In The Gambia, defining dictatorship involves the politicisation, personalisation, and weaponisation of the state along with its institutions and laws to perpetually entrench a ruler and their regime in power. This full definition notes how a dictatorial system systematically corrupts and exploits governmental structures and legal frameworks to maintain an individual or a ruling elite indefinitely in power. Dictator Yahya Jammeh has not been held to account for his actions, despite the widespread suffering and systemic abuses that characterised his rule. Similarly, The Gambia's National Assembly has not faced accountability for its role in enabling the dictatorship, raising serious questions about the integrity of the nation's legislative body during that period. The lack of accountability for these key actors and institutions represents a significant impediment to genuine transitional justice and democratic consolidation in the country.
The Unaccounted Past
Since 2017, the Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC), the party of former president Yahya Jammeh, has not been held to account for its role in enabling the dictatorship. This failure to address the complicity of the ruling party under Jammeh's regime leaves a gaping wound in the nation's efforts to come to terms with its past. To date, no state institution has faced accountability, which includes not only the APRC but also various governmental bodies that were instrumental in upholding the authoritarian system. The APRC, as a party, and its officials have never expressed remorse, sought forgiveness from Gambians, or condemned the dictator, indicating a persistent refusal to acknowledge the gravity of their past actions and their impact on the Gambian populace. This steadfast denial and lack of contrition undermine the very principles of justice and reconciliation.
The faction known as the ‘No-To-Alliance’ also failed to apologize, seek forgiveness, or express remorse for the corruption and brutality of the dictatorship. This group continuously, fearlessly, and shamelessly endorses the brutal regime and tyrant, vehemently denying and defending its atrocious crimes and corruption. Their unwavering support for the past regime, despite its documented human rights abuses and economic mismanagement, sends a troubling message about the commitment of some political actors to democratic values. The party of the tyrant in The Gambia was not only revived but was also allowed to split into two vibrant entities, a development that further complicates the landscape of accountability. The new government under Barrow offered the dictator's party a lifeline, a decision that has been met with considerable criticism from those advocating for justice. This move directly contradicts earlier assurances; Barrow himself stated before forming his first cabinet that he would not appoint anyone from the dictator’s cabinet. However, enablers are now saturating public institutions, undermining public trust and potentially perpetuating the very systems of patronage and corruption that defined the previous era. The continued presence of individuals who facilitated the dictatorship in positions of power raises serious concerns about the depth of commitment to genuine reform and accountability within the current administration. This situation creates an environment where the lessons of the past risk being forgotten or, worse, actively suppressed, hindering the nation's progress towards a truly democratic and just society.
Lessons from History
The global historical landscape offers numerous precedents for dealing with political parties and structures that enabled dictatorial regimes, demonstrating a clear path towards accountability and the prevention of future abuses. Post-war Germany decisively outlawed the Nazi Party, a key step in de-Nazification and the establishment of a democratic state. This prohibition was not merely symbolic but was enforced through legal and societal mechanisms to dismantle the ideological and organizational vestiges of the regime. Similarly, Italy prohibited the National Fascist Party following the fall of Mussolini, recognising the necessity of purging the political system of elements that had supported tyranny. In Iraq, the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party of Saddam Hussein was banned after its collapse in 2003, a measure intended to prevent the resurgence of its authoritarian ideology and practices. Tunisia, after the fall of tyrant Ben Bella in 2011, banned his Democratic Constitutional Rally, signaling a break from the past and an aspiration for a more democratic future. Egypt also banned the National Democratic Party of Hosni Mubarak when he fell at the height of the Arab Spring, demonstrating a similar commitment to dismantling the political machinery of the former regime. In a distinct but equally significant example, the apartheid-ruling party in South Africa, the National Party, did not wait to be banned but instead dissolved itself, acknowledging the moral bankruptcy and unsustainability of its discriminatory policies. These historical examples show the importance of decisive action in confronting the legacies of authoritarian rule and ensuring that political entities responsible for enabling dictatorships are held accountable, either through external prohibition or internal dissolution. Such measures are vital for fostering genuine democratic transitions and preventing the re-emergence of oppressive political forces.
The Imperative of Justice
Democracy and human rights are founded upon and guided by the principles of dignity, equality, justice, and accountability. These principles serve as the bedrock for societies seeking to uphold the rule of law and protect individual liberties, ensuring that all citizens are treated fairly and have their fundamental rights respected. In contexts where these principles have been undermined by dictatorial regimes, the pursuit of justice and accountability becomes essential for societal healing and the prevention of future abuses. Without a thorough reckoning with the past, the wounds inflicted by authoritarian rule can fester, leading to enduring social divisions and a lack of trust in state institutions. The establishment of accountability mechanisms is often seen as a critical step in transitioning from authoritarian rule to democratic governance, aiming to address past wrongs and reinforce public trust in state institutions. This includes not only prosecuting individuals responsible for crimes but also holding complicit political parties and institutions responsible for their enabling roles. Such measures are key for demonstrating that no one is above the law and that the state is committed to protecting its citizens from future tyranny. Without a clear commitment to these foundational principles, the long-term stability and integrity of democratic processes may be challenged, leaving societies vulnerable to the resurgence of authoritarian tendencies and the perpetuation of injustice. The Gambian experience, therefore, stands as a critical test of how deeply a nation is committed to these universal values in its journey towards a truly just and democratic future.
