Insecurity and Corruption

All the pomp and gauche display of significance in this country is a mark of insecurity. It's the only thing I know that craves distinction that much, and that's why here, even forgetting to call some people by their honorifics is a big deal. In fact, some prefer their titles to their actual names... like, instead of Omar, say Alhagie, or Director, or Doctor, or Honourable, etc. 

The thing with insecurity is that it produces rivalry, and where there's rivalry, people tend to envy success than be inspired by it. In fact, I want to argue that it's the root cause of corruption in this country, and it starts with say you landing a new job and wanting to be regarded as relatively accomplished, or that the time for everyone to look up to you is now. 

Like fate would have it, soon what you set your heart upon is all yours... like you wanted to feel and do better than those lazy brains who do no one any good, and now you have it; everything falls on you, like you wanted, right?

Well, until your salary is no longer enough, but you still want to keep up with the amazing feeling of being the tekki (successful) one, then you dip your hands into the proverbial cookie jar, rationalising each dip with the good you do, like helping pay a certain neighbour's medical bill, some kid's tuition, a cousin's travel expenses, while occasionally treating yourself to some of finest stuff money has to offer.

Henry Ford said 'givers have to set limits because takers rarely do.' But in your case, as exhausting as the demands have become, you may not have the luxury to do that, because folks don't react well to saying "no," and unfortunately, their validation is your most powerful currency.

It's an amazing feeling before it expires, but when it does, the consequence is usually a rude awakening - you know, you not getting to realise that nothing's actually simpler and enduring a reputation than being simply you, until you get caught with your hand in the unholy source of the philanthropy you're noted for.

Tact is a Social Skill

Tact, learn it and you can remove the stinger from any bee without getting stung, trust me! The say it’s ‘the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.’

Some think it’s gutless, so they become so gutsy that they offend others without knowing, or make sweeping condemnations and expect no one to object, and true, people hardly do, because the next thing is: banking on some vacuum-minded bandwagon, they'll nurture a sense of victimhood, putting a spin on your objection as either a sign of complicity or you’re intolerant.

Here’s a true story to relate – and reader discretion is advised:

Once upon a time, a friend, Paco, felt snitched on to the Drug Squad, and his suspects were the elders of his community. So he went bonkers: “Pa yi fi denj nuka ndeyam” (the elders here are all motherfuckers). Another friend, Bobo, took offense and retorted in Fula: a’konti baaba ma (including your dad).

Surprisingly, we all blamed Bobo for taking shit personal, and you know why? Because the generalised disrespect was done amid fellow stoners who don’t like the Drug Squad, for the reason that they make criminals outta descent folks, and these elders were seen to be getting in the way of that absolute liberty being sought fi di ganja herb.

Attitudinal Change

Everyone in The Gambia is crying out for “attitudinal change;” none is taking a hard look in the mirror. I will tell you what, ATEKELA! (it isn’t gonna happen), and that’s not me putting an evil tongue on, I’m just being realistic.

Attitude is not some software that you buy off the shelf, install it inna di piple and it ready fi use right away. Where I come from, they say it grows like Choka (pubic hair). So, one desires it to grow it, but also groom it, same way attitude is bespoke to fit the demands of one’s environment.

But that’s as long as the “demands of the environment” is keeping with reason and propriety, because today that what’s good is just what’s pleasurable, a lot is socially acceptable that doesn’t even care about the time-tested rules of right conduct

So calling for “attitudinal change” speaks to all of us, to become better versions of ourselves, as it goes even for (or perhaps particularly) those of us who tend to enjoin it on everyone else but ourselves, seemingly forgetting that a person's first responsibility is a person’s self.

Politics of The Gambian intelligentsia

Today’s political participation of the Gambian intelligentsia is like the intervention of the police in horror movies: too late and too loud to be effective, especially after the hero has taken care of the villain, in the same way regular Gambians used their years of in-the-trenches experiences to make the ascension of a supposed inferior possible.  

If you pay attention to movies you will see that when the police come, they only designate the place a crime scene, collect evidence to complete paperwork, and while at it, yelling all over the place: “Stand Back! This is a Crime Scene!  Move, Sir! Ma’am, We Got This!” But all that is after the fact, like maybe their coming late was good riddance to the mess they would’ve made.  

The only difference is, the Gambian “woke” squad doesn’t use those “Do Not Enter” ribbons to pretend activity, they profess know-how on panels - self-importantly seated, legs crossed, ankle over knee, flaunting problem-solving skills that only proffer problems for every solution, and now and then, they’d lean back to a more comfortable position, sip from their glasses to stay hydrated from dwelling on lost opportunities that only give substance to the question: “where were you?”

About criticism

My brother believes that I don't "wilt under criticism." I don’t know... but, if his observation is correct, I’m thankful for adulthood, and how I’m now more about understanding situations than reacting.

The more I get older, the more I realise that truth is irrelevant to people who only want to hear what makes them comfortable. They cannot tolerate the feeling of you saying anything that contradicts their self-justifying narratives. They’d rather keep apart from your views, even if it means unfriending you.

As far as I'm concerned, what to do about criticism should largely if not entirely depend on the source. People who care will always give constructive advice, and theirs may be hard to swallow but it’s coming from a good place; so it’s best that one listens.

When you get attacked by the same people who loved you for telling it like it is, but not this time that you described a certain situation honestly, remember: 'everyone loves a witch hunt as long as it's someone else's witch being hunted.'

If you’re sincerely promoting decency, yourself trying to be good, in the way you know best, yet always spoken evil of, like you’re no good, remember: bad people love company, so they naturally wouldn’t like it when you aren't like them.

If you’re a genuinely kind person, doing the good you do fī sabīli llāh, yet regularly accused of having ulterior motives, remember: self-seeking people judge everyone by their own inclinations. And because they seek nothing but the self, in their eyes, every charitable act is selfish propaganda.

The Paradox of Tolerance

Society cannot be tolerant without limit, says the paradox of tolerance... that "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." 

Way to go, I guess... only that I don't know how practical it is, or whose place it is to set the limit, because the way I see it, today, tolerance or otherwise, like perfection and beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and that's why everyone sees their genre (of intolerance) as tolerable.

An example is how we give free speech a free rein only when people we characterise as bigots question the permissiveness of what they deem obscene, but not when those who consider themselves tolerant censor what they deem offensive.

Just do you...

Lady Mae (from the series “Greenleaf”) said: 'if we avoided every place where enmity and strife once confounded us, we’d all be stranded where we stand," and I believe she’s right.

I take LeBron for instance would've been "stranded" in Cleveland, and probably not have been the most recognisable face that he is in the NBA today, if he had worried more about the boos and hisses that followed his decision to take his talents to South Beach.

You see... sometimes, what makes the 'yay!' or a 'mom, I made it!' moment merrier is looking back at the disapprovals you endured from those who saw you as inadequate, even for what you're sure you can and just want to be the best at. 

So I say if you're going to be damned anyway, it's better to be damned for doing what you feel in your heart to be the right thing to do, than be damned for losing an opportunity that could've changed everything.

Democracy is fragile… handle it with care!

 When a democratic system lacks an enlightened citizenry, the electorate will more than likely be purchasable, and as a result, influencing majority decision is usually contingent on what a candidate is willing to pay or part with. 

It may not satisfy meritocracy, that's for sure, but it is still democracy; at least until it relegates to kakistocracy (a government by the least competent but willing to do whatever it takes).

Now, for unbroken support, a kakistocracy has to remain liquid, and that’s why many soon give their integrity the slip, and the system becomes a kleptocracy (a system marked by inability to resist embezzlement).

See.... what was once a democracy became a kakistocracy, then a kleptocracy, but that’s not all, because a kleptocracy soon creates new men with new money, naturally paving a road for plutocracy, even perhaps to some aristocratic destination someday. 

So, having a democracy is one thing, democratic continuity is another, and it requires everyone's participation in civic life, but not as blindly as it was during the dictatorship that enfeebled civics education in our schools yet gave us a 'notional' council for civic education.

Entangled With Cronyism, Socialism Is As Bad As Capitalism...

I don’t know which economic philosophy is a silver bullet, nor do I have the authority to fault any one of the varied isms as the problem, but what is definitely not the solution is cronyism, and the greed thereof.

Cronyism is like a parasitic plant, not the 'yirifaa sooto’ that only leans on its host for physical support and not necessarily affecting it negatively, but the type of plant that subsists on and sucks the life out of its host.

So the more it takes, the more it weakens the vigour of the host, costing planters their yield, or sometimes totally abandoning their harvest, because they’re sick of it. In the same way, with cronyism as its pest, no ism or system of wealth creation and distribution is out of fraud's way. 

For instance:

If cronyism latches onto capitalism, the only parties it serves are business leaders and public officials, like the Gambia’s once-remarkable Economic Recovery Program (ERP) soon created a mafia circle, along with new and interesting ways of making profits at the expense of public interest.

Likewise, if it were socialism to subsume cronyism, the limits of state power is soon transgressed by those it’s conferred on: the powerful few, tipping the scale of prosperity in their favour. And, before the masses realise that theirs was just an illusion of power, exploitation would’ve taken a heavy toll already.

Indoctrination

Sometimes, we advise against religious indoctrination simply because we are, ourselves, indoctrinated. So we mechanically accept our conservative values as errors we must put right, because that’s what our rote education made us to accept as true, and that's why we parrot accordingly.

But just like when you query a computer database and a response code pops up to indicate an error, all the machine is saying is that it has been conditioned to carry out a request that it probably wasn’t programmed to execute. And if you still think you could do with that information, you need to think outside the device.

As far as I'm concerned, indoctrination is when you allow notional ideas to override your actual experiences, when you take everything you’re taught for your reality, even when you can’t relate, like today’s progressiveness is coquetting with many to dabble in causes that meant more than what they’ve become, causes they’re only persuaded to join, by those whose livelihoods depend on their outspoken advocacy.

The progressiveness I know, aka open-mindedness, is supposed to inspire a non-judgmental attitude, an appeal to tolerance, not causing you to persecute people who do not agree with you or think outside your box, because that, aside from being dishonest, is making a mockery of what it really and truly means.

If you ask me, no one’s tolerance is as debatable as those who, when hell-bent on demonising a thing, they expect their position to be revered, and if you value your sanity, you dare not disagree or say anything good about that thing.

For instance, if a campaign is intended to brand my crew and I as idiots, anyone who uses their own frame of reference and sees us as not entirely idiots but misconstrued maybe, should be seen and not heard – because they’re perhaps privileged or immune to idiocy, and their indulgence is subversive of the struggle to expose my crew for the idiots we may not even be.

That’s why today, to disagree is to be disagreeable, to assert and aggress, and that’s to make conversations nearly impossible, because soon as the validity of a claim one makes is questioned with sound reasoning, and one has no decent argument left in the armoury, one assails, turning the argument against the messenger’s person and not the message.