KAYJATTA

November 2, 2011

HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES: 320 U.S. 81 (1943)

CASE FACTS:

On December 7, 1941 the Japanese Navy attacked the United States naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in two successive waves. 2,402 Americans were killed and 1,282 were wounded.

Public opinion about Japanese Americans started to deteriorate shortly afterwards because of concern about what was referred to as the “Fifth Column “activity derived from the 1936-1939 Spanish civil war and also depicted in playwright and novelist Hemmingway’s play of a similar name suggesting internal collaboration with external enemy forces. This raised questions about the loyalty of Japanese Americans to the United States despite government dismissal of potential threats from Japanese Americans. This situation appears similar to the situation of Muslims and Muslim-Americans in the U.S. following September 11, 2001.

Then on February 19, 1942 President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order 9066 giving permission to the head of the military to confine and exclude certain groups of people without regards to citizenship or ancestry from military installations, mainly on the West Coast because of its vulnerability to invasion and attack at the time. Some 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans were imprisoned in ten (10) different camps.

The implementation of this Executive Order evolved from the initial imposition of curfew upon aliens of Japanese descent as well as Japanese Americans, to confinement of Japanese and Japanese Americans to military facilities, and later rounding up Japanese and Japanese Americans in detention centers that were interchangeably called “relocation centers”, “internment camps”, and “concentration camps”.

Gordon K. Hirabayashi, who was a student at the University of Washington, refused to register for evacuation and thereby was accused of violating the Executive curfew order and the Congressional statute that followed designating the violation of military orders. Both violations were misdemeanors. Hirabayashi argued that the indictment should be dismissed because he was an American citizen, born in Seattle in 1918 that at no time had borne allegiance to Japan and had never been to Japan.

CASE HISTORY:

The case of Hirabayashi v. United States reached the Supreme Court from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the defendant’s conviction from the district court was upheld. The court held that the application of curfews against members of a minority group was constitutional during a war time with a country that the group originated.

The Supreme Court also upheld the curfew order in Hirabayashi and its companion case (Korematsu v. United States). However, several years later in 1986 and 1987, Hirabayashi’s case would be overturned by the U.S. District Court in Seattle and the Federal Appeals Court.

SUPREME COURT DECISION:

The Supreme Court indicated that where the sentences of a defendant were to run concurrently, it would be necessary to consider the validity of the sentence on both charges  (counts) if the sentence on one of the charges is sustainable

Chief Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the court. The decision addressed two main issues or charges:

1.       Whether the restrictions of the Executive Order and the subsequent Congressional statute violate the rights of Japanese Americans?

2.       Whether the restrictions of the Executive Order and the subsequent Congressional statute unconstitutionally discriminated against citizens of Japanese origin?

The Supreme Court held that the Executive Order was a in the interest of public safety, a “protective measure necessary to meet the threats of sabotage and espionage” (P. 320 U.S. 95). The Court also held that the curfew order did not unconstitutionally discriminate against citizens of Japanese origin, P. 320 U.S. 101. Chief Stone also cite the landmark case of McCullough v. Maryland to support his position.

Justice Douglas, in concurrence argues that after Pearl Harbor, the threat of Japanese invasion was real and the threat of aliens and citizens of Japanese origin in military installation is a legitimate concern. He challenged the substantial evidence rule, saying that peacetime procedures do not necessarily fit wartime needs. Justice Douglas raised doubts that the court is competent to review the case, further arguing that the court is dealing with loyalty, not assimilation; but then loyalty is matter of mind and of heart, and not of race yet guilt is personal. He argued that detention for reasonable cause is one thing, and detention for ancestry is another thing all together.

Justice Murphy also concurred. A concurrent opinion is one that agrees with the majority opinion but uses different reasons or reasoning. He cited United States v. Macintosh (283 U.S. 605, 283 U.S. 622)  arguing  on the basis of the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the constitution that the executive and congress are empowered to exercise control over persons and property  even though such may not be permissible in normal times. However, Murphy lamented that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights cannot be suspended by the mere existence of war, and the executive and congressional war powers is subject to constitutional limitations. He questioned the wisdom of restricting substantially the personal liberty of citizens of United States based on the accident of ancestry (Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 274 U.S. 372).

Justice Rutledge also concurred. He raised doubts about the wide range of power vested in military commanders such General De Witt even during an emergency. While he agrees that the generals must have discretion in conducting their operations, they would not go unchecked and there would be boundaries beyond which they cannot go.

It is however interesting that one of the justices dissented in this case. The lack of a dissent goes to underscore American nationalism during a time of crisis. Notwithstanding, the large number of concurrent opinions perhaps sets this case on the path to a later reversal. Dissenting and concurrent opinions are often useful in shaping future majority opinions.

LITERARY ANALYSIS

KAYJATTA

A PORTRAIT IN GEORGIA: JEAN TOOMER.

Hair—braided chestnut,
        coiled like a lyncher's rope,
Eyes—fagots,
Lips—old scars, or the first red blisters,
Breach—the last sweet scent of cane,
And her slim body, white as the ash
        of black flesh after flame.

A PORTRAIT IN GEORGIA: JEAN TOOMER

This poem by Toomer is about identity and violence, racial identity and violence. It is about one race meting out violence and aggression against another. The imageries of lynching-a common form of racial violence in the South up to the 1960s and ‘70s, beating, burning, and torture are unmistakable. John Callahan (1988) referred to this poem as a description of “a white Southern obsession behind the blood sacrifice of lynching”. This is a fitting description of what Toomer sought to capture in this narrative poem, as the beautiful figure of a Southern white woman is transformed into a black victim by lynching. The imagery in this poem (A Portrait In Georgia) appears to call to attention especially the black community about the prevailing danger of daily life in the South. This fact, in consistence with Callahan’s argument, is also what psychologists might refer to as displacement of aggression. The violence inflicted on the body of the white woman is actually intended or directed to the black man. Toomer succinctly captures this in the last two lines of the poem:

         And her slim body, white as the ash

             Of black flesh after flame

George Hutchinson (1993) argued that Toomer’s poem is a “haunting evocation of the racial boundary”. As the image of the body of a beautiful white woman dissolves into the image of a lynched black man, we are reminded of the taboo of inter-racial romantic relationship (miscegenation). The lynched black man perhaps, in agreement with Hutchinson’s argument, is punished for defiling white womanhood. However, Toomer’s technique of juxtaposing or even uniting a white woman with a black man by way of lynching may speak beyond racial segregation and identity.

AMERICA: CLAUDE McKAY

America

By Claude McKay 1889–1948 Claude McKay

Although she feeds me bread of bitterness,

And sinks into my throat her tiger's tooth,

Stealing my breath of life, I will confess

I love this cultured hell that tests my youth.

Her vigor flows like tides into my blood,

Giving me strength erect against her hate,

Her bigness sweeps my being like a flood.

Yet, as a rebel fronts a king in state,

I stand within her walls with not a shred

Of terror, malice, not a word of jeer.

Darkly I gaze into the days ahead,

And see her might and granite wonders there,

Beneath the touch of Time's unerring hand,

Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand.

The Jamaican-born Claude McKay, in this poem called “America”, expresses a bitter-sweet experience with America, his adopted country.  McKay was closely followed by the FBI for a long time. In the poem he quickly laid out two conflicting emotions and attitudes towards American society, one of intense love and the other an intense hatred. The poem is obviously about love and hatred, but also about hope and somewhat a sense of loss (despair). Consequently, this poem is an illustration of duality in that it traverses two different parallel worlds of love and hate, and also hope and despair. In fact Nina Baym (2008) called it tersely as a “frustrating duality”. Phrases like cultured hell, bread of bitterness, I stand within her walls, darkly I gaze into the days ahead, and etc all points to this ambivalence about America as a country and as a society. Mckay celebrates what America provided for him (bread) but also condemns what America denied him (human rights and equality). This mixed feeling about America, as Ms. Baym argues, is the “dominant attitude portrayed by blacks” during the Jim Crow years of the 1920s. In lines 8 through 10, the narrator in the poem alludes to the confidence and brevity (… as a rebel fronts the king…). This allusion is McKay’s attempt at “perverting the perceived societal norm” of yielding (or not standing up to) authority-the injustice of racial discrimination (Baym, N. 2008). In lines 5 and 6, the narrator alludes to the hope that the emerging nation called America offers.

In this poem, McKay also draws our attention to questions of justice, law and order. Perhaps law and order is presented here as a protector of the status quo- an injustice, which Mckay’s narrator boldly confronts and stands up to. In the last line (line 14)

                              Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand

McKay expresses extreme despair about America’s future, as the great contributions many great men and women (…her might and granite wonders…, line 12), fades away in the sand.

                                                              WORKS CITED:

1.      The Norton Anthology: American Literature. 7^th Ed (2008)

2.      The African-American Grain: The Pursuit of Voice in Twentieth –Century Black Fiction (1988).

3.      Texas Studies in Literature and Language (1993).

STOP THE TYRANNY; LET’S TALK ABOUT POLITICS:

KAYJATTA

The November 24^th, 2011 presidential election approaches in the Gambia, and the debate intensifies over the need and form of an opposition coalition to unseat the regime of President Jammeh. Jammeh , was a junior officer in the army when he led a group of fellow disgruntled officers in a military coup that ended thirty years of democratic rule in the Gambia in July of 1994. Since then, President Jammeh has ruled the Gambia with an iron fist continuously firing civil servants, judges, and national Assembly members; jailing, assassinating, and summarily executing real and perceived opponents.  Media houses have been torched, journalists are intimidated on a daily basis, and all forms of dissent-including opposition political parties are suppressed .It should be noted that before Jammeh took over power, the Gambia was roundly hailed as a symbol of stability, peace, and rule of law in a continent mired in civil and military conflict. Since coming to power in the summer of 1994, Jammeh has won three elections amidst widespread intimidation and violence, all controversial and described by international observers as not free and fair.

As the 2011 presidential election approaches, representatives of the opposition parties, namely PDOIS, UDP, PPP, GMC and GDP have intensified negotiations to forge a united front to challenge Jammeh’s APRC regime that has ruled for nearly 18 years. The current negotiations for an opposition merger occurs in the shadow of the previous failed merger called NADD in 2006 that left the opposition heavily divided and disorganized. The negotiations are so far stalled for the following reasons:

1.      The United Democratic Party (UDP), the largest opposition party wants to be the unconditional leader of the coalition to be represented by its long time presidential candidate, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe.

2.      The National Reconciliation Party (NRP), represented by Mr. Hamat Bah, a former hotel entertainer insists that it is his time to lead.

3.      The People’s Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) insists on the conduction of a primary election (convention) to select the leader for the opposition merger.

This stalemate has generated an intense debate inside and outside of the Gambia about the way forward. However, the real argument or negotiation has since been stifled and the whole effort has been reduced to accusations, vilifications and ridicule of those considered to be the obstacle. Some stakeholders in the Diaspora, including the Freedom Radio and newspaper have viciously attacked Halifa Sallah and PDOIS for their stance on the need for a convention of delegates to select a leader. These third party stakeholders are pushing for an unconditional UDP-led coalition because they believe that there is no more time for continued negotiations. Yet they failed to realize that for over a year Halifa Sallah and PDOIS/NADD has been selling the idea of “Agenda 2011” without serious support from the Diaspora and other opposition parties. Now all of a sudden, there is no time!!! All of a sudden the idea of a convention or primary election is in the domain of “academia”!!!

Again, in my humble view, the Gambians have shown their true color-the contempt for institutions, due process, and procedure. Halifa Sallah, the United States trained sociologist is the only political leader who stands for due process, a mechanism to select a leader that can be accepted by all. Everybody else in the crowd is opting for sycophancy and patronage-two familiar words in Gambian body politics. In the Gambia, it appears institutions do not matter; due process does not matter. How is democracy possible without respect for institutions and due process? Lack of time is not an excuse for this apparent tyranny of the majority. This lack of Gambian respect for institutions and due process in favor of sycophancy and patronage is again being played out in another event unfolding in the Gambia currently-in the matter of Moses Richards, Lamin K. Mboge, the Bar Association and President Jammeh.

It should be clear to all that PDOIS ( Halifa)’s significance is not measured by its less than 10% electoral share of votes as critics like to argue, rather it is measured by the weight of his ideas. That is what made Halifa an incredibly huge authority figure in Gambian affairs. Besides, if the majoritarian camp really believes that PDOIS and Halifa are so insignificant, why are they wasting so much time trying to get their support?

African politics, opposition politics for that matter is an adaptation to the succession of ruling parties since independence in the 1950s and 1960s. It is largely characterized by longevity, single candidature, and personality cults. I am deeply concerned that the Gambia is poised to preserve this legacy beyond Jammeh’s rule.

LITERARY ANALYSIS: A FEATURE POEM

KAYJATTA

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN: BY ROBERT FROST

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference


1. What type of choices do you think the fork in the road represents for the narrator?
The fork in the road represents only a choice to take a chance based on faith and free will since both roads are equally travelled and there is no way of knowing what lies ahead by taking any one particular road. The choice presented here is perhaps a metaphor for the daily challenges of decision making in life. It might also be a reference to fate and predetermination or determinism.

2. What reason(s) does Frost give for choosing the road he chose?
The reason Frost gives for choosing the road he chose is that "it was grassy and wanted wear" (pg. 1801, Line 8), but we know this is bogus because he later said in lines 9 and 10 that both roads are really "...worn about the same"; and "both that morning equally lay / In leaves no step had trodden black" (Lines 11, 12). Frost has made a life decision about choosing one road over another since he could not travel both roads, and there is no clear reason just like many decisions in life...
.
3. Does the sigh signal a sign of relief? Or hesitation that he should have chosen the other path? Why?
I think the 'sigh' signal is not as much a sign of relief or hesitation as such, rather it might be an attempt at self scrutiny and accountability. Frost or the narrator seems to anticipate a future reflection and scrutiny of his decision and perhaps his own interpretation of it as having taken "...the road less traveled by, / ...that has made all the difference" (Lines 19, 20). This interpretation is fraught with bias and insincerity because there is no way of knowing what opportunities he may have missed by not taking the other road....

September 28, 2011

KAYJATTA

THE ATLANTA EXPOSITION ADDRESS; BY BOOKER T. WASHINGTON

Booker T. Washington, one of the foremost black leaders in history, from the mid 19^th century to the early 20^th century, believes that the path for African Americans to attain equality with White Americans is through economic self-determination instead of political and civil agitation.  He referred to such agitation as the “extremist folly” (pg. 1741), in his celebrated speech at the historic Atlanta Exposition. Washington advised skills training, hard work, frugality, and strict morality as the path to economic liberation for the 19^th and 20^th century African Americans (Huso, D. 2011. R & L Publishing, Ltd). He insists that economic liberation must precede political and civil rights. Washington posits an integrationist view of history in that he preaches unity and better race relations between blacks and whites based on mutual interests. He captures this idea eloquently in his ‘fingers/hand’ analogy as thus; “In all things that are purely social, we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress” (Washington, B.T. 1901). Mr. Washington laments the untapped vast potential of African Americans-nearly sixteen million in population which if alienated and excluded could remain a huge security and economic burden to both the South and the Northern states, but he also praised the white community for their support and outreach to African Americans to take part in commerce particularly at the business exposition in Atlanta (Lauter, P. 2004; pg. 1740, 1741). He argued that the fates of both races-the oppressor and-the oppressed-are tied to each other by an act of history. Washington often alluded to the Christian values of service to others and the rewards that await those who give service to others (Lauter, P. ; pg. 1744). Booker T. Washington’s apparent centrist views endeared him to both sides of the racial divide. However, his pledge of African American support and advice for African American acceptance of less than equal work and political opportunities, at least for the time being appeared to have eroded his popularity with some black leaders of his time. He came to be considered as too subservient and accommodating to the white community and for not “pushing hard enough for equal rights” (Huso, D. 2011) perhaps partly because of his powerful northern white financiers such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Carnegie and Rockefeller largely funded Washington’s school, the Tuskegee Institute, a premier black institute for higher learning. Washington’s scathing criticism of the African American clergy at the time also further strained his relationship with prominent black leaders and ministers, although he was later vindicated. Booker T.Washington’s alleged soft stance on equal rights, economic and political integration sharply contrasts other black leaders such as W. E. B. Du Bois, one of the founders of NAACP who issued categorical demands to the white community and laid out his expectations and obligations of White Americans. Washington’s greatest contribution was his services at the Tuskegee Institute and education he provided to the African American community.

REFERENCE:

1.      UP FROM SLAVERY, 1901

2.      R & L Publishing, Ltd. (dba SUCCESS Media)

LITERARY COMMENTARY:

KAYJATTA

THE YELLOW WALL PAPER; BY GILMAN

The Yellow Wall Paper represents the male-dominant society depicted in Gilman’s short story. It is repugnant, just as the society it represented.

Gilman’s short story, The Yellow Wall Paper” is written in the first person.  Gilman appears to be the writer as she describes her “nervous depression” (pg. 1598) and her subsequent confinement by her husband, John. The story is about her medical condition- a hysteria characterized by nervous depression, a common diagnosis for women of her time. Gilman sets out to address issues of women’s health, gender and separate spheres of existence. There is a sharp contrast between her more practical, scientifically rational husband, John and her own irrational sensibilities (pg. 1598). She feels helplessness in the face of the male power exhibited by John and her brother both of whom are doctors. The author in the story talked eloquently about the house but couldn’t participate in offering ideas about her own medical condition. This again goes to affirm the separate spheres of gender (pg. 1598-1599). She talked about how to “dress and entertain and order things”, a typical women’s role (pg. 1600). The author mentions her baby that Mary is so good about, and how nervous she gets for being away from. She compares this to the fact that John never gets nervous, again illustrating gender expectations and separate spheres of existence. Gilman’s confinement to the house, nearly barred from all kinds of stimulation-writing, society, etc- while her husband, John works long hours points to the women’s confinement to the domestic sphere. The story is also about powerlessness. The author’s obsession and dislike of the wall paper indicates her feelings towards the gendered stereotypes of her society (pg. 1608).

THE WHITE HERON; BY JEWETT:

Sylvia’s rejection of the hunter’s money in defense of the environment and nature as represented by the White Heron illustrates her innocence and maturity, her humanity and sense of selflessness (pg 1642). This defense of nature can perhaps be explained by Sylvia’s relationship with the cow, Mistress Molly and her aging grandmother. Mistress Molly and the surrounding wilderness and its wildlife are an important part of Sylvia’s life, devoid largely of any other human interaction. This short story by Sarah Orne Jewett addresses a conflict between nature and human influences or nature and society.

The story parallels the simple natural purity of rural life represented by Sylvia and the White Heron against the corrupted artificial urban life that the hunter represents. It is a conflict of two value systems, one of spirituality and private appreciation of nature and the other of materialistic and public utility of wealth. Sylvia’s love of nature trumps her love of money and the manufacturing town she came from (pg. 1630). This is a superior state of knowledge and maturity.

Literary sources:

1.      Sarah Orne Jewett’s White Heron: An imported metaphor, Sheri Joseph Vol.27 No. 3 (Spring 1995)

2.      Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, Karen Ford Vol 4, Issue 2 (1985).

BURDEN OF PROOF:

KAYJATTA

And then I sat there
And they talked in the dingy office
Saying an alleged father
For a burden of proof
I 'm sure imprinted
On a July night in The Gambia
I have the genes

That my words fail
For a burden of proof
Obvious on a July night
Shining the foggy  mind
Of an alleged father
For a burden of proof
That drilled my core

 Time fossilized
Racked my genes for a descendant
All of evolutionary epoch fixated in West Africa.

LITERARY COMMENTARY:

KAYJATTA

LAY DIS BODY DOWN: A FOLK SONG

This is a song from the “Songs of the Slaves” collection. It is a song about reunion, a longing for peace. It expresses a hope for salvation and a respite from suffering. The repetition of the phrase “I lay dis body down” indicates a resting period or state after a period of suffering or difficulty. It is a moment of peace, according to Col. James Wentworth Higginson (Phylon, 1953). There are several expressions in the song that symbolize a period of tribulation, for example in the first line (I know moon -rise, I know star-rise), third line (I walk in de moon light, I walk in de starlight), fifth line (I walk in de graveyard, I walk troo de graveyard), and the seventh line (I lie in de grave an’ stretch my arms). These expressions represent a period of collective difficulty that a group of people, the slaves perhaps have to endure. Their lives were suffering just like the depressed light characteristic of moonlight and starlight which are both far less than the perfect daylight that a normal or an ideal life would be.

And when they go to the judgment, it was still in the evening of the day, as stated in line nine. The only time day breaks and their souls meet, and suffering ends perhaps; is when they lay their bodies down. Therefore, the refrain “When I lay dis body down” might mean death. Here death is the only event that will bring peace, rest and reunion.

I’M NOBODY! WHO ARE YOU? EMILY DICKINSON

This poem by Emily Dickinson is about acceptance or unacceptance, intimacy and a fear of being discovered. Dickinson, although from a privileged upbringing, considers herself an outsider in a tightly conservative society centered around church and the family with clear-cut gender roles. Hence, “I’m Nobody…”. Dickinson appears to have found a pair in someone and told her not to tell anyone because they would be banished, in the third and fourth lines. In the last stanza, Emily Dickinson expresses her fear of being public, to be “somebody”. He compared this to a frog that screams all summer “to an admiring bog”. This perhaps refers to the reproductive behavior of frogs and toads in the wetlands during the summer months of June through august. But the “admiring bog” could also be referring to the public whose approval Dickinson no longer seeks partly because she is certain of disapproval. Dickinson appears to be comfortable in her existence as a “nobody” and in the company of fellow nobodies. She has no aspiration to be “somebody” which she views as “dreary”.

This poem, in many respects, is also a celebration of individuality-as a physical, spiritual, and intellectual being. Emily Dickinson, in this poem, has also created and addressed a conflict between the individual (a woman) and the Judeo-Christian God of her time as characteristic of her disruptive unusually long dashes; as in “How dreary ---- to be---somebody!" (American National Biography online, February 2000). It is a rejection of a society that had rejected her- a society that demanded a standardization of human thought and behavior.

Commodores - Nightshift

KAYJATTA

AN ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENT JAMMEH'S 2011 MEET THE PEOPLE'S TOUR:

KAYJATTA

On July 21, 2011 President Jammeh returns to Banjul following a ten day "Meet-the-People" tour that took him around the country to meet with the people. The tour is a constitutional requirement, and has been practiced by his predecessor, Sir Dawda K. Jawara.
President Jammeh's return to Banjul coincides with the eve of the 17th anniverssary of the July 22, 1994 military coup that toppled the thirty-year democratic regime of Sir Dawda Jawara.
The 2011 "Meet-the-People" tour kicked off at Barra, North Bank Region (NBR). Jammeh's entourage, which included a cross section of  top government officials, security officers, and APRC party officials, received a tumultous welcome in Barra by a large crowd led by Governor Edward Seckan, the Chiefs of NBR and the former Chief of Lower Niumi , Tabora Manneh a prominent victim of the "Presidential witch hunt" years ago.
From Barra (Niumi), President Jammeh proceeded to Farafenni in Baddibu, Soma in Jarra, Kiag, Basse,Wuli and Foni among other places. The theme of this year's tour is "youths and development". Jammeh recalled in every occassion the infrastructural development achieved by his government since 1994, and urged the youths to take the opportunities available at home to contribute in national development. However, Jammeh's patronage and outreach to the youths clearly underlies his preoccupation with the youth-led uprisings elsewhere on the African continent, notably Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Jammeh thanked the people, and sometimes demanded appreciation and loyalty for the developments his government brought to them.
The tour itself, as stated earlier, is a constitutional requirement and (should be) not a political tour as both the President and his critics insist, however at every stop President Jammeh repeatedly appealed for votes in the upcoming November elections in exchange for any further development assistance. Jammeh insisted that the November election will decide those communities who want development and those who do not want development, and often derided Baddibu (Salikene to be specific) as an example of a community that is being punished for its opposition to the APRC government. Jammeh mocked that if you see any dirty passenger at the ferry terminal in Barra, you should know that he or she is from Salikene, referring to the lack of good roads to Salikene. This is shameful though, because despite political opinion, these are tax-paying Gambians whose tax money funds all government;'s development programs. Jammeh also made it categorically clear to the people that whether they vote for him or not, he is going to win. He reminded them that he did not come to power on July 22, 1994 through elections in the first place and that he is going to rule the Gambia for as long as he wants to. Jammeh, who entertains a 99% electoral victory predited by Mayor Yankuba Colley, APRC campaign director and a campaign by the district chiefs for his coronation as the first king of the Gambia said he doesn't in fact need elections to remain in power. These statements by President Jammeh didn't help the image of the Gambia's electoral process, already tainted by registration fraud. Jammeh's political grandstanding and sometimes outright bullying also reflects the level of political consciousness in the Gambia.
The argument by the opposition that the Presidential tour should remain apolitical is a futile argument in my view, however. The presidency is a political post and whether Jammeh admits it or not, he is a politician. The issues that Jammeh deals with on a daily basis are in the public realm, and therefore political in nature. Therefore, it is impossible for the president to "dialogue with the people" while remaining apolitical, especially in an election year. I think it will be rather more appropriate to have legislation to skip the tour in an election year so as to avoid an undue advantage for the president in the political field.
The President was well received across the country for the most part. However, parts of Kiang, Jarra, and Wuli were problematic for the president's entourage. The meetings were poorly attended and less enthusiastic. President Jammeh, true to his military nature-always with the burning desire to destroy his opponents- issueed dire warnings to the people of these opposition strongholds about the suffering (of lack of development, disinvestment, and isolation) that awaits them if they remain in opposition to his government. It should be noted that these are regions that have been isolated and marginalized for years by the APRC regime, whose development plans follow political boundaries in total disregard to economic reality.