PDOIS’ Desk Officer Reacts To Mathew K. Jallow’s Final Response

 

Dear Editor:

I have the obligation to address some issues raised by Mathew in his final response to my comments on his previous remarks.

First and foremost, I still cannot digest Mathew’s obsession with Halifa Sallah to the point of asserting that if the coup did not lead to O.J’s fall from grace, he, Halifa, would not have taken the constituency from him for a million years.

I cannot see any difference between President Jammeh’s statements that the opposition would not be able to replace him for the next hundred years and Matthew’s statement that a given politician would not be replaced for a million years.  If Mathew advocates for a system where politicians stay in office for a lifetime then he is either an advocate for a monarchy or that he is so obsessed with Halifa Sallah that he could not avoid sounding ridiculous and petty.

What makes Mathew’s observation irrelevant is that the O.J. he is trying to pit against Halifa is the first to nominate him in Atlanta to be the coordinator of the opposition alliance.

I have tried to motivate Mathew to evaluate Halifa’s words and deeds and show us the type of shortcomings, which the people need to look at in order to form an objective opinion of him. PDOIS supporters and members are very much interested in such evaluation. Halifa has a National Assembly record if Mathew wants to educate the youth that there are people who are more suited to be their representatives he should compare records and point out the better candidates. Mathew however avoids this significant task and drifts into issues, which have no significance in determining, which politician is best suited to be elected president or National Assembly member.  .

The second point relates to Mathew’s accusation of PDOIS of inflexibility and his claim that my appointment to engage in dialogue with critics to clarify PDOIS policies, programmes, practices etc is a hallmark of vindictiveness. What is a greater display of inflexibility and vindictiveness than to insist that one political figure cannot replace another for a hundred years without offering any justification for one’s claim or desire?   How can an appointment to engage in debate with critics to clarify the principles, policies, programmes and practices of a political party be equated with vindictiveness and inflexibility?   I think inflexibility comes when a better view is expressed and one refuses to accept it. I don’t know how democracy can develop in a country without the voters being exposed to divergent views on the policies of the political parties, which seek to lead them. How can people make informed choices without such divergent views being expressed?

I challenged Karamba to put the policies of his party side by side with PDOIS’ policies so that the Gambian people will be able to make an informed choice but he declined.

Mathew however accuses me of being vindictive for opening a debate. I don’t know what school of democracy he student of, and what type of democrat he is, if he equates openness to debate to inflexibility and vindictiveness. All PDOIS supporters and members are groomed to have open minds and learn to form mature opinions through debate. I will be willing to send you a pamphlet on PDOIS’ organizational principles to confirm my point if it will not bore your readers.

The third point is that Mathew equates PDOIS’ education of the young with brain washing or indoctrination, yet in this very debate, I had indicated divergent views with Tijan who is an ardent supporter of PDOIS. Practice has therefore shown that PDOIS educates through the encouragement of its supporters to express their divergent views and then make clarifications, which enable them to review their positions on their own and hold on to the view that is clearer to them. These principles are clearly stated in the pamphlet I mentioned

Mathew’s allegation of brainwashing has no proof. The irrationality which he alleges to characterize the thinking of young supporters of PDOIS suits him more because of his inflexible belief that all parties in the Gambia have more supporters in the US than PDOIS and by extension are better than PDOIS even though he has not stated the principles, policies and programs of a single party in the Gambia to support his point.

Furthermore, i did indicate that Mathew’s derogatory remarks against Nkrumah and other pioneers of African Independence reflect a total lack of understanding of the historical context, which gave rise to the politics of such leaders. In order to show that he has such understanding he went on to explain how he received a book from Nkrumah, which was, autographed with the words, “to my friend, Mathew K. Jallow, from Kwame Nkrumah.’ He indicated how he distributed Maoist literature and met representatives of parties or movements who were fighting for liberation, and how he embraced socialism along with certain family members or people who are now members of PDOIS. Every thing he mentioned gives him the appearance of a fanatic who was ready to follow whatever was fashionable at the time. I can now understand why he sees all PDOIS supporters as fanatics. I really don’t know what Mathew was trying to disprove or prove.  My points were simple and direct. I said that if George Washington of the United States is now seen as a hero in that country because of his fight for American Independence then why shouldn’t we treat Nkrumah as a hero for his pioneering role in promoting the liberation of the African continent. What I expect from Mathew is a retraction of the derogatory remarks or the presentation of facts to defend them. Unless he does it, his personal history will be seen as an attempt to divert the attention of the readers from his tendency to assassinate the character of the pioneers of Africa’s Independence, which is common among the myopic brand of African intellectuals.

Mathew’s narration of his history seems to reveal that he neither understood nor believe in what he supports. In short, he was brainwashed and indoctrinated and therefore feels that everybody else has gone through his childhood experience. The unfortunate thing is that he does not seem to realize that we are dealing with the lives of 70% of our rural dwellers and almost 60% of the urban dwellers who are living on less than 1 dollar a day. How we are to free such people from poverty is the fundamental issue which all genuine Gambian intellectuals should begin to address.

 The Maoism or Nkrumahism and the other isms Mathew held as dogma belong to his childhood experience. In the school of thought we the PDOIS members grew up in, ideas about social systems are not seen as dogma but a science which enables us to understand social systems and to identify the policies and programmes which could enable us to address the problems of the people.

This is why most of us can face Secretaries of state as well as different professionals and raise critical issues, which can even, earn us respect. We are not indoctrinated to disseminate   empty slogans or take pride in associating with personalities whose views we do not subscribe to.

Mathew interestingly equates PDOIS with extremist religious organizations like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah even though I have given him an unimpeachable proof that PDOIS was offered ministerial posts after a coup d’etat but rejected the posts on the grounds that the party has vowed never to come to office without the mandate of the people. I really don’t know what proof Mathew has to equate PDOIS with violence. It is incontestable that PDOIS’ agenda is to build a democracy resting on the absolute sovereignty of the people. We have never swayed from the principles that it is the power of the people, which should determine all manner of representation from the local to the National level, in words and deeds.

Mathew further claims that PDOIS has remained glued to NADD because it lacks its own merit to get recognition and that it is blaming everybody for NADD’s failure. It is important to point out that when the political parties went to Atlanta, Halifa Sallah was the minority leader in the National Assembly and had won a seat under a PDOIS ticket with 5509 votes. Prior to this, the UDP in 1996 emerged with the full support of the banned PPP/NCP/and GPP. In the 997 National Assembly elections, he had 8500 votes whilst the UDP led Alliance had 8000 votes.

During NADD’s existence he contested in a by election and had 5900 votes. This means that the Alliance had contributed only 400 votes to his previous votes as a PDOIS candidate.

During the2007 National Assembly elections he contested under a NADD ticket against the APRC ruling part and the UDP/NRP alliance, which left NADD and had 4200 votes whilst the UDP/NRP Alliance had 1500 votes. He gained the seat under PDOIS and lost it under NADD. How then did NADD raise the profile of PDOIS? I cannot understand what statistics Mathew is relying on to state that PDOIS cannot receive recognition by relying on its own merits.

Let me explain further that at the time of building an opposition Alliance, NRP had only one seat in the National Assembly, PPP had no seat. PDOIS had two seats and was represented not only in The Gambian parliament but also in the ECOWAS and Pan African Parliaments. The PDOIS parliamentarians were being sent on missions in which few members of parliament had opportunity to participate in. What other form of recognition does Mathew want?

PDOIS in fact sacrificed to be part of NADD and it is in NADD now because all political parties signed a memorandum to put their party under the umbrella of NADD. UDP and NRP decided to withdraw before the presidential election. PDOIS maintained it word and contested all the elections under NADD.

As a democratic party, PDOIS now has the obligation to hold a congress to determine its position in NADD since NDAM has also left NADD.

 PDOIS will hold a congress in 2008 to come to a resolution as to whether PDOIS should stay in NADD or sever relation with NADD. This is the elementary truth, which Mathew may be trying to cover-up. It is very strange that the failure to be part of an opposition alliance in 1996 and 2001 was interpreted as being dogmatic on principles and when PDOIS considered to join an Alliance at a time when its seats were growing in the National Assembly, it is accused of lacking merit to go on its own. Is this not ridiculous?

Mathew claims that socialism envisages a doctrine that forces equality through the redistribution of wealth whilst social democracy pursues social and economic equity through programmes designed to elevate the status of all citizens.

Mathew indicates that PDOIS does not have the right to change the meaning of socialism. I have made it very clear that socialism does not force equality through the distribution of wealth. This definition of Mathews shows that Mathew is indoctrinated and has no understanding of what he is talking about.

Socialism at the level of distribution calls for income to be based on the equity and quantity of work done. It seeks to provide equal opportunity but people remain unequal in income based on the quality of work the do and the number of hours the put in. It is in the area of ownership of the means of production where one finds diverse policies of Socialist parties based on the situation in each country.

What I have made clear is that societies are at different levels of development and therefore require different approaches to eradicate poverty.

In developed countries where all the land and industries were concentrated in few hands and there were no welfare programmes at the beginning poverty increased as workers were thrown out of work because of development of technology.

It is when thinking developed in transforming the means of production to the ownership of all and for each to work and earn their living so as to ensure full employment and full access to housing etc.

We have also explained that social democracy led to intervention by the state to introduce welfare programmes to contain the marginalisation of the many. Halifa has given elaborate explanations in his interview, which Mathew could read and do a critique of if he wants to engage himself in a fruitful intellectual exercise.

I have also explained that in the Gambia, land is still in the hands of the many while industries are almost non-existent.

So PDOIS has made it very clear that public enterprises will be managed on the basis of socialist principles so that the quantity and quality of work will determine the income of public servants. It will be impossible, for example, for a secretary of state to receive more pay than a qualified doctor or an engineer who work equal number of hours.

Hence a salary’s commission would actually determine the value of every work done and grades given on the basis of the value.

If Mathew knows a fairer system of distribution of income in the public sector, than one based on the quality and quantity of work done, we are willing to learn from him.

Finally, Mathew ends the debate by claiming that my call for all political parties to come forward with their programmes, policies and practices etc is an attempt to impress people, that he is not interested in impressing people but is interested in giving knowledge and information to the young about life skills.

Here, Mathew is no longer differentiating himself as a person from an organization like PDOIS. If a party cannot formulate policies and programmes, then what business does it have in seeking to govern since cabinet is the body that formulates a country’s policies?

If the Gambian people do not know the programmes of political parties how can they make informed choices?

If Mathew teaches the young people life skills, how are the young people to get employment in a country where neither the private sector nor the public sector is growing? This is the urgent question that must be answered if we are to make head way in this most important of debates. It is my opinion that only somebody who has escaped poverty and is not concerned about the conditions of the marginalized poor people could ignore such a crucial issue and merely talk about helping young people to acquire life skills in the abstract but cannot guarantee them the place to use their skills. With these remarks I close my case.

 

Sincerely,

Suwaibou Touray.