By Alagi Yorro Jallow
Selective outrage and inherited grievances undermine public debate in The Gambia, resulting in tribalized criticism and silencing dissent until it becomes convenient. We must commit to principled and honest intellectual discourse.
Selective outrage and borrowed enemies undermine honest debate. Some who were silent under dictatorship now speak out in democracy. Criticism should be principled, not tribal or inherited. A democracy cannot survive on selective courage. Too often in The Gambia, attacks are based on popularity rather than principle. People chase applause by holding grudges rather than developing independent convictions. This is conformity disguised as courage. I've challenged Dr. Ismaila Ceesay’s policies and decisions. That is legitimate, democratic, and necessary. But my criticism is never personal or inherited; it is always about ideas, not vendettas or tribe.
Our national discourse is suffering from a crisis of selective outrage, borrowed enmity, and intellectual dishonesty. Too many people attack individuals not because of principle, but because it is fashionable. Too many inherit other people’s enemies rather than form their own convictions. Too many speak loudly only when the target is safe, and remain silent when courage is costly. This is not the civic culture The Gambia needs. This is not the intellectual maturity our democracy requires.
There is a truth that must be said with dignity: Anyone who refused to criticize Yahya Jammeh’s 22‑year dictatorship has no moral authority to lecture anyone today. For two decades, Gambians were detained, exiled, tortured, disappeared, and silenced. Journalists were hunted. Students were shot. Families were torn apart. Entire communities lived in fear. During those years, many of the loudest voices today were silent. Not a word. Not a whisper. Not a sentence of solidarity. Some refused to criticize Jammeh because he was from their tribe. Some refused because silence was safer. Some refused because neutrality was more comfortable than truth. Yet today, these same voices find extraordinary energy to condemn a civilian minister in a democratic government. This is not courage. It is convenient. It is selective outrage masquerading as principle.
Fatoumatta: I have challenged Dr. Ismaila Ceesay in government on his arguments, decisions, and positions. That is necessary and democratic. But Dr. Ceesay is not Yahya Jammeh; he did not run a dictatorship, torture Gambians, or preside over a reign of terror. To equate his role in government with the brutality of a 22‑year autocracy is not analysis. It is an exaggeration. It is historical amnesia. It is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that weakens public debate.
What Dr. Ceesay taught as a political science lecturer is not identical to the constraints of governing. Theory and governance are not the same terrain. One is a classroom; the other is a battlefield of competing interests, institutional limitations, and political realities. Critique him, yes. Hold him accountable, yes. But do so with fairness, context, and intellectual honesty.
David Kujabi’s recent commentary on Dr. Ceesay is notable for its literary style, which is eloquent, poetic, and sharply written. But eloquence is not evidence. Poetry is not proof. And metaphor is not analysis. However, rhetorical skill is not a substitute for a substantiated argument. It is relevant to observe, factually and dispassionately, that Mr. Kujabi worked in the Gambia Police Force during a period when state institutions, including the police, were implicated in repression. This is included solely as historical background.
During those years, many Gambians suffered under state power. Yet we did not hear Mr. Kujabi’s voice in the national struggle against dictatorship. Silence is a choice, and he had the right to make that choice. But silence during tyranny and loudness during democracy is a contradiction worth examining, especially when that loudness is directed at individuals who never presided over repression.
To criticize Dr. Ceesay today while never having criticized Jammeh yesterday is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of selective courage. And selective courage is the enemy of intellectual honesty.
One of the most corrosive habits in our political culture is the tendency to inherit other people’s enemies. Some individuals attack public figures not because they disagree with their ideas, but because they have adopted someone else’s grudges. Others criticize leaders from different communities while protecting those from their own. This is not justice. This is not activism. This is tribalized criticism, and it is dangerous. A democracy cannot grow on borrowed hostility. A nation cannot mature on inherited grudges. A public debate cannot thrive on selective outrage. The Gambia deserves a higher standard of debate. We must cultivate a political culture where criticism is principled, not tribal; disagreement is intellectual, not personal; accountability is consistent, not selective; and truth is universal, not seasonal.
I will continue to critique policies, ideas, and governance failures. I will continue to defend truth, justice, and accountability. But I will not participate in the politics of personal destruction. The Gambia deserves better. Our democracy deserves better. Our public discourse deserves better.
No comments:
Post a Comment