The Road to Self Determination and Independence On the 18 February celebrations—Part 2

By Halifa Sallah, Banjul

It goes without saying that those who took over the country in 1965 had the task to build a state which could guarantee the general welfare of the people as manifested in its civil, political, economic, social and cultural aspects. For 45 years since the declaration of Independence, it is sad to inform the Gambian people that over eighty percent of our annual development budget has always been derived from loans and grants. The bulk of schools, roads, hospitals, airports, generators, agricultural projects and so on and so forth have been made available through loans and grants.  Under the first Republic one could recall 109 Million dollars being allocated to the Gambia as Official Development Assistance by the European Commission. In 1992 alone 19 Million dollars was disbursed to finance many projects.  One could recall the Banjul sewerage and drainage system, the Upper River Division Integrated Development Programme and the Divisional Development Programme which were financed under the European Development Fund.

Secondly, by 2004, the European Union under the Ninth EDF Programme had allocated 51 Million Euros as a grant to the Gambia. This excluded the Bi-lateral arrangements Gambia has with many European countries. In short, Gambians will be shocked to discover that many developments that they have their eyes on are by products of grants and loans while post colonial governments continue to claim that they have done better than their colonial masters, even though they go back to those governments with collection plates or hats in hand for development assistance. The dependence of the country on loans and grants will be treated in greater detail in the book so as to show the billions which had flowed into the country during these 45 years and then question what had been done to extricate our people from poverty. It is therefore abundantly clear that since over 80% of the Development budget of the Country has been coming from loans and grants these 45 years, no leader of the Gambia for these 45 years has any moral authority to claim that they have created a self reliant basis for economic development. What is in fact evident during these 45 years is the graduation of the country from being a permanent member of the least developed countries of the world to become a permanent member of the heavily indebted poor countries of the world. This is certainly not an enviable track record for the leaders of any country that is to assert and consolidate its right to self-determination and Independence. If any former or present Minister of Finance is in disagreement with this conclusion I would be willing to engage the person in a debate in writing or through the electronic media.

It is also important to mention in passing that classifying countries into Developed, Developing and Under- developed Countries is arbitrary and has no scientific foundation. These classifications will be debunked in a Journal on Political Economy to be produced periodically by the People’s Centre For Social Science Research. We will give valid analysis to discredit this development paradigm and defend the classification of the economies of the world into those that are internally and those that are externally motivated, directed and determined.

45 years ago the Gambia required the introduction of a development model that was fundamentally different from the colonial one. The colonial model was an externally motivated, directed and determined development model. The development model for self determination and Independence had to be internally motivated, directed and determined. It is trivial for leaders of Independent Nations to compare the present state of their nations with their colonial past. What they are required to do is to render account on how far they have gone to rely on an internally motivated, directed and determined development model to promote the general welfare of the people. Anything short of this is an exercise in futility. In short, it is common and elementary knowledge that the colonial model was designed to repatriate wealth for the benefit of the colonial powers. Hence investment went to build airports, roads, railways and ports in colonies which could transport Natural, Mineral and Energy resources for the benefit of the Colonizers. This helped to build their National economies and ensured a multiplying effect in the expansion of industries, financial institutions, infrastructure and general welfare at home to the detriment of the colonies abroad. On the other hand, the people in the colonies benefited from the trickling down effect of the remnants left in colonies after the harnessing of natural, mineral and energy resources which are processed abroad.

Leaders who took over in 1965 should have paved the way for the articulation and implementation of an internally motivated, directed and determined development model for self determination and Independence . Since 2010 is a decisive year in enhancing the quality of citizenship of the Gambian people, allow me take this opportunity to share what this model entails so as to broaden the minds of people. In short, knowledge must be demystified and made a property of the people. It entailed the linkage between the building of a productive base to support infrastructural development and the provision of the services required to enhance general welfare. The productive base inherited from colonialism could be classified into four branches, that is, public, private, cooperative and informal sectors.

The building of the productive base required the creation of appropriate technology to produce raw materials from our natural, mineral and energy resources in order to process them to meet local needs and for export. This called for the proportionate division of income derived from all the four sectors to meet cost of production, consumption and savings or accumulation for sustained investment and thus give a multiplying effect to the expansion of the productive base, infrastructural development and general welfare.

This is only conceivable if the leaders at Independence provided a transparent and accountable foundation for Administering and Managing public enterprises and exercised strategic guidance for the development of the private, cooperative and informal sectors to contribute to the expansion of the productive base and general welfare.

For 45 years a development model has not been articulated and implemented to make our self determination and Independence a reality.

The Government which took over on 18 February 1965 inherited and maintained an economic base which depended largely on the production and exportation of groundnuts and the importation of manufactured goods for commerce. There was very limited diversification into processing to create value added products to ensure employment generation and expansion of the productive base to facilitate revenue growth for investment in Infrastructure and social services. Hence the dependence on a one crop economy led to low earnings from exports and the importation of virtually everything the country needed. This led to low earnings from exports and  high expenditure on imports which resulted to growing trade deficits.

In the same vein, the narrow productive base led to low generation of revenue while the demand for social services and the need to run the public service necessitated growth in expenditure. The rise in expenditure above revenue led to budget deficits. The country had to depend on loans and grants to deal with the budget deficits.

Since the revenue generated could not even sustain the public sector and social services, income for infrastructural development was also in short supply. Consequently, the government had to depend on loans and grants to finance infrastructural development. Despite the existence of Agricultural, Commercial and Development banks no significant investment went into the productive base for income generation to pay debts. The Gambia continued to be a transit economy where goods and foreign exchange or international currencies were transited just to leave behind what trickled down to the population.

It is therefore no surprise that the growth in the budget deficits and trade deficits accelerated beyond manageable proportions causing the National debt to skyrocket to unsustainable levels. This led to total Macroeconomic breakdown in 1985 causing the IMF and World Bank to put the Gambian economic situation under their supervision. Three things were important to these supervisors of the Gambian economy to mo6ivate them to award certificate of good health. The budget deficit had to be controlled even if it meant contraction of the public service and social services. Secondly, enough foreign exchange had to be squeezed from the economy annually to maintain a certain level of foreign reserves to get balance of payment support. Thirdly, the country had to be consistent in paying its debts. Once this could be achieved the Macroeconomic environment was certified to be satisfactory. It did not matter whether over 60 percent of the population lives below the poverty line with many  surviving on rice pudding or bread with sugar which has been a cause of growth in diabetes and anemia . It did not mater whether people continued to sleep in huts and lying on grass mattresses infested with bed bugs and fleas.

Despite the IMF and World Bank intervention in 1985 the country continued to depend on one crop and the budget continued to depend on duties on imported goods for revenue. It also continued to depend on loans and grants for infrastructural development. For example in 1991/92 Financial year 62.4% of the development budget came from external loans; 25.7% came from grants and the local contribution was just 11.9%. The state started to go through a process of regression as public enterprises were privatised to finance the National debt. Retrenchment of workers had to be conducted to reduce public expenditure. Hence by the time of the coup of 1994 the Government which led the Country since 1965 had demonstrated its total incapacity to attain the goals of self determination and independence in its juridical, civil, political, economic, social and cultural dimensions.

Those who took over in 1994 could have acknowledged that they are sovereign citizens who had no authority to govern without the mandate of the people. They could have called for a National convention of all the party representatives and opinion leaders in order to prepare a transitional arrangement for the country which could have given the people a new start. They however proceeded to establish a government which imposed its will on the people. Their first assault was on the Republican Constitution with all its monarchical encumbrances inherited from the colonial juridical instruments. They suspended some parts of the Constitution and placed the other provisions under the supremacy of decrees.  This made the Council the maker of the law. The second assault was on the rights of the sovereign people. The Council banned parties and political activities in violation of the fundamental principles of self determination and Independence . The Coup makers set themselves on a monarchical path by exercising legislative and executive powers which enabled them to bind the hands of the judiciary with decrees and arrest and detain at will. No oversight institution existed to check and control maladministration or mis-governance.

 Despite the restoration of a constitution and elections the omnipotence of the executive is ever prevalent which is manifested by the placement of people under long detentions without trial in violation of the 72 hours time limit established by the 1997 constitution fo detention without court appearance. Where the powers of the executive, National Assembly and Judiciary start and end is defined by law but very amorphous in practice. Administrative orders tend to take precedence over the dictates of statutes. This is why detention of prominent people without trial has become a norm.

 It goes without saying that from 1994 to date the government of the second Republic also maintains a one crop economy. There is no diversification of the productive base of the economy to link raw material production to processing and technological development to manufacture simple processing and labour saving devices to enhance value added production, employment and revenue generation for social and infrastructural development.  The country still imports what it consumes and consumes what it does not produce.

It is therefore not a surprise that as late as 2008 exports amounted to approximately, 300 Million dalasis while Imports stood at 7100 Million dalasis leaving the country with a trade deficit of 6800 Million dalasis.

Since the productive base of the economy is narrow it is no surprise that revenue is not enough to meet expenditure. This is why the budget deficit in 2009 is projected to be 363 Million dalasis.

The country still depends on loans and grants to carry out development projects. To be specific,  in 2004, the Development expenditure stood at 1637 Million dalasis. 71.8 % of the total sum was derived from loans and 14.7% comprised the Grant element. This confirms that 86.5% of the development budget for 2004 was derived from loans and grants. This has been the trend since 1994 and after 2004.

Suffice it to say that development which thrives on debt without a proportional growth of the productive base of the economy is bound to lead to indebtedness. It is therefore no surprise that by 2004 the debt had gone beyond the 20 billion dalasis mark with the external debt comprising 17.85 billion dalasis and the internal debt adding up to 2.18 billion dalasis. The debt became so unsustainable that the Government had to appeal to the IMF and World Bank for assistance to manage it. The country had to be put under supervision for four years by the Board of Directors of the World Bank and The IMF until 17/18 December 2007 when they decided that it was qualified to receive debt relief as a heavily indebted poor country.

 Even though it is officially acknowledged that 61.2 percent of the population is living below the poverty line, occupying congested housing or huts; sleeping on mats and grass mattresses infested with bedbugs, lice and fleas; the government would be commended by the IMF and World bank as long as it is capable of maintaining its budget deficit below the 200 Million dalasis mark, maintain foreign reserves to cover the required number of months of import cover and service its debts.

The country continues to run a transit economy which depends on the re-exportation of imported goods and the influx of foreign exchange which has no visible impact in diversifying the economy or increasing investment in the productive base to a substantial level. For example, in 2008 alone the sales of foreign exchange in the inter bank market amounted to 1.6 Billion dollars or over 40000 Million dalasis. The leaders past and present continue to peddle the myth that foreigners come to the Gambia because of the buoyancy of its economy. They failed to realise that since the war in Guinea Bissau and then Casamance, Liberia and Sierra Leone billions were transited through the Gambia as people with money escaped these wars and settled in the Gambia temporarily before moving on to greener pastures. It is this transit economy which has expanded the lucrative nature of the financial sector. However since the money is on transit it does not sustain the productive base of the economy. Hence despite the attempt to add a lottery economy to the transit economy the productive base of the economy is not expanding and poverty is the order of the day.  Farmers are still finding it difficult to sell their groundnuts on time and they have no farmers’ cooperatives which are empowered to negotiate producer prices in relation to the world market prices and the Technical, administrative and management cost of marketing. For example the world market price for groundnuts in 2008 was 36000 dalasis per tonne while the producer price was put at 8000 dalasis per ton without any explanation being given to the farmers. The women still do not have labour saving and drudgery reducing devices and work from sun up to sun down without any link being put to the productive base for the marketing of their produce. Their vegetables perish for lack of storage facilities and inability to reach markets. There is no established National Market for the sale of livestock, no guarantee of the availability of meat, no national programme to facilitate artificial insemination, no guaranteed pastures , no identification of fodder which could be produced and stored, no significant productive enterprises which could provide diary products for the Nation. Unemployment is increasing as Pensioners receive starvation allowances. Many People still sleep in congested housing environments on grass mattresses or mats infested with bed bugs.

It is evident that a productive base has not been created to sustain our infrastructural development and create the social services we need such as education and health to meet the needs of a country that has genuinely attained the right to self determination and Independence.

In short, there is no nationwide road network that would allow for a nationwide transport service which could promote free movement of goods, services and people and thus facilitate the growth of productive establishments and communities along its route. The same could be said for river transport and internal flights.

In building an education system one must determine what to teach and why for each category of learners. 45 years have elapsed without a standard curriculum. Few people could say why our children start school at 7 when they used to start school at 5 during the colonial period. There is no doubt that before the Children’s Act would put maturity age to be an adult to be 18 the issue the school going age should have been addressed. This debate will be initiated this year to prepare the ground for change in 2011.The way forward will touch on it as a start. It goes without saying that no education system could be viable without making it a right for each child to be taught by a qualified teacher who has mastered the craft of the classroom. No education system could be viable without the production and use of standard learning materials and the building of an intellectual cadre who would be able to add to the stock of learning materials and make periodic review to update them. No education system could be viable without guaranteeing access to such learning material to each learner. 45 years after the declaration of Independence we are still unable to build a viable education system from the early childhood level to the university level.

It goes without saying that learning should be linked to a productive and contributive life. Over 300,000 young people are put into the street by the education system every 12 years without any visible preparation to make them productive. They are all thrown at the mercy of blind destiny.

It goes without saying that the building of health infrastructure must be based on needs assessment. There can be no viable health system without a scientific study of disease trends in the country. This is the way to determine  what areas priority should be given to preventive, curative or rehabilitative health. Even tradition medicine should be given clinical configuration; otherwise it would amount to turning human beings into guinea pigs for amateurish experimentation. A viable health system would train health personnel according to needs. A viable health system would have the labs needed to do the test required and the drugs needed to effect the treatment prescribed. Many diseases now exist in the country which could be prevented through health education. Many could be prevented through poverty eradication. 45 years after the declaration of Independence we have not put in place a comprehensive policy and their attendant strategies to address the health needs of the population.

There is no need to go into the issue of housing and other welfare issues.    Despite these socio –economic realities the current leadership is reconstructing the colonial state apparatus. As we commemorate 45 years of Independence, the juridical instrument of the second Republic is being encroached on to reduce the powers of the people and increase the powers of the executive to control the village heads, the Chiefs and the local councils. In fact, the executive has gone as far as to create the office of paramount chief. It is claimed that electing heads of villages and chiefs is not in line with custom. However the option created for them is to be dismissed with immediate effect in accordance with the whims and caprices of the executive.  

Furthermore every effort is being made to assert the supremacy of the executive. There is no distinction between the executive, party and state. Every effort is being done to promote the doctrine of the divine right to rule. The principle of no taxation without representation is no longer a point of reference. The state media is encouraged to sing praises to constituted authority and not to create awareness as was envisaged by Edward Francis small. The Unions, Rate payers Associations and farmer’s cooperatives which promoted the welfare of their members are no longer visible. Needless to say, a culture of coups is being deliberately perpetuated as well as the personification of power which promotes the old trend of presidency for life. Anthems have been developed, songs have been made and commemorations organised to promote the culture of the coups. 45 years after the declaration of independence our children are being taught songs which glorify coup d’etat and trivialise the sovereignty of the people. This is the time each of them should have known to their finger tips that the people’s will power and that power alone is the determinant of legitimate authority of a state.Civic Education for citizenship should have been a standard part of the curriculum at all levels.

Each of us should now ask ourselves the question: After 45 years could we say that we have attained the right to self determination and Independence? Are the people really in charge? Is authority derived from their consent free from inducement or fear? Is that authority exercised to promote nothing but their general welfare? If your answer is in the negative then we need to articulate a way forward. Where do we go from here? That is the question I will now proceed to address.

To be continued.