The reader must bear with me for placing these first as they form the basis of the arguments contained in this write-up. Unlike the turncoat-in-chief/memory-deficient and corrupt incumbent, the Gambia’s opposition parties and movements appear to be constrained by a striking failure of political imagination.
They seem unable or unwilling to grasp the logic of political arithmetic: that collective strength is built not through subtraction, but through addition, coalition, alliance, collaboration, supply and demand, and strategic convergence. They seem to remain inflexible/rigid, unimaginative and fragmented, seemingly relying on a narrow repertoire of political instruments that limits their capacity to convincingly beat Barrow at the December 2026 elections. And rather than listening to the people and articulating a clear vision of how they intend to serve the public interest with unswerving commitment, integrity and discipline, while accepting transparency and accountability for the consequences of their decisions, some political parties and movements appear to have taken a different path. Some have already aligned themselves with the incumbent, while others appear to be engaged in the more subtle exercise of negotiating and signing memoranda of understanding with the very establishment they have forcefully criticised and ostensibly sought to challenge.
The political implications of these approaches are difficult to ignore. At the very least, they raise important questions about political independence, consistency of purpose and the extent to which the pursuit of political power may be beginning to eclipse the principles and commitments these parties and movements claim to represent.
Unless some magic happens- which is a rare commodity-, we shall continue to face crisis of leadership for a long time to come. Therefore, our state and its institutions will continue to fail to meet the most basic needs of underserved communities. It is my submission that the people must not allow the lights in their communities or regions to go out or be dimmed. They must be restless and innovative in their pursuit of a brighter today and a much better future. They must help themselves by coming together to provide some of the essential services the community needs. I believe this is about serious like-minded people in the community or region recognising the most essential unmet needs of their community or region, coming together and establishing credible, agile and effective structures/institutions and then mobilising the resources to co-produce sustainable solutions that build a resilient and strengthened community or region.
We probably cannot disagree with the notion that when a critical mass of credible individuals organise around a shared aspiration/challenge, responsibility and collective action, they can help magically bridge critical gaps, co-create opportunities for collective sustainable social progress and protect vulnerable people in the community. Without such collective thinking and effort, our communities risk becoming trapped in underdevelopment and cycles of unmet needs and social challenges, slowing the progress that benefits everyone. Knowing our disposition, one can only imagine how we would react if this ugly reality staring us in the face were a person. One might say: stop looking at me, or why are you staring at me? Although what seems to stare us or invade almost every aspect of our being is not a faceless thing, we seemingly react to it with the same fatalistic mindset: that it will go away, Inshallah= if God wills. From my perspective, such a reaction seems to assume- without interrogation- that our situation is predestined and that if we remain patient, and God wills, our difficulties will be eased. I wonder how long we must wait for things to get better. Seriously, if we could bottle time, we would be very rich indeed.
I think it is deeply sad when we receive news that a life has been challenged by serious illness or cut short when, through our collective effort, that life might have been prolonged, supported through the difficult course of nature with less pain, or even saved. So, I often wonder whether our response should not be limited to praying for the family, asking that the deceased be granted Jannah or for their soul to rest in peace. While those prayers are no doubt important and supportive, I believe we could also ask ourselves: what more can we do? It is not beyond our collective creative imagination to recognise that we can do more when we come together and turn what should be our concern into meaningful social action. I am sure we can mourn and or celebrate lives lost as well as work together to protect and save lives. This is doable. I think society becomes dimmer when we fail to recognise a simple truth: the challenges we share are more likely to be solved when we confront them together, within an organised structure, rather than expecting a few individuals, however admirable their acts may be, to carry the weight on behalf of everyone.
As a regular observer of some of the exchanges on social media platforms, one thing seems clear to me, though perhaps not worth stating but for the avoidance of doubt I will: none of us exists entirely in isolation. We are constantly bombarded with information that tugs at our heartstrings. So, no matter how we see or think of each other, our lives are interconnected, and the wellbeing- social, physical, mental, emotional, and otherwise- of one person is often sustained, directly or indirectly, by the contributions/comments/likes of many others. In that sense, progress- no matter how we choose to define it- is rarely the achievement of one individual. It is usually the product of collective effort, shared responsibility, including deliberately constructing credible platforms, institutions/organisations that allow the people of that community to contribute their part. Should we have no disagreement about that, then surely, we should work together more closely and address our shared challenges.
I struggle with this argument (and I am sure my cousins in Jarra do too); whether made privately or publicly, and it goes something like this: that Mr. or Mrs. Somebody should save us from his or her too much talk. Mr. or Mrs. Somebody can do the said project alone. But such a judgment assumes far too much about Mr. or Mrs. Somebody’s income, resources, and abilities. So, before passing such a judgment, perhaps one should look more closely at Mr. or Mrs. Somebody’s home and their wider family: their father(s), mother(s), brother(s), sister(s), uncle(s), niece(s), nephew(s), and more. Such is the nature of our interconnectedness- an interesting and sometimes complex interconnectedness that only grows larger as one ages or deepens depending on where one is situated. We should ask ourselves: how many of these lives have been changed, supported, or sustained, directly or indirectly, by the efforts of Mr. or Mrs. Somebody? I am sure we would arrive at different answers to this question. However, let’s imagine if one were to arrive at an answer that is shaped by sentiments such as: that some burdens, especially that of a community, should not rest on the shoulders of one or two people.
From my perspective, a deeper principle must be at work: a community should not be organised around dependence on a single individual. When one person becomes the principal sponsor of a project, the project’s very survival can become tied to that person’s circumstances, survival, resources, and continued willingness to give. If that individual is no longer able, or available to provide support, that project may suffer or collapse. And no matter how many people, individually, take on financing the different projects in the region or community, the same fate shall befall those projects when the sponsor(s) are no longer able, or no longer present; that is, the project(s) will collapse.
I think a more sustainable approach is to use trustworthy individuals and co-create something strong; something in which everyone has a stake. Everyone doing their bit. Everyone taking ownership of the thing. Everyone accepting some responsibility for the destiny of that project they own. I do not believe that this is a mere practical or philosophical argument; it is an argument about community feeling, about citizenship, and about the common good. And I strongly believe that everyone loves the common good because the common good is good for everyone.
And what quarrels do we have about this: that if we benefit from a community, we must have a sustained responsibility to contribute to its preservation and improvement? The contribution we make to it need not be equal in size, because, understandably, our circumstances are not equal. I think what matters is that responsibility is understandably and respectfully shared according to capacity. Some may contribute money, others may contribute their time, knowledge/ideas, skills, organisation, influence, or their physical effort. The principle is that no one individual should be expected to carry what belongs to the whole community.
It is my submission that the shared responsibility approach makes co-created development more sustainable. When people co-create, contribute to something collectively, they are more likely to feel that it belongs to them; that it is worth preserving. Indeed, this is why most grant funding bodies that support development projects work on a match-funding basis; they want the applicant(s) to take some ownership of what they want to do, nurture and sustain what they have contributed to co-creating. When people feel ownership, they are more likely to nurture/protect, maintain, and improve what they have built. Such a project ceases to be the sponsor’s project to sustain; it becomes the community’s project. Then, the project is far less likely to stop simply because the sponsor withdraws, becomes financially constrained, moves on/their priority changes or the sponsor dies. These are facts of life; needless to say, incapacity, withdrawal of support or the invisible hand of death is situated at everyone’s door.
My mind is open to the realities that we will not all see these arguments the same way, and my position may not move some readers at all. Indeed, I am open-eyed about the fact that some may prefer to leave the future to chance; to deal with the problem, any problem, when it eventually arrives. But, to me, that raises a fundamental question: is our willingness to postpone responsibility until circumstances force our hand not one of the reasons we struggle to make meaningful progress as a people? We probably remember the old principle about planning: that failure to plan is planning to fail. I do not think we can build a sustainable future by continually responding to problems after they have become crises. Nor can we reasonably expect a handful of people- as though they are immortals- to rescue us from challenges that belong to all of us.
In my mind’s eye, if the destiny is shared- and I know it is, then the responsibility must also be shared. Therefore, the question should not be whether Mr. or Mrs. Somebody can do it alone. I think the better question is: what can each of us do to ensure that we do not place unnecessary expectations on Mr. or Mrs. Somebody alone? When we all contribute to a cause that affects all of us, we lighten the load for everyone. Where possible, our toolkit must also consider building, nurturing and sustaining collaborations and mutually beneficial partnerships which strengthen our ability to serve communities and regions.
Although the ideas presented here will require broad buy-in, sustained commitment, and a strong spirit of volunteerism, they offer a pathway to reinventing government and renewing and rebuilding institutions that have fallen short of the needs of the people they serve.
If this vision sounds ambitious, I submit that it must be because we face what appears to be an existential challenge- one that requires decisive and bold action to address. But it is not ambitious, particularly when many villages have established associations and foundations dedicated to empowering their communities and improving the lives and prospects of their people; this is reinventing government. We must respond to the aspirations of underserved communities with the urgency, dignity, and determination they deserve, thereby creating the conditions that enable them to thrive with hope and confidence. This is not going to be a quick win, but the community service, and the common good it will provide is worth the pain. Out of this work will emerge committed community leaders with invaluable skills and experience, individuals suitably equipped to contribute meaningfully to the broader project of nation building.
