Reclaiming the Homeland

(1)

A Case Study of The Gambian Diaspora

Jankeh Jobe

International Relations

Department of Global Political Studies Bachelor Programme – IR103L 15 credits

Spring/2018

(2)

Abstract

This thesis seeks to analyse the role of the Gambian diaspora activists in Gambian politics particularly during the December 1st, 2016, Presidential election in which the long-time dictator Yahya Jammeh was defeated by the less experienced and known Adama Barrow. Despite an extensive mobilization effort over the past twenty-two years, spanning across continents, the fragile and disorganized Gambian diaspora has been unable to exert influence in Gambian politics due to unfavourable domestic conditions such as the unwillingness of the opposition to unite as well as state repression. However, the formation of coalition 2016 provided the diaspora activists an opportunity to engage effectively in mobilizing against the Jammeh regime through their online media platforms as well as financial contribution. By using a multi-level research design using interviews and document analyses, the thesis explores the mobilization strategies of the Gambian diaspora as means of influencing at both the homeland and international levels.

Key Words. Diasporas, The Gambia, Influence, Social Movement, Framing, Political Mobilization.

(3)

Chapter One: Introduction

1.0 Introduction

International Relations as a field of study has acknowledged the ever-expanding salience of non-state actors in international politics but studying diasporas as non-non-state actors is just burgeoning in political science (Koinova, 2010). Diasporas are now seen as an example of non-state actors who influence politics in diverse forms. The literature on the role and importance of the diasporas in International relations is becoming increasingly broader as they have the same features as other more studied non-state actors such as being transnational, autonomous and ability to exert their influence to impact political change (Koinova, 2010:149). Latha Varadarajan (2010) argues the diasporas have changed the “narrative of politics as usual”. Similarly, Fiona Adamson (2016) argues, that not only do diasporas challenge the traditional state system but they also form global identities that “transcend” them (Adamson, 2016:291). She further argues that “diasporas are omnipresent and part and parcel of everyday politics around the world (Adamson, 2016: 291).

Similarly, Shain and Barth (2003:49) elaborated on the growing scholastic acknowledgment about the significance of the diasporas in “international behavior” in reference how diverse diasporas such as the Armenian, Chinese, Jewish, Iranian and Cuban among others have had a profound impact on international affairs in both positive and negative ways. As mobilized groups with a sense of identity, diasporas do play a significant role both in domestic and international politics. As far as local politics is concerned, they may influence both the internal policies of their homelands and host states regarding issues that are of interest to them. In the realm of international relations, they have the power to influence both national foreign policy decisions and the decisions of international organizations. Coban-Ozturk (2015) studied the influence and role of the diaspora using a constructivist approach to Turkish and Armenian relationship and concluded that the diaspora has a significant impact on both nations foreign policy and bilateral relations.

The increasing involvement of the diaspora in both foreign and home politics has led to the diasporas receiving considerable attention from both policymakers and scholars around the world. Nations and policymakers (both public and private) can no longer ignore the importance

(5)

of the role that diasporas play in foreign relations, economic development and to both domestic and international relations. However, the role of diasporas in international relationships tends to be ignored or understudied regardless of the influential voices of diaspora organizations and their impact on national and international politics. In classical realism and neorealism state-dominated global system, diasporas remain to be seen as substantial political actors. However, “certain realist theorists have attempted to place diaspora within a realist analytic framework by considering it an extension of the homeland state whose role is to promote the homeland’s national interests” (Sheffer, 2006).

This thesis uses social movement theory in an attempt to examine how diasporas engage in transnational politics by studying Gambian diaspora mobilization strategy. Using the Gambian diaspora in Europe and North America as a case study, the thesis seeks to understand the different mechanisms the Gambian diaspora used to mobilize Gambians and non-Gambians in their campaign to “restore democracy” in the Gambia. The interest in Gambian diaspora stemmed from two significant events and the role the diaspora played in them. The first event was the planned military takeover on December 30th 2014 by a group of Gambians, mostly ex-military officers based in the US and Germany and led by a Gambian-American property developer Cherno Njie. The attackers attempted to forcibly overthrow the government of Yayha Jammeh. The coup was thwarted by the State Guard Battalion of Gambia Armed Forces resulting in the death of four people. The dissidents that survived returned to the US where they were arrested and charged in the US under the Neutrality Act. This event not only positioned the Gambian diaspora as an active force in Gambian politics, but forced the US government to get involved by invoking the neutrality act that has not been used for a long time.

The second event that informed my interest in the Gambian diaspora is the role that the diaspora is perceived to have played in the outcome of the December 2016 presidential elections. Members of the diaspora were the primary source of finance for the opposition coalition. In fact, some argue that the successful formation of the Coalition 2016 should be credited to the diaspora activists who first attempted to unite the opposition in 2001 when the electoral laws were changed. According to them, this was an affront on the side of Jammeh who came through a military coup in 1994 ending Gambia’s long history of multiparty democracy for his own benefit. Although initial attempts in 2001, 2006 and 2011 failed, 2016 was seen as the “do or die” year for the diaspora. Equally, this period was also a very brutal period as Jammeh and his security apparatus arrested and tortured some protesting members of the

(6)

opposition. Hence, the diaspora contributed money to finance the opposition and also engaged the use of the social media and other online mediums to intensify their agitation against Jammeh and his APRC government. Jammeh was eventually defeated by Adama Barrow flag bearer of the coalition camp in a three man race that resulted in the incumbent Jammeh losing.

While the dictatorship in Gambia curtailed the political opposition groups, the most formidable challengers to his rule has been the diaspora. As suggested, the diasporas have over time changed the narrative of politics (Varadarajan, 2010) primarily using the internet as well as financial resources. Adamson and Demetriou (2007:491) argue that the term diaspora is “being adopted by both non-state political entrepreneurs, and state elites who are taking advantage of new technologies to use transnational practices of diaspora mobilization as a means of generating material resources and political support in an increasingly integrated global economy.” The mobilization strategy of the Gambian diaspora as an attempt to influence regime change in the Gambia is the focus of this thesis.

1.1 Purpose and Relevance of the study

In April 2016, two crucial non-violent protests erupted in Serekunda, The Gambia. The first demonstrations led by late Ebrima Solo Sandeng of the United Democratic Party (UDP) demanded electoral reforms as the December 2016 elections loomed near. This group of protesters were unceremoniously rounded up by the paramilitary police who used force to disperse the small gathering of mostly UDP supporters. Few arrests were made and that included Solo Sandeng, the ringleader who was tortured to death by the security forces. Following Sandeng’s death, a new wave of protests was championed by the leader of the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) Ousainou Darboe demanding for Solo’s body “death or alive.” Similarly, the paramilitary forces arrested about 50 individuals most of whom were executive members of UDP. The group was arraigned before the courts, charged and later sentenced to three years in jail. The heavy-handedness of the state was criticized globally by mostly human rights organization such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch Article 19 among others.

While these events were erupting in Gambia, there was also a wave of protests by Gambian migrants in many European and American cities not only demanding for electoral reforms but

(7)

for the former president Yahya Jammeh to step down (#JammehMustGO). One of the most visible groups was the Scandinavian Gambian diaspora group. They organized protests in Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen. The demonstrations were meant to expose the human rights atrocities of the Jammeh regime by garnering international support. Whether these protests had any bearing on the government at home at the time is debatable. However, one can argue that it exposed the regime’s human rights violations more broadly.

In the Sub Saharan Africa, although evolving, few studies exist that explore diaspora activism. The works of Jenny Kuhlmann, who explores politically active Zimbabweans in UK, give us an idea or an opening to this debate from the African diaspora perspective. Secondly, Victoria Bernal’s work on Eritrean diaspora equally supports our interest. While this study is also a country specific it hopes to add to this relatively new but growing literature on diaspora activism and transnational politics in Sub Saharan Africa and their role in international relations.

Over the past decades, the diasporas have had an increasing influence in politics both at their countries of origin and host countries. The rising sway of the diaspora has had an enormous impact on policymakers when making their policy decisions because they have to factor in the diasporas, irrespective of their countries of origin or host countries. Thus, this thesis aims to explore the mobilization strategy of the Gambian diaspora in the West towards their homeland (Gambia) politics. More research needs to be done on the diaspora phenomenon in international relations as their increasing influence is having an unprecedented impact on both domestic and international politics. Notably, there is a need to study specific diaspora groups as many previous studies focused on the diasporas as one whole entity without taking many accounts of particular diaspora groups effect on both domestic and international politics. This case study aims to explore the mobilization strategy of the Gambian diaspora in West and the impact it has in Gambian electoral politics, particularly in the December 2016 presidential election.

Historically, the first Gambian diaspora communities started in Scandinavia, Sweden, and Norway precisely. However, today, there are many diaspora communities in many parts of Europe and North America as well as other African countries. While acknowledging the role played by different diaspora communities in Gambian politics, this thesis focuses on those communities based in the West. The aim is to understand and bring to the table how the politically active Gambian diaspora operates in the international political system through their

(8)

mobilization efforts against the regime of Yahya Jammeh. The size of the Gambian diaspora has probably rendered it irrelevant to study for other political scientists, but this thesis takes the position that while small in comparison to other diasporas such as the Eritrean and Zimbabwean there should be more attention given their role in the social, political and economic developments in their homeland. This thesis aims to join the works of (Jenny, 2010b, Jenny, 2010a, Bernal, 2005, Bernal, 2006) to delve into African diaspora activism.

1.2 The Research Question

The gap in African diasporic literature is what this thesis aims to contribute to as diasporas from the African continent are becoming more relevant in International Relations as they blur the lines on the interaction among states in the international political system as a non-state actor. There is little doubt that the role of non-state actors has achieved remarkable attention within political science scholarship. A growing amount of literature is now focusing on effects and influence of diaspora mobilizations and their increasing political importance (Vertovec 2005). There is a proliferation of diaspora groups actively involved in politics with increasing influence especially aided by globalization and technological developments which enables them to influence policies by attracting the attention of both state and non-state actors (Adamson, 2016:291). Sheffer (2003) argues that due to their size, the different levels that they operate in and various other factors, diasporas have achieved a significant role as political actors in both homeland and host nation politics. According to Sheffer (2003), diaspora groups operate on five different levels in politics, at the domestic, regional, trans-state levels and the level of the whole diaspora and the homeland politics level. In each of these levels, the role of the diaspora is preservation, defense, and promotion of the interests of its communities (Sheffer, 2003).

Therefore, this thesis explores the question, in what ways did the Gambian diaspora mobilize against the Jammeh regime and what impact did their mobilization strategies have on Gambian politics, particularly outcome of the December 1st,_{2016 presidential elections.}

The scope of this question might seem broad since it deals with diasporas as a network of actors. However, we want to take a slightly different approach by examining the politically active diaspora groups. Thus, the focus of this study will be the mobilization strategy of the Gambian diaspora and how it informs on domestic Gambian politics. It also considers how and if the outcome of the December 1st, 2016 Presidential election in The Gambia was influenced

(9)

to an extent by such non-state actor (diaspora). The Gambian diaspora has since the aftermath of the 1994 military takeover led by Yahya Jammeh undertaken mobilization efforts via the use of the creation of advocacy groups, online radios, and newspapers to mobilize and influence Gambian politics.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

In chapter one, I presented an introduction to this thesis and made an argument for the relevance of studying diasporas in International Relations. In chapter two, I will introduce the previous research on diasporas and provide a working definition of the term for this thesis. I will also engage in the debate on the meaning of the word and discuss the different approaches and theories applied to the study of diasporas, a discussion on the theoretical framework for this thesis will follow. In chapter three, I explain the research design and the methodology that was used in gathering the data and how the data was analysed. The choice of case selection and the limitations is also discussed. In chapter four, I will analyse the findings of the thesis looking at the mobilization structure of the Gambian diaspora and if by exploring political opportunities, framing issues and mobilization strategies they achieved influence.

(10)

2.0 Introduction

This chapter delves into the scholarly debate regarding the definition of the concept of diaspora, the essentialist and constructivist discussion and engages with previous research that has been done by other International Relations (IR) scholars on the role of diasporas in politics. It also presents the debate regarding theories best suited to study diasporas and lay the foundation for my choice of the argument for this thesis. The first part of the chapter starts with a conceptual definition of the term diaspora. This is followed by a literature review of the role the diaspora play in international politics. The final part deals with the theoretical framework used in this thesis.

2.1 Diaspora Defined

The literary debate on the definition of diaspora is split into two different camps, those who see diaspora as a descriptive and analytical category (Sheffer 2003) and those who view diaspora as a social construct which are created from an ideological standpoint (Brubaker 2005). Scholars such as Sökefeld using a constructivist framework of identity take the viewpoint that diasporas are not an inevitable result of migration but rather the product of “specific processes of mobilization” that should happen for diasporas to be created. The proponents of the essentialist debate such as Sheffer argues that diasporas are formed via a process of migration. The critics of this view such as Sökefeld employ a constructivist viewpoint that while crossing national borders is, in fact, a part of the diaspora creation process that alone does not qualify the use of the label diaspora. They argue that the actual creation of a diaspora involves certain actors undertaking the task of social and political mobilization and creating identity frames that result in diasporas (Sökefeld 2006; Sökefeld 2008; Adamson 2012).

To conceptualize the reach and significance of diaspora one must begin with a definition of the term. According to Adamson and Demetriou (2007), a diaspora can be defined “as a social collectivity that exists across state borders, and that has succeeded over time to sustain a collective national, cultural or religious identity through a sense of internal cohesion and sustained ties with a real or imagined homeland.” Other scholars have defined diaspora as a “stance, and as a social construct, Vertovec (1997) notes that ‘diaspora is the term used today to describe practically any population which is considered “deterritorialized” or “transnational.” A clear example of this is that as of May 2013 some 42,597 Journal Storage

(11)

(JSTOR) citations included the use of the term, this variety in use of the idea is equally numerous and points to why International Relations can no longer ignore these groups in society (Dodson, 2014: 48).

2.1.1 Defining Diasporas in International Relations

“If words could change the world, the diaspora is one of those terms that promised much but delivered little” (Virinder et al., 2005: 8). What constitutes a diaspora, how are they created, and why are they essential in International Relations? The role diasporas play in international relations is that as groups with strong ties to both homeland and host nations they have the power to influence both national and international policies. In recent times, there has been a proliferation in the use of the term diaspora in both academic and policy circles (Kee, 2014). This interest has become a springboard to the recent literature on the influence and impact of diasporas on their homeland political processes.

Shain and Barth (2003) agree that diasporas defy the “traditional state institutions of citizenship and loyalty” and thus play an essential role in the interplay between domestic and international politics. Liberalism is an IR theory that is cognizant of the role non-state actors’ play in international relations. More specifically the ascendance of neoliberalism has given attention to the interdependence of state and non-state actors acting through various channels in ways that reflect the activities of diasporas (Keohane and Nye 2000). International Relations has gotten more complicated due to actions of transnational political activism undertaken by diasporas, relations between diasporas, homeland and their countries of settlement result in an intricate, interdependent relationship between these three poles (Wahlbeck, 2002:229).

Braziel and Mannur (2003) posit that the term diaspora is very difficult to define, similarly, William Safran (2005:36) shared such an opinion. He asserted that the term diaspora was studied for a long time almost exclusively about the Jews and was largely ignored by both political scientists and historians because it was taken to apply only to the specific case of the dispersion of Jews from the Holy Land. Originating from a Greek noun which means “the shattered” or “dispersed people, it was first widely used to refer to the Jews who were displaced from their homeland (Wahlbeck, 2002:229). As Sheffer (2003) states, the definition of the term was as recently defined as “the dispersion of Jews among the gentile nations” and has since then been used in a wide range of disciplines to explain various movements of people.

(12)

I differ from the view that diasporas should refer only to Jews or other people who have been forcibly dispersed from their original homelands. There are voluntary migrant communities that have shown significant attachment to the home such as the Gambian diaspora. Cohen (2008) argues that the concept of diaspora is mostly used to relate to transnational migrants, but specific criteria must be fulfilled to be labeled a diaspora. Vertovec (1997) argues that ‘diaspora is the term used today to describe any population which is considered “deterritorialized” or “transnational.” This is something that Safran agrees with as he argues that the proliferation of the use of the term has seen it been used in a wider variety of people (Safran, 2008:39). As he puts it, the diaspora is now used as “a metaphoric designation' to describe different categories of people “expatriates, expellees, political refugees, alien residents, immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities tout court.” People who are dispersed for various reasons not related to “catastrophic events” or forced dispersal have come to call themselves diaspora (Van Hear, 2014). Equally, Amirth (2011:57) shares the same perspective stating that “at its most imprecise, the diaspora has become synonymous with migration; almost any migrant group is now labeled a diaspora.”

The overuse of the term has created confusion and debate within scholars of humanities and social sciences which cannot seem to agree on the definition of the word, its features, limits and social dynamics (Vertovec, 2005:2). As Roger Brubaker argues “If everyone is diasporic, then no one is distinctively so.” Scholars such as Fiona Adamson (2012) are of the opinion that diaspora is not a term that simply describes but is also a prescriptive term that can be used to explain the creation of a “deterritorialized, social, cultural or political community.” This explanation of the diaspora aligns with the view of this thesis that migrant groups can redefine themselves and create a community that extends beyond borders of a particular state and use the label of diaspora. A key characteristic of diasporas is indeed in “trans political linkage to the homeland,” and this takes several different forms be it cultural economic and demographic influences (Safran, 2008:45)

The subject of diasporas encompasses a range of debates within International Relations that will be addressed in this section of the paper. Adamson and Demetriou (2007:492) state that the role that the study of diasporas accords to IR theorist is that serves a means to “empirically” investigate the correlation between the “structural and material aspects of “stateness” and the ideation and cultural aspects of “nationess.” The authors argue that the minimal literature in IR

(13)

regarding diasporas has so far mostly been written from a postmodernist perspective with the aim of bringing attention to “marginalized identities or practices as a means to critiquing hegemonic conceptions of state and the hegemonic discourse in IR” (Adamson and Demetriou 2007:495). Shain and Barth (2003) looked at the different roles diasporas play in international relations, with the intention of integrating them in IR theory. To explain the part of the diasporic actor, they suggest that even though diasporas are always located outside of their home county, diasporas expand the meaning of the term “domestic politics to include politics not just inside the state but the people”.

This gap in the discourse of diasporas is the foundation for a discussion on the relevance of diasporas in International Relations. By using a constructivist framework and a case study methodology, the authors concluded that diasporic practices and identities need to be explored together with “important factors that challenge the organizational and spatial logic of the contemporary state system” (Adamson and Demetriou, 2007). Proponents of the constructivist approach to the study of diasporas see them as social constructs that are engineered by “cultural engineers” (Sheffer, 2003:19).

Safran (1991) endeavored to come up with a “closed conceptual model” for the definition of diasporas; this was done to the limit the use of the term to groups who exhibited some of six characteristics. The first of which was that the group had to have been dispersed to two or more countries. The second was that the group had to have a common memory of the homeland, thirdly the group must feel that they will not be accepted by the host county, fourthly that the group must have an idealized memory of their homeland. The fifth and sixth is that members of the group should have a duty to protect the homeland and to have continued relations with their homeland respectively. While it is commendable that Safran endeavored to come with the characterization of diasporas especially considering the current “misuse” of the word, some of his characterization of what makes a diaspora is problematic, and scholars such as Cohen (1996) have also disputed some of his conceptualization. Not all his characterization hold true across all diasporas. My disagreement with some of Safran´s characterization is that for starters the dispersion does not have to be to more than one land.About his second characteristic, I argue that the group does not have to have a collective memory of the homeland, some might have a positive memory of the motherland while others have less positive memories, a fact that characterizes the Gambian diaspora. While those that were forced to migrate shared a contrary

(14)

notion about the homeland and mostly the regime, others that had it easy are somehow indifferent. The third point that the group must feel unaccepted by the host country does not hold true as there are many examples of current day diasporas who are very much integrated into their host countries and many host countries that undertake different programs and initiatives to ensure that diasporas feel welcome and as part of the society. For instance, Sweden has a robust multicultural society were diasporas are very much appreciated due to decades of Sweden adopting multicultural policies. Fourthly, the idea that one must have an idealized notion of the homeland is another point that varies from individual to individual. I agree with his fifth characterization but it is true that diaspora almost universally do have an interest in their homelands while the sixth is also something that holds true for most diasporas.

Cohen (1996) agreed with Safran on three of his characterizations of diasporas, made changes to two of them and added to four more characterizations for what “common features” constitutes a diaspora. Both scholars agree that the dispersion should be from the homeland to two or more foreign lands, I disagree with both Cohen and Safran on this point. While I agree that there should be a dispersion to a foreign land it does not have to be to more than one foreign land. The second which holds true for most diasporas is the movement of people in pursuit of work, trade or to “further colonial ambitions” does not cover the vast range of reasons why people migrate from their homelands both voluntarily and involuntarily. Both scholars agree that there should be a shared memory of the homeland and as earlier stated there do not have to be a uniformity in the memories of the homeland. The fourth feature that there has to be an “idealization of the putative ancestral home and a collective commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety, and prosperity, even to its creation” (Cohen, 1996:525), this is a something that is common for most diasporas. The fifth feature that there has to be the development of a return movement that gains approval is present in some diasporas especially diasporic communities that are as a result of the conflict in their home state, but it is not a characteristic of all diasporas. The sixth feature is one that most scholars agree on; this is a characterization that there should be a “strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time and based on a sense of distinctiveness, a common history and the belief in a common fate” is a characteristic of most diasporas. However, this is equally problematic. For instance, while such may hold for diaspora such as the Jews that are of the same ethnicity, it might be different from that of Gambians due to the fact the Gambia was a colonial creation with more than ten ethnic groups cohabiting.

(15)

The seventh feature is the existence of “troubled relationship” with the host state, implying a lack of acceptance in the host state but this is not a characteristic that is reflective of all diasporas. Some diasporas enjoy very harmonious relationships with host states. A sense of “empathy and solidarity with other co-ethnic members in other countries” which is Cohen's eight feature does not apply to all diasporas but does exist in some diasporas such as anti-regime diasporas who develop a sense of kinship with other members across geographical boundaries who share their political stance. The ninth feature which is the existence of a possibility of a “distinctive yet creative life in host countries with a tolerance for pluralism”, this feature is real for all diasporas that end up in countries with tolerance for pluralism such as the United States and Sweden as examples. Cohen’s scholastic input on the study of diasporas is especially significant considering the contested nature of the diaspora studies but as Cohen himself acknowledges no one diaspora can exhibit all the nine features (Cohen, 1996).

Another definition of diasporas is given by Adamson and Demetriou: (2007:497) who defined diasporas as follows. “A diaspora can be identified as a social collectivity that exists across state borders and has succeeded over time to: (i) sustain a collective national, cultural or religious identity through a sense of internal cohesion and sustained ties with a real or imagined homeland and (ii) display an ability to address the collective interests of members of the social collective through a developed internal organizational frame- many scholars adopt work and transnational links” as one that adeptly defines diaspora. Michel Bruneau (1995) labeled diaspora into three different categories namely, entrepreneurial diasporas, religious diasporas and political diasporas in referral to the diverse reasons for dispersion that diasporas exhibit.

As we can see from the scholarly debate about the term diaspora, the discussion primarily revolves around the question of whether it is a constructed concept or is it a natural consequence of migration or dispersion. It is the view of this thesis that diasporas are not a predictable result of movement but rather that it is a construct. As Martin Sökefeld argues the creation of a diaspora community does not have to emerge because of dispersion but that it can sometimes take many years or not happen at all (Sökefeld, 2006:275). Due to the complexity in what is a diaspora, it is imperative to be specific on which definition of diaspora I intend to use for this research.

(16)

This thesis shares the view of Brubaker (2005) that instead of taking diasporas a substantive we should take diasporas as a claim, a stance. This thesis thus defines diaspora as a socially constructed stance created by political entrepreneurs who employ identity frames, and the people who subscribe to and identify themselves to such structures are members of that diaspora.

2.2 Diaspora in International Politics

Diasporic and ethnic interest groups influence on IR is an issue that has aroused a lot of contention and attention. Scholars have endeavoured to come up with analytical frameworks that could account for diasporas current rise in influence and impact. This subject has been studied from several perspectives one of which is from the context of ethnic lobbying with scholars such as Ambrosio 2002 stating that diasporas become successful in their home land-related issues by employing the use of three significant tools, framing, information and policy analysis and policy oversight. For Shain and Barth (2003) the ability by diasporas to exert influence occurs when motive and opportunity exists, this means that diasporas themselves must have both the desire to have impact and the capability to do so. Huntington (1997); Ambrosio (2002) and Lyons and Mandaville (2012) point that diasporas have a significant impact on homeland and host state politics while Collier and Hoeffler (2000) have studied how diaspora play a role in financing homeland conflicts.

Smith (2003), Itzighson (2000) and Levitt and de la Dehesa (2003) argue that the increased influence of diasporas can also be attributed to weak states that court their diasporas to ensure that remittances flow into their countries as diasporas serve as a valuable source of funds. This dependence on remittances serves as motivation for these developing nations to listen to the members of their diasporas thus giving them influence in shaping policies.

McCormick (2012) states that for a diaspora to be successful in influencing policy the group must have the organizational capacity and capability to get its message across to both policymakers and its supporters. Martha Koinova (2012) using an example of the Iranian diaspora argue that “diasporic institutions have different autonomy in their ability to solicit funds, instrumentalize interests, and frame meanings vis-a-vis homeland politics.” Using their global media presence, they act as political entrepreneurs aiming to bring about regime change

(17)

in Iran. Adamson (2005) has also elaborated on how globalization has resulted in increased ability for groups such as diasporas can achieve influence by trying to engage with a wider audience in a bid bring attention to their causes and engage with others, which could lead to being able to bring “political change in the target state” and by linking their causes to existing discourses which can result in both political and material support.

Shain (1994) argues that ethnic groups can have significant roles in the democratization of their native countries. This influence is achieved via contesting the regimes legitimacy on the international level, challenging the regimes efforts to suppress dissidents, bringing attention to human rights violations committed by the regime, putting obstructions to the government maintaining friendly relations with other nations through effective lobbying and also via supporting and actively participating in the building of domestic opposition. He further argues that the ability of diasporas in the United States to influence foreign policy was helped by the fall of communism which made it more “complex” for the United States to differentiate between friends and foes (Shain, 1994: 812). By applying pressure on decision makers on issues such as democratization and human right abuses existing in their home countries, diasporic groups take on the role of being a moral compass for American foreign policy. Ambrosio (2002) argues that there is not enough attention accorded to the legitimacy of diaspora and ethnic group influence on foreign policy and that this growing influence should be further studied, and that case study analysis is required to do so as it enables us to see why and how individual diasporas can influence at the policy level. 3741667

Vanderbush (2014) used the example of the Iraqi diaspora and their success in convincing both the public and the Congress of the United States of the benefits of getting rid of Saddam Hussein as an example of how influential diaspora groups can be.

2.3 Theoretical Framework: Diaspora as Social Movements

Building on the existing research on the subject of diasporic influence in international politics, the theoretical framework for this study will be outlined in this section of this chapter. The scholarly attentions accorded to the diaspora from various disciplines have used a wide range of theories to study, but a few have used social movement theory as a means to explore them with a few exceptions such as Fiona Adamson (Adamson 2005; Adamson 2013). Social movement theory will be used as the theoretical bridge that links diaspora activities with the research question of what role they play in homeland politics.

(18)

Social movement theory offers a beneficial framework for studying diaspora movements. Social movements have been defined as the systematic and collective efforts to create or to resist “large-scale change in the social order by non-institutionalized means”. Scholars such as Della Porta and Diani proposed four characterizations of social movements, informal interaction networks, shared beliefs and solidarity, collective action focusing on conflicts and use of protest. They further define social movements as “networks of interaction between different actors which may either include formal organizations or not, depend on shifting circumstances” (Della Porta and Diani, 2004:15-16). Applying these definitions to diasporas, one sees why social movement theory as proposed by Sökefeld (2006) and Adamson (2008) offer an excellent framework to study diaspora groups. Social movements are agents of change who challenge the status quo by raising new ideas, demanding action and finding new ways to initiate action (Sökefeld, 2006:268). Sökefeld (2006, 2008) state that the concept of the collective identity which is paramount in all diaspora groups mirrors that same processes as social movements.

Thus, social movement theory will be the point of departure for this thesis, working with the premise that political opportunities, mobilizing structures and practices and framing applied to diasporas studies can also show how they mobilized against the Jammeh regime. The use of social movement as mentioned earlier in this thesis is not commonly used in diaspora studies, but scholars such as Sökefeld (2006) have advocated for applying social movement theory to study diaspora formation. However, this thesis will go beyond the formation process of diaspora and will also use social movement theory as a valuable tool in understanding how diasporas mobilize against autocratic regimes. The issue of framing which is one of the leading features of social movement comes into play with non-state actors producing influence in international politics. Through making conditions into problems that require action and defining grievances, diaspora groups like social movements have an impact on both national and international politics.

According to Diani (1992), all social movements share three criteria "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups, and organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity"(Diani, 1992:1).

Social movement framework which has been touted by scholars such as Adamson (2008) as a great tool to understanding diaspora as is based on three variables, political opportunities, mobilizing structures and practices and framing (Sökefeld, 2006:269). Adamson (2008) and Sökefeld (2006) posit that the use of social movement theory is best applied to the

(19)

study of diasporas. Adamson (2008) seeks to explain how using this argument enables us to see diasporas as a form of transnationalism that develops from a process of “strategic social construction and framing” which is undertaken to create a sense of shared identity. Such a task involves the participation of people who employ ideologies that serve as the framework for identification by members of different social networks. The concept of diaspora centers on the issue of identity, people have to identify as members of a certain diaspora for that particular diaspora group to exist. Therefore, the question becomes who creates these identifiers and what measure is undertaken to “mobilize” people who then accept that identity (Sökefeld, 2006:266). Thanks to new modes of communication and globalization it has become much more comfortable to mobilize people for forms of community and identity to be created (Sökefeld, 2006:269).

Sökefeld defines diasporas as “imagined transnational communities” with people from different locations brought together as an imagination of a shared community, this definition has been used to study the many diasporas using the concepts from social movement theory and constructivism to explore how and under which circumstances groups have created a diaspora and influenced politics. There is a vast literature on social movement and these centers on three variables, political opportunities, mobilizing structures and practices and framing (Sökefeld, 2006:269). Much of the literature on the influence of non-state actors in the policy formulation is derived from one of the concepts of a social movement which is the issue of framing. This relates to the conscious strategizing undertaken by people to “fashion shared understandings of the world and themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action” (McAdam 1996: 6).

Political opportunities refer to the conditions, structural as well as institutional that have to exist to facilitate the creations of social movements. Scholars such as Sidney Tarrow have emphasized the importance of such opportunities and stress that social actions are not a natural result of grievances but that “contextual and structural conditions” are necessary to enable these grievances to be expressed and turned into social movement (Sökefeld, 2006:269). Political opportunity allows the examination of circumstances that explain the creation and success of social movements.

Framing which as earlier mentioned refers to the conscious strategizing undertaken by people to “fashion shared understandings of the world and themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action” refers to specific ideas that create a shared understanding of a movement by giving particular events meaning that establishes a common framework of

(20)

interpretation and representation. These are the ideas that construct certain conditions into issues that articulate the grievances and make them into a call to action.

The mobilizing structure and practices centers on structures that serve as “collective vehicles informal as well as formal through which people mobilize and engage in collective action,” such can help people who are bounded by a specific issue or grievance. It can also take the form of a more organized and formal structure created to take a stance on a particular problem or issue. These structures also enable targeted practices that would allow individuals to partake and thus become part of the movements; such methods can take the form of demonstrations, online campaigns, etc. (Sökefeld, 2006:269).

For a social movement to be called prosperous, it should attain the position of being seen as a valid representative of a cause by political adversaries. So, a successful movement is based on the idea of acceptance by political actors and the acquisition of “new advantages” (Gamson, 1990:28-29). For this thesis, I will use political opportunities, mobilizing structures and framing as advanced by Sökefeld, (2006) to illustrate how Gambian diaspora activists mobilized against the regime.

2.4 Conclusion

This chapter has endeavoured to engage with the debate regarding diasporas, from the meaning of the term, to their role in international politics. I have also presented my theoretical framework of studying the Gambian anti-regime diaspora as a social movement. Mainly, I am interested in their mobilization structure, framing and the political opportunities that provided them with the tools to engage in homeland politics.

(21)

Chapter Three: Method and Research Design

3.0 Introduction

The choice of research method and design rests on the phenomenon one wants to study, and the specific research question(s) asked. This thesis in its bid to explore the mobilization strategy and success of Gambian diaspora activists employed purely qualitative data to describe the activities of the politically engaged Gambian diaspora activists and their mobilization strategies. For more than two decades, the Gambian diaspora has been actively engaged in homeland politics. First, they lobbied the government of their host states to take action against the dictatorial regime of Jammeh through letters and petitions. Secondly, they partnered with

(22)

international human rights organization to highlight the human rights violation in the Gambia. Thirdly, they worked with opposition political parties in Gambia to agitate for regime change through opposition unity. Finally, they engaged directly through military means to topple the regime of Jammeh as well as using social media to mobilize against Jammeh.

This research has an interpretive approach, meaning that this thesis agrees with the school of thought that the social world is “subjectively created” (Halperin & Heath, 2012: 40). In this research, I argue that “knowledge of the social world can be gained through interpreting the meanings which give people reasons for acting” (Halperin and Heath, 2012: 6). As mentioned earlier this thesis views diaspora as a phenomenon that is socially constructed by political entrepreneurs.

This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the research strategy employed, which adopts a case study design. The second deals with how data was collected and the final part discuss how data was analyzed as well as the challenges that I confronted during this research project.

3.1 The Case Study

The choice of a case study for this thesis was not random as mentioned earlier in the literature review. The term diaspora has become so overused that there are so many groups that are identified as diaspora, so, it is virtually impossible to study diasporas as a whole. An advantage of using a case study research method is that it allows me to focus and to intensively examine the phenomena of how the Gambian diaspora mobilized against the Jammeh regime (Halperin and Heath, 2012:206). Creswell (2012:97) argues that a case study can be seen as a methodology that covers questions of scientific inquiry at a broader level rather than just being seen as a method. A case study is considered to be good if it fulfils two characteristics; the first being that it should say something interesting about the phenomena being studied and that should contribute to the academic literature on the subject matter (Halperin and Heath 2012:205).

This case study of the Gambian diaspora is a case of how a diaspora can become a player in homeland politics using strategic mobilization, framing, and utilizing political opportunities in the international arena to impact homeland politics. The use of case study in this thesis is "as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not evident" (Yin,

(23)

2003:13). My approach in this thesis is to explore the role of the politically active diaspora in Gambian politics particularly how their mobilization efforts impacted on the December 2016 presidential elections that ousted the former dictator Yahya Jammeh and his Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC) that have ruled the Gambia for two decades. I posited that within this discuss, the role of the diaspora is a construct of the phenomenon of political competition in the Gambian setting. Specifically, the diaspora activists as a unit of analysis with multiple actors, as highlighted above consist of many interests. It is worth mentioning that diasporas are not homogenous entities who act in once voice (Vertovec, 2005) and that are therefore why this thesis will focus on a specific segment of the Gambian diaspora.

The unit of analysis in this work is focused on the anti-regime segment of the diaspora which takes the form of several individuals, groups, online media houses and organizations who share the common interest of the “liberalization” of The Gambia. From an outside perspective, one can observe that these various groups and interests work in the form of network (Castell). It is important to state this as not all members of the Gambian diaspora are politically active or have shown a vested interest in the politics of the homeland.

The case study accords the opportunity to apply theories and concepts that have been previously used to study other diasporas and see if they will also hold true in the case of the Gambian diaspora. In studying diaspora activism, one needs to pay attention to four different variables, these variables are origin, form, role and goals of the diaspora. These variables can sometimes be interconnected and it is best to study specific segments of diasporas rather than diasporas as a whole thus the relevance of choosing to focus on the Gambian politically active diaspora. By specifically looking at Gambian anti-regime diasporic group and paying attention to their aims and rhetoric it is possible to see how and if their political mobilization works and if the theoretical framework of social movements fits in this case. A critique that has been labeled by using a single case study in research is the problem of generalisability that can arise due to the small number of cases under observation (Halperin & Heath 2012:172). While I agree that this can be true, I also think case studies can help us to compare various cases through the varied perspectives used in analysing a phenomenon. Flyvbjerg (2006:230) agrees with this characterization stating that case studies can act “the force of example” as they can provide detailed and extensive knowledge of the phenomenon studied.

(24)

3.3 Material / Data Collection

According to Jørgensen and Phillips (2002:78-80), there are three elements to take into consideration when gathering material for research. Selection bias should be avoided and thus ensure that the content collected is relevant to the question, the credibility of the content must be unquestionable to the validity of the research and lastly that the documents should be accessible. In this study, data collection was done using primary data, which consisted of mostly semi-structured interviews of key members of the diaspora activists including members of political parties in the diaspora party branches. Secondary data such as newspaper articles and publications by mostly the diaspora groups were used to corroborate the information gathered from the interviews.

3.3.1 Semi-Structured Interviews

The primary data for this study as noted above was based on in-depth interviews with leaders of the five most visible diaspora political groups, ten individuals randomly selected through Facebook and three members of political party branches in the diaspora.

The first groups of individuals interviewed were the head or key members of the most visible Gambian diaspora groups. Two are based in the US and three in Europe. However, most of these groups have branches both in Europe and US. I see these organizations more like a network and that the selection strategy was done strategically and due to some personal connection with a member of one of the groups. The individuals that were interviewed were randomly selected on Facebook as most of the engagement against the regime was done on social media. I noticed that Facebook became a handy mobilization tool for the activist or the anti-Jammeh protesters. Whether the same individuals would have protested while in Gambia was not clear. The third group that was interviewed are individuals leading political party branches in the diaspora. These party surrogates have some influence on the parties at home. Hence, talking to them availed me the opportunity to understand how the diaspora influence the political parties.

The interviews were conducted between February and August 2017. The interviews conducted for this thesis were semi-structured and opened ended which helped in delving deeper on topics ranging from the motivation of joining the anti-Jammeh movement to the various strategies used. Open-ended questions also contribute in maximizing the response validity of interviews (Aberbach and Rockman 2002). Semi-structured interviews have the

(25)

advantage of according the researcher the opportunity to delve deeper into the experiences of the interviewee, which in turn leads to data that is more valid but it also has the disadvantage of making it more difficult for the researcher to generalize because the data collected is not standardized due to the fact the question asked to different subjects can vary (Halperin and Heath, 2012:258). The fact that data from these interviews cannot be quantified or re-tested has the effect of making it less reliable (ibid).

The selection of these interviewees based on their elite status with prominent diaspora movements and their positions in the movements makes them a source of superior and even privileged information. When using elite interviews, sampling can be done by selecting key individuals who are in positions of importance and thus are perfect for getting specific insights (Björnehed, 2012: 68). Being a Gambian and having a bit of a social contact within certain diaspora political organizations played a role in my ability to get access to these particular individuals.

As most of the elite members of the diaspora organizations including the political party surrogates that I interviewed were based in the United Kingdom and the United States, I talked them via telephone calls mostly using “WhatsApp.” As Halperin and Heath (2012) states telephone interviews allow for people from the world over to be interviewed if they own or can have access to a telephone. Since members of the diaspora interviewed were not located in one place and it was not possible to travel halfway around the world to talk to them so the use of telephone interview was best suited, cost and time are two factors that a researcher needs to take into consideration when deciding what type of data collecting method to choose (Halperin and Heath, 2012:259).

A disadvantage of telephone interviews is that it can be a little impersonal and it might be impossible to ask lengthy questions as the subjects might not have too much time to talk and body language cannot be gauged. During my conversations with them, it was easy to build a rapport due to the sense of kinship based on our shared nationality and discussions regarding the regime change in The Gambia, but I was very conscious not to show any political leanings. I made sure to ensure that the topic and aim of the thesis was articulated to them at the beginning of the conversations and that they had the option of declining to answer any question that they felt uncomfortable answering.

(26)

Before the interviews, I had created a set of questions that served as a guide for the discussions, and while there were instances where we diverted from the topic at hand, the interview guide enabled me to guide the conversations back to the aim question of this thesis. The interviews were conducted in mostly in English and but we occasionally resorted to our local Gambian language, Wolof. Regarding the types of question asked Leech (2002: 667-668) advises the use of different kinds of questions in interviews to get more from the interviewee and this is something that I used in my discussion by applying a combination of “grand tour questions and “example questions.” Example questions were asked by asking them to provide specific instances of their activism.

One of the diaspora organisations elites that I interviewed was based in Helsingborg, Sweden which is also where I reside. This enabled me to have the opportunity of a face to face interview. The use of face to face interview allowed for in-depth conversations regarding the issues. Face to face interviews allow for more extended and detailed inquiry and serve as a rich source of data (Halperin and Heath, 2012: 254). In analysing the findings from the interviews, I also paid attention to specific words that were used directly or indirectly by the political elites I interviewed such as patriotism, regime change, democracy, dictatorship, freedom of expression, human rights, responsibility to ask further questions and to delve deeper.

The ten individuals randomly selected were interviewed using Facebook messenger and WhatsApp. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes and the selected individuals are people that I have followed on Facebook, monitored over a period time as they engaged in homeland politics from there bases in the West. These interviewees are people I will describe as being “highly involved” political entrepreneurs. Due to the fact, we shared some mutual friends and some of them I had as friends on my Facebook network so it was easy to engage with them. While it can be argued, this has a potential to influence the data, access to these individuals was paramount for this research.

3.3.2 Secondary Data

As briefly mentioned above the secondary data used in the thesis include newspaper articles mostly authored by the activists as well as the various press releases that the groups organized. I followed the discussion keenly on the internet mainly on the diaspora newspapers that were used by the activist to write against the regime. It is important to note that while such a technique was employed, the rationale was to be able to corroborate the information that was given to me during the interviews and in some cases to identify and verify names of individuals

(27)

and ascertain dates of events. I was also able to access some internal documents of the organizations and supplied by the activists. Similar to the articles, such materials including press releases, minutes of meetings, petition letters, etc. were used to corroborate the interviews.

3.4 Data Analysis

As shown above that this thesis employed two sets of data gathering technique. While interviews were the primary source of information, content analysis of newspaper articles and publications were used as supplementary with the aim of corroborating the data gathered from the interviews. The data collected from the two techniques were triangulated to answer the research question as well as address the issue of validity.

The analysis was done after each stage of the interview. The interviews were recorded using voice phone voice recorder. The voice notes were later transcribed and manually coded descriptively along topics such as movement goals, motivations, strategy, etc. Such coding makes it easier to trace the origin and the various strategies used by the activists and more so, how they engage directly with homeland politics.

3.5 Challenges

Although I have shown that gathering data was done through phone calls and sitting in my room, I confronted challenges that were very normal in doing elite interviews. The issue of time for some activists was a considerable challenge. In many cases, schedule interviews were canceled due to other engagements of the selected informants. This significantly affected my data collection timeline but at the end of it all, I was able to interview all the selected individuals. The other challenge experienced had to do with the difficulty in transcribing some of the messages that were said in my local langue Wolof due to my low level of understanding of some words. However, some of the words, I didn’t understand, I sent an email for clarification, which I found to be very helpful to my research.

(28)

3.6 Summary

In this chapter have explained the decisions that were taken in the course of this project. A case study approach was adopted as I want to bring to the table new knowledge about the Gambian diaspora and Gambia’s political history. I have also shown how data was collected. Primary data was collected through interviews and essential activist’s documents including petition letters etc. Secondary data was collected through the review of online newspaper articles and diaspora news sites. Additional data was also collected on social media particularly facebook. The two data sources were corroborated to inform the analysis.

Chapter Four: Reclaiming the Homeland: Analysis of The Mobilization

Structure of The Gambian Diaspora

4.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis of the thesis using social movement theory: political opportunity structure, framing and mobilization structure. It is divided into three parts; the first part explores the political opportunity structures that made the diaspora mobilization possible. Tarrow (1998) defines political opportunity structure as those “dimensions of the political environment which either encourage or discourage people from using collective action”. In this thesis, the opportunity structures are those conditions that encouraged the diaspora to mobilize. This is presented through brief background of the Gambian diaspora

(29)

looking at factors such as the political situation in Gambia that contributed to the process of diaspora formation. Such a background is important in understanding the diaspora activism in the Gambian context. The section argues that the human rights abuses under Jammeh was the primary political opportunity structure that informs diaspora mobilization.

The second part discusses the framing and mobilizing structures of the Gambian diaspora activists I have discussed before that Jammeh’s poor human rights record provided the political opportunity structure for the diaspora to engage. Events such as the murder of Osuman Koro Ceesay, Student Protest in April 10 and 11, 2000, murder of Deyda Hydra and recently the Solo Sandeng murder were used by the diaspora activist to inform their mobilization strategy. I argue that the regime repression against human rights activists over the years informed diaspora framing. Frames are “emergent action-oriented set of beliefs that inspire meaning and legitimate social movement activities and campaigns” (Benford, 1997:416). Basically, the struggle against the regime of Jammeh was framed along human rights violations. This enabled the diaspora activists to mobilize using the internet and other opportunity structures such as International Human Rights Organizations to mobilize against the Jammeh regime. The final part concludes the chapter. It gives a quick run-down of the thesis and summarizes the main arguments.

4.1 Politics under Jammeh 1994-2016

The Republic of The Gambia is one of the world’s smallest countries; the country gained independence from British rule in 1965 and has for a long time been one of the most stable countries in Africa. From 1965 to 1994, the Gambia under the leadership of Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara and his People Progressive Party (PPP) was known as one of the longest surviving multiparty democracy in Africa. However, in 1994, the democratically elected government of Jawara was overthrown by a group of junior army officers led by Yahya Jammeh who ruled until he was defeated in the December 2016 presidential election by Adama Barrow. The coup leaders’ validation for the necessity of such a move was anchored on “an anti-corruption effort aimed at a stagnant elite” (Hultin et al., 2017). The coup was surprisingly well received by the citizens of The Gambia and even more so by the young people who had grown up knowing only one president in their lifetime. Some political elites at that time also had a favourable response to the change of government albeit it was a coup (Perfect, 2010:54). Promises of

(30)

infrastructural reforms, revamping of government service including putting an end to corruption and the commitment of handing back power to a civilian government after four (later changed to two) years in power endeared the coup leaders to the Gambian populace.

In 1996, Yahya Jammeh resigned from the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council (AFPRC) and formed his Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC) to contest the elections as a civilian candidate. He won the election and the three elections that followed in 2001, 2006 and 2011 respectively. After his election success, the romance between the Gambian public and the newly elected president was short lived as Hultin et al. state, "Jammeh quickly developed a persona as a classic African ‘Strongman' with a paternalistic, patriarchal and devoutly Islamic identity; democratic trappings aside, his record was that of a bullying autocrat a brutal demagogue, and he embraced the title dictator"(Hultin et al., 2017: 2).

Under Jammeh’s rule, media houses and journalist were routinely harassed and imprisoned, and there have been instances where journalists have disappeared without a trace and other cases murdered. A case in point is the disappearance of journalist Chief Ebrima Manneh, and in 2004 the Managing Editor of The Point Newspaper was shot dead by unknown assailants. The government denied any involvement in the murder but had a very lacklustre attitude in investigating the shooting and continued its hostile relationship with the local press (Perfect, 2010: 58). Journalists who wrote about President Jammeh’s comments and attitude about the murder of the newspaper editor were sentenced to jail and fined before they were later pardoned (ibid). In 2015, the Information and Communication law was introduced which allowed for the imprisonment of journalists who the state deemed as guilty of “spreading false information” to up to 10 years in jail. Suspected sympathizers of opposition parties have disappeared without a trace and members of their families threatened and tortured (Embiricos, 2016).

Tensions in the Gambia have been building for a few years caused by repressions, poverty, and unemployment; the Country ranks last regarding GDP in West Africa. Disgruntlement was largely kept in check by the government by using several tactics including the Indemnity Act which was signed into law in 2001 to ensure that security forces could not be prosecuted for quelling “unlawful assembly.” The catalyst for the introduction of the Indemnity law was the murder of 14 students the previous year who were protesting the rape and murder of a female student and torture to death of a male student respectively. The brutal crackdown on the young students led to widespread condemnation from both the national and international spheres

(31)

(Smith, 2016) including the Gambian diaspora. In fact, I argue that such blatant disregard for human rights by the Jammeh government helped diaspora to frame issues around human rights and this has informed their mobilization strategy. Multinational donors such as the EU and governments of other countries such as the US, UK as well as international human rights organizations have condemned continuously the human rights violations in The Gambia raising concerns about the lack of accountability for abuses committed by members of the state security forces who were empowered by the former President of The Gambia (Human Rights Watch, 2015).

The Jammeh regime undertook measures to ensure that it was almost impossible for it to be unseated in elections and cut down on possibilities or avenues that meant it control total power on the affairs of the country, legal, legislative, judiciary and even religious arms of the government were firmly controlled by the regime (ibid). For instance, the electoral laws have been changed several times to benefit Jammeh. A case is in point is the 2015 amendment to the electoral act. The new law increased the deposit to be paid by presidential aspirants from D10, 000 to D1 million. Equally, the deposit for new political parties was increased to D1 million. Parliamentary election deposit was also raised to D100,000 from D5000. The national mobilizer for the ruling APRC party Yankuba Colley was quoted on national TV defending the monetary increase. He argued that the presidency should not be for every Tom, Dick and Harry. The monetary increase was seen by the opposition as well as the diaspora activists’ tactical move to starve the already weak and fragmented opposition and by extension to eliminate potential opponents. The already existing electoral laws prohibited political parties in the Gambia from receiving funding from corporate bodies and individuals that are non-Gambian, while the APRC extensive enjoy state resources which were mostly used in their electioneering campaigns.

The Jammeh government did not only stop at starving opposition parties of finances, but was held bent on arresting opposition leaders too. In numerous occasions opposition figure heads have been arrested for challenging government policies. For instance, Halifa Sallah and other colleagues from the People's Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) were arrested after criticizing Jammeh’s policy to get rid of “witches” in Foni. Equally, Solo Sandeng of the United Democratic Party (UDP) was arrested and tortured to death after leading a public protest of about fifty people demanding for electoral reforms. His arrests and torture was followed by the arrest of the party leader of the UDP with almost all

(32)

members of their executive. They were arraigned before the courts with bogus charges and ultimately sentenced to three years in prison. Also, there have been instances were opposition members, academics and other human rights activists as well as journalist were arrested and held incommunicado without access to legal counsel. These cited examples resulted in a political environment that was both hostile and unconducive for democracy thus catalysing diaspora mobilization against the regime.

The relevance of such political opportunity is very salience in the case of the Gambian diaspora as I have shown above the authoritarian nature of the Jammeh regime has created situations that have led to numerous people harbouring grievances that have given rise to their later activism outside the shore of The Gambia. Authoritarian systems such as the Jammeh regime of The Gambia can lead to a relocation of politics to borders outside of the nation-state because such governments ensure that dissidents, opposition, and resistance can only occur in other places other than the country of origin (Betts and Jones, 2016:1). Fear of repression and inability to efficiently mobilize in home countries means that specific diaspora groups sometimes fill in the vacuum and help to formulate many of the ideas and political moves that become “adopted” local politicians in the homeland (Lyon, 2006:269).

The view of this thesis is that the creation of the Gambian diaspora was not as a result of the movement of people from one place to another but as the outcome of strategic social mobilization undertaken by specific actors who constructed a discourse that gave rise to the creation of what I call the anti-regime diaspora. Fiona Adamson states that diasporas are social constructs and that “one can hypothesize that they are constructed by political entrepreneurs who are acting rationally and strategically through the strategic deployment of identity frames and categories” (2012:32).

While it is evident that there are many politically charged Gambian diaspora organization, this thesis focuses on those associations that are more visible and have been engaging in contentious politics with the Jammeh regime. These politically charged organizations can be grouped into two: Civil Society Organizations and Political Parties branches. The difference between the two groups is that while the CSO are nonpartisan, the political party branches work to advance the interest of their political parties in the diaspora. In this thesis, most emphasis has

Reclaiming the Homeland - A Case Study of The Gambian Diaspora