Alagi Yorro Jallow.
Fatoumatta: In political discourse, history is often selectively remembered—leaders are either glorified or condemned, with little room for nuanced reflection. The recent debate surrounding Yahya Jammeh’s legacy is a prime example. While Mai Ahmed Fatty’s caution against glorifying Jammeh’s rule is valid, it is equally important to critically examine the failures of his predecessors and successors.
Jammeh’s rule was undeniably authoritarian, marked by human rights abuses, suppression of dissent, and political persecution. Yet, it is also true that his tenure saw infrastructure advancements—The Gambia’s first university, national television, improved roads, and a modernized airport—projects that previous leaders failed to deliver. This paradox raises an essential question: Should Gambians only focus on Jammeh’s repression, or should they also acknowledge the leadership vacuum that allowed his rise?
Similarly, post-Jammeh leadership has struggled to fully address the nation’s challenges, leaving many Gambians questioning whether the country has truly moved forward. If we are to learn from history, we must examine leadership holistically, recognizing both failures and achievements without distorting reality.
Fatoumatta: This commentary seeks to strike that balance—to reject the glorification of dictatorship, while also holding past and present leaders accountable for their shortcomings. True progress demands honest reflection, not selective memory.
In political discourse, few arguments ignite debate like the paradox of authoritarian development—when dictators deliver material progress while suppressing freedoms. In The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh’s legacy is often caught in this contradiction. On one hand, his regime gave the country its first university, national television, improved roads, and a modernized airport—projects his predecessors failed to deliver. On the other, his 22-year rule was marked by oppression, enforced disappearances, and political suppression.
Mai Ahmed Fatty’s recent caution against the glorification of Jammeh’s rule speaks to this dilemma. While some Gambians highlight the tangible advancements under Jammeh, others emphasize the human suffering his rule inflicted. The real question is: Can we separate infrastructure achievements from authoritarian rule, or must we acknowledge both as inseparable?
Fatoumatta: Jammeh’s rise to power was not simply a coup—it was a response to decades of stagnation. Previous Gambian leaders failed to invest in national development, leaving the country with no university, no national television, inadequate roads, and an outdated airport. This vacuum of progress allowed Jammeh to position himself as a transformational leader—one who would build institutions and infrastructure.
However, authoritarian regimes often use development as a tool for control. By delivering visible projects, dictators secure loyalty, silence opposition, and strengthen their grip on power. The problem is that these accomplishments come at a cost—in Jammeh’s case, that cost was fear, suppression, and human rights violations.
Fatoumatta: Acknowledging the tangible projects Jammeh built does not negate the suffering his government inflicted. While roads, universities, and airports are critical to national growth, true progress must also include freedom, justice, and democratic governance. A nation that thrives only in infrastructure but fails in human dignity is not truly developed.
Gambians must reject the false choice between dictatorship and development. The failure of past leaders must be a lesson—but not an excuse to justify authoritarian rule. Future leadership must demonstrate that progress is achievable without silencing dissent, persecuting opponents, or governing through fear.
Fatoumatta: Mai Fatty’s concerns about historical revisionism are valid. Selective memory is dangerous—we must neither erase the progress under Jammeh nor ignore the cost of his rule. A truthful reckoning with The Gambia’s past must recognize both: the infrastructure he built and the freedoms he stripped away. Gambians must ensure that future governments deliver progress without dictatorship—because roads and universities matter, but justice, dignity, and press freedom matter more.
In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged across certain social media platforms—an astonishing effort to sanitize and eulogize the legacy of former Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh. This revisionist narrative seeks to erase the brutal realities of his 22-year rule, replacing them with nostalgia and selective praise.
Mai Ahmed Fatty, leader of the Gambia Moral Congress (GMC) and a longtime critic of authoritarianism, has rightly cautioned Gambians against this growing phenomenon. His warning is timely, as history has shown that unchecked glorification of past dictators can lead to dangerous consequences—distorting public memory, undermining justice, and even paving the way for authoritarian resurgence.
Jammeh’s regime was marked by widespread human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and suppression of dissent. The Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) documented harrowing testimonies from victims who suffered under his rule. Yet, despite these undeniable facts, some individuals now attempt to rewrite history, portraying Jammeh as a misunderstood leader rather than a dictator responsible for immense suffering.
Fatoumatta: This phenomenon is not unique to The Gambia. Across the world, authoritarian figures have been romanticized by segments of society, often fueled by misinformation, nostalgia, or political opportunism. However, Gambians must resist this temptation and instead honor the truth—not a sanitized version of history. Social media has become a powerful tool for shaping narratives, but it also enables dangerous misinformation. The glorification of Jammeh on certain platforms reflects a broader challenge: the ease with which false narratives can spread, influencing public perception and weakening democratic values.
It is imperative that Gambians remain vigilant, ensuring that history is not rewritten to serve political interests. The lessons of Jammeh’s rule must be preserved—not erased—so that future generations understand the true cost of dictatorship.
Fatoumatta: Fatty’s warning should serve as a wake-up call. Gambians must engage in critical reflection, rejecting efforts to sanitize Jammeh’s legacy and instead focusing on justice for victims, democratic consolidation, and historical accountability. History must not be rewritten to suit political convenience. The Gambian people have endured too much to allow the past to be distorted. Truth must prevail, and justice must be pursued.
