By Janko Camara
This is a rejoinder to the above captioned article. It reflects similar views I had expressed almost a year ago in a different forum on Kairo News.
The Need for a United Front: – This is long overdue. In my humble opinion, it is the most obvious and effective way of redeeming our country from the clutches of A(F)PRC. The mere fact that the country’s current electoral system is designed to recognize only the “first past the post”, provides enough justification for the Opposition parties in the country to come together as a united front to contest the 2016 polls. That is to say, they can turn the deficiency of the electoral system to their advantage by rallying around the bigger party and contest the polls to dislodge the incumbent. The basis for such a coalition could be a strong Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) subscribed to and signed by all the parties defining the character and responsibility of the government that wins on the back of such a coalition. The ensuing government could draw its Cabinet from all the members of the Coalition using the agreed MoU that shall define the primary tasks of the government as a guide. That task may include:
Reviewing the country’s battered Constitution whilst ENTRENCHING certain fundamental clauses, especially those relating to a Presidential Term Limit; the protection of our basic rights as a people; the independence of the Judiciary and the Separation of the three organs of government etc. These entrenched clauses must only be amended through a Referendum in which at least two-Thirds of the voters agree.
Overhauling the entire political and electoral process; initiate democratic reforms; restore our basic rights as a people;
Establishing a credible and dependable judicial system which draws its powers not from an individual but from the Constitution;
Limiting the term of Presidency to two terms of either four or five years.
Taking a deeper look at the above, it may be appealing to the majority of our people and any Coalition Government that succeeds in effecting the above reforms shall have already succeeded in setting The Gambia on a democratic footing. However, what appears to be generating the debate is the “How” of getting there. Whilst some may argue that “a coalition of the opposition political parties with an independent presidential candidate” is the best option because, it will put an end to “the culture of self-perpetuating rule”, in my opinion, this argument is redundant and more of theory not supported by historical facts since 2001. I also think the proponents of this theory seem to have a challenge connecting it to The Gambian reality. First, we cannot have a self-perpetuating rule in a setting where the Term of Presidency is clearly defined, limited and entrenched in the Constitution. Secondly, the selection/election of an “independent presidential candidate” to head a coalition of the Opposition has historically proven to be a daunting task for our Opposition since 2001. So why resort to a system that has been tested but failed? Is it that we are not learning any lessons or we just enjoy beating the dead horse? If there is any importance to History, it is the fact that it provides a reference, which the Wise can use as a guide to the future.
Given the foregone, I would like to agree with Mr. Conteh’s matter-of-fact proposal to have a party-led coalition of the Opposition. And if History and past performances are anything to go by, the United Democratic Party (UDP), which, apart from the ruling A(F)PRC, has a far general acceptance from the electorate (based on their performance in previous polls), stands a better chance to lead any coalition against the incumbent. The reality on the ground is this: any alliance and/or coalition against the ruling A(F)PRC, without the UDP support is likely to fail. It is not magic but simple logic. We have to acknowledge that there comes a time in our lives when a decision has to be made to stop the denial and accept reality. “Horse-trading” is a normal thing in politics. The UDP may not be as intellectual as other parties, they may not have the best political programmes like others would want the rest to believe, but they have the masses which is a key strength. The undeniable fact is that in Banjul the Rule of Thumb is “First Past the Post” which cannot be achieved without numbers. So UDP is a force to reckon with in any coalition, a fact not to be discounted. Given the above therefore, there is need to be more pragmatic and realistic by joining the biggest Opposition party on terms and conditions as discussed above to dislodge the incumbent. Let us remember that any political strategy that does not have the final voter as the centre of focus is bound to fail.
The UDP/PPP Current Drama:- For me, the current intrigues relating to the UDP/PPP imbroglio is only relevant in so far as it impacts on the ability of the Opposition to come together under one umbrella. Therefore, I am touching on the subject based on my belief that maintaining harmony between the two could help in facilitating the Opposition unity we all yearn for. The truth is that our Opposition party leaders should stop playing to the gallery. Readers would recall that these two parties have seemingly sailed together harmoniously up to September last year when the publicly known spokesman/leader of the PPP took a swipe at the UDP leader in an interview with a certain local paper. My candid opinion at the time was (and remains): if truly the PPP spokesman/leader was genuinely interested in offering advice to the UDP leader, there were better avenues of doing this without going public in a newspaper interview. By that singular act, the PPP Spokesman/leader appeared to have broken the hitherto existing goodwill and understanding between the two parties. The timing of that interview was even more worrisome for me – at a time when there were calls from all quarters for Opposition unity, only a political novice could have embarked on such a costly “project”. It is like projecting oneself as the “Good Cop” and your supposedly political ally as the “Bad Cop”. That was how the whole thing appeared to some of us. To move forward, the PPP spokesman/leader should acknowledge that it was an error and then attempt to restore understanding between the two parties in the interest of the country. The UDP leader should also have the magnanimity of heart to accept an apology and see it as one of those human errors which we all make as Homo sapiens.
Lastly, we hope the Opposition will be able to put the interest of the country first before individual and party interests and rise up to the challenge by coming together and adopting the most pragmatic and practical approach to take back what rightfully belongs to the people. Can they rise above the challenge?
Conclusions
The only strategy that can lead to Jammeh’s removal in a democratic process is through a united front of the Opposition and any such unity without the UDP is bound to fail. As for now, this is the fact. Therefore, if we are serious about taking out Jammeh, we must do away with untested high-sounding theories, be realistic for once, and rally behind the party with a dependable political base to remove Jammeh.
Jammeh may be naïve when it comes to other things, but he has never been naïve on matters relating to his political survival. The PPP and their spokesman/leader will always be allowed to rave and rant about Jammeh’s misrule and Gambia’s sorry state. They will be allowed to even talk to the outside press freely. That cannot and should not be interpreted as Jammeh fearing the PPP. No, on the contrary, he is happy to have the PPP embark on such a crusade because it helps to legitimize his regime and project him as a democrat who allows dissension. Most importantly, however, Jammeh knows the PPP has no political base that could constitute a threat to his political survival. Compare the PPP radio interviews with a mere relay of a meeting by the UDP, and then draw conclusions. Jammeh knows the biggest threat to his political survival is no other Opposition party other than the UDP. That is why he will never allow them to get that the degree of freedom other parties are accorded. This should be enough to galvanise the other Opposition parties into rallying behind the UDP and rid The Gambia of Jammeh and his APRC party.
Ends
Janko, what you said here is exactly what the UDP proposed in 2011 but the obscurantists did everything to polarise views on it in furtherance of their personal hatred for the UDP and its leader, lawyer Darboe. So we ended up no coalition that was desired by all.
Many thanks for take on this.
Cheers
A very good piece . Pdois and NRP need to understand your points. Udp is the only party that pose significant threat to Jammeh’s political survival as you rightly indicated. The question is, will pdois agree with such a brilliant idea considering that, they don’t have political base to effectively pose any significant threat to the regime? At this moment, liberation of Gambian people should be highest priority, which should include excellent ideas from other smaller parties in memorandum of understanding with UDP led United front. This is the most feasible, less expensive and rational action that would savage our country from clutches of dictatorship.
UDP militants blow your own trumpet and fine tune your lyrics! Why rally behind UDP when all opposition parties can come together under ONE UMBRELLA AS UNITED NATIONAL FRONT???
Thanks!
Some more honest analysis (of what?) but point missed are;
1. questioning existence of PPP & GMC; whilst there is UDP for them. Why can’t they (i.e. both PPP & GMC) dissolve, integrate or join UDP?
2. Why Lawyer Mai Fatty form a new party GMC without joining UDP?
Max, NRP, in principle, supports udp position and endorsed the same in 2006. Hamat kept talking about party led alliance being the right approach even in 2011 but his personal ambition to become the candidate at all cost and without any justification in democratic principles or principles of coalition politics. This was a bit troubling.
Hamat insisted that he can only be part of a coalition that he himself would lead as a candidate. He was also opposed to pdois’s positions throughout the 2011 coalition negotiations. However, when everything was over and the UDp, Ppp and gmc were no longer at the table, hamat saw an opportunity to lead the so-called united front because he knows he can defeat Halifa Sallah hands down- Halifa too realised this and withdrew his candidature- he changed position inorder to become the candidate he so uncompromisingly wanted to be. I hope he reverts to principles this time around in 2016.
Thanks
Lafia: stop fabricating again on things you have no clue of. You said “hamat saw an opportunity to lead the so-called united front because he knows he can defeat Halifa Sallah hands down- Halifa too realised this and withdrew his candidature- he changed position in order to become the candidate he so uncompromisingly wanted to be.
This above statement is not a fact. What Halifa said is what you should repeat and not cook up your own story. Halifa said Agenda 2011 was propagated throughout by the PDOIS up till the time of convention. He said he simply wanted a democratic arrangement that would give credibility to the opposition not only to have clout but respect and recognition in the country and abroad that would enable the country to have a new start. He said he would not stand but would give support to any contender who wins the election.
It is Darbo and UDP that did not get the message or are refusing to accept it but Halifa has always said he is not competing with anyone regarding leadership but he is always misunderstood because many people cannot understand how a person can volunteer such immense sacrifice only to allow another person to lead him/her. What UDP wanted was for PDOIS leaders to select Darbo as leader of coalition without having to undergo any public endorsement like a primary or convention.
I think you are joking when you say that ‘Hamat knows he can defeat Halifa Sallah hands down’. Did Hamat tell you the above statement. Hamat would never say such a thing because he was never sure of the outcome of that election. However, i will commend him because he had the courage to face the convention and what it stood for. Darbo was asked to invite more delegates to accord with his party’s majority at the convention but he still refused when he could have been selected to lead honorably and credibly. That is all Halifa could do for Darbo, to take him to the river, the Convention, where he could win and be supported by the PDOIS. Anything more than that is unreasonable and insincere to say the least.
It should now be clear that Halifa/PDOIS have no qualms with anybody regarding leadership but what strategy and tactics to adopt to get there and where national interest must supersede all other interests.
To insist that a past election result is always the result to rely on as popularity of candidate is to delude oneself because every new political situation interprets a new outcome. This is why conventions and primaries are necessary to be sure of the popular will before adventuring into elections and no candidate can avoid the popular will since you must face them in an election anyway. At least it is better to say a convention of members of all opposition political parties selected someone than to say he/she is selected by party leaders. May be this will inform you better.
The idea of opposition coalition for surmounting serious challenge to salvage the motherland has been said & even ‘over emphasized’ but to no avail yet….??? It’s a known fact that NOT all parties & militants subscribe to country FIRST above partisan benefits…?? For all opposition parties to rally around the main dominant UDP is the ideal situation BUT how to convince all is the billion dollars question…? & it’s also a known fact that UDP & other parties affected by the age-limit imposition on their leaders would rather have it removed to maintain same flag bearers but the fact remains this will be resisted all the way…. Hence the suggestion of some of us for the temporal merger under an independent candidature which might appeal & be acceptable to all stakeholders…. I personally proposed Dr Isatou Touray for her pragmatism, steadfastness & the fact that she’s known countrywide by virtue of her work with our women, who are the broader base of electoral constituents; this will impact positively as the women will embrace it as their very own that she is one of them too, while the collective opposition campaigns finish the “icing on the cake”… Then when successful, the ‘corrupted constitution’ can be rewritten, political playfield levelled, where the various political leaders can challenge & contest each other in their separate ways…
I don’t know why but do sometimes have problems with accessing some articles on Kairo News pages at times; the above PDOIS story is one of them, so will rather comment here instead…
It’s commendable for PDOIS to make such & other pronouncement as they usually do; the fact of the matter remains that the murderous kanilai manipulative tyrannical devil & cohorts will always cowardly hide behind state resources, apparatus & amenities to stifle freedom of the people; the only way to counter & stop that for everybody for good is for rest of opposition parties to start making their own moves about in the country in directly challenging the murderous status quo… Only then shall we see the start of return of sanity & tranquillity in our homeland; if not all can get along & embrace ourselves for the continuation of the rough ride….
God helps & bless the collective endeavour to salvage the motherland; Ameen.
Under one umbrella as a UNITED NATIONAL FRONT or a COALITION or you may call it, maybe if not most, I think some of our present Hon. opposition party leaders should retire themselves from their various party leaderships and set up a Coalition or National United Front advisory council…….. I still need some enlightenment! Do we have to provide any algebraic solution to this kind of an unnecessary political deadlock?
Agreed that there should be a coalition of parties . What people failed to accept is that parties are formed around certain idealogies and of people who have to be consulted in order to get their consent to join any other new formation. .Otherwise it would be bogus..UDP being as projected is a majority party has to be able to accommodate other alleged smaller; if we agree on that statement , in many ways than simply stating that as the biggest you should join us willy nilly . The respect of others who can entrench you is vital..If any thing UDP did not come out of the blue to be in that position. I know and I stand by that statement. .am not saying the respect due is not given but ask; was enough given to the parties for them to feel that they belong. We all know that UDP is a party formed of other parties not naming any here as they were banned ..it would be unreasonable of them to ask that UDP Disbands now ..It would be unreasonable also for UDP to ask them to stay in the background as in being irrelevant and insignificant. That is not helpful at all. All proponents of such unions must also acknowledge this as important bits that need to be addressed .
seyaka, you are quite right. Any arrangement that allows the people to select a Flag-bearer in a popular convention of all political parties or a primary or a show of approval at every bantaba would suffice and would serve as a unifying factor, otherwise the people will have to be made so sophisticated as to select their president in the first round which many say is herculean task. Nothing is easier than calling delegates from every region and leaving the decision to them to select their candidates. It is not impossible, it was done and there was no problem at Atlantic and everybody went home with a free mind and it was Democracy at its best.
If parties willingly accept to join UDP and its leadership as big party, well that is well and good but when they disagree to join it, then UDP too should in the national interest consider accepting the popular proposal to lose identity and some degree of sovereignty as it has happened in Nigeria. That would be a-win-win situation.
THANKS
Seyaka, udp has been accommodating. They asked the parties to form a joint technical committee to draw the agenda of the proposed coalition so that it would not be based on udp policies or agenda but a collective one in which all the parties can take ownership and hold a stake. They also proposed that the coalition govt be all- inclusive and comprising of all the parties
They agreed the candidate will be limited to one 5yr term and will not seek re-election or support another candidate. This is to ensure that Udp will not unduly benefit from incumbency as all the parties will be in govt at the time of the next election, which means they will all be incumbent parties
Yero bah, if Halifa was not planning to contest, why did he have to announce at the very last. Minute that he will not be contesting ? Which other person made any statement about his candidature other than Halifa?? You one to tell us all the other opposition figures didn’t say anything because they actually wanted to be a candidate?? Use your head wisely my friend.
Thanks
Lafia…..
Stop manufacturing things in your head…When was this request to form a technical committee made…? Where was this information made public…?
The UDP is on record for questioning the rational of putting restrictions on the flag bearer…When did they change their position…?
Halifa only announced at the very last minute that he was not going to contest because he knew fully and without a doubt that Hamat was going to defeat him hands down. He wasn’t going to have such a humiliation. So he took a dignified exit.
Thanks
You are incredible…
I find it curious that people who call for putting NATIONAL INTEREST first, rather that PARTY INTEREST, often end up with an alliance format that promotes the party interest of one party at the expense of the rest…Every political party wants to get into government but none is likely to do so under the current climate in The Gambia for eternity, regardless of whether you are the main challenger or not, until the current political culture/practices is changed…
To suggest therefore that all should rally behind the main challenger to get it into government and keep it there,when it is clear to all that it cannot achieve this on its own, is to promote its interest at the expense of the national interest, because the national interest is the proposal that promotes the interest of all parties : A strategic Non Partisan Coalition of equal partners to achieve a common goal..
If we truly subscribe to the view that the national cause is greater than any single individual or party,then why has the votes polled at any given election or series of elections by one party become the obstacle to a United Opposition…? Does the votes somehow transform this party into an entity greater than the national cause..? Is the national cause not worthy of putting such insignificant electoral gains aside…? Insignificant because, in the Gambian context, the votes of the runner up serves no purpose,except for statistical and historical purposes…Absolutely no purpose, and should not even be considered beyond the period to which it is relevant …
The UDP’s performance at past elections is a commendable achievement, and the votes they receive is impressive,given the climate under which this is done, but this does not entitle them to demand that they must lead and become the ( all inclusive) government or no coalition…That would constitute a betrayal of the national cause…
Lafia I read you and see the bend in your view..I said if the UDP as the most popular party as is being put out here and else where is to progress it has to he able to accommodate other parties respectfully acknowledging their individual outputs..surely you do know that as it stands every vote counts and the exclusion of other prospective votes from marginal if there are any such party supporters count very much in this current situation of first past the post winner scenario.UDP cannot go it alone and standing recalcitrant that as the biggest party they had to be leaders in any coalition should not be a criterion. I’d you like take you stand and other parties too stick to theirs in which case you only get to the repeat of past elections. Compromise and what we call boonya to the other party organs would help get past that post. .If I have said any thing wrong perhaps it’s my limited vocabulary but my meaning is clear..I would if I were in that position negotiate rather than insist . I rest my tired brain
Bax, it’s a know established fact/s that political issues world over, are essentially strategized around the most dominant political force/s for maximal effects for positive & collective communal gains; the Gambia ISN’T & CAN’T be any exception….
As all & everybody follows, though LEAST perfect as a human being; I discuss, debate & articulate on matters of fact/s COMMUNALLY; & I CHALLENGE ANYBODY HERE TO PROVE THIS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY; in the process, apart from mentions of names vital in examples in my observations, I don’t “look into anybody’s eyes” or lean onto any particular person/s, NO MATTER how closed our views maybe at some point/s, but RATHER the general collective COMMUNAL interest, NO MATTER who’s “ox is gored” or felt offended; which is here to stay REGARDLESS, as long as I continue to debate to contribute my quota on public spaces…
PDOIS has been in existence far more than UDP; THE PUBLIC ARE HERE TO JUDGE; UDP proven in the spate of their existence to have captivated the allegiance of majority of opposition constituents…????? So UDP does something RIGHT that the rest of opposition parties are deficient in…??? UDP therefore is a force to reckon with in ANY collective political manoeuvres for any vibrant salvaging of Gambia anytime soon from the current tyrannical oppression, since due to tyrannical hostilities & numerous illegitimate factors in the murderous tyrannical syndicate’s favours, no party may/can be able to do alone…??
PDOIS with all the habitual colourful pseudo-sophisticated proposal write-ups, FAILED to turn & match this talent into definite political votes captivation on the ground which is the most SIGNIFICANT component in politics without which all others are rendered insignificant…?
This is the NAKED truth that NO one can choose/afford to ignore in collective endeavours to salvage Gambia, IF AT ALL, we are to be honest to oneself, fellow comrades & COUNTRY, no matter one’s political allegiance/affliction…
YES, it’s SANITARILY prudent & vital for UDP to be willing to move & concede bit of grounds, not to be INSISTENTLY rigid, using their dominant position to dictate all terms & conditions for a political merger to salvage the motherland; for all parties NEEDS to SELFLESSLY sympathize PATRIOTICALLY for country FIRST, for us to pave & make headway in collective attempt to salvage Gambia; BUT it’ll be quite unfair & unhelpful for any junior/smaller party, vote & support base wise, to claim to want to be/placed on par in/on ALL aspects with a bigger party in the process; thereby tactically resort, using & hiding behind politically designed party policies, in pretentions to have their ways for selfish individualistic party gains above collective country FIRST or NOTHING…..
There then are some of the NEUTRALLY party-colourless, in the services of collective community, committed to country ONLY above ANYTHING else, who throw ourselves in the midst of the blinding partisan “tugs of war”, to point out the basic facts/truths coupled with our ‘not perfect’ best of ability observations, REGARDLESS of WHATEVER anybody thinks & feels…
After all WHICHEVER party wins in the process, it’s for the collective salvaging of motherland which is PARAMOUNT above ALL partisan, in interest of ALL Gambians, regardless of political divides, from the murderous tyrannical oppression, rather than being presumed as “helping each other to rule”….
Please be assured this is here to STAY until then, adieux, cheers.
God helps & bless the collective endeavour to salvage Gambia; Ameen.
Bajaw….
Everyone is entitled to their opinion…..You don’t need to look anyone in the eye to make your views known..You must be free to agree and disagree with any view points expressed here..I think we should avoid calling others selfish or manipulative because they don’t ponder to our view points…
It is your view that coalitions are built around the dominant parties…It is my view that this is true in some cases and not true in other cases.. Therefore, I do not accept the universality of Coalition/Alliance Format..
Moreover, I have argued in the past, that alliances or coalitions are strategic political tools used to address specific political problems…And since.no two political situations may be the same, the strategic alliances necessary to overcome whatever difficulties are encountered have to be different…This is common sense…
You can’t say that one solution answers all problems…You can’t continue to claim that numbers matter in politics because that is not always the case…And where numbers don’t matter, as in our case, strategies must be explored to achieve desired common aims…You may disagree, but you have to show how numbers matter in The Gambia, if it doesn’t win you the elections…
For example, in Senegal, where numbers may matter, the strategy was to deny the incumbent outright victory, to force a 2nd round voting…It may be called a “two pronged strategy…”
(1) deny incumbent outright victory in 1st round… (2) rally behind the leading challenger to secure victory… And it worked..
You can’t have that in The Gambia due to the nature of the system…
If Senegal was a “First past the post” system, as we have in The Gambia, Wade would still be president, because he had more votes in.the 1st round…..No one would be talking about a successful coalition in Senegal…
So it is abundantly clear that the coalition that emerged in Senegal was shaped by the nature of the system and the problems they faced..
Bax is borrowing my phrase now; “manufacturing in your head”.
Look this is no secret. Even OJ have stated it in one of his interviews. I also put that point to suwaibou Touray, administrative secretary of pdois, here and he did not deny it.
Thanks
Yero Ba, if Halifa was not planning to contest, why did he have to announce at the very last minute that he will not be contesting? Which other person made any statement about his candidature other than Halifa? You want to tell us all the other opposition figures didn’t say anything because they actually wanted to be a candidate?? Use your head wisely my friend.
• Lafia: Why don’t you tell readers that this is just your opinion or conclusion based on the information you received, then there would be any qualms. But to pretend that you know the reason why Halifa declined to compete when you are not even a participant would tantamount to simply spreading rumours. Everyone expects Halifa would contest at the convention because he was a potential candidate and a competent one at that. Since he was the facilitator of the event, he took the opportunity to inform and to clarify to voters that he would not contest, especially to voters who would want to vote for him. Did you see anything wrong with that? Names of other candidates were also announced afterwards to avert any confusion to the delegates and they were each accorded time to speak to the delegates before actual voting took place.
“Halifa only announced at the very last minute that he was not going to contest because he knew fully and without a doubt that Hamat was going to defeat him hands down. He wasn’t going to have such a humiliation. So he took a dignified exit,”Lafia.
Comment: Fabrication again. Halifa did not make any earlier pronouncement because making that could encourage insincere participants to the race. One such insincere candidate was Darbo who ran away from the convention because he thought that Halifa wanted to participate, fearing that he would lose it to Halifa. How about that opinion?
Let us say even if the above quote is correct, what is wrong with taking a dignified exit? Is it not better to take a dignified exit than to persist to take a course that would land you in eternal indignities? It all went to show that Halifa is not someone who is power hungry but interested in seeing that the national interest supersedes all other individual interests as opposed to Darbo who insists on an agenda only to derail the process of national salvation because he could not have his way.
I hope this clarifies your cock and bull story.
Seyaka, I am only stating facts and as far as facts are concern, udp is and has been promoting inclusion throughout. They are the ones who convened a meeting of all the opposition parties and put on the table a proposal calling for an all-inclusive coalition.
Suffice it to say that the Udp leader took it upon himself to visit all the party leaders in their respective homes to discuss an all-inclusive coalition. Halifa was avoiding his telephone calls but he managed to meet sidia at his home in Bundung and had chat with him there in the presence of Kemeseng Jammeh.
Exclusion is not in Udp’s vocabulary.
Thanks
More fabrications.. PDOIS has clearly designated Hon.Sidia Jatta as its rep.for inter-party talks, after the NADD debacle…Why would Darboe want to speak to Halifa on inter-party matters..? Doesn’t Darboe care about protocol.?Stop fabricating stories in your head…!!! This makes no sense at all..
OK why didn’t Halifa just pick up the phone and politely tell that to Darboe?? Why refusing to pick the calls of a fellow party leader?? Is that respectful?? This is what Darboe stated about his meeting with Sidia;
“I had previously been informed by Mr. Jatta that he was the person to deal with on matters touching on party relationships. This was after my failed attempts to reach Mr. Sallah the spokesperson for NADD and Secretary General of PDOIS.”- Lawyer Darboe
Thanks
Why would Halifa’s presence cause confusion to delegates but not Sidia’s or anybody else. What is so special about Halifa?? Use your head wisely Yero bah and being angry all the time
You don’t even know that pdois had a congress at the Atlantic hotel in 2010 in which they endorsed Halifa’s agenda 2011 but would not do anything about his stale mandate as Secretary general. So you can’t tell me anything about pdois.
Thanks
By Janko Camara
This is a rejoinder to the above captioned article. It reflects similar views I had expressed almost a year ago in a different forum on Kairo News.
‘
“The Need for a United Front: – This is long overdue. In my humble opinion, it is the most obvious and effective way of redeeming our country from the clutches of A(F)PRC. The mere fact that the country’s current electoral system is designed to recognize only the “first past the post”, provides enough justification for the Opposition parties in the country to come together as a united front to contest the 2016 polls.”
Janko, the need for an opposition united front is a foregone conclusion. This is no longer an issue that needs to be elaborated upon. It has long been established that no opposition political party on its own accord can defeat the entrenched and consolidated political machinery of the ruling government. It has not happened in the 30 year rule of the PPP government in the first republic, and it is not going to happen in the 20 year plus rule of the APRC government. And a fundamental reason why this is the case is that both governments in the first and second republics have entrenched a political culture that has been inherited and passed from one regime to the other.
“That is to say, they can turn the deficiency of the electoral system to their advantage by rallying around the bigger party and contest the polls to dislodge the incumbent. The basis for such a coalition could be a strong Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) subscribed to and signed by all the parties defining the character and responsibility of the government that wins on the back of such a coalition. The ensuing government could draw its Cabinet from all the members of the Coalition using the agreed MoU that shall define the primary tasks of the government as a guide”
I agree to your statement above except that the opposition parties should rally around the bigger party and contest to dislodge the incumbent. If this is the case it would change the character and nature of the government to be established. There is also no convincing reason why other opposition political parties should rally behind the bigger party to turn the deficiency of the electoral system to their advantage.
The bigger party has formed party-led alliances with almost all the other opposition parties with the notable exception of PDOIS. None of these party-led alliances has produced any outcome that is favorable in turning the deficiencies of the electoral system to their advantage. Therefore something must be fundamentally wrong with the party-led political agenda, or that the party-led political agenda is not responsive to the desire and will of the electorate.
And to do something repeatedly over and over again and expect a different result is the height of unreasonable expectations.
Why also should the bigger party unreasonably insist that it should lead any such coalition, making other opposition parties to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) only for it when it wins to establish a government at the back of such a coalition?
Conversely, why not all opposition political parties reasonably accept that they should all come together in a coalition to contest the polls to dislodge the incumbent?
“The basis for such a coalition could be a strong Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) subscribed to and signed by all the parties ….”
Instead of defining the character and responsibility of the government that wins on the back of such a coalition, on the back of such a coalition should be defined the character and responsibility of the government that is to be formed.
And this is a fundamental difference. You have admittedly in your statement agree that the party that leads the coalition when its wins will form the government, and the MOU that the other parties agree to and sign will define the character and responsibility of the government (party) that wins at the back of such a coalition.
We are instead arguing that all the opposition parties that formed the coalition when it wins should form the government, and the basis of their coalition should be a strong MOU that should define the character and responsibility of the government to be formed.
Since only political parties can sponsor candidates for public office such a coalition can create a political structure like NADD or the United Front that has the legitimacy as a political party and can sponsor candidates.
Now the question is: which of the two proposals, the party-led agenda and the non party-led agenda is more democratic and fair?
“That task may include:
Reviewing the country’s battered Constitution whilst ENTRENCHING certain fundamental clauses, especially those relating to a Presidential Term Limit; the protection of our basic rights as a people; the independence of the Judiciary and the Separation of the three organs of government etc. These entrenched clauses must only be amended through a Referendum in which at least two-Thirds of the voters agree.
Overhauling the entire political and electoral process; initiate democratic reforms; restore our basic rights as a people;
Establishing a credible and dependable judicial system which draws its powers not from an individual but from the Constitution;
Limiting the term of Presidency to two terms of either four or five years.”
I agree to all of the above but not under a party-led government, no matter how one wants to call it either an alliance or a coalition government, but under a non party led government that is defined by the character and responsibilities of an MOU signed and agreed to by all the parties to such a coalition.
“Taking a deeper look at the above, it may be appealing to the majority of our people and any Coalition Government that succeeds in effecting the above reforms shall have already succeeded in setting The Gambia on a democratic footing. However, what appears to be generating the debate is the “How” of getting there.”
If the “How to getting there” is the party-led coalition agenda it may not be appealing to the majority of the Gambian people for it has been tried with all the opposition parties except PDOIS and it has not succeeded; however, if a non party coalition initiative should form the government and succeed in effecting your above reforms, certainly the Gambia would be on the path for a democratic dispensation.
“Whilst some may argue that “a coalition of the opposition political parties with an independent presidential candidate” is the best option because, it will put an end to “the culture of self-perpetuating rule”, in my opinion, this argument is redundant and more of theory not supported by historical facts since 2001.”
What historical facts since 2001 did not support this theory? The historical facts that support this theory on the contrary, that it is a “culture of self-perpetuating rule” , is the fact that you have a political party that perpetuates itself in power for 30 years in the first republic, and a political party that is perpetuating itself in power for than 20 years in the second republic.
“I also think the proponents of this theory seem to have a challenge connecting it to The Gambian reality. First, we cannot have a self-perpetuating rule in a setting where the Term of Presidency is clearly defined, limited and entrenched in the Constitution.”
Well, the Gambian reality is that there is no term to the presidency that is clearly defined, limited and entrenched in the constitution. Hence there is still self-perpetuating rule and everyone is a living witness to that. We therefore do not have any challenge linking this theory to the Gambian reality. We are living it.
On the other hand, those who propagate against the culture of self-perpetuating rule supports the idea of a government that is formed through a coalition of all the political parties, that will make sure that to end the culture of self-perpetuating rule there will be presidential term limits as well as other entrenched clauses that will make it very difficult for any entity to entrench itself in power.
“Secondly, the selection/election of an “independent presidential candidate” to head a coalition of the Opposition has historically proven to be a daunting task for our Opposition since 2001”
Why has it been a daunting task since 2001? All the opposition political parties have agreed to subject themselves to either a party-led coalition or a non party coalition. Is there an opposition political party that has not agreed to subject itself to a non party coalition or a party-led coalition that it does not lead?
We therefore should examine critically which opposition political party makes the selection/election of an “independent candidate” to head a coalition of opposition political parties a difficult task.
.”So why resort to a system that has been tested but failed? Is it that we are not learning any lessons or we just enjoy beating the dead horse? If there is any importance to History, it is the fact that it provides a reference, which the Wise can use as a guide to the future.”
The party-led system has been tested three times and it failed in all instances. The “independent presidential candidate” system has been tested only once with three opposition political parties and it also failed. Which system, given that we only have these two, has the greatest prospect of succeeding if all the opposition political parties should embrace it? These are the lessons we ought to learn from as a guide to the future.
“Given the foregone, I would like to agree with Mr. Conteh’s matter-of-fact proposal to have a party-led coalition of the Opposition. And if History and past performances are anything to go by, the United Democratic Party (UDP), which, apart from the ruling A(F)PRC, has a far general acceptance from the electorate (based on their performance in previous polls), stands a better chance to lead any coalition against the incumbent.”
Why should the UDP lead a coalition instead of being part of a coalition? And if the history of past performances are anything to go by the UDP has led a coalition on a party-led agenda on three consecutive election cycles, and despite the fact that it has a far general acceptance from the electorate, it does not stand a chance against the incumbent in any party-led coalition. This is a proven fact. It has happened on three occasions.
“The reality on the ground is this: any alliance and/or coalition against the ruling A(F)PRC, without the UDP support is likely to fail. It is not magic but simple logic.”
The reality on the ground could also be that: all the alliances and/or coalitions against the ruling A(F)PRC, on a UDP party-led coalition agenda with the support of all the opposition political parties( except PDOIS) in one form of alliance or the other has failed.
Therefore another form of alliance involving the UDP and all the other opposition parties could be the magic. It is the logic that makes sense.
” We have to acknowledge that there comes a time in our lives when a decision has to be made to stop the denial and accept reality. “Horse-trading” is a normal thing in politics. The UDP may not be as intellectual as other parties, they may not have the best political programmes like others would want the rest to believe, but they have the masses which is a key strength. The undeniable fact is that in Banjul the Rule of Thumb is “First Past the Post” which cannot be achieved without numbers. So UDP is a force to reckon with in any coalition, a fact not to be discounted. Given the above therefore, there is need to be more pragmatic and realistic by joining the biggest Opposition party on terms and conditions as discussed above to dislodge the incumbent. Let us remember that any political strategy that does not have the final voter as the centre of focus is bound to fail”
No one wants to quarrel with all the things you are arguing above. All we are saying is for once: can the UDP be accommodating to other opposition political parties and move away from its party-led political agenda?
“Lastly, we hope the Opposition will be able to put the interest of the country first before individual and party interests and rise up to the challenge by coming together and adopting the most pragmatic and practical approach to take back what rightfully belongs to the people. Can they rise above the challenge?”
We are all asking the same question. We will just have to wait and see. May be before the end of the year something positive will happen.
I will excuse myself on the politicking on your conclusion. I hope the arguments above has been reasonable and to the point. In order to establish our points of disagreement it was necessary to address the whole write-up. I am sorry for the lengthy space it has taken.
Conclusions
The only strategy that can lead to Jammeh’s removal in a democratic process is through a united front of the Opposition and any such unity without the UDP is bound to fail. As for now, this is the fact. Therefore, if we are serious about taking out Jammeh, we must do away with untested high-sounding theories, be realistic for once, and rally behind the party with a dependable political base to remove Jammeh.
Jammeh may be naïve when it comes to other things, but he has never been naïve on matters relating to his political survival. The PPP and their spokesman/leader will always be allowed to rave and rant about Jammeh’s misrule and Gambia’s sorry state. They will be allowed to even talk to the outside press freely. That cannot and should not be interpreted as Jammeh fearing the PPP. No, on the contrary, he is happy to have the PPP embark on such a crusade because it helps to legitimize his regime and project him as a democrat who allows dissension. Most importantly, however, Jammeh knows the PPP has no political base that could constitute a threat to his political survival. Compare the PPP radio interviews with a mere relay of a meeting by the UDP, and then draw conclusions. Jammeh knows the biggest threat to his political survival is no other Opposition party other than the UDP. That is why he will never allow them to get that the degree of freedom other parties are accorded. This should be enough to galvanise the other Opposition parties into rallying behind the UDP and rid The Gambia of Jammeh and his APRC party.
Ends
Share this:
Twitter1
Kamalo the attention seeker is back and is still talking about NADD of 2006. Weird isn’t it??
Look guys udp has enough materials in their archives about Nadd but Nadd is a stale stuff and people have moved on since 2006. All these silly talk about Nadd this and Nadd that are being fuelled by retrogressive people hell-bent on stoking polarisation. That’s why I only respond when necessary to put records straight. People need to be given a break on this Nadd nonsense. We are in 2015 for God sake.
Thanks
UDP Party led alliance is a 2006 proposal…It’s 2015 and you still sticking to it…Isn’t it as “stale a stuff” as NADD..? It should, if we apply the same yardstick….
Bax, and 2011 and also 2016 and beyond as long as UDP remains the biggest opposition party in the country.
Thanks
Well, don’t call only NADD, “stale stuff” because the UDP Proposal is as old.as NADD and going by what you stated, would be even.more.of a “stale stuff”, as NADD is no more…
I’m only using using your yardstick….
No body is talking about NADD any more- not even Halifa Sallah- because it has been left empty due to desertions. Also, UDP is bigger than NADD.
Frankly speaking, Nadd is a dead horse and only retrogressive people will keep beating it. It is dead!!
Political Alliances that survive the challenges which brought them about, are built on concrete foundations that are negotiated and agreed to by all participants….
Those who support the UDP Party led alliance must show what concrete offers the UDP has made to its opposition partners, that can constitute a solid foundation for any UDP led alliance…
If a UDP led alliance is not going to be an.alliance for the shake of it, then they must be prepared to present a detailed programme of what they are offering to the other parties, in other to entice them into this alliance..
I know Lafia likes to pluck things from thin air and present them as UDP offers, and I’m sure he will be here to do the same again, has anyone seen any detailed and documented proposal from the UDP..? I think they owe that to The Gambian people…
Do you want to tell us you have not read oj’s interviews explaining what happened in the Udp organised coalition meeting of 2011 Bax?? It has been produced here time and time again.
Thanks
Is.OJ the UDP spokesman..? I asked for a detailed alliance proposal from the UDP whicht can entice and assure the other parties that they can work with the UDP in an all inclusive alliance.. .
The UDP must first produce this technical document and present it to the other parties for consideration…..The other parties can then study this document, agree or disagree, and where necessary, enter into negotiation to reconcile their positions. ..
For example, stating that an “all inclusive government” will be formed is very vague…It does not say how many will be considered and included from each party; it does not say what positions will be given to them; it doesn’t say how decisions relating to agreed reform programmes will be made; it doesn’t state what reforms will be taken; how these reforms will be carried out and what the time frame is set for each identified reform area to be accomplished etc..
Such an ambiguous and vague offer is a recipe for disaster and fall outs…
Once again, let’s see these proposals/offers in detail so that the general public can also react to it…
” if a UDP-led candidate won, he/she will only serve for one term and then withdraw and he/she will not support any candidates for the future elections or any party.
Secondly, the government of the alliance will be inclusive of all members of the parties that are parties to the alliance. All of them will participate in the government, and we will set up a technical committee that will draft the alliance agreements. Unfortunately, I supported this proposal, but some of the members of the other parties like Halifa Sallah of PDOIS and Hamat Bah of NRP didn’t support it,” he further explained.
OJ added that because there was no consensus at the end of the day, he decided that his party will only campaign for the united candidate, without which, his party will not take part “because already from our experience, it will be a waste of resources, time and a waste of energy.” – OJ in the point newspaper
Thanks
No, OJ is not the spokesperson for UDP but he was in the room and he chose to speak. Facts are just facts and it doesn’t matter who said it.
UDP approach after talks of 2011 collapsedwas not move on and take the fight to Jammeh since he is the opponent.
When the time comes but coalition talks, a UDP proposal will be presented just like in 2011, and if you want a copy you should contact your party since they will be served with a copy.
Thanks
Correction:
No, OJ is not the spokesperson for UDP but he was in the room and he chose to speak. Facts are just facts and it doesn’t matter who said it.
UDP’s approach after talks of 2011 collapsed was to move on and take the fight to Jammeh since he is the opponent.
When the time comes for coalition talks, a UDP proposal will be presented just like in 2011, and if you want a copy you can contact your party since they will be served with a copy.
Thanks
Aha…Did you say “when the time comes for coalition talks, a UDP Proposal will be presented…?”
Didn’t you object to the use of a similar statement by Halifa and even insinuated that PDOIS has not seen the urgency of coalition talks…? Double standards, eh…!
Anyway, it’s reassuring to hear that the UDP will present its proposals in writing, to other parties, “when.the time comes…”
I.don’t have a party but how about putting the proposal in the public domain for public consumption….
You won’t be against that, will.you..? It’s not like it’s some high level state secret that’s marked “only for Halifa’s eyes”… So, we look forward to it…
Well if Halifa is not ready for talks and will not talk coalition unless his desired time is around, how can anyone talk to him.
UDP is already in agreement with PPP, GMC and NRP as far coalition principles are concern- still other issues to be resolved including Hamat’s strong ambition to become a candidate.
UDP is going for an all inclusive coalition. That means pdois too has to be consulted. I don’t like any consultation with pdois though but that is the UDP’s policy- consulting all the parties.
Thanks
“Anyway, it’s reassuring to hear that the UDP will present its proposals in writing, to other parties, “when.the time comes…”-Bax
Well the UDP has presented a written proposal to the parties in 2011 as well. So there is nothing new here.
Thanks
Bax, IF your ‘debate’ aren’t clouted/shrouded in futile emotional arguments in this particular case, least you stand what you accused someone else before of, you can’t afford NOT to realise all you have now said in response is SAME to what I’ve been saying & advocate for all along; for sanity to prevail for country, in the blinding opposition tugs of war; when ALL stand to gain in WHATEVER form of collectiveness we can pull through to salvage the motherland REGARDLESS of whichever party leads; whilst equally all looses on the contrary; I’m here on record saying I believe we stand same gains in democratic dispensations, be it under Darboe, OJ or Halifa, EXCEPT the murderous tyrannical kanilai devil….
All can attest to the fact that, time ago in “PDOIS response to CORDEG statement” I’ve mentioned the need for Gambian Case Study which specifically examines different country scenarios on merits, for specific collective approaches just like the Senegalese example you cited….
You are wrong to assume/claim I “believe” & advocate for “universal dominant force led coalition in entirety” when I’m always on records umpteen times, on appeals for UDP not to rigidly hang onto their dominant status, for PDOIS not to cling to party policies in disagreements, etc, BUT for ALL inclusive partisan politics to be FLEXIBLY SYMPATHETIC to the cause of country FIRST & FOREMOST above all & anything else on partisan divides; this is where PATRIOTIC SELFLESSNESS for country becomes vitally essential…..
Numerical strength component isn’t ALL that takes in politics but it’s MOST integrally significant WITHOUT Which all other components are rendered REDUNDANT… The manipulative facilitation of Cassamance foreigners & rebels illegal resettlement in Gambia & their illegal remunerations, employments in government at expense of, above capable, able, qualified citizens & illegal voting registrations for APRC tyrannical political gains ONLY is bright example; the illegitimate use of murderous APRC MP cohorts in manipulative changes in the ‘toilet paper constitution’ to stifle freedom & justice, corrupt economic damaging “supplementary presidential budgets” approvals, etc etc, for fleecing & murderous tyrannical purposes, range amongst few examples of numerical politics; I’m sure you know numeric ISN’T about election wins alone but EXCEEDS beyond….
In the Gambian Case Study scenario in the opposition cycle, we CAN’T afford to ignore the vital numerical strength of UDP; this isn’t in the opposition camps alone, as there’s NO gains & wins without it, BUT it scares ‘hell’ out of the murderous kanilai devil more than ANYTHING else which explains WHY; equally & strategically, we can’t afford to do away or without ALL other vital opposition parties EITHER for a successful onslaught to salvage country; as from experience no single party/few together can do it for us; for we candidly need ALL & every single hand on deck to be successful….
IF we are AT ALL going to be PATRIOTICALLY honest to ourselves & country First, rather than individualistic party leaderships & gains above all, there’s NO reason why our opposition politicians CAN, SHOULD/MUST insincerely continue to cling to SELFISH rigid dominant or “party policy” claims, etc etc, CONSCIOUSLY & UNCONSCIOUSLY in the process aid-abetting the murderous tyrannical syndicate in continuation of the murderous oppressive quest, denying us all, including the various leaderships, families, jihadi supporters & country at large the MOST CHERISHED NEEDED freedom WELL OVER DUE; whilst others are on financial inducements arrangements commitment with the murderous kanilai devil for strategize political manoeuvres in dual favours on both sides, sucking & feeding on our blood…..
NOT calling this VERY SELFISH unfair ‘treasonable’ ‘unpatriotic’ acts of our ‘supposed to be selfless politicians’ EXACTLY what they are & CONNOTES, is being ECONOMICAL with the TRUTH; just like denying the fact that there’s clear Jola tribalism in the Gambia currently today; HOWEVER this ISN’T true for ALL the Jola ethnicity, for clearly there are SELFLESS PATRIOTIC Jolas like all & any GENUINE Gambian/s….
The political opposition leaderships are NOBODIES without the peasantry supporters who stood by them through thick & thin, at times sacrifice their own lives for their protections & very survivals, WHY SHOULDN’T/CAN’T the the leaders reciprocate the same selflessness for our collective salvaging, rather than selfishly inclining on individualistic party gains first above all, presuming the collective calls & endeavours for country first as “helping one another to win” which it certainly goes beyond of…??
Now it’s unfortunate WHOEVER feels uncomfortable with my expressions, BUT it’s my INALIENABLE contributory RIGHTS to national building, which NOBODY can interfere with…
God helps & bless the collective endeavour to salvage Gambia; Ameen.
I thank you all very much.
@Bajaw…”Bax, IF your ‘debate’ aren’t clouted/shrouded in futile emotional arguments in this particular case,….”
Comment : “Futile emotional argument ? ” Wow, how is that..? How is emotion connected to my arguments..? Please help me. …
@Bajaw “…..least you stand what you accused someone else before of,…..”
Comment: Do you mean that I stand accused of ARROGANCE. .? Don’t waiver in your views. ….Express your views as they are. ..If you believe that I am being arrogant, say so and give your reasons. ..Trust me, I.will not be offended…..Criticism helps me.to reflect on my actions and re-evaluate myself, with a view to improving on my shortcomings. ..
@Bajaw. “…..you can’t afford NOT to realise all you have now said in response is SAME to what I’ve been saying & advocate for all along; for sanity to prevail for country,….”
Comment: I know you have expressed your views on many issues before, but I was only reacting to what was before me in this forum, not what you said elsewhere….
@Bajaw. “You are wrong to assume/claim I “believe” & advocate for “universal dominant force led coalition in entirety” ….”
Comment : Did I attribute “advocating ” of anything to you.? I don’t think so but you can show me how. .?
All I did was to show my disagreement with what I understood to be your views that “political issues the.world over are strategized around the dominant political force. …”
Here’s where you stated it….
@Bajaw. .. “Bax, it’s a know established fact/s that political issues world over, are essentially strategized around the most dominant political force/s for maximal effects for positive & collective communal gains; the Gambia ISN’T & CAN’T be any exception….”
Comment : .My understanding is that your view is that there is an established universal (the world over) format for “strategising” political issues…In.other words, forming alliances…
I apologise sincerely if this is not what you meant. ..However, if this is what you meant,then I will.stand by my views and disagree with you again…No discomfort or ill feelings…Just disagreements. .
@Bajaw “In the Gambian Case Study scenario in the opposition cycle, we CAN’T afford to ignore the vital numerical strength of UDP….”
Comment : We are all “independent observers” , in our own rights, of the political events unfolding in The Gambia and can.each draw our own conclusions, based on.how we understand the events and dissect the information coming from the ground…
From my own observation, I do not think anyone is ignoring the UDP’s strength at all..On the contrary, there is evidence to proof that the UDP electoral gains has been recognised when it was proposed that they will be allocated more delegates than.any party, at the 2011 convention to elect the ALL PARTY ALLIANCE flag bearer…
The difficulty lies in whether the UDP’s electoral gains entitles it to demand that all rally behind it so that when they win, they will form what they say is an all inclusive government…
The.problem with this approach is that, not only is it a vague proposal, it also has the potential to turn the UDP into the next dominant ruling party for decades, just like the PPP and the APRC…
This is because the political culture and practices are so firmly rooted and tailored to suit the ruling party that any party that forms.the next government, under the same climate, will be unchallengeable. ..
What we need is a grace period to re-orientate ourselves, demystify incumbency, establish and oversee the functioning of strong democratic institutions, civil society organisations and media houses before we return to party elections..
Anything else will amount to changing personalities that will lead.to.the creation of a new social class, without much difference to the conditions that gave rise to the emergence of Yaya Jammeh and his AFPRC/APRC…
That’s my opinion, but as always, I have no monopoly on how things should be understood and represented…So agreements and disagreements are to be expected. ..
Guys , all these high partisan politics lead to political polarization which result to significant disagreement that is not in best of the country . Each political party leadership and members are defending their party interest first and the country interest last . This is our biggest problem . We have to go beyond individual political party interest and consider that our highest priority should be to removed current military dictatorship . I believe that Udp lead United front is best possible scanerio to help savage our country from clutuches of authoritarian and military dictatorial regime . Other smaller parties should have memorandum of understanding with UDP and udp should be flexible to have their ideas so that it can be all inclusive . Let’s us be honest , the only party that has some degree of threat to dictatorship is Udp . I know PDOIS has good intention and policies for the country but the problem is that they do not have political base Due to the nature of Gambian politics and lack of political education. I think they need to be flexible and discard the notion of primary between political parties . Primary is best within a given political party as it happen in USA . Inter-party dialogue or meeting should always be encouraged to ensure greater understanding among parties and true nature of our current predicament .
Bax, I have been saying effectively our views are close in what you are saying here, even if not saying the same in words, in the collective endeavour for the temporal opposition merger to salvage the motherland…
It’s incumbent upon all Gambians, genuine & otherwise, as birthrights for ourselves, children & future generations, to ASPIRE to ENSURE our ONLY home is salvaged from destruction, which all signs & direction indicates & points to currently if not checked, under the murderous tyrannical kanilai devil….
It’s healthy for debates, to disagree to agree, for the collective common good, above all & anything else… But If you still continue to engage me for whatever reason/s whilst effectively saying the same differently, on similar views, it isn’t constructive debates anymore but rather precious time consuming & wasting futile arguments…??? If you are a new online debate contributor, one can understand but it’s the same “old Bax” whom we’ve been following each other from time immemorial, to have missed each other’s major points…?? Of course I never shy away from saying the truth as I see & deem it fit, but I don’t call people arrogant; was just drawing your attention back for example… I believe EVERYONE got a downside; fallible human beings gain NOTHING in demeaning, breaking down/destroying one another…?? This DOESN’T mean I lost “my kool”, just borrowed your own leaf in share of thought….
The terminology “Case Study” is an analytical tool used in quantitative & qualitative surveys & studies specified for effecting & impacting on positive desired goals & outcomes… It mainly resides on the SWOT components, alongside other necessary components vital to a particular study/case… The STRENGTH & OPPORTUNITIES are the positives to identify & maximally utilized for aspired desired goals & outcomes, whilst the WEAKNESS & THREATS are negatives to identify & eliminate, if not, try & minimize for minimal effects not to impact, impede & counter the desired aspired outcomes…
An all inclusive opposition stirring committee can be drawn to see to this effect; time back I even suggested it shouldn’t be a one of, but rather continued on ad hoc bases, to continuously monitor the murderous tyrannical manoeuvres & apply adaptation as to the numerous manipulative devices of the murderous tyrannical syndicate, to ensure up to date validations, to keep a step ahead of the devil….
I’m positively confident your fears of “new” breed of “upper class” will be adequately addressed with whoever comes in next; for Gambians will ENSURE the imposition of presidential terms limit & other judicious clauses necessary in the Constitution for justice & prosperity…
I hope I’ve responded to clarify your doubts.
God helps & bless the collective endeavour to salvage Gambia; Ameen.
Thank you all very much once again.
@Bajaw “In the Gambian Case Study scenario in the opposition cycle, we CAN’T afford to ignore the vital numerical strength of UDP….”
“Comment : We are all “independent observers” , in our own rights, of the political events unfolding in The Gambia and can.each draw our own conclusions, based on.how we understand the events and dissect the information coming from the ground…
From my own observation, I do not think anyone is ignoring the UDP’s strength at all..On the contrary, there is evidence to proof that the UDP electoral gains has been recognised when it was proposed that they will be allocated more delegates than.any party, at the 2011 convention to elect the ALL PARTY ALLIANCE flag bearer…
The difficulty lies in whether the UDP’s electoral gains entitles it to demand that all rally behind it so that when they win, they will form what they say is an all inclusive government… ”
Bax, your objectivity and rational approach in the way you view and use information is quite commendable. With a sense of humility and a willingness to accept mistakes when correctly pointed out, I share your sincerity and honesty that underpin the way we can argue and debate with others. The desire to look at the big picture should always be there.
I believe for some of us our only interest in Gambian politics is the desire to see our country cultivate a climate of tolerance and peace; and nurture a culture of true democratic dispensation and the rule of law. Our political motivation mainly emanates from these noble objectives.
I remember the only election I have ever voted in the Gambia was for the late Sheriff Dibba and the NCP. This was before the emergence of PDOIS and underscore my apprehension and disdain for the entrenched and consolidated political machinery of the ruling government. The same thing is happening now. We don’t want the same thing to happen in the third republic. This is mainly the justification for my opposition to any political arrangement that can revert to such a status quo. Nothing else.
There is a world of difference between politics and governance. Politics can be the art of persuasion and compromise, but governance is the use of power and control to achieve your aims and objectives.
Politicians can say anything to get into power, but when they govern it is a completely different ball game.
How many times have we seen politicians flip flop on their positions; how many times have they broken their promises. The case of President Wade of Senegal is a classical example: ma wah hon wahet ( I was the one who said it but now I took it back.) What can you do about it? Nothing. If you don’t like it resign from the government.
“The.problem with this approach is that, not only is it a vague proposal, it also has the potential to turn the UDP into the next dominant ruling party for decades, just like the PPP and the APRC…”
This is a fact. It can easily happen. If there is a party-led coalition the party that leads the coalition sponsors the candidate because it is only political parties that can sponsor candidates. In this case the UDP will sponsor the presidential candidate, and the only thing that binds the party with the other opposition parties is the Memorandum of Understanding( MOU) that defines the nature and character of the relationship as well as the promises the UDP makes about how it will government.
Question: when do we know the members of the opposition who will be in the coalition government? Will it be spelt out in the MOU or will a decision be made after the president is elected?
Question: the governance programs for the “coalition government” will it be spelt out in the MOU or will it be formulated after a government has been put in place?
Question: Is it possible to have an attorney general and minister of justice, who doesn’t like certain provisions in the MOU and can convince the president to renege on those provisions?
“This is because the political culture and practices are so firmly rooted and tailored to suit the ruling party that any party that forms.the next government, under the same climate, will be unchallengeable. ..”
True. True. Very True.
“What we need is a grace period to re-orientate ourselves, demystify incumbency, establish and oversee the functioning of strong democratic institutions, civil society organisations and media houses before we return to party elections..”
Cannot agree more with you.
“Anything else will amount to changing personalities that will lead.to.the creation of a new social class, without much difference to the conditions that gave rise to the emergence of Yaya Jammeh and his AFPRC/APRC…
That’s my opinion, but as always, I have no monopoly on how things should be understood and represented…So agreements and disagreements are to be expected. ”
I wish to affiliate myself with your views. If there are contrary opinions and views let us hear it.
A Noteworthy Opinion:
Now that the blockage impasse, though should still be “taken with pinches of salt”, have come to pass temporarily, I want to share a personal opinion I believe is noteworthy for inculcation for our collective political common good….
We are being numerously informed that Ousainou in his capacity as leader of the UDP have been going out of his way reaching out, following & meeting up other opposition leaderships outside the UDP bureau, I think this are the right selfless patriotic moves & should continue as long as there are no threats to Ousainou & accompanies personal lives & safety, for sake of country…
For UDP to claim, assume & fulfill its leading role as the dominant & most vibrant opposition in the country, it should continue to behave as expectedly required….. This should include acceptances & honouring of invitations offered to them by other opposition political parties whereas those parties didn’t honour UDP invitations in the past; the continuation of the recent “tit for tat” receded no-show to the purported invitation to the PPP rally in Brikama will certainly breed more acrimonious animosities between opposition stakeholders, who are rather DICTATED by COMMON CIRCUMSTANTIAL PREDICAMENT to unify against ALL odds for our very survival…. This is UDP’s designation by virtue of their dominant status; which they must fulfill if they are to truly claim their rightfully place & current position in country’s history….
I’m sure if better cordiality existed between UDP & other junior opposition partners, there would’ve been some forms of practical simultaneous actions on the ground in solidarity, from other opposition parties, beyond the issuance of statements of condemnations, during the illegitimate illegal blockade impasse….
I would be grateful if Sountoumana in particular, & Lafia the UDP ever agile artillery max man to please extend this to the UDP party leaderships for consideration; Lafia contrary to your “tit for tat” retaliation stance, UDP most be ready to tolerate & let go of bygones, for the sake of creating harmonious opposition coexistence for the collective common good, if they are to assume their important required role….
I’m appealing to UDP & all opposition politicians to please consider country first above partisan politics, to accord us the most cherished need freedom…
As non-partisan Gambian, I’m opportune above individual party politicians, entitled & privileged to unrestrictive stakes in ALL political parties in the motherland; unlike the individual party supporters, restricted on their various separate affiliations & allegiances; hence if anyone wonders, what business of mine…???
God helps & bless the collective endeavour to salvage Gambia; Ameen.
Question: When will those members of the other opposition parties selected to be part of the inclusive government named? Will it be spelt out in the Memorandum of Understanding or will it be after the president has been elected?
Question: When will the governance program for the inclusive government be formulated? Will it be spelt out in the Memorandum of Understanding or will it be formulated after a government is formed?
During the famous OJ Simpson murder trial in the US, the prosecutor asked the defendant to wear the murder gloves. OJ was struggling to get the gloves to fit into his fingers. The defense attorney the late Johnny Cochran turned to the judge and said:
“If it doesn’t fit you cannot convict.”
Kamalo, I believe generally, I’ve dilated on the areas you raised again & don’t see the need to be repeating myself over, into futile arguments for there’s more to life than degenerating into bickering which I got no time for….??? “Wade renegaded on promises”, in as much as we need to be cautious, whatever reasons have you that same will happen in repetition Gambia…?? I believe now is the time for politicians to get into the consultative engagements, to pave the way & frame the modalities for the merger which all know we can’t do without for definite…? But if there are foot-draggings & party policy excuses, etc etc, being used & issued for delays & time buying manoeuvres, when time is clearly not on our side, you can’t place that blame squarely on anybody’s door except our collective opposition leaderships…. I believe your questions are better addressed directly to the opposition leaderships if you are to get the right required responses…
I’m satisfied that all following the debates knows my honest expressions & unflinching stance for country ONLY; anybody in disagreements can hold on to their own entitled views…. We may exchange views here & there, in agreements & disagreements for country but whoever think I’ll reduce myself for you into futile bickering for ANY reason/s WILL be disappointed….
I REST MY CASE.
God helps & bless the collective endeavour to salvage Gambia; AMEEN.
Thanking you all very FINALLY.