By Yobba Baldeh
Looking at the complexities of corruption in The Gambia, comparing the eras of Yahya Jammeh and Adama Barrow, and examining whether the opposition’s claim that Jammeh’s regime was better holds water.
The transition from Jammeh to Barrow was heralded as a new dawn for The Gambia, with promises of democratic governance, transparency, and accountability. However, seven years into Barrow’s presidency, the high hopes of the Gambian people have been met with disappointment. Corruption, far from being curtailed, appears to have become even more endemic, particularly among senior officials. This has led to an increasing sentiment among opposition political leaders and sections of the population that, despite the oppressive nature of Jammeh’s rule, his regime was in some respects better than the current administration.
Yahya Jammeh’s regime was a textbook example of kleptocracy, where the state’s resources were appropriated by the ruling elite for personal enrichment. Jammeh himself was at the centre of this web of corruption, amassing immense wealth through illicit means, including the embezzlement of public funds, the seizure of private property, and the extortion of businesses.
One of the most notorious aspects of Jammeh’s corruption was his direct control over state finances. The Central Bank of The Gambia effectively became his personal bank account, with millions of dollars siphoned off into his private accounts abroad. The 2018 report by the Janneh Commission, established to investigate the financial dealings of Jammeh and his associates, revealed that Jammeh stole or misappropriated over $300 million during his time in office.
However, Jammeh’s corruption was not just about personal enrichment. He also used state resources to maintain his grip on power. Through patronage, he ensured the loyalty of key military, political, and business figures, thereby consolidating his authority. This systemic corruption permeated every level of government, creating a culture of impunity and fear.
Despite this pervasive corruption, Jammeh’s regime maintained a semblance of public order. Public services, though underfunded and poorly managed, were still functional. Infrastructure projects, though often riddled with graft, were completed, and the civil service, though politically compromised, remained operational. For many Gambians, the stability provided by Jammeh’s authoritarian rule, however repressive, was preferable to the uncertainty of a weak and ineffective government.
President Adama Barrow’s rise to power was seen as a victory for democracy in The Gambia. His campaign promises of accountability, transparency, and good governance resonated with a populace weary of Jammeh’s despotic rule. However, the reality of Barrow’s administration has been starkly different from the hopeful rhetoric that accompanied his election.
Corruption under Barrow has taken on a new dimension. Unlike Jammeh’s centralized kleptocracy, where corruption was concentrated around the president and his inner circle, corruption under Barrow appears to be more diffuse, involving a wider array of senior officials and political actors. This decentralisation of corruption has made it more insidious and difficult to combat.
Several high-profile scandals have rocked the Barrow administration, highlighting the extent of the problem. The awarding of contracts to private firms, the sale of government land, and the mismanagement of state-owned enterprises have all been tainted by allegations of corruption. Senior officials, including ministers and heads of government agencies, have been implicated in these scandals, yet accountability has been minimal.
The perception that corruption is rampant in Barrow’s government is not just a matter of public opinion. International watchdogs have also noted the decline in governance standards. The Gambia’s ranking in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has deteriorated since Barrow took office, reflecting a growing concern about the integrity of the country’s institutions.
Whether Jammeh’s regime was indeed better, as some opposition leaders’ claim, I took a look at the opposition leaders’ arguments in terms of nature, scope, and impact of the corruption under both administrations for comparative analysis- Jammeh Vs. Barrow.
Notably, corruption under Jammeh was heavily centralized. Jammeh and his close associates controlled the flow of illicit gains, which, while devastating, allowed for some level of predictability in governance. In contrast, corruption under Barrow’s government has been seen in a more decentralized form, where multiple powerful elites are involved in the corrupt practices. It is understandable that it is this diffusion which has led to greater instability and a breakdown in the functioning of state institutions, and various factions within the government compete for resources and influence.
Furthermore, irrespective of the corruption under Jammeh, there was a semblance of order in public service delivery. Infrastructure projects, though often mired in graft, were still completed, and essential services, though inadequate, were provided. Under Barrow, however, the increased level of corruption among senior officials has severely hampered public service delivery. Many projects have stalled or been abandoned due to the misappropriation of funds, and public services have deteriorated as a result of the siphoning of resources by corrupt officials.
Although, Jammeh’s authoritarian rule was repressive, it provided a degree of political stability. His control over the military and security services, combined with his use of patronage, ensured that his rule was unchallenged, albeit at the cost of political freedoms. In contrast, Barrow’s government has been marked by political infighting and instability, exacerbated by the widespread corruption among senior officials. This instability has made governance increasingly difficult and has eroded public confidence in the administration.
The public perception of corruption under Jammeh was clear-cut: the president and his inner circle were the primary culprits. This made it easier for the opposition to galvanize public sentiment against Jammeh, ultimately leading to his downfall. Under Barrow, the widespread nature of corruption has made accountability more challenging. With so many actors involved, it has become difficult to identify a single source of the problem, leading to a sense of hopelessness among the populace.
Was Jammeh’s Regime Better? the argument that Jammeh’s regime was better than Barrow’s administration hinges on several key points. First, the centralized nature of corruption under Jammeh, while deeply harmful, allowed for a more stable and predictable government. The diffusion of corruption under Barrow has led to greater instability and a breakdown in governance, which many Gambians find even more damaging than the authoritarianism of the past.
Second, the deterioration of public services under Barrow’s administration has made daily life more difficult for ordinary Gambians. Under Jammeh, despite the corruption, there was at least some semblance of functionality in public service delivery. The failures of the Barrow government in this regard have led to increased frustration and disillusionment among the population.
Third, the lack of accountability in Barrow’s government, despite his promises of transparency and good governance, has disillusioned many who had hoped for change. The perception that corruption has not only persisted but has become more widespread has led to a sense of betrayal among those who supported Barrow’s election.
While the comparison between Jammeh and Barrow’s administrations is fraught with complexity, it is clear that the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one has not led to the hoped-for improvements in governance. For instance, the corruption rather than it being curtailed, it has become more pervasive, particularly among senior officials in Barrow’s government. This has undermined the effectiveness of the administration, leading to a deterioration in public services, increased political instability, and growing disillusionment among the population.
The opposition’s argument that Jammeh’s regime was better than Barrow’s administration, while controversial, resonates with a significant portion of the Gambian population. The perception that life under Jammeh, despite its many flaws, was more stable and predictable than under Barrow is a powerful indictment of the current government’s failure to deliver on its promises.
Therefore, the transition from Jammeh to Barrow has been more of an illusion of change than a genuine transformation. The Gambian people, having endured decades of authoritarianism, now find themselves grappling with a new form of corruption that is just as damaging, if not more so, than what they experienced under Jammeh. This raises critical questions about the nature of political change and the challenges of building a truly accountable and transparent government in a country with a long history of corruption and authoritarianism.
