kill than the desperately needy vulnerable farmers.
What would the cooperatives do differently? I don’t have the specifics of what the cooperatives under PDOIS would do differently. As you know, I never pretend to be speaking for PDOIS or representing their position in any discussions. Rather, I am only expressing my agreement with their approach and sharing my understanding of what they would do, which may be wrong.
I am assuming that either PDOIS will create a sort of revolving fund, where the total value of funds received by individual members of cooperatives are quantified and an affordable payment plan, over a number of years, of the exact amount received (no interest) is devised and agreed upon or they (PDOIS) may decide to make one off FREE capital investments into the agriculture sector to kick start its agriculture sector revolution. I know many neoliberal fanatics would say no to this approach, but my question is, why not?
Look, President Trump is giving American Farmers $12 billion (public funds) free aid this year to offset the disastrous effects of his trade war with China and he has pledged to do the same next year, if necessary. Western Governments poured billions of Dollars (public funds) into the banking sector in 2008 to prevent its total collapse.
And don’t forget Andrew, these are the governments whose directives (of no direct public sector involvement in the economy) the Bretton Woods Institutions are ramming down the throats of Third World dependent economies, like The Gambia.
It is up to us to either wake up from this stupendous slumber and put our monies where our mouths are to turn our fortunes around or continue being led like unthinking sheep to the abattoir, thus the life of wretchedness and utter hopelessness for the majority of our people, until we depart this life for good. No one puts it more succinctly than Hon Halifa Sallah: “Judu chi chono, mageh chi chono, deh chi chono” (be born into abject poverty; grow up in abject poverty; die in the same abject poverty)
Corruption, Andrew, is a huge challenge for a country like The Gambia, not least because of our attitudes to public funds and towards public office holders. As Bourne would agree, when you have a culture that says, “a cow feeds (on the grass) where it is tethered”, then you know the cancer is deep rooted and would require a bold and robust approach over a period of time, to significantly curb and curtail, if not eradicate completely.
One thing is absolutely certain: those who feed off this corruption in public office or seek public office to partake in this corruption (seen as “Barako”/”Tekki dara” or “harrgewo/worsakk”) would only pay lip service to its eradication; never any serious attempts to tackle it.
I always ask our political elites one question.
1. What is the role of Agriculture in our NDP?
I can tell you that the answers are quite embarrassing and betrayed a complete lack of understanding that Agriculture is an investment in our future with huge ROI.
Think about agriculture as a joint venture between
The Government of The Gambia and
Farmers
The government contribute
Irrigation.
Fertilizer.
Infrastructure.
Technology and
Money.
Farmers contribute
Land and
Labor
Both are looking for this result
1. Poverty alleviation
2. Food security
The result is a strong union. The Republic of The Gambia.
The how is. Honesty, integrity and Leadership.
Bourne, like minds are getting together to form the Nyambai Forest Conservation Society to protect our national parks and peri -urban forests such as Nyambai, Salaji, Furuyar, “Monkey Park” and a host of other forests facing decimation at the hands of our own citizens.
Like minds are also coming together to drill sources of clean and potable water right there in communities that need it most without much fanfare and TV photo ops!
This is exactly what cuts out graft, incompetence and carrion eating middlemen while bringing earthly benefits to real Gambians!
I am not going to mince words going forward Bourne as we are turning out to be our own worst enemies in The Gambia! Think Haadama Barrow and Wusainou Darboe!
I’ll remind readers of the old Manding adage, TULU BUNDIRO BUKA KUNGO TEYE BARRI……..
Let’s start putting our monies where our mouths are to ensure that the Rag Tag Darboe, Kandeh, OJ and Barrow GO AWAY!!
Oh Bourne! And I suppose that “our” Dembo BB Darboe will also bring us “DEMBACRACY” along the way after the long hiatus.
It may be the case that his encounter with his JINNA MORO has served to not only embolden him but also bestow new charm, Duwaa and smarts that weren’t there in the hey days of the PPP!
So now we have two Manding Princes off of the same template. The de facto and the something something.
Will the real Manding Prince please stand up?
Or is this seeming conundrum a case of collusion out of the Donald Trump playbook?