In one of my last classes, a co-learner said “Lenn, I’m confused about secularism. What is it that they are fighting over?” I briefly explained and promised to share my thoughts. To her and everyone who has been confused, I hope this helps to de-confuse you. Let me start by saying a word is not just a word in the social world, words construct the world. In Onuf’s term, “…we make the world what it is…by doing what we do with each other and saying what we say to each other…talking is undoubtedly the most important way that we go about making the world what it is” (2013: 4). I am sure that both Muslims and Christians will agree with Onuf’s proclamation as both Scriptures affirmed the importance of words as: “in the beginning was the word” and “He just says be, and it becomes”. Therefore, when people fight over words, we should not be surprised. However, we should be able to debate in civility.

The word secular and its derivative secularism have been contested for long in theology and academia. In fact the Oxford Dictionary gave a multitude of meanings which may be summed as ‘non-religious, temporal, civil’ as opposed to ‘clergy, religious’, etc. But such is the nature of words; their usage over time and across space lends them different meanings. On the other hand, every political science student knows that relying on a dictionary to understand a political concept may be necessary but it may be fatal. For this reason, political scientists prefer the operationalization/contextualization of words/concepts. In fact this is widely practice in other disciplines including law.

According to An-Na’im (2008), secular is derived from the Latin word saeculum which means “great span of time” or “spirit of the age.” The meaning gradually changed into “of this world”. It is during the 13th Century that the term appeared in English denoting civil clergy men and clergies in churches. From this meaning, a dichotomy of two worlds was created. It is from that dichotomy the popular meaning of secular as privatization of religion was derived. According to this meaning, there is the spiritual world and the nonspiritual world. But by the 16th century, secularism had lost its neutral meaning. Further explaining the evolution of the terminology, An-Naim argued that in Europe, secular came to mean the “the privatization of church lands to the secularization of politics and, later, art and economics”. Politics being what it is, the rule of men by men ought to be left in the hands of men. It is from this meaning that secular practice was seen as being anti-religion. The church was no longer seen as a legitimate custodian of land and an adjudicator. Land became that of the state for development purposes.

Therefore the contest has always been about power and resources. Unfortunately, this has been confused with the secularization of people and society despite the two being different. Nandy (1998) and Chatterjee (1998) challenged secularism as part of the modernization project. Greenawalt (1998) challenged the possibility of rationality, which he sees as the hallmark of secularism. Connoly sees it as a new form of dictatorship. Attas, argued that it separates man from his religion. The opposition of the Gambian anti-secularism camp is not different from these views. Dr. Omar Jah Jnr., leader of CC said secularism is ungodly. It is “disbelief in god” and Sheikh Hamma adds that it is the foundation of Lesbianism and Gay Rights.

However, An-Naim (2008), warned that “secularism does not mean the exclusion of religion from the public life of a society…” It is a mediator between competing religious groups in the state. This is the word. It is therefore wrong to refer to secularism as a religion except if Dr. Jah wants to make it one. Going by Dr. Jah and his compatriots’ definition, Christians wouldn’t advocate for secularism. Likewise Muslims in India would not have been calling for the maintenance of the secular state in their protest against the Hindu Nationalist government.

Arguing that secularism is anti-religion or is the gateway to lesbianism or ungodliness is a mere fad as the claim that democracy means “doing what you want”. Both claims are not true. It is only when we construct it as such that it will be. In fact, democracy meant the direct participation of Athenians in political life but this meaning has become largely untenable. Political concepts change with practice just as words and such is secularism. Therefore, there is a need to distinguish between a secular state and a secular society in principle. And so far, the calls made have been on state secularity as submitted by the Christian Council and many Muslims. Since the issue is whether the state should be secular or non-secular, it is necessary to establish what this state is.

The state is a philosophical construct which yields a political reality. And philosophically, the state cannot be but secular. It is people who can be religious or irreligious because belief is an expression for the living. There must be a capacity to know and feel for one to belief. Also, the impossibility of belief must exist for one’s belief to be genuine. For one to believe there must be the choice to disbelief but the state doesn’t have such an option. The state cannot belief or disbelief. It cannot know or feel or choose, thus the state in reality cannot know or support a religion. At the basic level, the state is just a philosophical construct.

To bring that philosophical construct into reality, its features must be constructed. Such include the population, the boundary, the government, legitimacy, etc. But all of these ‘real features’ are just philosophical until they are defined. Who define them? We the people! The Population itself is defined by the people. That is why the CRC is consulting Gambians on who shall be a Gambian citizen. The government is defined; its composition and roles are all defined. Who defines it? We the people! Legitimacy is equally defined by the people. Therefore, assuming, claiming or proving who is a Gambian and the Gambia as a state becomes a reality only out of our construct. This is the reality of the state. It is constructed under rationality and sometimes irrationality. Therefore, whatever the sum of the state is defined to be is only a human construct and has nothing to do with Allah or God, hence the claim that the state cannot be separated from religion is not true.

That is to say, if we declare that the Gambia is not a secular state that must be another philosophical construct which we must instill with some realities. If we say that Gambia is a religious state, we are the ones making that claim and from there we try to instill some practices which we think or believe befits a religious state. From there we start to say which laws, rules and regulations apply to our ‘state’. That practice itself would be based on intellect, thus it is only appropriate for the state to be secular. Secular means that the state neither belief nor supports any religion because the state doesn’t know, it doesn’t belief. It is it. The state doesn’t. However, society being constituted by people can be religious or irreligious based on the viewer’s perspective.

I do not think anyone will ask for the secularization of the society. The Gambia has a society of Muslims, Christians, Bahais, and many more. Since all of them have been deemed to be Gambians, being equal in the eyes of the state that sees no religion, it is only ideal that a rational government promotes no religion over or against the other. Therefore, secularity is an ideal for a post-colonial society like ours.

The claim for secularity is much more than philosophical; it is also a practical necessity. Basic tenets of the proper understanding of secularity have been used by many eminent religious scholars and masters. In fact, Khalid Bin Waled was not selected as a leader on many occasions out of religious pity but because of his capacity in strategy. Nizam Al-Mulk has proposed the same meritocracy to Muslim leaders of his time in his “Siyasetname”. This is a secular practice. When the state recognizes no religion, the appointment of individuals based on religious pity becomes irrelevant.

With secularity, a Muslim leader will not say I will appoint X because he is a very good Muslim neither will a Christian say let us appoint Mr. Y as government officer because he is a Christian. Neither will anyone say let us not appoint a Jew because he is Jewish. To each for his capability and from each on his capability is the basis of appointment in a secular state. It must be added that with this, people are held accountable and not their religion. Since all men are fallible, they should be held accountable as individuals and not their religion.

An argument that has been put forward by the anti-secularist camp is that democracy is rule of the majority and Muslims being the majority must have the state defined in their wish. This equates saying Mandinkas are the majority and therefore should determine the official language of the country. That is sectarian democracy brothers. We must install neither a tyranny of the majority nor a sectarian democracy. Also, the anti-secular state camp argues that since Muslims are majority and pays more taxes than any other, they should have the final decision. This equates saying that KMC pays more taxes and should determine the state of affairs. Rationality requires that taxes are redistributed to those who cannot produce enough; hence the deductive analysis is illogical. The best form of democracy is one which sees no minority. We know this because sectarian democracies are the most fragile as we can see in Iraq, Lebanon and Somalia etc. It is a line that has torn societies apart and we must not take that path. If we install a sectarian democracy here, we will all die and go to hell as the killer and the killed in the last days are all destine for hell says the beloved.

It has been further argued that the Gambia has never been secular in its history. I am willing to learn which Gambia they are talking about. Most of the Kingdoms and Chiefdoms of this country had been secular until the emergence of the Maba Jahus, Foday Sillahs, may Allah be pleased with them. If the kingdoms were not secular, why were the wars fought I ask. And the most retarded statement is: it was not in the past constitutions, hence no need to have it. That equates saying “my father never had a telephone and he was in touch with his people, thus I need no phone”. In fact if An-Na’im’s definition is adopted, “a secular state [is] one that is neutral regarding religious doctrine, one that does not claim or pretend to enforce…the religious law…” it becomes clear that the Gambia had been secular in principle as well as in practice.

Section 25 states that “(2) No association shall be registered or remain registered as a political party if…it is formed or organised on…religious…basis” while Section 100 subsection 2 forbids parliament from “establish any religion as a state religion”. Furthermore, Section 25 of the constitution gives everyone the “freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice”. Perhaps the most important principle that has been uphold in line with secularism is Section 1.1: “[the] Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are to be exercised in accordance with this Constitution”. It is secularism which guarantees that sovereignty is with the people because people are rational and should therefore select who leads them and welfare policies. The maintenance of these clauses in the Draft Constitution upholds secular principles. Thus it is only natural to insert the word ‘secular’.

In practice, a typology is usually relied upon as a framework of analysis to understand the relationship of state and religion. Men often decide that their state is secular, theocratic or atheist and in between may lay some hybrids. The theocratic state is one where Sovereignty resides in the ruler and whatever he says becomes binding as he is the vice-regent of God or Allah. Such a ruler may combine political and judicial powers or may bestow religious power on another. In such a state, opposing the ruler is blasphemy. Only the faithful or believers in the recognized religion can hold public office. In theocratic states, it becomes the responsibility of the state to maintain places of worship and there is a state machinery to propagate the religion.

Atheist states on the other hand eliminate religion from the public. There are no minarets or domes to indicate public worship, neither are religious holidays observed by the state nor is the ringing of church bells or calling for prayers allowed. Typical example would be Albania under Enver Hoxa, and the then Federation of Yugoslavia. That is atheism and not secularism.

Between the atheist state and the religious state, is the secular state. It neither promotes any religion against the other but it doesn’t seek to eliminate religion. This is the current and appropriate meaning and operationalization of secularism. We have fought for independence together with our Christian and Traditionalist believers to live as equals. That is why we must enjoy the same rights and privileges. That is why there should not be any majority or minority.

I do know that elsewhere people who claimed to be Christians, Buddhists, Jews are persecuting Muslims or denying them their rights. We know places where Christianity is proclaimed to be state religion or receives preferential treatment from the state but we must not emulate those states. As a government of The Gambia fights for the Rohingya Muslim for equal treatment from the government of Myanmar, it is only appropriate for us to build a secular constitution for ourselves and a model for the world.

To my Muslim brothers, our religion is one that seeks the heart of men and not their heads. Every Muslim should strive to be the embodiment of the goodness in Islam in his personality. If he does, his light becomes a radiance that enlightens the world. With that personality, you need not have a government that supports your religion. This is how people like Mam Mass Kah, Cherno Baba Jallow, Moriba Darboe, Sheikh Ahmad Bamba, Alhaji Malick Sy, Bai Niass attracted followers who became outstanding Muslims. With their religious pity, their families, friends and even enemies came to settle with them. They did not need a government to support their religion. In fact, some of them lived under anti-Islamic governors. You may call me a disbeliever but my religion is Islam, the Kaaba is my cardinal point in Prayer, Muhammad is my Messenger, and Allah is my Lord. I pray that the real meaning of Islam manifests in my heart so that I will never recourse to state aid in my religion.

The writer, Muhammed Lenn, holds a Master’s degree in political science and international relations from Trakya University in Turkey

STOP. Just STOP it for God’s sake! Who are we really fooling here? A group whose members clearly told us they are willing to do ANYTHING unless the Democratically Elected President steps down because he reneged on his PROMISE is fear mongering again! Why does the world have to stop just because you are hurt. STOP the fear mongering y! Read my lips! THERE IS NO DICTATORSHIP IN GAMBIA AND IN SHAA ALLAH THERE WILL BE NONE!!! #NeverAgain!!!

True. I defended #Dafadoy and #OccupyWestfield and will do it again ten times over! #Freedom of speech, assembly and movement is paramount to any Democracy and unless you are Kim Jung ugly you will agree! Here is the issue though, Defadoy and OccupyWestfield NEVER threatened anyone nor proposed to hold an entire country hostage. That’s Anarchy! Plus they were never backed by any Political Party. Rather when they were allowed audience, same people beating chests tei neh 3YJ is our only way to salvation were the SAME people with full fledge youho ak hasteh to police and interior Minister for even entertaining those citizens! Now that the tables have turned, SAME people want that courtesy! Ham ngen lan la! Dayka be nyo kor borka! Support anyone your heart desires but don’t make a mockery of Gambians and their reignited Democracy.

As an ardent “demonstrator”, who willingly and readily packed whole family in truck and drove eighteen hours to share my voice, I am down for any peaceful protests of citizens! I am for 100% 3YJ peacefully demonstrating su lene nekh heh beh 2021 sah! One thing though, your freedom stops right at the tip of my nose!

See, we need consistency. If we all agreed when the laws were being toyed with them we won’t be here. FULL participation was necessary to change that public order act during CRC’s period but as always we chose to argue on frivolity, like ku fe opalleh nit! We should have fought tooth and nail to repeal Public Order Act. We still can. Since it’s still here, get that permit and act accordingly without threats of violence. Many more will rally behind you then. Not just the upcountry crowd transported to KMC. Remember the day we joint hands without focusing on someone’s last name or region they were from was the day, Jamus’s goose was cooked! We can unite again to repeal the bad laws still present.

Waachal ma tork amut fe. 2021, use your voices and rally podiums to enlighten the people about MOU and incumbent reneging on promise. Trust the voters and know that they will make the final and best choice for them. Trust and believe that DICTATORSHIP won’t return unless we allow it! Teh whoever will be next President has already been ordained. Forceh takhut la tork. BELIEVE THAT! Else sa gom gom dess na!

The writer, Lamdo Sailey Sey, is based in the United States

By Lamin Njie

It was supposed to be the moment that would finally see Yahya Jammeh yanked out of power, the moment that would finally afford Gambians a new start. And the moment that The Gambia would look to the future with optimism.

The plot to overthrow Yahya Jammeh five years ago is one that continues to retain huge Hollywood importance. Only that this was not a Holywood movie. It was a real event that involved former soldiers slipping back into military gear and venturing into what would become the most dangerous military enterprise ever.

On 30 December 2014, a group of dissident Gambians, most of them with military persuasion launched an early morning attack on State House while President Yahya Jammeh was out of the country. The attack was quickly repelled. Three died, four escaped and one was arrested. The next day, the government issued a statement saying it was a terrorist attack.

Lamin Sanneh was the ringleader of the coup. The 36-year-old was a former commander of State Guard. He had fled to the United States in 2013 after he fell out with Jammeh. He then returned two years later on a mission that was not only meant to settle personal scores but also to save a country that has been held hostage by a brutal dictatorship. He was among the three people who were killed.

The coup took place while President Jammeh was out of the country. He was reportedly in Dubai and when he returned, he invited GRTS and Daily Observer to State House and told their reporters the attackers were terrorists backed by foreign powers.

It was not known at the time where the Jammeh government buried the bodies of Lamin Sanneh, Njaga Jagne and Jaja Nyass. It was in 2017 when the Barrow administration found out they were buried in a forest in Foni. The bodies were then exhumed as part of their investigation into the human rights violations and abuses that occurred during the 22 years rule of former President Jammeh. In January this year, the bodies were handed over to their families at a ceremony held at the ministry of justice in Banjul.

The fight to end the Jammeh dictatorship took different forms. The December 30th coup was one form. But the fact that this coup was planned all the way in United States and Europe makes it a unique event in the history of The Gambia. After the coup, Jammeh bragged that he would rule for one billion years only to receive the shock of his life at the polls in December 2016. He now lives in exile in Equatorial Guinea.

For some time now, some members of the community have been heard in every corner of the country and throughout the diaspora protesting the durability of the mandate of the current president of the Gambian Republic. Regardless of ethnic, linguistic and ideological differences, most of the components of these groups of protesters discuss the legitimacy of the president after three years in office contradicting what he had promised the public opinion during the campaign era of 2016. Without seeking to justify any position, for or against, it is worth remembering the historical facts behind such an increasing and dynamic social movement today.

In a very tense pre-post electoral context, where the former president Yahya Jammeh had put thousands of obstacles to his opponents to perpetuate himself within a system that he had been leading for more than two decades, the then candidate of the coalition-opposition movements and current president promised to reduce his mandate to three and govern by a single legislature, and being his unique purpose the concord, national unity and guarantee of the rule of laws that had been transformed into the strict-personal will of the former president and not the respect of a social testament through a system of democratic public organization.

As a young student who witnessed the arrival of President Jammeh and his painful departure (forced and necessary), twenty-two years later, we are obliged to realize introspection. Among others, Gambia as a model of human rights, coexistence, peace, stability and a consistent democracy during the era of Sir Dawda Jawara, although economically stagnant, thus later turned into a nation depressed and oppressed by a military regime that trampled all laws to satisfy the ego of a “character”. During the two decades of the APRC government, we have witnessed all kinds of violence, repression, threats, uncertainty, economic backwardness and an international isolation from the warmongering policies and declarations adopted by the previous administration.

From there we went from having a peaceful state, courted by the majority of tourists and the international community for its sociological stability that had been grounded in the harmony and communion of communities and religions, but with the unlimited and inconceivable political strategies rooted in the ambitions of a unique being to the political system arrived in a monarchical-religious state, not based on the religious ideology itself, but on the cult of a character who saw himself as a semi-god. His rigid and thoughtless posture introduced the country into a maze, instability and fear of a possible episode of ethnic confrontation similar to dark days vivid in Rwanda and Republic of Central Africa. Thankfully, it did not reach the levels of Libya post-Gaddafi.

Thanks to the diplomatic maneuvers of neighboring countries, ECOWAS, African Union and the United Nations, everything was limited to a mere scare and the country was able to regain its dignity in the eyes of the world that kept looking at what was going on “that little country” as some international media used to title; The Gambian community abroad, for the most part, experiencing bitter nights, worried about their relatives, thousands of kilometers away from their homes; fake news and uncertainty, creating more tension than the political reality itself, especially the constant retractions of President Jammeh.

Three years after that fateful episode, and despite the efforts made by society to reestablish dialogue and reconciliation through the composition of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the wounds still taking time to heal completely, the voices of a new conscious and critical generation -mostly youths craving freedom and a new system- take to the streets reminding President Barrow to comply with his promises. Promises that in themselves pushed many citizens to vote in his favor, but today should we grant him the right to be mistaken for his lack of political experience? Many times, the electoral promises and the state reality go in opposite directions, especially in our countries, where frequently, the outgoing administration inheritance is usually catastrophic due to the mismanagement of public affairs and the distribution of common goods to favor a family, clan and closest friends, while the population succumbs to poverty and the country appears on the list of the world’s poorest nations.

Reason why we could affirm that the current tenant of the presidency is trapped by the political reality that surpasses his will and supposed “good faith” to keep his word. Not only does the population require urgent and pragmatic reforms, but the political survival of its project is at stake because he came to power under a coalition; an alliance where each party is weaving strategies to occupy the chair in the next elections. In fact, we have seen how divergences have led to the break between President Barrow and his former Prime Minister Ousainou Darboe. Not being Machiavellian, but having all these factors and the pressure of international institutions to make reforms, the president has no choice but to extend his term to five years. Because the temporary durability of mandates in Africa is different from the rest of other areas where industry and economic progress rarely depends on the government, however, in our countries, all socio-economic development is expected to come from the national leader.

And seeing the urgent needs that the country faces, I doubt that a three-year term will be enough to allow the president to fulfill all his electoral promises. Unless he decides to follow the greatness of Nelson Mandela, that is, to use his mandate as a period of national healing and the restoration of institutions, then organize free elections and make a peaceful and democratic transition. That said, I do not defend any position in favor of the administration, but I make a simple analysis of the situation and the political reality in which the country is at the moment. Forcing the president to leave power right now when the necessary reforms have not been fulfilled is also not a responsible idea; especially, if we take into account the necessary reforms in the military department for the stability of the country, seeing the context of regional instability, organize crimes and terrorism.

But this is not going to be an easy task, rising awareness and lessons learned from the previous dictatorship has meant that in The Gambia and in all African youths, a hunger for democracy is developing, a new methodology, paradigm shift and a more democratic way of governing, especially with the inclusion of young people seeing their importance and demographic weight and their handling of new technologies that positions them at the same level as the rest of the world youth.

We can discuss whether or not the problematics and answers are timely, given that the context calls for focusing on other urgent priorities for the country. But seen from the anthropological dimension, ethics and tradition, the fact of giving his “Word”/electoral promise has a very important significance in our communities. Historically, in our societies, when a social leader or patriarch gave his word of honor, he was expected to fulfill it as a moral reference. The word given had legal validity, which means a commitment and an obligation. And in this case, the president could be criticized for not fulfilling his (voluntary) promise to the people or having made a wrong strategic-communication when he issued those promises since he spoke based on people’s emotions and not on the basis of a rational political calculation. This is a common mistake among African leaders.

And mistakes like this are not acceptable by the present generation. Leaders are required to be consistent in their political speeches and never take society as “a childish club” that can be deceived based on variable songs.

Exercising his faculties, he told the public that his voluntas (ambition) was to make a term of three years as a preliminary stage of bringing together the diverse forces towards a more democratic transition and restoration of the credibility of the institutions that had succumbed during the previous era. As President Obama said, Africa does not need strong men as it is usually conceived, but strong institutions capable of guaranteeing rights and social progress.

However, there is also the legal-ethical dimension that can make the issue more complicated. Even if the president wishes to reduce his term to three years, and as a result of the constitution saying otherwise, he would have no alternative but to respect the law, since he is expected to be the first of the citizens to comply with the laws of the nation. You could only talk about other solutions: a referendum where the people would dictate their will, or the materialization of his free and uncoerced resignation … which is not the case here. So, given the massive discussions about the legitimacy of his continuity in power, what we could say is that, without being in favor or against the administration, the urgency is not in the question of the mandate itself.

Transition periods are never easy in Africa, especially after the nation had lived two decades of oppression and the violation of the fundamental rights of citizens. The national rupture based on ethnic-religious favoritism and economic waste to the detriment of other cultures-minorities produced sequels that the current administration is responsible for healing before talking about elections. The task of the president at the moment must be “paternalistic” in the sense that he has to federate the forces and communities before the elections or his possible resignation, otherwise the country plays instability, especially after the new constitutional reform that positions the country as a Muslim State. This is a huge error, and a very sensible question that needs to be treated with rationality and dialogue.
What is the place of those citizens who profess another religion or none? The state must be secular not in the European sense (inherited from the French Revolution of 1789), that is, the denial of religion in all its forms, but rather be the representation of the Republic in its philosophical and modern sense: the center of national unity and guarantor of the fundamental rights of its members. This is the most important task, even before talking about economic progress, because without a solid constitution, it is impossible to gain an atmosphere that allows any type of activity generating resources and well-being.

The Gambia, as a member state of the United Nations, is obliged to respect and enforce the Charter of Human Rights adopted and ratified by most countries. This implies respect for the rights of minorities guaranteed by the supreme law: national Constitution.
In this sense, after a fierce dictatorial era that limited the progress of freedoms and the economy, the most urgent thing that the current regime needs is to lay the foundations to guarantee institutions capable of building and ensuring democracy and social justice. Among these tasks is the necessary and imperative revision of the new constitution. It seems dangerous to me to denominate the country an Islamic state when it is a nation made up of different creeds and worldviews. Although the vast majority of the population is Muslim, the Islam practiced in the Gambia is not the same as in some Arabic countries. We have our customs-family alliances governing our communities long before the advent of monotheistic religions to our borders. Many social structures and families share the same last name; economic and socio-professional activities are composed of people of different religions but in everyday life these differences are never manifested, because the country is built on pillars of tolerance and acceptance.

We cannot fall into the error of ethnonationalism and the idolization of public space that is becoming a source of tension in many communities. Constitutions are not changed seeking political interest, but the guarantee of collective coexistence with equal conditions for all components of society. And in this sense, with this new constitution which is being generated it is the germination of a silence violence-exclusion that can be dangerous in the near future. Hence, it should be recommended to the current administration that, their task is always to listen carefully to the vox populi, which is what defines sovereignty. No leader has legitimacy if he does not have the legal support of his citizens.

Hence without the need to mention the debate about whether President Barrow has to keep his word or govern two more years, among the things the country needs is to transform its economy, make it more dynamic with ambitious reforms not ordered by the international economic institutions, rather seeking her own socio-economic model, national interest and inclusion of its citizens in the local economy-private sector; attract local-foreign investors in strategic areas to help develop a solid economy. But above all, the industrialization of the country, taking as a first alternative the creation of a new capital city, that is, making the administrative center a well-positioned site capable of connecting all regions and with a connection to the international world. The local economy cannot depend solely on tourism and importing. But the industrialization of the mayor economic sectors.

This leads me to think that, in the face of the new debate about the ECO currency that the French-speaking countries of the region are preparing to incorporate, the leaders must not fall into the error of accepting it, because it is disastrous for the local economy, especially for export. It must only be accepted if it is considered as a regional currency endorsed by all ECOWAS countries and that the guarantees are not controlled by the French central bank. Independence is not only political, also monetary sovereignty. Better to preserve the local currency or create a more competitive one with countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, etc., than adopt the ECO as it was sold to us this week: French national interest.

The country faces challenges: urgent improvement of the education system, health, social justice, poverty reduction, lack of employment that pushes young people to migrate and die inhumanly, external indebtedness, chronic dependence on IMF, World Bank, and foreign aid policies. The leaders need to follow the example of the BRICS countries, the giant Asians who had our same level of GDP in the 1960s and today are among the most advanced. It is an imperative to encourage the Gambian intelligentsia​ in the diaspora to participate in national progress, not only by sending money to their families, but also in the creation of projects, sharing ideas by means of the new technologies in order to overcome the distance-barrier. For example, in the education sector, those in the diaspora can teach their siblings and transmit their knowledge through the use of new technologies. They can preserve their standard of living in their respective countries while contributing to the progress of the country from a distance. It only takes the political will and the availability of the rest of society to open up to the new paradigms and demands of the new era: knowledge economy.

Finally, the country’s position before the International Criminal Court is to congratulate. It is not a question of the defense of Muslims (Rohingya genocide) in Myanmar (Burma) or a religious ideologization, but of basic human rights. The guarantees of these rights have to be defended by all states imperatively. Being a small country does not mean the absence of own voice. The country must position itself in the decision-making centers that affect the course of humanity. Of course, as a recommendation, diplomacy has to be reformed to meet the new challenges and geopolitical contexts. Among these reforms, the selection process, appointment and training of staff. If the creation of a Diplomatic and International Relations Academy is expensive, another way would be through international collaboration to train its diplomatic staff.

Finally, instead of protesting, what we should do (Gambians, like all Africans) is, a mental/psychological transformation, the adoption of new paradigms and policies that meets the social demands. The others move forward while we are constantly trying to heal the wound that never heals: electoral problems in Africa and constitutional changes in favor of a few. Our era asks for renewed alternatives: democracy, transparency, knowledge economy, more weight for women and young people in the public space.

The writer, Maurice D. Samb, is a Philosopher and a PhD Researcher in Environment and International Security. He wrote from Spain

Gambians are unequivocally divided on the contentious issue of whether President Barrow should honor the three-year coalition agreement or serve the full five-year constitutional mandate. What is crystal clear though is that the initial euphoria that surrounded the democratic transition is wearing off if it has not worn off already, giving birth to the upcoming politically tense conundrum. The fundamental question to ask is what exactly went wrong, and how did we find ourselves in this sticky situation? An understanding of human behavior is enough for one to be startled but not shocked by our current situation or state of affairs. It is often said that morality is an endangered species, on the verge of being extinct. Since we have abandoned systems of morality for we seem unable or unwilling to live by hopelessly flawed dogma. Some people take the explicit morality route, others take what they can get away with, and there are many who just do what feels right more or less.

In the annals of Gambian politics and our unflinching determination to untether ourselves from dictatorship and tyrannical rule through democratic means, I could not think of anything as monumental as Coalition 2016; a force that ravaged the Babili State House and sent Jammeh packing. With The Gambia being the common denominator that bounds the coalition partners, the fulcrum of that force is the Coalition’s Memorandum of Understanding (aka MOU). Having put an end to a twenty-two-year brutal dictatorship, The Gambia had an opportunity to start afresh. This brought renewed hope that we were heading for posterity. Our biggest shock or disappoint came sooner than later when the formation of cabinet excluded key coalition partners in the PDOIS. The absence of PDOIS in that cabinet was quite startling and many of us found it extremely difficult to come to terms with that unfortunate reality. The leadership of the PDOIS has been asked the fundamental question of whether they were offered ministerial positions or not a dozen times, and from my vantage point I see an attempt to shy away from the question or a deliberate refusal to answer the question for reasons which might be obvious to some but best known to the PDOIS. Every single time that this question resurfaces in an interview, the response from the PDOIS leadership leaves me with more questions than answers, forcing me to ponder whether PDOIS is avoiding to come off in a certain way.

In 2017 Halifa Sallah appeared on Kerr Fatou and was asked this question, and his response was that they were only helping a process and that President Barrow did not see in him that he was interested in a position. The follow-up question to that statement would be because President Barrow did not see in Halifa Sallah that he was interested in a position, so he decided not to offer him a position? On the Perspective Show on GRTS, he was asked the same question once again, and the response from him is that they were never interested in positions. The fundamental question Halifa Sallah is not whether you were interested in a position or not, but whether you were offered a ministerial position? PDOIS were either offered ministerial positions or they were not offered. The situation cannot fall between those two, and the leadership of PDOIS dare not tell us that they do not know whether they were offered positions or not. Personally, I believe PDOIS were offered ministerial positions and they turned down the offers, but they do not want to say this simply because they do not want us to see that they rejected the clarion call to serve the coalition government whose formation they orchestrated from its conceptual stage.
The next wave of disappointment came from the UDP’s Lawyer Ousainou Darboe when he threatened to take to court anybody who attempts to force President Barrow to step down after three years instead of allowing him to serve the full five-year constitutional mandate. I found that statement to be very toxic because it came at a time when national unity was at its embryonic stage and needed to be safeguarded, so anything that could disintegrate it into fragments would undoubtedly be frowned upon. To issue that kind of threat publicly when he could have brought it up in cabinet or in a coalition partners’ meeting for them to find a way to resolve the issue amicably was just uncalled for. Many argued that threat played a major part in the disintegration of the coalition and emboldened President Barrow. Additionally, Lawyer Darboe and Hamat Bah each appeared on the Giss Giss and Kerr Fatou shows respectively in which they both argued that the coalition MOU was never signed. Hamat even challenged the hosts to show him the signed MOU. I struggled to wrap my head around their attempts to find a flaw in the MOU to justify the disregarding or the deliberate flouting of that monumental agreement. If Hamat does not know a lot about contract law, Lawyer Darboe undoubtedly knows that in contract law, there is what is called agreement by conduct. What made Barrow to put his name on the ballot paper at the convention? What made him to resign from the UDP and run as an independent coalition presidential candidate? The conduct of the parties to a contract can constitute an agreement, and President Barrow’s conduct in this case constitutes nothing but an agreement to the MOU. Mr. Darboe challenged or questioned the constitutionality of the three-year agreement. It would be interesting to know if he still maintains that position since that constitution hasn’t been amended yet. In a recent press conference, we saw him present the UDP’s position asking for Barrow to honor the three-year agreement. Many of us find it difficult to identify the clear-cut dichotomy between Lawyer Darboe’s position and the position of the party when he speaks as secretary general and party leader.

We were inundated with another massive wave of disappointment from the coalition partners as a collective when they succumbed to Lawyer Darboe’s threat to take to court anybody who tries to force Barrow to step down after three years. Did that threat leave the coalition partners with no options? Certainly not! The partners knew very well that there was nothing in that agreement that says the President was going to be forced to step down after three years. Instead, he was going to resign on his own accord as per the agreement and this was not going to be an unlawful act nor was it going to be in contradiction to the constitution, hence the resignation provision of the constitution. Could the coalition partners have called for a meeting under the leadership of Madam Fatoumata Jallow Tambajang where they would have reiterated their position on the three-year mandate, making Lawyer Darboe and Barrow understand and possibly accept that the coalition partners were not oblivious of the five-year constitutional mandate? Could the partners have vowed to serve for only three years and then resign should President Barrow choose to extend his mandate beyond the three-year agreement? They knew the constitution has a resignation provision, and the three-year mandate was premised on that provision. Were those options not available to the coalition partners? So how that threat numbed or incapacitated them is beyond comprehension, knowing fully well that the threat was never going to come to fruition because there wasn’t going to be any attempt to force the President to step down. If that threat caused serious damage, what happened to damage control, or why was there no attempt to repair the damage? Was the damage irreparable? The truth be told, most of the partners except for PDOIS were in ministerial positions, and I bet they were not averse to longevity in those positions. To choose to not do something to avert a situation when you had the option to act, and then come back to point fingers at the person who issued the threat as if the country gyrates around that person is just not good enough for people of their caliber. However, this does not absolve the issuer of the threat from responsibility. To add salt to injury, we saw fringe coalition partners convey an emergency meeting, and then advance to the State House to inform the President that they have extended his mandate from three to five years as if the five-year constitutional mandate given to the President is unbeknown to them. Embarrassment and mediocrity characterized that move.

The most gigantic wave of disappointment emanated from the epicenter of this whole conundrum, and that is the President himself. In the early days of his presidency, he said that he wasn’t going to renege on his promise to lead a three-year transition, but that was buried under the carpet soon afterwards. The Gambia slipped and fell into a perilous ravine the very day that President Barrow jettisoned the transition plan and coalition agenda, and welcomed aboard the agenda of self-perpetuating rule. The President got blindfolded by the desire to cling onto power, forgetting what brought him to the State House in the first place. The unfortunate reality is that Mr. President and his inner circle are fixated on cementing their position at the mantle of leadership forcing them to throw over board the very raison d’être of Coalition 2016 thereby jeopardizing the efficacy of the Coalition. The nation is faced with the conundrum of trying to put herself on the right footing amid rampant novice mediocre leadership that is stifling her efforts to head in the right direction. After untethering ourselves from domineering rule, we thought we were going to present to the world our quintessential leader in President Barrow, who was going to lay down that unbreakable solid foundation for subsequent leaders to build on. That has become an illusion. Had the president done what was expected of him per the coalition agreement, or exhibit exemplary leadership by effectively communicating with the coalition partners and the Gambian people on the contentious issue of three or five years, this political quagmire might have been resolved. Instead, the President and the people he barricaded himself with all presumed they have both manpower and firepower to assume absolute control; a reason why they threatened to crush three years ‘jotna’ protesters, at the infamous Brikama rally. Instead of being serene about an imminent peaceful protest, the administration’s protest-phobia and paranoia escalated beyond elastic limits, making it feel like some outcast.

The fundamental question to ask is whether President Barrow should serve three years per the coalition agreement, or the full five-year constitutional mandate under the present circumstance? I dare not ask what is going to happen if the President steps down because the constitution is not ambiguous on that. What is quite obvious though is that the current administration made zero preparation for elections in 2019. Also, I hope I am not under the illusion that if the President were to step down today either voluntarily or forcefully, the vice president would see out the remainder of the term since there won’t be any elections sooner? That is not the spirit of the MOU. Per the coalition agreement, there was going to be a constitutional amendment to enable us go for elections within ninety days of the President’s resignation, and we would have had electoral reforms and other significant changes to prepare the grounds for free and fair elections amid a level playing field. Everything that was supposed to happen for us to go to the polls in 2019 never happened. As a result, I would not say it will be impossible to hold elections now, but the impracticability of doing so is quite obvious. Let us go for five years Gambia for we seem unprepared to hold elections now.

The Operation Three Years Jotna movement’s protest is slated for Monday, December 16th 2019. This movement is going out to express dissatisfaction over the President’s decision to renege on his campaign promise and the coalition agreement. I presume this protest will be peaceful. However, the protesters, the government and its security apparatus ought to be reminded that thuggery and lawlessness will not be condoned because we are a country of laws. We must not sit by and watch familiar places we live in turn into battlefields with some people clearly under the illusion that they can take the law into their own hands without facing the consequences. The protesters should go out to agitate peacefully within the permitted time frame and the parameters of the law, and then disperse to their various homes or wherever they may wish to go. At the same time, the security apparatus is expected to provide the much needed security and not attempt to provoke or be trigger-hungry. Matter of fact, they should employ better crowd control techniques to prevent the situation from escalating. During the political impasse, we showed the world how exemplary we are as Gambians. So let us continue to exhibit remarkable decorum because no progress can be made in a state of chaos and anarchy. Matter of fact, those epitomize failed states today. The Three Years Jotna movement need not attempt to force President Barrow to step down. The President has decided to deliberately flout the MOU by choosing to lead a five-year transition and then have is name on the ballot paper in 2021. The Gambian people will decide whether to retain the current leadership or replace it with a new one come 2021, knowing fully well that being elected to office by the general populace provides no guarantee that national leaders will be effective or dedicated to the national interest . This is a time when we must reason with our heads and not with our hearts. Greed, dishonesty, moral misconduct and other factors should not and must hide our desperate need for guiding principles. Our decisions and actions have more profound consequences than we might think. Finally, I maintain my position that a disregard of the MOU by President Barrow finds him culpable of moral misconduct, compromising his integrity.

The writer, Dibba Chaku, wrote from the United States