There is no neutrality in development comparisons. They drift effortlessly off the podium into the popular mind and out of policy language into the normal discourse, which creates hope and anticipation together with disappointment. A leader who talks of world success cases is not just being ambitious, but is also providing a reflection against which the citizens would start to perceive their own realities.
The Gambia’s recent controversy over The Gambia vs Dubai that arose as a result of a commentary highlights how fast aspiration can fuel controversy. Humor and satire are the inherent characteristics of democratic life, but this moment requires answering a more profound and more thoughtful question: how should the development ambitions be expressed in societies that are prone to crossing the institutional boundaries, rapid transformation, and unequal growth?
Recently, the highest office of Gambia has created a ripple effect in public discussion in The Gambia, arguing that Brufut is comparable to Dubai. What was probably meant as a positive assertion soon became the subject of scorn, viruses, and jokes on social media. Although humor is an acceptable form of democratic expression, the moment provokes a more serious consideration of how the national leadership is communicating development aspirations.
Besides the instant responses, the episode shows a more underlying conflict of aspiration versus interpretation. Those in positions of authority widely use the symbolism of language, and symbolism is loaded with much more than intent. Speaking of development in the context of strong international metaphors, the citizens understandably compare those terms with their daily experience of roads, houses, government services, and financial prospects. Skepticism comes where the gap seems very broad.
Read More: The Green Transition: Gambia between Market Liberalism and State Capitalism
Leaders should not be wrong to mention success stories around the world. The aspirational comparisons have the potential to lift people’s imaginations and indicate a wish to make some progress. But analogies are a mighty thing and when carelessly applied, may lead to confusion instead of enlightenment or development objectives.
Dubai can be traced to a highly particular political economy: many years of oil payments, concentrated capital investment, aggressive state planning, and global financials. Brufut, on the other hand, is grappling with the high population growth, land pressures, inadequate infrastructure, and old governance structures typical of most peri-urban societies in developing states.
Although it may have been meant to represent the speed of change within a limited amount of time, how Brufut is today is not what it used to be a few years ago; the analogy still has the temptation of forced interpretation. The quality of development, sustainability, and inclusiveness is not only determined by speed. Unplanned fast growth can as readily bring about congestion, inequality, land struggle, and environmental pressures.
It is not ambition, but expectation. In a situation where development language surpasses the institutional capacity, it becomes dangerous as it creates a greater disconnect between the political talk and the realities that the citizens are living. The reason why many Gambians are not dismissing the vision is that they are doubting its plausibility. In situations where the housing shortage, unemployment, and service delivery issues are not addressed, grand comparisons may seem alienating, even to those who are well-motivated.
This is the very reason why it is important to be clear. Narratives of development must describe not only the changes, but also the way in which they are being dealt with, who gains, and what protection exists. In the absence of this, comparisons are tempted to become destinations as opposed to processes, promises as opposed to paths.
Read More: Small State, Big Ideas: Gambia’s Re-engagement with China
The significance of leadership communication is that the communication determines trust. In democratic societies, power is always maintained not by symbolism but credibility. When the vision is framed using realism, time frames, and policy content, citizens will respond well.
On the other hand, the lack of concrete plans, in that the metaphors own too many plans, creates a situation in which people may turn to ridicule instead of engagement, not because people are opposed to progress, but because they feel that there is an imbalance between the words and what is going on the ground.
However, this does not warrant personal assaults and disrespect of the highest office. The criticism used by Democrats ought to be fierce but meaningful, and leaders ought to be involved more than being mocked. Simultaneously, the powerful need to realize that language is a heavy component. Development discourses rely on the extent to which they mirror social realities and institutional preparedness in determining their credibility.
Brufut does not need to transform into another Dubai to have a chance to be successful. It needs intelligent city design, efficient land use, economical infrastructure, environmental protection, and equal economic opportunities. Localized development is more real and pragmatic than imported imagery, which offers an escape.
At the end, this episode is not among the remarks, but of the politics of aspiration. There is a need to have a vision, but precision is essential. Rhetoric of leadership, which is consistent with ability and conditions, brings out confidence. In places where it fails to, a vacuum is filled by satire. The lesson shows that ambition needs to create clear results, which make the future path visible through comparisons that make things obvious, but most people fail to achieve this.
*The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Diplomatic Insight.
Ebrima Ceesay
Ebrima Ceesay is a master's student of Political Science majoring in international relations at Universitas Islam International Indonesia. My areas of interest are the political economy of development, climate governance in the Global South, and how small states cope with their international diplomacy on structural constraints. I also analyze the interdependence of global climate finance, state ability, and market-oriented reforms on the basis of my career experience in commercial banking and compliance. He can be reached at ebrima.ceesay@uiii.ac.id
