Introduction Reading for Day 4
Trip Start
Oct 26, 2007
1
5
11
Trip End
Feb 04, 2008
Serekunda,
Gambia
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Mostly just a commentary on Dr. Sam Jaiteh's visit
It is hard for those of us who have spent our lives in the United States to envision, and I mean really SEE a country where fear, doubt, instability, and suppression surround politics. We are allowed to discuss most things openly and candidly, and this freedom to express ourselves - in conversations, on the streets, in the media or academia, provides a constant, easy outlet for whenever our passions or frustrations towards the system under which we live might bubble up. I understand the concept of a military dictatorship, of political violence and suppression, but it was an entirely different thing to have someone who had struggled under this reality all his life actually sitting across from me, calmly describing to wide-eyed Americans what it is like when one of your students at the university, a youth who is relying on you to gain a more informed grasp on the world, asks you a highly significant question about the current government that you want so desperately to answer with great conviction and passion, and you have to swallow all that emotion and dodge the question for fear of intimidation or imprisonment without a trial. You can only hope that student will not remain part of the large group of Gambians who are deluded by the government propaganda from a controlled press. Yet even if he does discover the answer on his own or from another source, he will be condemned to the frustration of eventually being put in the same position as you.
Yet Jaiteh does not exhibit the kind of grave, desperate tone that my commentary does. That is not the Gambian style. (Though I have not been here nearly long enough to really know the Gambian style, I can see clearly that gravity and desperation is not part of it). He taps his fingers together, leans back in his chair, and offers a toothy smile as he smoothes the folds of the traditional Islamic dress of a long tunic and pants that most men are wearing for Friday prayer today) He will voice his discontent and his dissatisfaction, but at the end of the day, he can laugh with our Wolof teacher and guide Babucar at the fact that President Jammeh has declared he found the cure for AIDS using a traditional medical rub in order to gain support among Gambians (albeit, he rubs his forehead a bit as he laughs). Also, he does invest himself in the long, arduous task of small and practical improvements, like limited advancements in the Gambian education system. Yet, by the way, when we ask him about underground opposition parties, he smiles enigmatically and answers 'if they were underground, how would I know about them?" I can't help but think he relies on a hope in the possibility of great, sudden change to deal with the reality of Gambian politics. After all, he can easily remember a time before the form of government in existence now, and saw the overthrow of a government he grew up under. "nothing is permanent," he says. And it is true, eventually all political systems change drastically, even our own.
Jaiteh also seems to derive hope from education. Jammeh has supported the building and expansion of primary, secondary, and higher education during his time in power. Though his systems focus far too much on "Structures [as in buildings], and not the students they produce," this is an advancement. Jaiteh thinks Jammeh has allowed for these advancements only to make Gambia look better, but even if he overlooks it, it is a fact that with increased literacy and education, Gambians will gain a better understanding of the world and Gambia itself, and thus almost assuredly create more political resistance.
Jaiteh also described a little bit of the history of Gambian political systems. Though this structured, factual bit of the lecture that reminded me much of my typical political science lectures in the states (where there is always a textbook to refer back to for right answers, and where even discussions of modern policy seem a bit like exercises out of a workbook), it was important context for understanding the current form of government...
Gambia has a history of centralized rule; it was a province under a couple strong empires, including the Songhai empire. Vassals in the area were set up under the king to raise taxes and, if necessary, an army for the king. According to Jaiteh, the authority of the central government was always clearly recognized under this arrangement.
Colonial rule under the British brought indirect rule under the governor in Banjul. District commissioners were set up in different regions, and under them the chiefs who were already in existence were brought into the system. The British gave these chiefs the additional role of being arbitrators among their people. Though the British chose this form of government that used systems already in place because it was cost-effective, it was not necessarily efficient.
This fact was especially disastrous when, after gaining independence, Gambians maintained the same basic form of autocratic government. Political theory was not thriving, and to many frustrated after colonialism, the changing of flags was a grand enough achievement. During this first republic, one of the few changes was the election of chiefs by village heads.
In 1994, a peaceful military takeover took place that generated little resistance from the Gambian people. The constitution was changed, mostly only in that this time to allow for a democratically elected council with a high degree of local autonomy. The councilors were made up of villagers and business heads; the chair of the council was technically elected by the residents of the village, but reality has proved this to be more of an idea than a hard and fast rule. Not only have elected officials been fired on false charges, Jaiteh is quick to point out that elections can be corrupted at any level (the selection of candidates, freedom in campaigns, the casting of votes, and the counting of votes. International groups have monitored the casting of votes, but all other parts of the elections are highly questionable in the Gambia). What has now developed is a complete lack of efficacy on the part of the people, especially those in poor and developing countries. This especially infuriates Jaiteh, because, as he logically points out, how can good policies be carried out in these parts of the country that need it most if those who really know what they need are blocked from government? Sadly, the people from these areas, and Gambia as a whole for that matter, are not likely to protest the political set up (if, with only poor education systems, they are able to see past propaganda and a controlled press) because they are too focused on desperately trying to get out of the poverty gap, not seeing that their struggles are actually directly linked with the political system.
