Sub-Saharan African countries hold roughly 25 percent of the seats in the UN General Assembly, making the region’s voice important on global issues such as climate change and drug trafficking. What’s more, a large and rapidly growing population, vast natural resource reserves, and economic potential all position sub-Saharan Africa to play a greater future role in geopolitics. But the region faces serious challenges that temper many countries’ ability to project power today. Relatively low economic performance, civil wars, and climate change continue to force large numbers of people flee their homes as refugees and migrants. Whether sub-Saharan countries can cooperate to address these challenges through institutions such as the African Union will largely determine the region’s future.

ADDRESSING GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN PEACE OPERATIONS

 Weak governance was generally seen as both a cause of conflict and the main inhibiting factor to effective conflict management in the region. Many participants stressed the scale of public corruption among ruling elites. Insufficient investment in public welfare and the insufficient provision of basic services to populations are fuelling poverty and displacement, which in turn exacerbate the degradation of social cohesion and solidarity in the region. Some noted that vulnerable segments of the population, such as the unemployed and marginalized youth, are potential recruits for criminal and insurgent groups. Such groups operate particularly in the ungoverned or weakly governed spaces in and around porous borders. At the same time, election-related conflict is possible in countries such as Burkina Faso, Ghana and Guinea, particularly when ruling elites are unwilling to relinquish power. Several participants noted that the legitimacy deficit of elected officials incubates a hotbed for instability in the region. Some participants viewed peace operations in general as an insufficient tool for addressing these challenges, and in some ways as an aggravating factor. For one, peace operations, whether at the international or the regional level, work with host states as their main partner and often fail to challenge the state to push it to reform. Peace operations in the region have not done enough to address the lack of trust in military and police forces, which the populations often view as corrupt and abusive. The insufficient focus by both the international community and the states in the region on building stronger institutions for civilian oversight perpetuates the lack of trust in security forces. Several participants also suggested that the international community has, at times, supported states that have committed atrocities or ruling elites that have refused to hand over power, thereby reinforcing a culture of impunity. Some participants stressed that these governance issues are crucial since the population is losing its patience, particularly the segment of the population that is unable to find employment or access basic services. One participant felt that what is ultimately required is a ‘whole society reform’ focused not only on the military and police aspects of security, but also on the judiciary and the political domain, including the creation of a system of checks and balances for the defence sectors. Others noted that the proper governance frameworks and regimes are already in place at both the national and the regional level. Therefore, the problem lies not with how to create these but with state compliance and political will. Some argued, however, that states in the region have the political will but lack the capacity to follow through. How can states provide services to their populations, for example, when they lack basic census data and therefore do not know who their population is and where it is located? Nonetheless, there was a general consensus that strengthening state institutions, creating more opportunities for marginalized populations and consolidating the state should be key priorities moving forward. 

REINFORCING LONG-TERM APPROACHES AND THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN MULTIDIMENSIONAL PEACE OPERATIONS

 There was a consensus in the meeting about the need to reinforce the multidimensionality of peace operations. Specifically, participants noted two main aspects of multidimensionality that require improvement: (a) more investment in long-term programmes and exit strategies; and (b) better inclusion of civil society and local communities. Several participants believed that only long-term, more comprehensive peacebuilding efforts, rather than short and targeted peace operations, could guarantee sustainable peace in the region. One participant asserted, for example, that the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) are not adequately addressing post-conflict national reconciliation or small weapon disarmament. Some participants asserted that current operations are favouring state building and economic development while neglecting to incorporate a comprehensive peacebuilding agenda. In order to address the root causes that drive youth to join insurgency groups, for example, peace operations would have to tackle unemployment and political representation, as well as focus more on issues of identity, social marginalization, deradicalization and reintegration. A number of participants stressed the need for proper exit strategies and sustainable mandates. Peace operations should anticipate the need for postconflict reconstruction and the transfer of knowledge and capacity through continual collaboration with local actors and institutions. One participant from Liberia noted with concern that despite the fact that the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) has been hailed a success, there is a chance that the country will relapse into conflict once the mission leaves. The Ebola crisis, which mostly affected post-conflict countries, illustrates the fragility of the relative stability achieved by peace operations in the region. Most participants agreed that in order to create a more long-term approach, peace operations in the region should be more inclusive of local communities and civil society actors. Current operations do not adequately engage local communities and assume that a state-centric mandate will create local ownership. An Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) official suggested that in order to create local ownership, peace operations should capacitate and support civil society. Not everyone agreed, however, that civil society could bridge the gap between the state and local communities. One participant noted that civil society does not have the political power to move beyond representing the needs of local populations to ensuring that their needs are met.

REINFORCING LONG-TERM APPROACHES AND THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN MULTIDIMENSIONAL PEACE OPERATIONS

 There was a consensus in the meeting about the need to reinforce the multidimensionality of peace operations. Specifically, participants noted two main aspects of multidimensionality that require improvement: (a) more investment in long-term programmes and exit strategies; and (b) better inclusion of civil society and local communities. Several participants believed that only long-term, more comprehensive peacebuilding efforts, rather than short and targeted peace operations, could guarantee sustainable peace in the region. One participant asserted, for example, that the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) are not adequately addressing post-conflict national reconciliation or small weapon disarmament. Some participants asserted that current operations are favouring state building and economic development while neglecting to incorporate a comprehensive peacebuilding agenda. In order to address the root causes that drive youth to join insurgency groups, for example, peace operations would have to tackle unemployment and political representation, as well as focus more on issues of identity, social marginalization, deradicalization and reintegration. A number of participants stressed the need for proper exit strategies and sustainable mandates. Peace operations should anticipate the need for postconflict reconstruction and the transfer of knowledge and capacity through continual collaboration with local actors and institutions. One participant from Liberia noted with concern that despite the fact that the UN Mission the new geopolitics of peace operations ii 3 in Liberia (UNMIL) has been hailed a success, there is a chance that the country will relapse into conflict once the mission leaves. The Ebola crisis, which mostly affected post-conflict countries, illustrates the fragility of the relative stability achieved by peace operations in the region. Most participants agreed that in order to create a more long-term approach, peace operations in the region should be more inclusive of local communities and civil society actors. Current operations do not adequately engage local communities and assume that a state-centric mandate will create local ownership. An Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) official suggested that in order to create local ownership, peace operations should capacitate and support civil society. Not everyone agreed, however, that civil society could bridge the gap between the state and local communities. One participant noted that civil society does not have the political power to move beyond representing the needs of local populations to ensuring that their needs are met.implementation of an operation. Others stressed that donor expectations and demands can at times be unrealistic or intrusive as donors also have their own interests, which may sometimes be at odds with those of the region. One participant from Nigeria suggested that the EU spends too much money on training for financial accountability in relation to the actual donation it gives. Another participant noted that some donors are threatening to cut development aid if too much of the state’s budget is spent on the armed forces, thereby unethically forcing beneficiary states to choose between basic development needs and security. He also noted that partnership agreements with external actors, such as France, are sometimes signed on the personal whim of leaders, rather than with the long-term implications of accepting such aid in mind. For these reasons, some reflected on the importance of increasing African capacity to deploy and maintain operations at the regional level. External military interventions in the region, such as France’s Operation Serval in Mali, for example, may be helpful in the short term but do not increase the ability of regional actors to address future conflict.

 REASSESSING THE MILITARIZATION OF RESPONSES TO SECURITY CHALLENGES

 A discussion on the response to Boko Haram raised the question of whether responses to security threats in the region are excessively military in nature and, if so, whether international and regional stakeholders should refocus their West African agenda in response. Several participants saw the current regional approach to terrorism as waging war instead of using other means, such as the legal system. In some cases, this approach enables human rights violations by security forces that ultimately perpetuate negative attitudes among local populations and fuel the conflict further. Others asserted that restoring security and providing humanitarian aid in all the regions affected by Boko Haram must be prioritized and are prerequisites for any reconstruction. A number of participants from Nigeria felt that the tactics used by Boko Haram justify a robust response. Some participants believed that insufficient regional capacity to carry out the civilian-development aspects of counterinsurgency explains the predominantly military response. Overall, the debate about the need for a more comprehensive approach to conflict resolution implied that the current balance has tipped too far towards military solutions. However, militarized responses are sometimes needed and countries appear to receive some benefits from participation in military operations. Contribution enhances the capacity of national militaries to address security challenges in the region. Participants from Burkina Faso and Togo, for example, noted that their engagement in peace operations has enabled them to professionalize, train and modernize their armed forces, which has ultimately help to improve human rights standards.

One Cannot Claim Democracy Yet Refuse Democracy to Prevail
There is no middle ground in democracy. You either have it or you don’t have it. A semblance of democracy is no democracy. Democracy is not an event such as a picnic to be enjoyed in one day only. Rather democracy is a way of life to be fought for; to lose or win every day, forever. In other words, democracy is a process that also takes time to mature. But for democracy to mature it cannot be subjected to the circumstances and interests of any particular person or group. We cannot claim to have democracy yet refuse to allow democracy to flourish! 
For democracy to flourish citizens must enjoy their rights and freedoms as specified in the Constitution and the State must respect and protect those rights. Just because one feels there is insecurity or traffic will be disrupted or services will be slowed down therefore democracy could be shelved. No way! Democracy already caters for such situations by ensuring that there is the police and other human services to allow everyone to enjoy their rights as much as possible.
The Inspector General of Police cannot therefore state that there will be no public assemblies at any period when there is no state of emergency declared by the President. Since 2017 there has been no war nor was there any natural disasters or disease outbreaks in this country such that a state of emergency was declared to warrant the curtailment of public assemblies. Therefore, there is no justification for the IGP to deny any group of citizens to demonstrate on the basis that it has ‘compelling national security and public safety concerns.’ What are these concerns?
As citizens let us agree or disagree with each other in terms of our ideas and positions but let us not accept the denial of rights by the State on flimsy excuses. I have seen many people so far agreeing with the IGP in denying Three Years Jotna a permit. Some have expressed disgust with the frequent protests in the country while others have sought to demonise one group or the other thus justifying the denial. If this is our approach then we are harming ourselves, if not now but sooner than later!
Democracy is the environment that ensures that good governance and economic development prevail where the rule of law will be respected by all, corruption will be exposed and combated, and goods and services are delivered efficiently and affordably by both the State and the private sector among others. Democracy is the dispensation that protects human rights and ensures social justice and equality. It is democracy that allows for a vibrant media to flourish thus further amplifying the voices of the people. In the absence of democracy everyone in society is at risk.
Democracy is not just what happens on the floor of the National Assembly or what happens inside the Office of the President or how independent the Courts are. Rather democracy is also very much about citizen engagement to influence public policy, hold the State as well as the private sector and civil society accountable and ensure that citizens enjoy quality and affordable goods and services. The quality of democracy is guaranteed by that citizen engagement where citizens challenge issues in court, protest in the streets or occupy public spaces, boycott businesses among many other types of campaigns. 
Therefore, let us not allow our personal interests and political affiliations or our like or dislike of a group or an individual to serve as the measure of our democracy. In a democracy citizens will express offensive and sometimes threatening remarks but these do not constitute violence or hate speech such that one will be denied the right to enjoy a right. Let us protect democracy even if we do not agree with this group or that activity. 
Let us not be fed up with the exercise of fundamental rights by citizens and therefore condone the suppression of those rights by the State. Let us remember that when we allow the State to suppress one right simply because we do not agree with the individual claiming that right someday soon it will be your right which will also be seized. 
From Iraq to France, from Senegal to Guinea Conakry citizens are protesting against corruption, ineffective government, high cost of fuel and food, poor leadership, abuse of office and many others. Some of these countries are currently undergoing severe armed conflicts while others are full blown democracies, yet citizens are allowed to protest. Why should it be different with the Gambia?
I totally and vehemently disagree with the IGP for denying the Three Years Jotna people a permit to protest. There is no tangible evidence that the IGP has presented about this group that they will cause violence if they protest. The IGP cannot impose a blanket ban on protests in the Gambia because he has no such authority. 
I strongly advice the Three Years Jotna group to go to the courts to challenge the IGP’s decision which is unconstitutional and illegal. The primary law of the Gambia guarantees first and foremost the right to protest. The Constitution only contemplates a limitation of this right but not a denial. The Public Order Act is a subsidiary law that draws inspiration from the Constitution hence the norm for the Act is to allow protest to take place. A denial can only be an exception but not the norm in the Act. The norms of democracy require that such denial must be explicitly justified with tangible reasons.  
The IGP needs proper advise on law and human rights so that he does not act unlawfully by misapplying the law hence supressing rights. 
For The Gambia Our Homeland

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.