24.2 C
City of Banjul
Friday, May 24, 2024
spot_img
spot_img

The debate – Madi and Halifa  

- Advertisement -

Who feels it, knows it – Bob Marley

By Ebrima Kamara

There are three types of politicians – the practical, the rhetorical and the reactionary. This commentary is focused on the rhetorical type – the other two will be taken separately.

- Advertisement -

The rhetorical type tends to talk too much but does very little, if anything at all. He blames others for his failures, ironically without understanding that he “who feels it, knows it”. Blaming others for one’s failures reveals one’s true colour. Hence, one can only accuse others of something they understand better than anybody else.

The most troublesome part is:

“… people must understand what an agreement is and what a constitution is… when Barrow took over, he took over as the executive president of the Gambia,… he did not owe any allegiance to any coalition or anybody, we were trying to exploit good-faith.”

- Advertisement -

This clearly indicates a long way to enlightened independent sovereignties. Until then, when we get rid of politicians with rhetorical invectives that have no backing in everyday reality, the terms of agreement they continue to sign up to on our behalf will continue to elude us. With their absolutist stance to everything and everybody, they would continue to represent us in “good faith”. Yet, they parade themselves as connoisseurs of the constitution. Oh, The Gambia.

None binding but arbitrary

By signing an agreement that is not legally binding but arbitrary. We find ourselves in a political arena where politicians who call themselves enlightened, understand the distinction between an “agreement” and “constitution” have led us into this democratic quagmire. Then, when reality surpasses poetry, the blame is placed on others’ ignorance of the difference between good-faith and legally binding. If an enlightened politician can lead us into such a mess. What do we expect from an unenlightened one loitering our parliament. 

The question to answer is, did the said-man know he was making an agreement based on good-faith, from the beginning?

Or, was it an after the fact constructio? Should such politicians continue to fight to correct that mistake or be hand-fallen? – “he (Barrow) did not owe allegiance to any coalition or anybody…”, sounds hopeless. This is a mindset of someone who has given up all possibilities to correct a wrong. So, is the said-man angry or disappointed?

Hence, one can win back an angry person by apologising, but a disappointed person is lost, forever.

“On the second of December 2016, for the first time in Gambian history we uprooted Jammeh. Our tactic and strategy were implemented to the letter. And it succeeded, that is the truth. If anybody betrayed Sandeng let him look for somebody else not us. Now, when we took over, we had the objective clearly spelt out, of a three-year-term. But people most understand, what an agreement is and what a constitution is. When we appointed or elected Barrow, we had the power to write all those things that we wrote, is good faith. But when Barrow took over, he took over as the executive president of the Gambia, under the constitution of the Gambia. Meaning what, he did not owe any allegiance to any coalition, or anybody, he could have only done so in good faith and we were trying to exploit good faith.”

Join The Conversation
- Advertisment -spot_img
- Advertisment -spot_img