My lecturer at the university of the Gambia once said “Most Gambians listens to respond, but not listen to comprehend.”
This however,is clearly manifested in the misrepresented statements and comments directed to Hon. Halifa Sallah by the state and some people in the social media in responds to Sallah’s statement captioned “The next change, is system change.” Don’t we need a system change as sovereign people? Off curse yes! We need to end governance of self-perpetuation, a mechanism that Jawara and Jammeh used to rule for decades at the expense of the tax payers and the sovereign citizen of the Gambia.
This self-perpetuation can only be ended with a system change, if not the wishes and aspiration of the Gambia sovereign citizens cannot be represented.let’s take just one example of self-perpetuation of the H.E Barrow and his administration: The Gambia despite complexity of governance in their early days in office, Barrow have to wait almost nine months for the constitution to be amended, to accommodate Fatoumata-Jallow Tambajag in the vice presidency, second top job in the political executive, despite unending calls by the citizen and parliamentarians to appoint a vice president. Does that represent the wishes of the people ; was she the only person capable of running that office?
Further,It is not a distortion of facts in my humble opinion and interpretation of Hon. Sallah’s assertion that “Nothing seem to have change to have improved the living standard of ordinary citizens.” Considering the current catastrophic and disastrous power supply in the country under the leadership of H.E Barrow. These undoubtedly affects the living standard of the ordinary citizen either directly or indirectly.
Many Gambian business men and women involved both in small scale and big scale businesses, relies on electricity for their business to work in order to earn money to pay their rents, , send their children to school, and put food on their tables. Does that improved the living standard of citizen, especially the ordinary?
As the mandingo saying goes ” Naako baa jataa, amagfoo gii tijii” meaning, when he say the river is dried up,he does not meant there is no water in it. Barrow and his coalition associates should be applauded for “giving the citizens their voice”/ freedom of speech and expression, but again democracy goes beyond freedom of speech and expression, but also devising policies and programmes that represent the wishes and aspiration of all Gambian, regardless of their party affiliations , and place of residence.
In addition,the statement from the office of the president that ” it is easier for Hon. Halifa Sallah to criticize than take a responsibility which he can be accounted by the people” does not represent a statesman like Hon. Halifa Sallah hands down!
In facts, Sallah’s statement in question, is more than taking a responsibility which the people can account him for as a statesman, head of a political party, and a parliamentarian as well. Among his work as a parliamentarian, is to critically scrutinize public officer holders and the political executive to serve the best interest of the country, he rejected the cabinet post as he once told the journalists that the decision was base on party principles and the facts that in the national assemble he can scrutinize on all areas of development pertaining the state, it does not mean he don’t want to rule or take responsibility or be accountable by the people.
Madi Jorbeteh, ” a leading Gambian activist” called for the prosecution of Fabakary Tombong Jatta in one of your publications in connection to FTJ’s work as a parliamentarian in Jammmeh’s presidency and made a lot of allegations against the APRC and their MPs. Whether a citizen can call the prosecution of his fellow citizen it left to Madi. What i can say is nobody can escape international justice, let the justice department do their work.
In essence, is to tell people that Sallah is already in a position to be accounted for by the people as people’s representative.
I can assure that Sallah ‘s public enlightenment can not be stopped by a human. Only Allah can do that because he was doing it in what many describe as a very brutal and dictatorial regime through his work entitled ” the young should be told the truth” which awake many Gambians and erode the parochial political culture of the people to stand up and fight against self-perpetuating and self serving governance.
Finally, we need people like Hon. Sallah and strong civil society whose democratic and constitutional activities can deter monopolization of power and self perpetuation.
By Sanna Badjie
There is no doubt we need consistent supply of electricity and water, our leaders must rise up to the responsibility placed on them and create an enabling environment for individuals and businesses to succeed. The Barrow administration will not build Gambia, we the people must build our own community and country, we are responsible for our own future, not Barrow, not Darboe, not Sallah. Obviously this government has lost its focus if it responds to statements like this, regardless of who makes them, if they are serious they ought to concentrate on doing the people’s work, Having said that Mr Sallah himself is a disappointment. He had the opportunity to be part of this administration, he declined. He is in the National Assembly where he should be making a difference. He should start by telling us what we need to be doing to have power and water, he should tell us how to creat jobs and improve our communities, rather he chose to point out deficiencies that is detrimental to Gambians. Save the criticism, we know where we are deficient. If you are so smart and patriotic, show us the way and we will listen and support you. A man of your stature does not need to be called President to make a difference. To those who say let go Sallah, as far as I am concerned you don’t love our beloved nation or you must be a donkey.
It is disappointing for any honest person with the letter Dr before your name to fail to realized the contributions being made by Mr Sallah in the form of suggestions he makes on all aspects of national development in the national assembly during the parliamentary debates if you do follow the proceedings. No honest person would fail to acknowledge that Mr Sallah never point out deficiencies without saying what he thinks should be done to address it. He’s been doing that during the former regimes and even now.
If you are not able to follow the proceedings of the national assembly due to problem of access, then that is indicative of the need for a system change which the Barrow regime seem to be reluctant in bringing about. Otherwise what is preventing GRTS from broadcasting the proceedings of the National Assembly live ?
Honesty is what is required of all Gambians for us to move forward. It is not enough to say we are creating the enabling environment for businesses or investments. Government itself must create jobs by investing into farming, fishing and industry. We should not wait for private or foreign investors to come and do that, after been waiting for 52 years. Is this not what Halifa has been telling us ?
Politics aside, can you state with clarity Mr Sallah’s position on:
1. Comprehensive power generation and distribution in The Gambia
2. Realistic job creation and economic development
3. Healthcare sector improvement and financing
4. Education
5. Agriculture etc
Can you point to the legislation he has written or co-written or co-sponsored in the Assembly addressing these current problems. I am very curious. Perhaps I missed all of it, if so I stand corrected.
God Bless The Gambia
I think what is without doubt, if I may say so, is that both the PPP and A(F)PRC Administrations have failed to achieve sustainable power generation and distribution, though both have expressed the ambition to do so. This, in my view, is due mainly because sustainable power generation and distribution is not only dependent on increased generation capacity and improved distribution network infrastructure, but also on the profitable marketability of the energy generated, to provide a steady flow of finance into the sector, which is the life blood that is necessary for viability.
The absence of this important component of the sustainable power generation and distribution equation, is what has hampered the growth and expansion of this important sector, as the vast majority of people are unable to access electricity or keep up with timely payments, due to poverty. And without a viable market outlet for the sector’s product, its sustainability becomes burdensome on an already, over burdened government, hence the repeated failures experienced to date.
The Barrow Administration, as a result of the goodwill it received from the international community, is reported to have secured external funding for at least, three new generators and upgrading of the distribution network infrastructure, but it will most likely encounter the same problems in the long term, if it fails to address the market outlet for the generated power.
The question therefore, Dr Isatou Sarr, is not what Halifa’s position is on the comprehensive power generation and distribution in The Gambia, but rather, on what his position is on how to enhance the earning capacity of the people, through his economic policies, to provide that vital component for a sustainable and viable power generation sector, which has eluded previous administrations and not evident in the current one, so far.
And in that respect, I must say that I am shocked that you even asked the question, as Halifa has never shied away from articulating what his policies are on how to organise production, processing, distribution and marketing, from the most basic levels, and provide the necessary support networks, instruments, structures and institutions to maximise accrued/accruable benefits to economically active individuals and communities.
Or, is it the case that you are not convinced that these policies are realistic enough?
Bax, a guy like Sallah makes a strategic decision to work from outside the administration, this is a calculated move on his part, Sallah is nobody’s fool. The question is why. Is it because he can achieve more for the people or is it because of political ambition. If you say he has articulated his position about economic development and growth in The Gambia, can you post the documents, when,how, where and to whom. I truly want to see his legislative record concerning those 5 areas I raised in my earlier post. Look I don’t care who is President, I just care about the common woman and man on the street. I am not a politician nor do I need a job from anyone, frankly none of these so called leaders can afford me. All I care about is responsible servitude to the people of Gambia. We did not ask Barrow, Darboe or Sallah to volunteer, they chose to do so, they ask to serve, we must force them to account for their time in service, no more no less. Why people refuse to ask them the hard question still baffles me. We don’t need to defend our servants, we need to hold them accountable at all times. As far as I am concerned it makes no difference whom I call to answer to the people. It is Sallah today,Barrow tomorrow. If they screw up, we the people must stand as one, calling them out.
God Bless The Gambia.
Dr Isatou Sarr, I honestly have no doubts of your impartiality in matters that come up for discussions here, and I agree with you 100% that public officials, especially those aspiring to hold elective office, must be asked the hard questions. As voters, we will give ourselves much better chances of good leadership, if we adopt that attitude.
You are quite right also, that Halifa’s and PDOIS decision not to accept Cabinet positions is calculated, but I think the answer to your question is out there. May be, we are not paying much attention or just ignoring it.
It is quite obvious to me, that once the agreed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was abandoned, the very basis for these parties with different approaches to governance, working together harmoniously in cabinet, was destroyed. And even worse, is the fact that it leaves the coalition cabinet without a clearly known/mapped agenda to pursue, as the MOU also doubled up as the Reform Agenda in government, if victory was achieved.
And when the statement of the UDP Leader, that President Barrow “has gone back to his home at the UDP” is put into the mix, it becomes glaringly obvious why PDOIS would not want to be part of that cabinet. PDOIS would definitely not want to go into a cabinet that will pursue UDP agenda, as the statement implied, and no one should expect them to.
Our “anger” for PDOIS’ absence from cabinet is directed at the wrong quarters here, as far as I can see, but that’s Gambian politics, where loyalties are more important than anything else.
Until 2017, Halifa has been absent from parliament for quite a while, so it will be impossible to post his legislative records here, because we have a very poor record of making public documents accessible to the public. The nature of the current parliament, on the other hand, makes it unwise for anyone within the coalition, to come up with a private member’s bill at this point.
In any case, the Constitution has broadly addressed all the 5 areas you raised earlier and all we need to do is to scrutinise whether political parties have got realistic policies to translate constitutional guarantees into assessable achievements: whether that’s in education, public services, agriculture, employment, health, freedoms, etc.
And if we scrutinise the pronouncements of our political parties, particularly as expressed in their Manifestos (where we can find one), then I will argue that, as far as I am concerned, PDOIS’ policies provide a more realistic translation of Constitutionally guaranteed citizens’ entitlements, than any other party.
The UDP Manifesto, for example, under the heading, “Economic Policy And Management”, expressed that their economic policy, “shall be based on a free market principle, which will aim to secure maximum economic growth through private sector initiatives and development”, and praised the disastrous ERP (Economic Recovery Programme) of the PPP as “successfully implemented…..bold macro-economic policies in the latter half of the 1980s that have released the productive sectors of the government from the crippling control of government.”
That, self evidently, is a return to the PPP days of stagnation and a distorted private sector led economy, as public funds are diverted to sustain a “private sector” that lives off state funds, whilst being maintained by cronies, families and close associates of those at the top, thus creating a new class of “the haves”.
There is absolutely no reason that adherence to this development model will have any significant impact on the masses or the state of the economy that is different from the first republic and to entertain any thoughts of differences will be delusional.
It (UDP Manifesto) further stated that: “These policies led to improvements in The Gambia’s business climate and encouraged in inflow of investments.”
It is clear that this is a development model that wants to be led by the private sector, but without the private sector with the financial clout for serious investment, we will be forced to compete for foreign investments, which has proven hard to attract in the right areas for our economy, and at great loss, where we manage to attract an investor.
And to understand how misleading the statement I quoted from the UDP Manifesto about the improved business climate and its resultant encouragement of inflows of investments is, I want to quote an extract from a PDOIS statement in 2012 called, “Focusing On The Alternative”.
Under the heading, “The Economic Sector”, it states:
“We have identified that over 1.6 billion dollars is traded in the currency markets of the country annually without any visible impact on the four fundamental pillars of the economy, namely , public sector investment, private sector investment, Cooperative sector investment and Informal sector investment.
This is why we refer to the Gambian Economy as a transit economy. Monies appear to be leaving the country as fast as they enter rather than nestling in one sector to generate economic growth and employment.”
We can see that whilst these financial activities will be captured in our statistical data as increased inflow of investments, the reality is that the bulk of these funds are repatriated abroad, rather than retained in the economy. And that’s what the “successfully” implemented macro-economic policies of the latter half of the 1980s did: it deregulated the economy (as advised by the IMF) to allow repatriation of “profits”, sometimes up t0 100%, amongst many incentives to create a conducive environment, to attract investors. We have to decide whether that’s the realistic model of development for us, we wish to return to.
My frustration with our politicians is that they forget their core responsibility to the electorate. After years of slavery under Jammeh, Gambians deserve better. Now we have politicians playing with the lives, future and aspirations of our people for selfish interest. At some point we all must ask ourselves the question. What is important to me? Gambia? or Political Power and self interest? To date, I have seen absolutely no evidence from PDOIS or UDP that they are interested in serving the people. There is plenty of evidence of political infighting, influence peddling and corruption on all sides.
How can any sane person go out on the streets of Banjul and say things are better and we are doing a great job, or who can shamelessly go to Serrekunda market and say “look at my people, I made life better for them”. I think not. The proof is in the pudding. Since Yahya left, nothing changed for the masses. How can one be happy and hopeful about such dismal record. So Bax, let’s just be direct and not play with words. For whatever reasons Sallah stinks and Barrow bums. Makes no difference the people are suffering under their watch. Let us tell them to fix this house now at all cost or get out. The people deserve better. Sallah is the leader in the Assembly, I am sure under is capable leadership they must keep excellent legislative records. I am still waiting for his records if anyone can find one.
God Bless The Gambia
How is PDOIS different from the rest, as all of the others are committed to the same (UDP) private sector led model?
PDOIS is committed to a development model that will utilise, what it calls, “Sovereign National Wealth” (public funds), to provide the capital that is necessary, but which the Gambian private sector doesn’t have, to lead our development efforts. It is a model that appreciates the significance of the private sector in our development efforts, but recognises that it lacks the resources to be effective. So, the catalyst must come from somewhere, and hence, the use of national wealth to get the population meaningfully productive.
In Agriculture, for example, all parties express beautiful sounding policies to improve productivity and enhance the earning capacity of the farmers, but one crucial difference between the UDP (representing the rest) and PDOIS, is the question of financing these programmes. Where will the money come from, how will the farmers access it and under what conditions?
According to the UDP, they “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.”
The problem though, is that we know from experience that commercial banks are not interested in investing in a risky sector like Agriculture. They would rather invest in government treasury bills and other quick money making commercial activities than agriculture, more so, a rain fed one like ours.
What happens when the farming season fails and the farmers can’t repay the commercial loans? Do you confiscate their properties and farming tools, as the PPP did, since your neoliberal policies will bar you from bailing the farmers out?
We are talking policy and system change here, prior to that, let’s address our major albatross, what will derail any plans on paper. Leadership mindset and objective. As long as we are saddled with selfish and corrupt leaders all that jazz is just it. No good. Imagine these guys spending recklessly, stealing and generally making a mockery of the trust placed in them. None of the economic approach will work. My advice to ALL is, if you love Gambia set aside your differences and put the people first. Trust me Bax, it won’t take long before we will see the difference. A happy and prosperous Gambia.
God Bless The Gambia.
We need to have this conversation to make the right choices because there isn’t anyone to come and lead us. We must choose from the current crop of leaders for that role, hence we need to talk.
Indeed, it is frustrating, but our frustrations should not stop us from putting things into perspective, to understand what is happening and how it can be changed.
Like I was saying, PDOIS has identified social wealth as a source of funding for our agricultural sector and wants to establish a cooperative bank to provide farmers with farm implements and seeds and a cooperative marketing institution, to buy farmers’ produce, which will be marketed at home and/or abroad; even linking that with industry for processing. That is a very realistic and sustainable policy to me.
The UDP manifesto indicated the desire to develop fish farms across the country, presumably, as income generation activity, but I don’t see how a government committed to neoliberal economics, which advices against government involvement in the economy, except through de-regulation, can establish fish farms. This is a contradiction and it is certainly going to irk someone important, if foreign financial assistance is obtained on the pretext of adherence to the Neoliberal Economics, only to renege.
Or, is this an indication of the pseudo private sector I indicated earlier, where public funds are utilised to create the illusion of a thriving private sector?
PDOIS, on the other hand, recognises the income generation capacity of our economy through so many ventures, and one such area is the Public Enterprises. In the same document I alluded to earlier from PDOIS, it stated as follows:
“As late as the 1999 financial year, the APRC administration used to indicate the annual gross turnover of public enterprises and their contribution to the budget which amounted to 82Million dalasi. Now dividends from public enterprises are recorded as zero.
A PDOIS led government would ensure that the annual turnover of public enterprises is scientifically calculated and made known to the public as a matter of duty and that performance contracts would be signed with all public sector operators to ensure that dividends are scientifically calculated and increased on annual basis to build up the account of sovereign National Wealth.”
I seriously think that if our attitude is to ask the hard questions, and make the choices on the basis of the answers provided, the right policies for a sustainable development strategy for us (based on the facts of our reality) cannot be in doubt, and PDOIS would be winning our mandate.
I do apologise for the space taken.
It worries me when people call on God to rectify the mistakes of men. We had 22 years of calling on God to intervene with aids cures and acquiring Casino’s in Las Vegas and imprisoning any who dared to challenge the “human” God in white robes.. Some months down the line I think Gambia will rejoice that Halifa chose not to go down with this coalition ship.
The “Captain” of hope and common sense will prevail. Hon. Halifa offers the only realistic solution to 50 years of government failure and excessive slavery of the people, Whose daily hard labour and taxes to >> spend ! spend ! spend ! on themselves is a trait of African government all too familiar. The 10 month record of this coalition is disastrous. For people to support this any further on the basis that there is no alternative system and direction or collective form of government, is short of fantasy and just ahead of delusion.All commentators know what they want, but unsurprisingly have little clue on how it can be achieved.There is no magic cure, no wave of the witches wand and no fairy God Mother to calm your fears.
The energy and water shortage is as old as Independence. The international hotels brought there own cure. Solar power is not the solution, but can be part of the solution. Same with Biomass and Wind farms and Wave power placed strategically on the coast.Diesel generators offer consistency of supply. Once surplus energy is created, big industrial investors will follow to create, the same input as followed venture capital and investment that lit the emerging markets. Gambia is an attractive blank canvass that must be developed under control of a strategic plan. that understands and recognises how the global investment market works. It would assist forward movement if Gambia revisited it’s tax portfolio, to offer attractive terms to small business on the ground and large international investors and venture capitalists. Skilled workers enhance small business development and offer incentive to industrial developers. It would be prudent to have an international orientated development body that can canvass International manufacturing opportunities to offer a joint venture to train staff to bespoke training requirements of industrial investors. It is a question of removing obstacles and preparing advantages for investors. Governments cannot survive by cutting the national cake as the cake inevitably becomes smaller every month, or borrow over its fast approaching credit limit. Another rapid partial remedy is to log what Gambia is importing and find ways to provide manufactured items at home. Forming and registering policies to address these imbalances is somethings that governments can do. The individual will create the motivation where there is opportunity.
Corruption, selfishness, reckless expenditures are all serious problems that we ought to be concerned with, but for me, the choice is clear: There is no need for us to cry over who is in cabinet and who isn’t. We have an executive with a job to do and a National Assembly with a job to do. Let’s all be vigilant and make sure that the change we achieved in 2016 translates into, at least, the minimum electoral reform requirements for Free and Fair Elections to be conducted to put our party of choice into office. I don’t think we should expect too much from the Barrow Administration because of its transitional and multiparty nature.
We surely need people like Hon. Sallah alas his role must be clear to the public. Is he an adviser to the president? If yes, let him voice his criticisms and solutions to the president. If the president blatantly ignores him? Let him quit and concentrate on his parliamentary and party work. Likewise pdois should come clear about their working relationships with the govt. Are they supporting and complementing govt agenda? If yes then let them put criticism of the govt in public aside and make those contributions in the established channels of communication normally available in such alliance situations. One area as Dr. Sarr mentioned, is bringing legislation in parliament to redeem areas that need state regulation as an example. If infact they cannot work with Barrow govt, let them make that clear to the public and proceed henceforth with an opposition agenda which that geared towards holding the govt both in parliament and public domain.
I think any of these strategies will ultimately benefit Gambia. Unclarity of position is wasting valuable energy and I hope this recent countering from the highest office would pave the way for the needed clarity so that energies contracted can be freed up for the common good.
We surely need people like Hon. Sallah alas his role must be clear to the public. Is he an adviser to the president? If yes, let him voice his criticisms and solutions to the president. If the president blatantly ignores him? Let him quit and concentrate on his parliamentary and party work. Likewise pdois should come clear about their working relationships with the govt. Are they supporting and complementing govt agenda? If yes then let them put criticism of the govt in public aside and make those contributions through channels of communication normally available in such alliance situations. As Dr. Sarr mentioned, contribution of pdois parliamentarians could be bringing legislation to parliament to redeem areas that need urgent state regulation e.g. regulating working conditions to the benefits of employees etc. If infact they cannot work with Barrow govt, let them make that clear to the public and proceed henceforth with an opposition agenda that is geared towards holding the govt accountable both in parliament and in the public domain.
I think any of these strategies will ultimately benefit Gambia. Unclarity of position is wasting valuable energy and I hope this recent countering from the highest office would pave the way for the needed clarity so that energies contracted can be freed up for the common good.
Well written and articulated Comrade…
A number of points Kinteh (Kemo).
1. Halifa has stated, as recently as this month, that he is not the adviser of the President, but that he is always available to offer advice, if it is sought by the President. The president’s ministers are his advisers.
2. Is PDOIS supporting or complementing government efforts? Well, how did PDOIS NAMs react to the budget when presented by the Finance Minister? Did they support it or not? How did they react to the age limit amendment? Did they support the bill or not? Your answer (s) will help us to see whether they are complementing government efforts or not.
3. PDOIS parliamentarians are part of an all party coalition that has agreed on a common reform agenda, and I don’t see why they should depart from this agenda and initiate their own. In my view, introducing their own bills would do exactly that or give that impression, which will no doubt, offer another reason for more attacks on the party. PDOIS, most certainly, is not incapable of introducing bills that could impact lives positively. I think we can all agree on that, as a FACT.
4. These “criricisms”, as well as explanations about progress made so far (which are completely ignored by critics), were in response to public demand for answers on certain areas of concern. Are we suggesting that the public should be left in darkness, whilst we hush, hush, through the “right” or available channels?
4. I am curious to know Kinteh (Kemo) what your reaction was when it was argued and (this argument) widely supported, before the NA Elections, that individual parties need to be active by their own and be seen so by the public, to maintain their existence and identities, during the transition period.
This, we may be reminded, was one of the reasons put forward to support the tactical alliance proposal that was eventually adopted. If the rationale was to allow political parties to maintain their identities and operate so within the coalition (which it definitely was), why is it wrong for PDOIS to put their alternative views before the public, whilst supporting commonly agreed agenda within the coalition?
I think some just want to eat their cake and have it: they argued that parties should exist as independent entities within the coalition (so that they don’t “die” out), but now that they got the party presence they want in the NA, they object to that independence they advocated for.
It doesn’t work like that. Let parties continue to work as partners within the coalition, but those that also want to be seen outside the coalition should do so. That’s the deal we agreed on, isn’t it?