Dr. Assan Jallow’s recent article endorsing Dr. Mamadou Tangara for the position of Secretary General of the Commonwealth serves as a striking illustration of intellectual pretence, shallow analysis, and sycophantic drivel. 

The article reads less like a scholarly assessment and more like the desperate sales pitch of a second-hand motor salesman, intent on closing a deal at any cost. Jallow’s work is an exercise in intellectual chicanery, a glowing hagiography, lacking the depth and evidence that should underpin any serious endorsement—If intellectual mediocrity were an Olympic event, Jallow’s endorsement would surely take home the gold. 

Instead of offering a robust, evidence-based endorsement, Jallow’s article resembles the intellectual equivalent of a hollow drum—loud and attention-grabbing, but utterly empty upon closer examination—it panders to political ambition with the rhetorical flourish of a tabloid gossip column. In fact, it would not be out of place in the pages of a cheap tabloid, extolling the virtues of its subject with such exaggerated praise that one half-expects it to end with the words “sponsored content.” 

As such, it is not difficult for one to wonder whether Jallow’s doctorate was painstakingly earned or is simply one of those dubious, honorary trinkets tossed out like confetti at a third-rate graduation ceremony. Indeed, the lack of depth, evidence, and analytical integrity also forces one to seriously question whether Jallow even knows the first thing about scholarly responsibility. 

After all, one would expect a person with a PhD to engage in balanced and well-researched critique, not produce a glowing piece of fan mail for political favour. Simply put, the piece, tragically devoid of scholarly rigour, fails to demonstrate any semblance of academic merit. 

It is nothing more than an ode to mediocrity, lacking substance, and—perhaps most alarmingly—evidence. Scholars, particularly those with the gravitas of a doctoral title, are expected to be the torchbearers of knowledge and integrity, carrying forth the noble pursuit of truth with a commitment that evokes the very spirit of intellectual devotion. 

It is for this reason that medieval scholars were often regarded as high priests of the mind, individuals who devoted themselves, in near-monastic fashion, to the purest and most sacred search for truth. Their intellectual endeavours were not merely a profession but a vocation, demanding the utmost discipline and self-sacrifice, removed from the distractions of worldly ambition.

As in classical Greece or Victorian England, the very thought of scholars engaging in the rough-and-tumble world of politics would have been considered not only impractical but blasphemous. The sacred nature of scholarship, devoted entirely to the pursuit of higher truths, was seen as fundamentally incompatible with the compromises, duplicity, and moral relativism that define political life. 

To sully the scholar’s robe by engaging in the sordid affairs of power and patronage would have been regarded as a violation of the essence of intellectual purity, a betrayal of the fundamental principles upon which the scholarly vocation rested. In these eras, the intrusion of political machinations into the domain of scholarship would not merely have been frowned upon—it would have been viewed as an affront to the sacred order of knowledge, a transgression that risked not only the scholar’s reputation but the integrity of intellectual inquiry itself.

However, in a country like the Gambia where only a minuscule percentage of the population holds a doctoral degree, it is all too common for individuals like Jallow to brandish their academic credentials like a magician waving a wand, using titles as a cover for intellectual grandstanding. 

Jallow’s rhetorical approach follows the same patterns of the ancient Greek sophists—those itinerant intellectual charlatans who peddled ornate but ultimately hollow rhetoric to impress audiences without engaging in the substantive philosophical inquiry that would require actual effort. He leans heavily on his credentials, basking in the glow of his new-found political patron, Dr. Tangara, while offering next to nothing in terms of thoughtful critique or substantive engagement with Tangara’s candidacy. It’s a clear case of style over substance, and in Jallow’s case, the style is more than a little frayed. 

Jallow’s endorsement of Tangara is not just a failure of scholarship—it is a damning indictment of the intellectual poverty that now plagues Gambian academia. His failure to uphold even the most basic standards of scholarship diminishes not only his endorsement but also the already fragile reputation of academia in The Gambia. 

This is part of a worrying trend in Gambian intellectual circles, where scholars appear all too eager to sell out their integrity for political favour. Rather than acting as the conscience of society, these intellectuals become enablers of poor governance, contributing to the erosion of public discourse. 

This brings to mind Julien Benda’s “The Treason of the Intellectuals”, in which he decries the intellectuals’ betrayal of their higher duty to truth and justice when they become subservient to political interests. Benda asserts that intellectuals, who should serve as society’s moral compass, are called to a detached, principled commitment to objective reasoning, unsullied by the transient demands of political power. 

For an intellectual to compromise their integrity by aligning themselves with political agendas is to descend into a form of intellectual blasphemy, forsaking the pursuit of truth in favour of partisan loyalty. The role of scholars in shaping public opinion and guiding moral and intellectual health is sacrosanct, a non-negotiable obligation that transcends political affiliations or ambitions. The intellectual, in Benda’s view, is not merely a thinker but a custodian of reason and moral clarity.

However, rather than engaging in the critical and unbiased assessment of Dr. Mamadou Tangara’s suitability—an analysis expected of someone in possession of a doctoral title—Jallow has abandoned the sacred duty of the intellectual to scrutinise power with detached rigour. 

In Benda’s terms, Jallow has succumbed to the treasonous behaviour of intellectuals who forsake their ethical responsibility in the face of political pressure, choosing instead to act as a sycophant, eager to curry favour rather than uphold the principles of truth and justice. This echoes Benda’s concern about intellectuals who, rather than serving as challengers of power, become its willing servants, thus abandoning their essential role as protectors of society’s moral and intellectual foundation.

Jallow’s uncritical endorsement of Tangara, cloaked in the guise of scholarship, contributes to the erosion of public discourse by lending undue academic legitimacy to a political figure, absent the rigorous scrutiny required. Rather than fostering informed debate, his actions reinforce intellectual complacency and diminish the role of scholars as independent arbiters of truth. Such behaviour is not merely a betrayal of individual scholarly integrity; it represents a wider malaise within academia, where intellectuals, instead of acting as agents of moral and philosophical rigour, become passive instruments of political manoeuvring. 

For those of us who have dedicated years to earning advanced academic degrees, this kind of intellectual pretence is not just disappointing—it’s downright offensive. It undermines the hard work and dedication that go into legitimate scholarship, reducing the value of a doctoral degree to a mere accessory, flaunted without substance. 

Jallow’s piece is a disservice to both the candidate and the Commonwealth. It fails to address the real issues with the depth and seriousness they demand. Please read on: 

1. Sweeping Dismissal of Legitimate Concerns

Dr. Jallow dismisses the objections raised by the ‘Concerned Gambians and Commonwealth Citizens’ as “malicious intent.” This sweeping generalization doesn’t address the heart of the issue. Tangara’s complicity in Yahya Jammeh’s regime is not imagined; it is documented in several reports. During Tangara’s tenure, Human Rights Watch (2017) detailed a litany of atrocities under Jammeh, from torture to unlawful detentions. Instead of addressing these legitimate concerns, Jallow resorts to rhetorical fluff and evasive reasoning. Such an approach is akin to sweeping dirt under the rug—it may hide the mess for a moment, but the stench remains. 

Source: Human Rights Watch (2015). State of Fear: Arbitrary Arrests, Torture, and Killings. Available

 at:https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/09/17/state-fear/arbitrary-arrests-torture-and-killing

2. Tangara’s Silence During the Jammeh Regime

Jallow argues that serving under Jammeh does not disqualify Tangara. However, as the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) report makes clear, Tangara, as Foreign Minister, was part of a government that sanctioned torture and political repression. 

Dr. Jallow’s romanticising of Tangara’s “resilience” as admirable is sheer intellectual dishonesty. Silence in the face of state-sponsored brutality is not a virtue—it’s complicity. Praising Tangara’s silence is like commending a fireman for watching a blaze while toasting marshmallows. 

If inaction in the face of oppression counts as resilience, we must now redefine leadership as doing nothing with conviction. Tangara’s so-called “resilience” is little more than a well-crafted escape from accountability.

• Source: JusticeInfo.net (2022)TRRC Final report: Gambia between prosecutions and amnesties. Available at:https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/86069-trrc-final-report

3. Diplomatic Failures Under Tangara’s Leadership

Jallow touts Tangara’s diplomatic prowess, but in 2023, the U.S. expelled Gambian diplomats for misconduct—an unprecedented embarrassment under Tangara’s leadership. This failure is hardly the hallmark of diplomatic finesse that Jallow would have us believe. 

In fact, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Tangara’s diplomatic corps has been embroiled in a series of scandals, ranging from financial embezzlement to tawdry sex scandals and even a fistfight—yes, an actual brawl involving diplomats. 

It seems Tangara’s version of diplomacy involves less negotiation and more scenes from a pub on a Saturday night. Hence, 

• Source: Gambiana (2024). The Gambian Foreign Service in shambles: perhaps it’s time for a Reality TV Show — ‘The Real Diplomats of Banjul’. Available at:https://gambiana.com/opinion-the-gambian-foreign-service-in-

4. Silence on Human Rights: The Hallmark of Complicity

Jallow suggests that Tangara’s silence on human rights abuses is excusable because ministers must adhere to “confidentiality protocols.” This is not only ethically indefensible but philosophically absurd. As John Stuart Mill famously argued in On Liberty, silence in the face of oppression is moral cowardice. Tangara’s silence during the Jammeh regime is an indelible stain on his record, making him wholly unfit for a position requiring moral clarity.

• Source: Mill, J.S. (1859). On Liberty. London: John W. Parker.

5. Political Survival Over Democratic Principles

Dr. Jallow paints Tangara as a figure of “resilience” for having served under both Jammeh and Barrow. But this is not resilience—it’s political opportunism. The Robert Lansing Institute (2023) highlighted how President Barrow’s government made a concerning U-turn toward dictatorship, reversing many of the democratic gains that were promised after Jammeh’s departure. 

Throughout this alarming shift, Tangara has remained conveniently silent, proving more committed to maintaining his position than upholding democratic values. His quiet acquiescence during this political backslide only reinforces his complicity in allowing authoritarian remnants to persist unchecked.

• Source: Robert Lansing Institute (2023) The President Barrow demonstrates a U-turn to the dictatorship in The Gambia. Available at https://lansinginstitute.org/2023/10/16/the-president-

6. Complicity by Association: Ignoring Moral Responsibility

Jallow argues that Tangara cannot be blamed for Jammeh’s abuses since he has no criminal record. However, Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem reminds us that complicity does not require direct participation in crimes. By continuing to serve Jammeh without protest, Tangara was a willing enabler of a brutal regime. One does not need a criminal conviction to have a compromised moral compass.

• Source: Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.

7. Tangara’s Dubious Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes

Jallow lauds Tangara for his “commitment to democracy,” but the facts suggest otherwise. In 2016, the Gambia brokered bilateral agreements with authoritarian regimes like China, aligning Gambia with nations that trample on democratic rights.Since the change in government, these relationships have only strengthened, with The Gambia often receiving the short end of the stick. 

Tangara’s willingness to cozy up to regimes that regularly trample on democratic freedoms raises serious concerns about his commitment to the very values the Commonwealth is meant to champion. These alliances not only undermine The Gambia’s sovereignty but also stand in direct contradiction to the democratic ideals Tangara claims to uphold. 

• Source: Standard (2024). 8 YEARS OF GAMBIA-CHINA RELATIONS. Available at https://standard.gm/8-years-of-gambia-

8. A Leader Who Divides Rather Than Unites

Jallow conveniently ignores the reports of internal discord within Tangara’s ministry. According to empirical evidence, Tangara’s leadership style fostered factionalism and internal strife, hardly the qualities needed for a Commonwealth leader who must unify 56 diverse nations. 

Effective diplomacy necessitates unity and inclusivity, as articulated by renowned diplomat François de Callières, who argued that the art of diplomacy lies in fostering collaboration and avoiding division among nations (Callières, 1716). The Commonwealth, an organization that prides itself on international cooperation and shared values, demands a leader who can bridge differences and promote harmony, a quality not reflected in Tangara’s tenure as Foreign Minister.

• Source: Callières, F. (1716). On the manner of negotiating with princes. Project Gutenberg. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/68987/68987-h/68987-h.htm

9. Deflection Through Personal Attacks

Rather than addressing the concerns raised by the petitioners, Jallow resorts to personal attacks, accusing them of harbouring “grudges” and personal vendettas. As Ronald Dworkin wrote in Taking Rights Seriously, ad hominem attacks serve only to distract from the core argument and expose the weakness of the defense. By shifting the focus away from the substantive criticisms, Jallow reveals the fragility of his support for Tangara.

• Source: Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

In a nutshell, Dr. Assan Jallow’s defense of Dr. Mamadou Tangara is riddled with distortions, omissions, and unconvincing rhetoric. Tangara’s record, marred by complicity in human rights abuses, diplomatic blunders, and political opportunism, makes him entirely unfit for the role of Commonwealth Secretary-General. 

The Commonwealth, an organisation built on the values of democracy, human rights, and good governance, cannot afford to be led by someone whose career has been defined by the absence of these very principles. It is time for the Commonwealth to reject Tangara’s candidacy and select a leader with integrity, vision, and a proven commitment to upholding the values that bind its member states together.

Analysis and final thoughts

As the Commonwealth stares down the barrel of a crucial decision, the candidacy of Mamadou Tangara, The Gambia’s top diplomat, for the esteemed position of Secretary-General feels like a plot twist in a low-budget thriller—predictable, unconvincing, and utterly uninspiring. 

In an era where leadership should mean more than just lofty speeches and backroom deals, Tangara’s bid is not just a bad idea; it’s a betrayal of everything the Commonwealth stands for.

Let’s not beat around the bush: Tangara is the wrong man at the wrong time for the wrong job. His diplomatic dance card may be full, but it’s filled with the wrong partners. He’s hobnobbed with tyrants, toasted with autocrats, and shown a remarkable knack for cozying up to those who have little regard for the democratic principles that are supposed to be the beating heart of the Commonwealth. Is this the leader we want? One who talks democracy by day but courts dictators by night?

The Commonwealth is not a cocktail party for the politically unscrupulous, nor is it a stage for a second-rate statesman with a questionable record. No, it’s a global platform dedicated to promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. 

Yet Tangara’s track record in The Gambia reads like a cautionary tale. His tenure as Foreign Minister has been marked by a lack of commitment to these very principles. He has presided over a regime that has played fast and loose with democratic norms, squashing dissent, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, and showing a blatant disregard for the rule of law. For a man who aspires to lead an organization that champions these ideals, his record is not just unimpressive; it’s downright disqualifying.

And let’s talk about his so-called diplomatic skills. In a world teetering on the edge of chaos, the last thing the Commonwealth needs is a leader who sees diplomacy as a game of musical chairs, always looking for the next opportunity to swap seats with whoever offers the most lucrative deal. 

Tangara’s foreign policy approach can best be described as a dance of convenience, shifting allegiances faster than a spin doctor crafting a headline. His idea of diplomacy seems less about building bridges and more about erecting walls, less about fostering unity and more about sowing division. How can such a leader be expected to bring together a diverse community of 56 nations with different histories, cultures, and political systems?

The Secretary-General’s role is not just a cushy job for someone looking to pad their CV; it’s a position that demands moral clarity, a commitment to justice, and a deep understanding of the complexities of international relations. Tangara’s candidacy, however, offers none of these. 

Instead, it offers a diplomat whose style is as opaque as a Gambian smog-filled sky, whose commitment to democratic values is as flimsy as a sandcastle at high tide, and whose vision for the future of the Commonwealth is as murky as the River Gambia itself.

The Commonwealth needs a leader who can stand tall on the world stage, a leader who can navigate the turbulent waters of global politics with a steady hand and a clear vision. 

It needs someone who can speak truth to power, not someone who whispers sweet nothings in the ears of despots. Tangara, with his shadowy past and his questionable alliances, is not that leader. He is, quite frankly, a disaster waiting to happen—a ticking time bomb wrapped in diplomatic double-speak.

So, let’s not kid ourselves. The Commonwealth deserves better than Mamadou Tangara. It deserves a Secretary-General who will fight for its values, not undermine them; who will defend its principles, not discard them when they’re inconvenient; and who will lead with integrity, not with an eye on the next political payday. Reject Tangara’s candidacy, and let’s find a leader who is fit for the challenge—someone who can restore faith in this noble institution and guide it through the stormy seas ahead.

By Arfang Madi Sillah, Washington DC

Disclaimer: 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institutions or organizations. The author takes full responsibility for the opinions and analysis presented herein. The author holds several academic degrees, including an advanced degree in International Relations from the Helms School of Government at Liberty University, Virginia, United States of America.