PDOIS’ Desk Officer's Second Response to Mathew

 

 Dear Editor:

 

I had expected that we were headed towards a fruitful intellectual debate with Mathew. However, a glance at Matthew’s response suggests that we are moving from an objective discourse and are sinking into a sentimental one.

Let me inform Mathew that I have been given a role to monitor the media and respond to any matter that is of concern to us. Foroyaa has not attacked him as he is insinuating. Let me explain how the editorial came about which should be instructive to all editors of Newspapers and Foroyaa is no exception.

I was shocked when it was brought to my notice that someone claiming to be Associate Editor of an online paper was giving support to the views expressed by Karamba and Wariteh on PDOIS. Let me repeat Associate Editor of a paper taking sides to promote the disinformation campaign of the supporters of a given party against another party. Where lies the impartiality of the person who mentioned that he is an associate editor?

It is an elementary ethical principle of journalism that editors should protect persons who are subjected to criticism in their forum by calling their attention to what is said about them and offer them the option to exercise their right to reply if they fail to take their own initiative.

We have maintained that the right to a media is a fundamental human right. All associations including Political Parties have a right to their own media outlets but we also know that the best instrument for promoting independence and impartiality in the dissemination of information is the umpire media which seeks not to ally with particular groups or interest but is devoted to the publication of the truth in good faith in the common interest and which provide outlet for the expression of opinions to all and sundry.

Even though Foroyaa provides an outlet for those who want change to express their views to promote it, it never hesitates to interview Secretaries of state, National Assembly Members and Councillors of the ruling party as well as to cover government programmes, which are of interest to the general public.

Sometime ago, one Basiru Gassama used Observer to attack a Foroyaa reporter for his coverage of a case involving him, the editors culled the report from the Observer and published it and assured him that he is free to address such letters to Foroyaa for publication as a matter of right.

Is this the way the editors of  “Pravda” and “ China Today” Newspapers used to behave? Is this how to promote supreme socialist ideologies with dogmatism as Mathew claims we are promoting?

The problem with people like Mathew is that they have created a monster in their head which they want to see in PDOIS and that is the monster of intolerant autocrats who impose their ideas on people instead of arguing to convince them.

The reality however is that PDOIS is the most tolerant of political parties in this country which is ready to debate issues at all times. This is an indisputable fact.

Former President Jawara even banned Foroyaa from attending his press conferences and President Jammeh has never attempted to call a press conference involving Foroyaa. Convincing ideas are more powerful than political status. We do not control state power to be able to impose our ideas on anyone. We only use our minds and hands. How can Matthew see us as Zombies who scare people? The zombies who are scary to Matthew can be found in his head.  He can only get rid of them if he gets rid of his prejudices against Social systems and try to study and understand them so that he can be tolerant of other people’s choices and become a genuine democrat who argue to convince others of his choice instead of becoming a potential autocrat who castigates and demonise in order to justify contempt and hatred for people who are only interested in making their country a better place to live in.

Democracy is about the contest of principles, policies, programmes and practices and not the battle of guns. If Mathew sees the promotion of the principles, policies, programmes and practices of political parties as synonymous to indoctrination, then how is multi party contest to be conducted in any country? How are the people to distinguish which party to support?

Mathew says, it should be left to the independent media, civil society organizations of that nature that have neutral values. Does he classify himself as the associate editor of an Independent Media? If so can Matthew be trusted to explain PDOIS” principles, policies programmes and practices to an electorate? Can he now see the absurdity of his notions?

I don’t think I fully understand the type of society and democracy Mathew envisages in his head. Is Mathew really saying that political parties should not educate the people regarding their policies, programmes, principles and practices?

Is this not an absolute necessity in a democratic society to enable the people to be exposed to the divergent policies and programmes of the different political parties so as to draw their own conclusions? Is he saying that the parties should hand over their policies and programmes to civil society organizations or the media to promote it for them?

Clearly, Mathew is beginning to sound very muddled in thinking to be able “to salvage some of the bright young minds in PDOIS” so that “they can snap out of what he calls “their delusions and see the real world.”

The world, which Mathew wants the young people to see, is not in existence. This is a multi party world. Even though he claims that “A nation’s strength lies in the diversity of opinions and views of its people, because no two people are alike and it is unnatural to expect them to think in a similar manner.” In the real world of democracy divergence of views does not exclude consensus building and the convergence of views to make decision-making possible.

The reality is that in a democracy, millions of people must vote alike to get a Government and the majority of members of Government must vote alike to have a decision.

Hence what is significant in a democracy is to ensure that the people hare the freedom to debate to convince each other to form an enlighten opinion and the freedom to choose. What PDOIS is absolutely committed to, is to guarantee that freedom to debate and freedom to   choice because it can only come to office through that freedom of choice.

This is the reality that Mathew refuses to acknowledge even though our practice has proven that we will never come to office through the barrel of the gun and can never lead a system of Government without opposition parties and without the consent of the people.

We have proven this by not participating in Government made by coup makers even though we were invited to do so.

The most interesting part in Matthew’s articles is pre-occupation with Cuba and North Korea and his insistence that PDOIS will transform the Gambia into   Cuba or North Korea. He refuses to see the lack of historical parallel between PDOIS and the Liberation movements, which led Cuba and Korea to enjoy the right to self Determination. Korea had to fight an Anti colonial struggle that transformed the leaders into legendary war heroes and their children are still benefiting from the heroism of their fathers. However a new task has started for human kind during PDOIS’ era.  This task is to make the people sovereign. This will call for changes in every country in the world and North Korea is not excluded. Since we are in Gambia we are concentrating in contributing our Quota to this Democratic revolution regardless of whether Matthew continues to express his doubts. The proof of a pudding is in the eating. 

Furthermore, Mathew claimed that the Foroyaa editorial is trying to discredit him and everyone who drinks. He even went as far as to say that the editorial is mocking at his poor background.

I am from a very poor rural origin and I am very proud that I can now stand to defend the interest of people who have been down trodden all their lives.

Even though, the name of Mathew is not mentioned, he has taken ownership of the article and has accused PDOIS of saintly behaviour and an attempt to condemn people who drink.

What Mathew refuses to acknowledge is that he is the one who first passed moral judgment by claiming in his article that “the country of Cuba is like one deserted island where everything is crumbling, buildings, infrastructure, the people look like aliens from another planet, the cars are from the 1950s, alcoholism and prostitution are rampant, gas and electricity has been rationed for decades now; the country is in a total mess.”

It is he who presented alcoholism and prostitution as a manifestation of a country that is in a total mess. This is why; I asked in my article whether Mathew is taking Gambia for America or America for Gambia. He seems to have forgotten the ghettoes and red light districts in the Gambia, the huts, the candles and the families who cannot put sugar in their porridge.

The Foroyaa editorial was not trying to demean Mathew. I t is meant to serve as a reminder to Matthew and all like him not to forget the plight of the common Gambian.. We have read his article on African bureaucracies and we think he is applying himself productively. What the editorial was trying to do is to get him to focus on the horrible conditions he has left behind and not to delude himself to think that the hell he left in the Gambia would be a heaven for Cubans, North Koreans and others.

Once this lesson is learnt, then our mission is accomplished.

To conclude, Mathew said, “socialists cannot tolerate dissent, and they never have as far as we know from history. We will never allow that in the Gambia. One dictator is enough, never again.”

Now, who is Mathew representing?  At least, I had 42 per cent of the votes in my constituency but still cannot dictate to anyone. Matthew is a man with only one vote, one voice, what power does he have to determine what will and will not happen in The Gambia?

Who is ready to impose his will on the Gambian people if he had the power to do it? Who is the real autocrat, Mathew or PDOIS?

We hope all Gambians especially; the young people will follow the debate to its logical conclusions to determine which political forces have answers to the burning questions facing the country. Mathew is recommending government of sinners and is vehemently opposed to a government of Saints. May be he will explain who the sinners are? PDOIS certainly aims to maintain a secular government, which will absorb all those who wish to render their service to their country, people and humanity at large irrespective of their beliefs and choice of recreation. We hope every Gambian; especially the young will follow this debate to its logical conclusion so as to determine who offers a clearer way forward for our Nation.

Sincerely,

Suwaibou Touray, PDOIS Desk Officer, People's Center Serekunda, The Gambia.

 

Editor’s Note: The Gambia Echo Newspaper does not subscribe to all of Mathew K. Jallow’s views nor does the paper encourage, allow or instigate Mathew or any other staff to engage in disparaging comments or demeaning innuendo or phrasal insinuations towards or against any individual, party or parties. The comments Mathew made about or against PDOIS were therefore, his own opinion and do not in any way; shape or form represents the Editorial view of The Gambia Echo Newspaper. In fact, our own Tijan Nimaga, a staff reporter sparked the entire debate when he proposed PDOIS as the best party to run The Gambia; and like Mathew, Tijan’s proposition of PDOIS was not a tacit approval of the editorial opinion of the paper. We regret the inconvenience or confusion this may have caused.

Always,

E.G.Sankareh.