By Musa Sanneh
Usurpation of political power is not a new phenomenon in political theory. Throughout the ages, ambitious political actors and principals have grabbed power from members of their political entities — not sparing even their own loyal apostles. Regardless of their influence, illiberal tactics or coercive instruments of the usurpers, generations of freedom-loving people have always pushed back — through resistance, open rebellions or litigations — against usurpation of power. In new republics, visionary drafters of legal instruments build in constitutional safeguards for the common people to constraint leaders who will push against the boundaries of their limited powers. For example, in the United States, the fear of executive usurpation and abuse of power compelled the founders of that republic to build constitutional guarantees to protect citizens from the overreach or excesses of even well-meaning presidents. As for the Founding Fathers of the People’s Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) of The Gambia, instead of emulating the gold standards set by the founders of the United States in 1776, they have elevated usurpation of political power from the ordinary members of their political party to a new level.
Speaking at the Press Conference on Wednesday, October 19th, 2022, the Secretary General of the party, Hon. Halifa Sallah, told reporters that the Central Committee of the party organized the presser sooner than they had planned because their members were working on what they billed consequential discussions. After listening to the entire press conference, I am once again deeply troubled by what I have heard. According to the party’s executives, the Central Committee is currently engaged in a vigorous discussion which, among other things, borders on issues that are central to the very existence of the party.
Speaking at the Conference, the Secretary General of PDOIS said:
We are not here out of our own volition because I have a transitional role. I have already indicated what is best suited for the political situation as far as my person is concerned. It is now left to the Central Committee to ultimately decide when it is best to carry out such wish. But we met and engage in vigorous conversation within our ranks to find out why PDOIS is where it is? Whether it is relevant to exist?
Having lived long enough and serving long enough, it is no longer an academic exercise for us. It is a life and dead question for the party and life and dead question for the nation. So, our conversation is not an ordinary one.
As a lifelong member of the party, I am both concerned and worried by this pronouncement. My concern is that if the Central Committee is indeed engaged in discussing matters of life and death question for the party, then in my view, it appears to be overstepping its functions as stipulated in the party’s constitution. Life and death issues for the party are existential threats. Existential issues are threats that relates to the very survival of the party. And issues that relates to the very survival of the party according to the governing instrument are reserved for the General Assembly of the party to address as stipulated in Chapter 5, Article 7- Subsections (c) and (e) of the PDOIS Constitution which reads:
The General Assembly of members shall meet only under the following circumstances:
(c) to discuss matters that are likely to endanger the unity of party members, or the very survival of the party;
(e) to discuss matters relating to the dissolution of the party.
The power to discuss issues of life and death for the party is beyond the purview of the Central Committee. There is no ambiguity in the functions of the PDOIS’ Central Committee as provided for in the party’s constitution. The functions of the Central Committee as stipulated in Chapter 7, Article 22 of the party’s constitution states as follows:
The Central Committee exercises the following functions:
(a) shapes the internal and external policies of the party;
(b) Directs the work of lower Party organs;
(c) Resignation from the Party or any other Party organ shall be done in writing and addressed to the Central Committee;
(d) Appoints persons from within its ranks in the Central Committee as a result of death, infirmity or resignation, provided that a majority of two thirds of members selected by the Congress are not affected;
(e) Appoints and removes officers of Committees established by it;
(f) Approves membership to the Party;
(g) Gives Party reports to the Congress on all Party activities during two years.
Evidently, either as is often the case, the Central Committee is whimsically flouting the party’s constitution at the expense of the competent body or is engaged in a naked power grab. Whatever the case, I would imagine that if the powers and the rights of the general membership are to be preserved and protected, Central Committee must provide clarification to this effect. Was the statement a mere rhetorical flourishes, a red meat meant for the ideological apostles, or a slip of the tongue?
The practice of the leadership flouting the party’s constitution is becoming burdensome on the conscience of members who want to expand internal democracy in the party in adherence to the provisions of the party’s constitution. This latest episode, if deemed not a slip of the tongue, would follow numerous other violations of the dictates of the constitution as we saw in the election of officials during party congresses. According to Article 11 of the party’s constitution “the congress shall compose of delegates elected by various branches of the party on the principle of equal number of members belonging to party branches, and members of the Central Committee elected by the previous congress.” Demonstrably, when it came to electing delegates to congress, the party has never adhered to this provision as stipulated in its constitution. Consequently, party officials were elected by unelected delegates who have no legal standing to elect anyone to occupy any office in the party.
But equally, to protect and preserve the rights and powers of the general membership, members must take their rights and responsibilities seriously. Gone must be the days when important decisions are made on our behalf whilst we standby passively. Regardless of our different philosophical leanings, it is in the interest of every member of the party to ensure that the spirit of our constitution is not misused and abused to achieve whatever goal. There will always be philosophical and other disagreements among members. Disagreement is a variable of life and we can’t do much about that. However, those disagreements must never be equated with hatred or apprehension for one another. Our inclusive and hopeful thoughts premised on shared principles should more than offset any ideological and philosophical differences we may have. Moreover, Chapter 22, Rule 3 of the party’s Constitution provides for members’ rights to express their will freely without intimidation or inducement; and Rule 1 guarantees our rights to air out our views as well as to create mass movements to combat abuse of authority and corrupt practices.
The tools to combat usurpation of power are enshrined in our constitution. As the founders of the United States of America endeavored to protect their republic from usurpation of power by the powerful, so too we the members of the people Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism must be equally ready to put into use the tools we have to defend our rights and powers from usurpation by elites who have no authority, whatsoever, to execute a Coup d’état in attempting to overthrow the final authority of members of the party.