By Amadou Dibba

My attention having been drawn lately by the broaching of a topic on the Gambian cyber media, I savor the opportunity to underline my thoughts on the phenomenon- tribalism in The Gambia- a subject which, for as long as I can remember, has been construed variously by different observers and commentators. But I must hasten to acknowledge that it is an element in the recent commentaries of Messrs Ebrima I. Chongan and Matthew K. Jallow that has spurred me to file this response. Conscious as I am of the propensity to  offend the tender sensibilities of the irascible with regard to the issue in question; of the tendency to be misunderstood by cynics and thus branded inappropriately, I nevertheless make bold to state in this forum that, like both commentators and many others, I recognize the existence of the anathema, the ills it has wrought or could wreak in our otherwise harmonious and serene society if the present and coming generations are not properly attuned to the inevitability of our diverse but  propitious existence as a people.

Perhaps it is pertinent to point out from the outset that recognizing the existence of a problem and generating discussion on it with a view to highlighting its ills and retrogressive tendencies is a good step towards eliminating it, provided of course that the medium used is a popular source of information for the target audience or readership. For all I know, the issue of tribalism in The Gambia has never ceased to attract attention, for the right or wrong reasons (as rightly noted by Matthew Jallow), and has hitherto been a subject of discussion in informal/unofficial isolated gatherings with varying degrees of intensity, depending on the persons involved and the event giving rise to a discourse. But rather than dwell on the different motives of different people to discuss the problem, I like to concern myself in this piece with what I consider to be the possible panacea to the societal sod.

Before that however I would like to beg to differ with what I consider a common but misleading thread in the commentaries of the above-mentioned duo. That which seeks to portray the perceived rivalry/animosity between the Wollof and the Mandingo as the be-all and end-all of the matter. While I agree that there does exist such rivalry among certain elements of both tribes, I find as outrageous, simplistic and dishonest the contention by Mr Matthew Jallow that because of their comparative majority, “many educated Mandingoes” believe the leadership reins of the country is their birthright. I feel even more bolstered in this stance by the fact that this contention, for all it is worth, is based more on perception than fact. It is needless to argue that neither commentator carried out a survey to come out with such a finding as such an initiative, in the first place, would have been a non-starter. This therefore leaves us with perhaps the only other means to detect or discern it in a person- the verbal profession of one’s thoughts through speech or writing. I am not aware of an episode in recent Gambian history where a sizable group of “educated Mandingoes” overtly adopted such a stance and I am not sure both commentators are either, as they have not made reference to such an episode. Based on this premise, it is fair dinkum to conclude that the contention is based more on perception than fact. To be sure, our perceptions can sometimes reflect reality, but this does not qualify them to be substitutes for reality at all times as a lot depends on the degree of subjectivity of the perceiver. For instance Sambujang, Pateh or Baboucarr may feel that because they each belong to minority tribes in a multi-tribal democratic society, they cannot hope to realize their dreams of becoming leaders as their individual tribes do not represent the majority. This feeling would naturally lead to unnecessary suspicion and distrust of many others who belong to a majority tribe, even if such distrust or suspicion is unfounded. It therefore stands to reason that, in a sense, it is recognition of our limitations as humans to accept that our perceptions are not necessarily always right and that therefore it would be deceptive to arrogate to ourselves the attributes of clairvoyants when we are not. I should at this point like to paraphrase a statement in Mr. Jallow’s commentary: No one tribe can ever hope to make or unmake a leader in The Gambia as the demographic realities dictate that less divisive and less inflammatory but more relevant issues than considerations of tribe ought to be the platform of a potential leader. Given this fact, I doubt if any “educated Mandingo” worth his salt or worthy of leadership in this day and age would demonstrate to his fellow citizens that he thinks lowly of them when he/she cannot dispense of their support in the quest to become a leader or to back one. Of course this does not mean that I do not agree with the better part of the observations in both commentaries, but which I think are tainted by this subjective thread.

Another side to the matter is that all too often we tend to discuss the issue of tribalism in the context of leadership and cronyism, with a danger that we overlook the genesis of the problem. Maybe it is time we disabused ourselves of the chronic notion that our leadership can solve all our problems, even such complex and delicate ones like tribalism. It is not only in the corridors of power that the evil of tribalism manifests itself in the form of nepotism. It only tends to climax there after having been cultivated beforehand in the wider society.

Tribalism and its twin vice of nepotism tend to thrive well in an atmosphere of selfishness and arrogance, whereby the perpetrators refuse to accept that their fellows, who may not be of the same cultural and tribal identity, deserve as good a life as they can get, all things being equal. Surely this is a vice that is not peculiar to one or few groups of people in a multi-tribal setting but is likely to sprout and fester where the right conditions exist for it. After all Yahya Jammeh is being accused of fostering tribalism today even though he comes from arguably one of the most tolerant and livable-with tribes (though a comparative minority) the Senegambia region has known. If that is not explanation enough that tribalism is more a by-product of selfishness and arrogance, rather than being the exclusive trait of members of majority or influential tribes, I wonder what is. Furthermore, the role the wider society plays in promoting tribalism must not escape mention. An isolated case of spurning or scorn individual members of different tribes might have suffered for no other reason than the tribe they happen to belong to, which in itself is an accident of birth, could have lasting and far-reaching impressions unless such victims are exposed to good counsel and other positive influences which could reverse whatever bitterness they may otherwise harbor. As such any attempt to eliminate it must of necessity start from the level of the communities.  

This brings me to the possible recipe to minimise or, more to the point, eliminate the vice altogether from the society. In addition to Mr. Jallow’s suggestion for the present and coming generations to cultivate the habit of learning to understand and speak the language of other tribes, I would like to add that opinion leaders and role models in society should be included in the vanguard to expose the evils and dangers of the practice. This could be done through radio and TV shows, so as to reach a wider audience. Even the fledgeling/nascent film industry, or the drama societies, could target the subject as a recurrent theme in their various works. For all the time I have had the privilege to follow the few Gambian theatre works there are, I cannot remember one that seeks to expose the evil of tribalism.

The other potential medium of social cohesion, to my mind, is the school system. Having been through the school system, I am positive that a lot of good could come out of it apart from the academic pursuits. In retrospect, I am pleased to have been able to make friends across tribes even though there was no conscious or deliberate design that I know of on the part of the education authorities to foster cross-tribal cohesion from that level.

Still yet critical issue that needs to be tackled in connection with this is the vigorous protection of the institution of separation of powers in governance affairs, so that the executive arm of government, almost entirely epitomized by the Office of the President in today’s Gambian context (and not the Cabinet), does not usurp the powers of the Legislature and Judiciary with the consequence, as has been demonstrated time and again in The Gambia, that the president rides roughshod over all and sundry, wielding constitution-defying powers of sending elected representatives packing, interfering with the judiciary by way of appointments and summary dismissals without regard to due process (consultation with and deference to the Judicial and Public Service Commissions). I can almost hear cynics and status quo sycophants jeering: “How the heck does this dreamer hope that such a utopia can be brought about in the current dispensation?” Well a possible response to that is that I am looking at the long-term future of The Gambia as a harmonious multi-tribal, multi-cultural polity in which all citizens feel belong and capable of realizing their dreams without lurking, potentially insurmountable hurdles. It is needless to say that the existing constitution, to a large extent, guarantees this but the intricate interplay of oppression, intimidation, patronage, cronyism, acquiescence, etc. has culminated in abdicating all these powers to one man. It is my view that until this happens, it would be wishful thinking to do away with the much-talked about nepotism now or ever.

I ardently believe that the interplay of the above-stated initiatives and forums would yield positive results towards finding a solution to the scourge of tribalism but certainly not glib chicanery and sometimes convoluted rhetoric.