PDOIS: Brainwashing and Fanaticism (Final)

By Mathew K. Jallow 

The responses from PDOIS’s Suwaibou Touray to my comments raised some important questions about that organizations modus operandi. Specifically, I was drawn to a point made by Suwaibou Touray alluding to the role assigned to him to “monitor the media and respond” to all matters concerning PDOIS. This by itself is clearly a manifestation of an obsession with self-image that borders on paranoia, but what was also interesting is the way this was expressed. Besides, their responses to the variety of opinions expressed in The Echo, rather than have a civil tone, are adversarial in nature, thereby betraying the mercenary character typical of all socialist organizations. One of the many failures and vulnerabilities of PDOIS is the fact that their political beliefs are etched in stone, which preempts any notion of flexibility to revise and or change these political beliefs. At another level, the gatekeeper role assigned to some members of PDOIS, which Suwaibou Touray so proudly dangles in our faces, and the defensive posturing of their responses to what they perceive as negative criticism, bear all the hallmarks of vindictiveness and a slash and burn attitude, so characteristic of socialist organizations like theirs.

The writer’s reference to PDOIS militants in the U.S. and Halifa Sallah’s desire to set up Committees here was somehow fascination, but more hilarious. It is evident that PDOIS is delusional in their belief that they can generate a significant following in the U.S. to even contemplate setting up Committees here. The reality is that there are perhaps no more than a dozen very hardcore PDOIS fanatic in the U.S, which is nowhere near the thousands of supporters other political parties can mobilize here. Additionally, what PDOIS refers to as the education of the young, is actually only a cliché to masquerade the reality of the brainwashing the organization is engaged in. Before going further, I wish to refer the PDOIS defender-in-chief to the dictionary meaning of a militant, a word he has used to describe their supporters. Where other political parties have spokespersons and public relations officials to explain and to draw others to their party’s viewpoints, PDOIS seems to rely on combative guerrilla tactics to make their cases, as demonstrated by their reactions here. In terms of the way PDOIS is dealing with some of our vulnerable young minds, one thing is certain: where their brainwashing ends, the irrationality of our youth begins. The consequence is that the intellectual development of our youth who are sucked into the orbit of PDOIS political “education,” is stunted by the inculcation of a narrow, inflexible and stringent political ideology, which often talks of compromises, but is inherently incapable of compromising.

In their very first response to my reaction to Tijan’s glowing tribute to PDOIS, the writer alleged that I had no understanding of the colonial and historical context of the politics of Africa’s socialist leaders like Nkrumah and Sekou Touray. That is far from being an accurate characterization of my knowledge. In fact, long before PDOIS was ever founded, I was already dabbling in socialist politics, and talking in the empty ideological language of Karl Marx, Fredrick Engel and Vladimir Lenin. I was already tongue twisting the very deep, dark words of an impending worldwide proletariat revolution and exploring the mysteries of dialectical materialism. I was also already talking of Marxist economics, Soviet cooperatives, and Chinese collectivism and fantasizing about Marx’s redistribution of wealth theories to create the perfect world society in an imperfect world. I had no idea what it really meant, but I was also led to envision this utopian one-world society that will only come about through the defeat of capitalism by socialism. But besides all that, where was the writer when in the early 1970s, Kwame Nkrumah in exile in Guinea, sent me his very last book entitled Africa Must Unite, autographed with the words, “To my friend Matthew K. Jallow from Kwame Nkrumah.” The book was delivered  through Lamin Janha who frequented Sekou Toure’s Guinea to see Kwame.  Where was the writer when I flooded Yundum College with Communist-Chinese literature, Mao’s Red Book, and caps and badges bearing Mao’s image so that to this day many of my college mates still call me Mao-Tse-Tung. And where was the writer when I with another friend attended an International Conference on the theme, “The De-colonization of Africa” held in Oslo, Norway, where I personally met most of Africa’s revolutionaries and freedom fighters of the day; from Louis Cabral of PIAGC to representatives from ZANU, ZAPU and MPLA to name just a few? Where was he when even as a mission boy on Hagan Street, I was sent to buy cigarettes, fetch drinking water and arrange chairs so rebel fighters from PIAGC could meet Sundays to strategize against the Portuguese occupiers in Bissau in the late 1960s? Does the writer still think I don’t know about Africa’s liberation struggles and the origins of Africa’s socialist movements or need I say more? When I was embracing socialism along with Habib Sallah, Halifa’s Sallah’s older brother, Comrade Sillah, Abdoulie Jobe, and following Jungkunda Daffeh or visiting Ndekem Njie’s Yundum quarters where the so-called “revolutionaries” of the day like Saja Taal came to hang out on weekends to talk liberation politics, drink beer and smoke marijuana, Suwaibou Touray may not have been alive then or probably very young. Oops! Just guessing.

In Tijan’s last response to Karamba, he echoed a sentiment aptly describing the way some of PDOIS’s supporters feel about their organization. I was flabbergasted and left momentarily speechless when Tijan expressed his willingness to support PDOIS to death. One does not hear such air of finality and strongly expressed opinions from supporters of other parties, which in and of itself speaks to PDOIS relentless brainwashing and how it has taken root and taken over Tijan’s commonsense. The kinds of fanaticism I have noticed among PDOIS supporters are not unlike the fanaticism one finds in extremist religious organizations like Al Queda or Hezbollah now, or the Hitler Youth of decades ago. Another PDOIS behavior that is characteristic of socialist movements is the ability to make trivial and inconsequential things seem so important. But, to jump to the issue of NADD for a moment, no party was as invested in NADD’s success as PDOIS was, particularly because in terms of visibility, the organization stood to benefit from an instantaneous elevation of its status, which could have raised PDOIS’s profile to a level of recognition the organization could not achieve on its own merit for more than two decades of existence. Even to this day, PDOIS has remained glued to NADD and has at every opportunity consistently and relentless blamed everyone else for NADD’s failure and eventual disintegration. Now that PDOIS’ political doctrine has failed to attract any significant number of Gambians, it is either blaming other political parties or criticizing their intellectual contributions to the general political debate. If PDOIS thinks that blaming others will open up the floodgates for others to join their movement, they better think twice. Even Suwaibou Touray failed to recognize that the people who voted for him in U.R.D. voted not for any PDOIS political platform, which I am sure they don’t understand, but for his own very person. Halifa’s own success in Serekunda was precipitated by the coup and O.J’s own subsequent fall from political grace; otherwise Halifa would never have been able to take that Constituency from him; not even in a million years.

 I did pick up on some catch words and phrases that Suwaibou used in all his pieces, and one thing that came to my mind is: robotic. It would appear that PDOIS disciples who understand the sterile language of socialism are programmed to respond the same way using the exact same words. If one were to ask three of PDOIS’s better educated core supporters three questions, they will each respond exactly the same way, using the exact same boring ideological words and phrases. That is an indication of brainwashing and indoctrination. And while Tijan Nimaga spoke of supporting PDOIS till death, it is apparent that his support is for a social democracy; even referencing Senegal and Senghore to drive home his point. That of course is as different from PDOIS’s socialism as day and night. I am myself a supporter of social democracy; not democratic socialism or socialism as advocated by PDOIS, because there is a chasm of differences among the three, even though they are all rooted in the same original socialist philosophy. Social democracy as practiced in Scandinavia, Canada and much of Western Europe pursues social and economic equity through programs designed to elevate the status of all citizens. Socialism on the other hand envisages a doctrine that forces equality through the redistribution of wealth. With regard to the latter, empirical evidence collected in Europe and anecdotal evidence gleaned in Africa has proven that socialism kills motivation, initiative, enterprise and entrepreneurship, and has in fact, led to the collapse of many national economies across the globe. If this is not what PDOIS is advocating and propagating, then the organization better change their name from socialism to something else. PDOIS has the right to change their name, but they do not have the right to change the meaning and the essential doctrine of socialism, just as the moronic Yahya Jammeh has no right to redefine the meaning of Democracy.

Finally, PDOIS is encouraging readers to follow this debate to what they refer as “its logical conclusion” and has intermittently challenged other political parties to come forward with their “policies, programs and practices.” The subtext of this challenge is PDOIS’s need to impress, rather than to educate, but no one in their right mind wants to get sucked into an irrelevant, gibberish and theoretical narratives of meaningless nothing debate. Personally, I have outgrown that stage where I needed to impress. I am now in the stage where I must attempt to inform and inspire our young, and to imbue in them the knowledge and information about life’s skills in an increasing shrinking world. PDOIS is interested in hero worship, and Halifa Sallah savors and revels in it. Beyond that, PDOIS sounds mechanical each time they repeat the words “policies, programs and practices,” and to add to that, who needs political education in today’s world. We now live in a cyber-world with instant news from all around the world, but PDOIS is still stuck in the social paradigms of the 1970s and the world of cassettes recorders instead of the iPods and other tools of education that are revolutionizing the world of knowledge at a break-neck speed. I hope I am able to reach the minds of some PDOIS fanatics to get them to understand that the world of socialism limits their intellectual development, and will confine them to a narrow idealistic ideology that will robotize them and essentially, turn them into the intellectually walking dead. This distracting debate ends here for me.

Editor’s Note: The above commentary by Mathew K. Jallow is entirely his and does not reflect The Gambia Echo’s editorial position on PDOIS. This piece is not an editorial but Mathew’s own opinion.