Dr Alieu SK Manjang
The opening of the new hospital in Farato by His Excellency President Adama Barrow is undoubtedly a momentous occasion. We thank the government for this project, which will alleviate pressure on Banjul Hospital and spare citizens the hardship of travelling long distances to access medical services.
However, the most crucial point that every critical mind should consider is the need to distinguish between improving vital facilities in terms of construction and infrastructure and the actual capacity to provide quality services that meet citizens’ needs. A hospital is not measured solely by its walls and buildings, but by the services it provides: the availability of qualified medical staff, the presence of various health specialties and services, good management and leadership, the availability of medicines, and citizens’ ability to access them at an affordable cost.
Since the departure of Yahya Jammeh, the primary problem facing Gambian citizens has not only been the shortage of hospitals and health centers, but also the continuous decline in the quality of health services and their rising cost. Furthermore, the establishment of new government health facilities has not necessarily boosted public confidence in the public health sector or made it the first and most reliable option for treatment. Many officials and citizens still resort to private clinics or seek treatment abroad.
Therefore, making the sheer number of construction projects or hospital buildings the sole criterion for judging a president’s performance and wishing him continued rule raises an important question: if the number of projects and infrastructure were the only measure, Yahya Jammeh would have been more deserving of remaining in power well into his nineties than President Barrow. But politics and good governance are not measured in this way.
Have we not asked ourselves why the Gambian people chose change through the ballot box, even though Jammeh’s era witnessed the establishment of the first national university—which, in my view, is one of his greatest achievements—along with numerous development projects from which the country continues to benefit today?
Evaluating the performance of any government in a politically aware society is not based solely on buildings and roads, but rather encompasses a wide range of indicators: the state of the economy, security and stability, political sovereignty, social justice, governance, transparency and accountability, equality, national unity, quality of life, job creation, and the fight against poverty, unemployment, and corruption. The real question is not simply: How many hospitals have been built? But also: How do these hospitals function? Who benefits from them? And what impact do they have on the lives of citizens?
Focusing on buildings, roads, and large-scale projects as the primary measure of government performance, while neglecting other aspects that affect citizens’ daily lives, reflects a superficial understanding of political action. Nations are not built on projects alone, but on effective public policies, strong institutions, and sound governance.
In countries where projects sometimes become political tools rather than the outcome of clear public policies, project evaluation should not be limited to its outward appearance. It must encompass the method of implementation, the beneficiaries, the transparency of tenders, the project’s cost, timeframe, efficiency, the quality of services provided, and the extent to which it achieves its intended purpose.
Undoubtedly, political affiliation influences public opinion regarding such projects; some exaggerate their importance, while others underestimate them. However, the reality is that some governments in developing countries may succeed in gaining support by focusing on visible projects, as these are easier to present and persuade, while major challenges in the economy, services, and governance remain inadequately addressed.
This is why we sometimes find citizens suffering from high prices, unemployment, and poor services, yet supporting the government because it has built a road or a building in their area. The project is important, but the more crucial question is: Has their life truly changed? Are they now safer, more stable, and more dignified?
One can look at the experiences of other countries to understand the difference between a proliferation of projects and an improvement in citizens’ lives. Projects alone are not enough if they are not accompanied by effective economic and social policies. Development is not just what we see in terms of buildings and roads, but what citizens feel in their daily lives.
