Dear editor,
I’ve seen some opposition party members take umbrage at criticism leveled at their parties on the grounds that if one is not a member, they should not criticize how the party operates. Well, if you make your operational business public, then it becomes the public’s business. I’m not convinced that by choosing to not align myself with a political party, I forfeit any entitlement to my opinion on politics and political parties and how they operate. More so when these political parties are seeking my vote so they can make decisions that will affect me and my future. If you are averse to criticism when you’re not able to control what I say, is it not worrisome what you may do when you can “control” what I can say?
I’m not a member of any party and don’t plan to be a member of any (not that any party cares), but I do pay attention to all relevant political parties and I’ll say my piece whenever I deem it necessary. I may not have any influence on the internal workings of any party because I’m not a voting member but that shouldn’t mean that I can’t criticize them either. If any of these parties win, they’ll govern the Gambia and not members of their political party only. So why should my opinion wait until your party is in power before I criticize it?
I have heard political leaders say their party belongs to all Gambians. If this is not just lip service, why do party members get all bent out of shape at the slightest amount of criticism? Instead of telling me to mind my business, shouldn’t we engage each other to at least try and convince the other of our position? If you form a political party, unless you declare it a party for a select few, it is a Gambian political party. As a Gambian, I want to think that I do have some stake in your affairs given that you’re seeking to make decisions about life and death on my behalf.
If you think your political party is perfect, then fine; march on with your perfect political party to Stayhouse. Just don’t think everyone else must think your party is perfect and should therefore not criticize anything about your “perfect” party. But any party that does not operate in fantasy knows that self-assessment, and listening to others’ views are all necessary ingredients for success. But if you can’t afford to listen to anyone outside your party today, should we sleep at ease thinking you’ll listen when in power?
I see nothing wrong with pointing at issues I consider deficiencies in a body that is seeking to make decisions in my life. And no, I don’t have to be a member of said body to give my opinion. Of course, they have all rights to treat me as the nonentity that I am, but what I’m yet to be convinced of is that because I’m not a card-carrying member of party X, I shouldn’t concern myself with how they do things. If that’s the case, I guess everyone should leave my Bandam and his hempipi to continue flying on their white horse. Since some of us are not members, how hempipi washes their white horse is nonyabiness either!
Alagie Saidy-Barrow
The silent majority debacle
Dear editor,
Permit me to employ my scientific, logical, analytical, and geometrically calibrated keyboard to illuminate the cacophony currently reverberating through our media landscape.
The term “silent majority” in Gambia’s political discourse, is a mischaracterization and a strategic fallacy, often employed to obscure the realities of political dynamics and to manipulate public perception. This phrase, far from representing a genuine majority, is a tool used by those with vested interests to perpetuate a narrative that serves their narrow agendas. It is essential to recognize that the so-called “silent majority” is neither a majority nor silent in any meaningful sense.
If this purported majority truly existed in the form claimed, they would have no difficulty in producing a viable candidate of their choice and securing a decisive electoral victory independently. However, the absence of such outcomes underscores the fact that this group is, in reality, more accurately described as a “silent minority,” whose influence is disproportionately magnified through rhetoric rather than actual electoral power.
It is indeed accurate to note that there exists a segment of the population with minimal understanding of the political landscape, yet they participate in the electoral process. However, the critical question remains: can this demographic exert a significant influence on the election’s outcome? I posit that they cannot, which is why I refer to them as the “silent minority.”
While this group is indeed silent, they do not constitute a majority. The assumption by many that their silence equates to unanimous vote to make a candidate win an election is both illogical and statistically untenable. Yes, because they also assumed that all the silent people voted for one person. That in itself is undefined and defies logical reasoning.
From a logical and analytical perspective, the notion of a “silent majority” collapses under scrutiny. It represents a fraction of the electorate whose decisions are often driven not by competence or a genuine concern for the common good, but by self-interest, bigotry, fear of losing privilege, and a lack of a substantive agenda for national progress. This group thrives on maintaining the status quo, avoiding meaningful discourse that could lead to real change.
As a scientist, not a politician, I am compelled to speak out against the misuse of this term. It is clear that some political actors are adept at manipulating language to mislead the public, but it is crucial to expose these tactics and encourage a more honest and informed political discourse.
Touba Special Marrie,
A native of Foni Kandonku,
Data Scientist at Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA.
