How Power Gets Wielded

The Socio‑Cultural Implications of Cronyism and Nepotism in a Multi‑Ethnic Society: The Case of The Gambia

I watched the latest Dialectic Space episode that featured Dr. Sulayman Njie and his claim that “most of the nativism in our politics comes from within UDP and their base.” He drew parallels with the Republican Party in the United States claiming one can make the argument that the Republican Party is not a “right-wing party,” citing personalities within the party who can be considered reasonable, or at least based on his context, non-nativist or “ethno-nationalists” but there are loud voices within the party that warrant such a view.

See, conversations like that are triggers, not in a negative way. They are triggers in that they open the door to conversations on our broader socio-political culture.  This post is not a response per se, at least not in the sense that I am responding to debunk or counter his argument point by point [in another post perhaps], but in the sense that it got me thinking about our current political realities, hence this long post.

In any society, political power shapes not only institutions but also the social relationships that bind citizens together. In a multi‑ethnic country like The Gambia—where Mandinka, Fula, Wolof, Jola, Serahule, Aku, and other groups coexist—how power is distributed and exercised has profound consequences for national cohesion.

Since independence, we have been plagued by one constant; cronyism and nepotism, both of which are forms of corruption on top of the misappropriation of public funds.

When political authority is wielded through cronyism and nepotism, as has been the case with successive governments since independence, the effects extend far beyond governance failures. They seep into the cultural fabric, influence identity formation, and reshape how communities perceive one another and the state itself.

The ensuing consequences of such an approach to governance are numerous. Consequences that could influence or exacerbate a “nativist” posture. Here are a few:

1. Erosion of Social Trust and National Solidarity

We often talk about the need to carve out a ‘national identity’ [whatever that means] or restate that proposition using taglines such as “kill the tribe, let the nation live.” Or “One Gambia/Gambia is my tribe…” they sound good, but they are superficial both as a thought or potential remedy. The underlying malady is the real issue and it is never adequately addressed, so the issue persists.

When we debate about tribalism in our politics, we reminisce over how the Gambia was once a beacon of tolerance, about how we have intermarried and are of one another. We claim that none of us is truly one ethnic group due to inter-marriages. And that maybe true.

However, the twin evils of cronyism and nepotism undermine the idea of a shared national project. When public appointments, contracts, or opportunities are allocated based on personal loyalty, kinship, or ethnic affiliation rather than merit, citizens begin to view the state as a private enterprise serving a select few.

In The Gambia, where ethnic identities are historically fluid and interwoven, political favoritism can harden boundaries that were once permeable. And that is what we are witnessing, a trend that took shape under Jammeh and is worsening.

We have all heard the leaked recordings of the current Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Seedy Njie, affirming exactly that phenomenon. The perceptions have always been there; the leaked audio is just one confirmation. How many instances of that same scenario play out behind numerous closed doors with impacts on policy? Just a cursory look at how government agencies, commissions, and departments are staffed, one could see a deliberate policy of outright exclusion or minimization of a certain group of people within portfolios of influence, namely the Mandinka. The evidence is as glaring as daylight.

When that is the case as evidenced, then people start to interpret political decisions through an ethnic lens:

• Who benefits?
• Which group is being sidelined?
• Whose children get scholarships, jobs, or promotions?

Instead of addressing issues, or countering claims leveled against their administrations, both Barrow and Jammeh reinforced the notion that the United Democratic Party (UDP), the biggest political rival to both, is in fact not a political party but an exclusive Mandinka club. Jammeh introduced that notion and Barrow is reinforcing it for his own political survival. With that backdrop, the adopted policy of excluding anyone suspected of being a UDP sympathizer takes on an ethnic tone, and without fail, 100% of the time, the victims of such a scheme are always Mandinka.

Accept it or not, the mere fact that such a perception exists is problematic. The leaked audio of the Deputy Speaker affirms that in fact it is more than a perception, it is policy. This erodes trust not only in government but also among ethnic groups themselves. Suspicion replaces solidarity, and national unity becomes fragile. And no one in their right mind will tell you our nation is unified.

That lack of national unity around issues that affect us all leads to more divisions, which is the next manifestation of this scourge.

2. Reinforcement of Ethnic Stereotypes and Political Myths

When political power is personalized and wielded to promote cronyism or nepotism in a given society, communities often develop narratives to explain their position within the political hierarchy. With time, these narratives become stereotypes or myths that shape inter‑ethnic relations.

Let us look at our case as an example:

• A group perceived by the disadvantaged group as politically favored gets stereotyped as “privileged,” or “controlling.”
• The group that is perceived as the marginalized one internalizes narratives of victimhood and exclusion. They then get labeled by the privileged group as “power‑hungry,” or “entitled” or “jealous.”

Either of that sound familiar?

This is the case in The Gambia. Political favoritism has created new grievances and revived old ones from the early days of the Jawara administration.

Even when leaders do not explicitly govern along ethnic lines, as was the case under Jawara, the perception of favoritism employed by those in positions of power can be enough to trigger cultural tensions. Over time, these narratives become embedded in everyday conversations, media discourse, and community interactions.

How many political discourses on the Gambia have you recently tuned into where “tribalism” was not touched upon?

3. Political Patronage

Another disaster unleashed by cronyism and nepotism is the fact that it distorts the cultural values that shape ambition and social mobility within a society. When young Gambians see that advancement depends more on connections (whom you know), rather than on competence (what you know), it reshapes their aspirations:

• Merit becomes secondary.
• Education loses some of its perceived value.
• Hard work feels less rewarding.
• Patronage networks have become the primary route to success.

How many aspirants to political office sold their ambition, and with it their dignity and integrity just to gain some mobility, turning themselves into bootlickers of the status quo. I do not need to give any names; you already have thought of one, or several in your head.

This shift has long‑term cultural consequences. It discourages innovation, undermines professional ethics, and weakens institutions such as the civil service, judiciary, and security forces. A society that normalizes favoritism gradually loses faith in fairness as a cultural ideal.

I ask you (the reader), is this not the current reality in The Gambia?

4. Dysfunctional Public Institutions Along Informal Lines

As a result, public institutions that are meant to serve as neutral spaces where citizens interact beyond ethnic or familial loyalties, compromise this neutrality in multi-ethnic societies like ours through Cronyism and nepotism.

When key positions are filled based on loyalty rather than competence, institutions become extensions of personal networks. This was very evident under Jammeh, when folks like David Colley were elevated to positions like the head of Prison Services when it was clear he was overwhelmingly unqualified. There were many like him back then, and this current administration is no better. Such fragmentation of public institutions along informal lines based solely on loyalty and connections lead to:

• Unequal access to justice (how many times have ruling party officials intervened with police matters)?
• Uneven distribution of development projects (which communities get roads or get excoriated for not voting in line with the development projects they “received.”)
• Politicization of security forces (the case of Ousainou Bojang and how the police command worked overtime to twist it into a politically motivated crime without evidence).
• Regional favoritism in infrastructure or social programs (recall Jammeh’s vow to the people of Kiang – “when the road and electricity project reaches the boundary of your region I will skip over to the next region.”)

In The Gambia, where communities rely heavily on state institutions for education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, such fragmentation deepens regional and ethnic disparities. It also fuels resentment toward the state, which is seen as partial rather than protective.

5. Cultural Normalization of Silence and Self‑Censorship

Finally, because the notions of justice, opportunities, privileges, and social mobility are perceived to be connected to one’s network, cronyism then creates an environment where dissent is punished or discouraged.

Looking at the post-election environment of 2021, the injustices, and heavy-handed police reactions to UDP’s protests of the election results were widely celebrated, justified, and even mocked by many. Presidential adviser Alkali Conteh mockingly referred to it as deploying a “bazooka on them [UDP supporters]. People created memes of the police brutalities meted out to members of the Three Years Jotna movement for protesting against the administration reneging on promises they made.

In such contexts, citizens learn to remain silent, they play it safe, avoid political critique, or align themselves with powerful networks for protection. Over time, this produces a culture of self‑censorship, conformity out of fear of political retaliation, the acceptance of injustice as “the way things are” or that the victims “brought it upon themselves.” This leads to a decline in civic engagement and those who persist in the critique culture are labeled as people who want to “incite violence” and so become “threats to national security.”

For a small country like The Gambia, this cultural shift can be particularly damaging due to our inter connectedness. It weakens democratic participation and reduces the diversity of voices in public discourse. This was the ultimate outcome towards the tail end of Jammeh’s regime.

6. Threats to Long‑Term National Cohesion

The most significant and consequential socio‑cultural implication of cronyism and nepotism is the long‑term threat to national cohesion. Cronyism and nepotism create winners and losers not based on merit but on proximity to power. In a multi‑ethnic society, these patterns can easily map into ethnic lines, even unintentionally.

The result is a society where:

• Ethnic groups compete for political patronage.
• Elections become zero‑sum contests.
• Political transitions feel existential.
• National identity weakens as ethnic identity strengthens.

As we head into the 2026 election cycle, this ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ mentality will be glaring. Political associations henceforth will be seen as indicators of who the winners are (those who align with the ruling party) and the losers being those who got sidelined in favor of the ruling party, convictions be damned. Ultimately, who gets celebrated as the winner of the election will not be determined by whose policy positions won the day, it will be determined by who we would rather not see in power. A UDP win will be seen by many as a loss because of their perceptions of UDP. A win for the incumbent will be seen as a win, not for the country but in that it made UDP the loser.

This dynamic can destabilize the social fabric, making reconciliation and unity more difficult during political crises.

Conclusion

With the foregoing, it is clear that what we have in The Gambia is more of a reaction to being excluded as opposed to being nativist.

Even if the claim of a “nativist” or “ethno-nationalists” stance were to be accepted for argument’s sake, and i am not saying there aren’t people on all sides influenced by such sentiments, but even if they are is it not natural that you react to a perception of a deliberate policy of exclusion at your detriment? Hearkens back to the age-old adage, “boka chi getta gi…”

When discontent grows in a society as a result of bad policies, to maintain power, electoral fraud becomes an avenue, and this includes giving access to the ballot to people who are unqualified to vote just to maintain power.

It is a known practice that due to our shared names, languages, and cultures, non-Gambians are co-opted by the state to help them maintain power. If the claim of nativism is tied to calls for being vigilant against such practices, barring the excesses within such calls, then that is smearing a patriotic stance with a nativist accusation.

Cronyism and nepotism are not merely governance problems, they are socio‑cultural forces that shape how citizens relate to one another and to the state. In The Gambia, where people of diverse ethnic backgrounds have historically coexisted peacefully, then the causes of such erosions of harmony needs to be looked at dispassionately.

Recalling the comparison to the Republican Party, Project 2025 backs with policy, some of the ethno-nationalist’s rhetoric on the right, no such policy can be remotely associated with the UDP.

Political favoritism and cronyism are transforming cultural realities into political fault lines. Protecting our national cohesion requires a strengthening of meritocratic norms, ensuring institutional neutrality, and cultivating a political culture that values fairness over loyalty. That is where the solution lies because the opposite being true is what incentivizes the perceived nativism and ethno-nationalist stance, and we need to be bold in calling it out.