|
Momodou
Denmark
11644 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Oct 2007 : 16:35:35
|
FOCUS ON POLITICS
PRESIDENT JAWARA’ S STAND ON DEMOCRACY CHALLENGED;
As Foroyaa Push For Genuine Democracy
With Suwaibou Touray
We have been focusing on politics in this column, which motivates us to follow the narration of political events from pre-colonial Gambia to post-independence era.
One main objective of our review is to see how far the practice of democracy had matured in the country since independence and what role various parties played in the democratization process.
Let us continue from where we stopped.
By the end of 1987, there appeared to be an intensification of visits to The Gambia and to Senegal by certain Gambians and Senegalese. Reports indicated that about 116 children from The Gambia visited Senegal and camped with Senegalese children. It was also said that it was Banjul City Council that contributed a huge sum of D10, 000. This was perhaps to reciprocate what Senegal had done a year or two ago. Reports also showed the visit of the mayor of Dakar to Banjul. The objective that was said to be behind all this was to revamp the SeneGambia friendship.
PDOIS which opposed the confederation on the grounds that it was just a bureaucratic set-up meant to benefit only the bureaucrats commented that the D10, 000 could have been utilized to uplift the conditions of say the dilapidated streets in Banjul. They called on the ratepayers to start demanding for an explanation as to how their money was being spent.
The criticisms on the SeneGambia confederation mainly from the PDOIS and the rumours of the president contemplating about resigning attracted attention from the foreign media, such that by 12th December, the BBC interviewed president Jawara whether in fact he was contemplating about resigning. The president said he was not. BBC then asked why he has moved into his own residence in Fajara from the state house, the president simply said that should not be taken to mean that he was about to resign but did not elaborate. When the BBC reporter asked about the confederation, the president said the protocols of implementation, which had been signed under the main agreement, have been functioning satisfactorily. The BBC reporter went a bit further to ask whether anything concrete had been done; the president identified the confederal parliament. When quizzed further as to who was the head of the confederal army, the president preferred not to say that it was a Senegalese. At this point, the president simply asked the BBC reporter to go and review the confederal agreement.
According to Foroyaa issue No. 8/87, it was no wonder that president Jawara did not appear too keen to further the discussion. Foroyaa re-emphasized that the confederal agreement and protocols did violate the sovereignty of The Gambia and Senegal. So as they insisted, it was a stumbling block to the development of an equal relation between the Gambia and Senegal; that the president of Senegal could still declare a state of emergency in the Gambia.
By December 1987, president Jawara visited Germany where he was invited to the Pottinger Collegium for Democracy. The Western countries at the time measured democracy in African countries by the mere holding of regular and periodic elections without gauging whether the practice conforms to the standards or not. Consequently, when the president came back, he was full of zeal, which must have compelled him to call for a press conference.
The PDOIS must have been thrilled by this move and must have seen the opportunity to push the PPP government to state their views on issues raised by them, such as the SeneGambia confederation, the registration process and of course on the issue of Democracy, in general.
According to Foroyaa, the PDOIS used the occasion to engage PPP on polemics since they could not get them to attend rallies, symposia etc, to exchange views so as to defend their policies. So by the end of December 1987, the Foroyaa got the opportunity to have face-to-face dialogue and Sam Sarr represented them.
Interestingly enough, as the discussion ensued, the Director of Information and Broadcasting made several attempts to block the dialogue but the president later asked him to allow the dialogue. The other interesting thing was that Radio Gambia butchered parts of the dialogue where they felt the president did not fare well. This compelled Foroyaa to publish it verbatim.
Press Conference turn To Debate
FOROYAA: My question concerns your trip to West Germany in relation to the Pottinger Collegium as an advocate of democracy and human rights. A review of the Local Government Act, infact many people are very active in wanting to participate in chieftaincy elections, since there are so many chiefs who are acting at this particular moment. This Local Government Act does not in fact make any provision for the election of chiefs and on the contrary in fact it gives the president the power to be able to appoint and remove chiefs from office and my question in this regard is, do you consider this to be a democratic arrangement, especially if one considers that the people elect and the president disposes of whatever the people propose? This is the connotation. And further, still on council’s elections the president is empowered to dissolve any council at any time he deems fit and that….
PRESIDENT: You’ve exhausted that really. Let your questions come to the point. Summarize them because time…
FOROYAA: In a nutshell, what, I’m saying is, the Local Government Act does give a lot of power to the president to be able to dissolve council and the minister to be able to cripple the council. Do you therefore consider that the present arrangement for Local Government to be democratic enough?
PRESIDENT: Yes, I do. I think our Local Government Act like all our laws are based on democracy; all our laws are based on the democratic principle and respect for human rights etc, etc. Individual freedom, freedom of expression etc. And you cited the method of election of chiefs. Well, before the PPP Government came to power, chiefs were in fact simply appointed by government and even then one would not say it is not democratic it can be done. Many offices are simply appointments by the executive. The judges are not elected here, they are appointed by the President, the President appoints the Chief Justice, appoints the judges of the appeal Court. Would you say that is undemocratic?
FOPOYAA: What I am saying is that, where the people propose should the President dispose?
PPESIDENT: Why not?
FOROYAA: When the people elect somebody the President has authority?
PRESIDENT: Yes, yes, Presidents have power you know.
FOROYAA: That’s why I’m asking the question in relation to your advocacy of democracy and human rights?
PRESIDENT: A President without power will be no use to government, to the country, , to the people. That’s why Presidents everywhere, Heads of States, Heads of government are invested with power so that they can use that power to govern in the interest of their people. You see, as I always say, before Independence, of course chiefs were never elected, there was no voting or anything. You have the Governor simply appoints chiefs, but it was the PPP Government who tried to inject a greater sense of democracy in that appointment by bringing about elections of chiefs so that the people in the districts could participate and express their views, at least they have few candidates to choose from. While you say that once they do that the executive should not have power to dismiss a chief. Well I think that’s wrong.
FOROYAA: That it’s in parliament…
According To Foroyaa their reporter did not finish this statement. That what he wanted to say was to point out to the President that parliament has not made the post of chief elective; that the people were just being deceived to think that they were electing chiefs when in reality it was still the President who has authority to decide who is to be chief. This comment could not be made because the President interrupted with the following words.
PRESIDENT: That is wrong, in my view. That executive as the law provides; and that law has been taken to parliament has been passed by parliament that under certain circumstances the president should have power; the president and the Minister have certain powers extending to the President being able to, under recommendation by the Minister to dismiss a chief in the national interest, I would not call that undemocratic. It is democratic and you find similar situations everywhere as I have cited the Chief Justice is a very important personality, he is the third personality in terms of precedence in the state, but he is appointed by the president and he can be dismissed by the president under certain circumstances. So that to allege that we are being undemocratic by the legislature giving power to the president to dismiss chiefs under certain circumstances is simply not correct, is not valid.
FOROYAA: So you are saying it’s a Colonial legacy?
PRESIDENT: What?
FOROYAA: This….
PRESIDENT: What I said was Colonial was the appointment of chiefs without anybody voting for them and we came and injected some degree of democracy in it by making chieftaincy to be an elected office; that the people of the district the electorate in the district would vote, would elect a chief so that this was done by us in order to bring in some degree of democracy in the process, but the power still to dismiss a chief under certain circumstances in the National interest is still there and I think it should be there too. Do you think chiefs should never be dismissed under any circumstances?
FOROYAA: What I’m saying is – where the people elect, if a system exists, a truly democratic system, where the people elect somebody; should an individual be given the power to dismiss that particular individual? The case of the chief Justice is appointed by the President just like, for example parliament, a parliamentarian cannot be removed from office just by an individual; there is a legal procedure, not the feeling of an individual. A chief can be removed from office and the President does not have to explain anything. This is what I’m questioning in terms of your democratic principle, which you are advocating. According to Foroyaa,(This part was left out by Radio Gambia).
PRESIDENT: What I am saying, this is very democratic still. This is still very democratic because the President is not acting on his own out of a whim. It is… his actions…. are based on a law which had been passed by the Parliament which had been elected by the people. So you see it is the legislature; if the legislature were to amend that law then of course it would be undemocratic for the President to ignore the law and, act as he wishes out of his own personal whim but in dismissing a chief under certain circumstances the President would be doing it according to law, a law enacted by the legislature, which of course has been elected by the people, so in fact the President is acting on behalf of the people. Agreed?
As our reporter took a step to respond the other journalists would not allow him to ta1k. The President seeing our reporter coming to respond made the following remarks.
PRESIDENT: You want to continue the debate, well, carry on, I’m ready.
FOROYAA: My colleagues are stopping me.
PRESIDENT: Well, I’m ready.
See next issue as we delve into issues of 1988.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 127/2007, 29 – 30 October
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
Topic Locked
