FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING ELECTORAL REFORM REACHED BY GAMBIAN PARTIES AND CIVIL SOCIETY ACTIVISTS
A common framework for addressing electoral reform has been reached by leaders of two major Gambian political parties and civil society groups ahead of The Gambia’s 2016 elections.
This followed intense discussions at the conclusion of the International Civil Society Forum on The Gambia held in New York from October 1-2, 2015 under the auspices of the Coalition for Change – The Gambia (CCG) and its partners. The deliberations featured Omar A. Jallow (OJ), interim leader of the People’s Progressive Party; Hamat Bah of the National Reconciliation Party; and representatives of various civil society organizations.
With the issue of participation or boycott if conditions are not addressed and remain unresolved, participants agreed that:
Opposition political parties should set minimum acceptable reforms to the electoral law that must be implemented ahead of the 2016 elections.
Both the legitimacy of the Chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission’s mandate and all bills passed under his expired mandate must be challenged.
Voter registration requirements, especially the attestation process, must be changed.
The Gambia Government must ensure that all political parties have equal access to state media, and mechanism to track the abuse of state resources must be put in place
The ruling APRC’s (Alliance for Patriotic Re-orientation and Construction) use of state resources to promote partisan political objectives must end.
The law should that requires the Independent Electoral Commission to issue political rally permits should be amended, as permits should be issued by the Inspector General of Police in a fair and expeditious manner.
The Gambian constitution should be amended to remove the 65 year age limit for presidential candidates.
The state must cease the intimidation and harassment of the opposition parties and their supporters.
Both political party and civil society representatives concluded that all legal and diplomatic/political options must be fully utilized to ensure that The Gambia Government creates a conducive environment for free, fair, and transparent elections in 2016.
Given that there is a small window of opportunity to table and agree to acceptable electoral reforms ahead of the presidential and legislative elections in 2016 and 2017 respectively, civil society grouping agreed to call on the international community and the country’s development partners to withhold funding the elections until The Gambia Government implements all the proposed minimal reforms unanimously agreed to..
Participants also reiterated the need to engage with political parties that were not represented at the historic New York meeting. Participants stated that all efforts must be made to seek input from all political parties.
Follow-up activities are planned to exert greater pressure on the Gambia Government to facilitate the full participation of all Gambians in free and fair elections.
For further information, contact:
Amadou S. Janneh – (912) 306-4423
Sohna Sallah – (301)254-9983
Oj keep telling Fatu radio he will not fight against the upper age limit and yet he signed the opposition’s electoral reform proposal calling for the removal of the upper age limit in the constitution. And here we go again, the same OJ has ascribed himself to another call for the upper age limit to be removed. He needs to give us a break if he has nothing sensible to say. He is devoid of substance and only has one weapon; his mouth.
Okay, OJ may be flip flopping on the upper age limit and many other issues, but what is the UDP saying or going to do about this particular issue that obviously affects the party come 2016. Surely the country is eagerly awaiting to know how they intend to challenge the many policies implemented by Jammeh to perpetuate himself in power.
A 10 POINT recommendations for the 2016 presidential elections.
1- President Jammeh must issue a written public statement announcing that he will not stand election in March 2016.
2- To show sincerity Jammeh must free all political prisoners.
3- President Jammeh must issue a public statement stating that ALL diaspora Gambians without exception can return home freely without fear of any kind.
4- President Jammeh must issue an official statement and pass a law restricting the notorious NIA to national security issues ONLY and banned them from interfering in political, social, media and economic issues.
5- All Diaspora Gambians must henceforth be eligible to vote in major countries where they live. A New Voter Registration for diaspora Gambians to start NOW.
6- The IEC Chairman must be removed and replaced by a consensual chairman agreed to by all opposition political parties on the ground. A new voter registration exercise free from foreigners specifically those from Southern Senegal must be instituted.
7- President Jammeh must immediately UNBLOCK all Gambian online media websites and remove censorship to all local media houses.
8- All opposition political parties on the ground must be left to campaign freely throughout the length and breath of the country without hindrance of any kind.
9- President Jammeh must STOP buying or appropriating lands, properties and STOP all his commercial business activities and pay up TAXES as any business in the Gambia.
10- The Gambian constitution must be changed to include a two-term presidential term limit NOW.
If President Jammeh agrees and implements all the above points, Gambians will have all the reason to be patient until another president is sworn in November 2016.
Anything short of the above 10 points is a call for an “BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY” solution to freedom and democracy.
It is the opposition combined which is demanding for the upper age limit to be removed through the G6 framework. There will be no unilateral action on the part of the UDP. It is a national issue that doesn’t only affect the UDP leader but a lot more Gambians who could serve the country far better than yahya Jammeh. Let’s do it together folks.
Sidia too is affected and Halifa will no longer be qualified to run after 2016 if the law stays the same. OJ himself is disqualified. This is not to mention thousands of other capable over 65 Gambians who are excluded from seeking the high office of president.
Laa bung na Janoo buka daaba kaari
“There will be no unilateral action on the part of the UDP” I say there will be no combined action by the opposition on this issue as demonstrated by OJ. If the attitude of the UDP is as you have stated, “Laa bung na Janoo buka daaba kaari”, then there is no point in claiming and insisting on being the majority opposition party. The country needs leadership and direction on some of these crucial issues that are “make or break” matters for Gambia’s wellbeing.
Leadership is based on legitimacy and legitimacy is derieved from the majority. As far as Gambian opposition politics is concern, that majority in behind the UDP. However, coalitions are formed on the basis of consent. If the rest of the opposition does not want to consent to UDP’s leadership, there is nothing one can do about that.
People are not going to be distracted.
@Lafia : “…. and legitimacy is derieved from the majority. ”
Comment :…No, “legitimacy” is not derived from mere “majority” alone…That “majority” must also accept and recognise the authority to act/operate/perform/exist as the leader, for there to be “legitimacy..”
One cannot claim “legitimacy” without that ACCEPTANCE and RECOGNITION from the majority…The mere existence of a “majority” does not translate into “legitimacy”..
Objectivity, respect and tolerance is very crucial if UDP wants to succeed in leading a coalition to bring changes as majority party. UDP cannot do it alone and taking jabs and being not nice to your would-be collaborators will only ruin that chance.
I agree with you Abdou. But the way this Lafia is pulling daggers at everyone else who fights Jammeh is only harming UDP not helping to create a UDP led coalition. Sometimes I am compelled to entertain the conspiracy theory that he is planted in the opposition movement to create discord between UDP and other opposition groups. A more serious worry is that many other UDP supporters, particularly in this diaspora, are behaving similarly. Please let us avoid opposing the opposition. I hope Lafia can adopt a more collaborative approach to prove me wrong.
Leadership involves establishing a clear vision, sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly, Leadership is to providing information and knowledge to realize that vision.
Coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders. leaders should know how to achieve goals and inspire others along the way. Finally leader should not run seek refuge in foreign embassy’s while everyone else is in danger.
This is very bold noble initiative which should, & MUST include all Gambians, as stake holders, especially major players like various political opposition parties…
Hence the “reiterated need for engaging other opposition parties that weren’t represented” can be instrumentally effective, in enable achievement of the Goal, for fruition of the restoration of rule of law & judicious dispensation on affairs of State, for peace & tranquillity for all Gambians like before, & our neighbours, friends & International Community…
Unanimous utilization & exercises of our collective approaching, Goals in our noble endeavours in confronting the Murderous yaya Killer DEVIL & Tyrannical kanilai Oppressive Syndicate enablers will be realized sooner…
When Gambians commit in unison, act & speak in one voice the world listens; this is the only civil option left to genuine Gambians to salvage reclaim our motherland from decadence; only optional to plan B, which is a MUST, beyond this effort….
Bax, that’s why UDP accomodated part of pdois’ approved agenda2011. Now tell me what position of the UDP pdois and other parties have or are willing to accommodate??? Again people will not be distracted.
Abdou, I am sure lawyer Darboe is the nicest person of all the opposition leaders. He is the one who negotiate coalition on behalf of UDP. Tolerance and respect is his virtue and everybody has known and respect him for that including his political foes, namely;Halifa Sallah.
The nobodies like myself can say whatever we want and if that gets to Halifa Sallah’s skin to the extend that he can’t get on with negotiations, well that tells a lot about him. Call it thin skin. I am just not saying anything
The rambling Fatoumatta Tambajang on Fatu radio the other day. Gees!! Mam, you are not qualified to run and even if you are, you can’t be a candidate that the UDP will support since you are not from within the party. As a majority party, UDP’s policy is that as the biggest party in any given coalition, the candidate must come from within the party. That is not going to change because of you, Mam.
The ELITE, not the DUMB “MAJORITY”, matter!
October 9, 2015 at 4:25 PM
@Lafia : “…. and legitimacy is derieved from the majority. ”
The whole idea of Classical Liberal Democracy is to safeguard the Educated Elite MINORITY Establishment from the DICTATORSHIP of the MAJORITY. “Legitimacy” may indeed be derived from the DUMB MAJORITY, but everywhere that “Legitimacy” is used to safeguard the interests of the Minority Elite. That is the situation in all the so-called Western Democracies – as it was in the Athenian City State that founded “Democracy” while SLAVES outnumbered the “Citizens” 2 to 1.
Lafia, that too was the situation under Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Jawara – and Jammeh too. And it will be the situation under Lawyer Darboe too.
Murtalla Muhammad and Thomas Sankara were eliminated so quickly because they threatened to rule on behalf of the DUMB MAJORITY. President Jammeh learnt that lesson quickly – as I noted in my book in 2007 – and allowed the Kombos Elite to continue to flourish as long as they paid homage to the King.
The “MAJORITY” is merely a vehicle to gain power by the various competing Elite. The DUMB MAJORITY are smart enough to know that and that is why they are cynical about politicians in general.
Mr. Lafia Lamanjou Touray is not the spokesperson for or speaking as an official on behalf of UDP.
Secondly, I have not seen a conduct or a statement by UDP that could be seen as being rude or arrogant to the other opposition fellows.
Therefore, I would conclude that the official stance of the UDP is inclusive. I would just like to see them being more proactive in forging unity among the opposition in fighting issues that affect them all. Here too, collaboration is a 2-way street. The others are also enjoined to come forward and be willing to compromise.
Thank you Kinteh. I have said here over and over that I am a mere UDP supporter with an opinion and I have entitled to them. It is lawyer Darboe who has the mandate to speak for UDP on coalition as far as I understand. And you what?? Jula Darboe always speak on this issue a the appropiate time and after consulting his executive. He is soft spoken lawyer who is full of wisdom. He is currently morning the passing of his comrades and his best friend Dr Suso-sorah.
Since 2011, we have not seen any willingness to compromise on the part of other parties. Only UDP accommodated positions that are not theirs.
Can’t agree with you more, my-in-law..It is that group the British journalist, Henry Fairlie, called the “ESTABLISHMENT ” in 1955…
He defined it as… “that whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised”..
He might have been referring to the “British Establishment”, but the same can be said of almost all nations of the world today..
The minority elites, ever since man organised himself into societies, has always devised ways, means and methods to control and manipulate society for their own ends..
The group used to be exclusive (wherever it existed) and their membership was determined purely by birth/class and restricted only to the socalled “nobility”, but today it is open to anyone….And herein lies their success…
Their flexibility and adaptability is what has enabled them to evolve from exclusive groups of the “born privileged”, sometimes even suspected to exist in secret societies, into powerful and interconnected political, financial, educational, economic, military and social global institutions that set the agenda and control the world today..
They are the architects of the New World/Global Order and are the driving force(s) at the center of all human tribulations experienced in our recent history..
Perhaps, our own “Terri Kafo” was a secret society…It certainly was part of “The Gambian Establishment. “.
Indeed Bax, take the case of the “UN-Establishment” – an International “Terri Kafo” . The Africans who are nominated there for top jobs and high salaries are nominated by the National Establishments from among the National Elite – e.g. The Bensoudas and the Kofi Annans. Foreign Ministers who have known UN officials will nominate family members and friends for for posts … and the grand-children will receive International Class Education in expensive finishing schools to join the Elite at the very top. It is all UN-Elite Imperialism Exploitation and Subjugation of Africa’s MASSES – and that is why the MASSES celebrate (however short-lived!) whenever a Thomas Sankara, a Jerry Rawlings or a Yahya Jammeh upsets the Elite’s Apple-Cart.
PS: Don’t co-opt me into PDOIS (lol).
Dida and Bax are socialist wackos who will only settle for a scruffy candidate, not people who parade themselves in tie and suits. It’s called class warfare and this is what is at the heart of PDOIS’ intransigence on coalition.
Lafia, Halifa Sallah seems perfectly smart dressed in his simple Kaftan – but the UNSUNG HERO for whom I would vote as President is Lawyer Lamin S. Camara who dresses in a 3-piece Saville Row Suit and Tie. How one dresses has nothing to do with it.
Lafia….Stop this misinformation you are engaged in…It is a futile exercise because it will not work…The most important issue for many is not “who” leads the opposition, but on what basis they lead…
No party compromised or adopted another’s positions…All parties first came together and adopted a common position which did not work due to the withdrawal of the UDP…
UDP and PDOIS subsequently came out with their individual proposals, which were both supported by other parties (at one time or the other), but no compromises could be reached between the two on the alliance format…The parties have decided to work for electoral reforms instead and continue their grassroots meetings and sensitisation. That is how matters stand at the moment, as far as I can see..
You can twist and bend that as much as you want, but it will not change the facts…
The problem with you bax is that you still believe UDP is bound by NADD MOU which is a fallacy. The UDP ceased to be bound by that MOU since it’s withdrawal in 2006. Meanwhile I am talking about the coalition meeting of 2011, and what I said was contained in a UDP official press statement of 2011.
Here you go bax. See below;
UDP Press Conference on Coalition Talks-17th October 2011
The United Democratic Party (UDP) on Monday 17th October 2011 held a press conference at the Party’s Political bureau in Banjul, the capital city of the Gambia. The Secretary General and party leader, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe indicated that the issue of a United Front is not strange to Gambians. He said in early 2000, Gambians in the Diaspora have championed the course for a united front for the Opposition. He told the press in the midst of party supporters and sympathizers that the laudable initiative on the part of the UDP has led to the holding of a Conference which ultimately gave birth to NADD.
Mr. Darboe stated that NADD didn’t work and as the November election is fast approaching, there have been a lot of talk in the media among individuals that it is time that the opposition parties get together and try to form a united front. He said people have advanced decision on the issue of a united front, but no initiative was taken formally to convene a meeting for talks on the issue. He said the Executive of the United Democratic Party gave him directive to invite opposition parties to get together and discuss the issue of a united front.
He said a letter was issued to all the opposition parties and signed by the Administrative Secretary of the party on the 11th of August 2011 at a time when he was not in town, but that when he came back, he made a follow up by issuing a letter dated 23rd August 2011 to all the opposition parties inviting them to come together to form a united front and also to discuss the modality of selecting a flag bearer. Darboe asserted that the meeting started on the 3rd of September 2011: adding that he had hoped that they could have done it so that by Koriteh time, they would have concluded.
He said that they did not agree on a common candidate and that they have agreed that consultation can still continue and that they must continue to respect each other; that they must continue to be very circumspect with statements that they made; statements that will have effect in creating difficulty for some parties in getting together.
But it is quite obvious, he said, that their position was one of a party led and they have argued and will continue to argue that the accepted norm throughout the world is that when parties are coming together to form an alliance, it is the party with the majority that takes up the leadership and lead the other parties in the alliance and contest the election.
Mr. Darboe noted that the UDP has accommodated in their proposal, the 5yr transition and all the attendant conditions that PDOIS articulated in their Agenda 2011. Notwithstanding this, those calling for a convention to select a flagbearer were still not inclined to accommodate any element of UDP’s proposal, he added. He also indicated that he respects other views but that they did not see anything wrong with their view.
Darboe asserted that some have said that a party led alliance can or would lead to the withering away of the constituent parties and they have responded to say that what they have agreed upon is that when they (UDP) win election, the media will be opened to every party and that even when an alliance Government is in office, all the other parties will have access to the media to sell their programmes and convince the people on the viability of their policies. He said it is not as if one is leaving everything until at the end of the five years and then one opens the media. “So where is the withering away of the constituent parties?”, he asked. And again he said during National Assembly Elections, parties will field candidates in constituencies where they have more supporters than others and in this way, he said, even during the transition, parties will make their presence felt.
Darboe asserted that probably those calling for a convention will arrange a convention among themselves- those allegedly agreeing to a convention and he said he is using the word allegedly very adversely notwithstanding the signing of the press release by all parties because he is not sure if NRP is supporting a convention- so that the consultation will be between the convention candidate and the UDP.
Darboe asserted that it is not time for the opposition to engage in a debate because the Gambia has a problem that is solvable by what they have put forward and that they do not say that it is the only solution, but it is a solution that is reasonable and universally accepted.
In conclusion, Darboe said he is appealing to PDOIS, GPDP and NRP to reconsider their position and that come 24th November, Jammeh will be out because the very people who are saying 99 percent are the ones who will not vote for him. In fact, you will see a group of APRC women cross-carpeting to the UDP soon, he concluded.
Join the Vote Lawyer Darboe 2011 Campaign on facebook;http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/163686343716685/
QUOTE Lafia Touray la Manju
October 10, 2015 at 11:22 PM
Here you go Bax … UDP Press Conference on Coalition Talks-17th October 2011
“The Secretary General and party leader, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe said … come 24th November, JAMMEH WILL BE OUT because the very people who are saying 99 percent are the ones who will not vote for him.”
Well, “here you go” indeed Bax, what do the likes of you and your in-law know!!
“JAMMEH WILL BE OUT” was said in 1996 (I was in a house in Fajara where some were planning the New UDP Cabinet – “we will keep only Mrs. Santang Jow”),
“JAMMEH WILL BE OUT” was said in 2001 with some realistic hope (“we will give UDP the Presidency and go back to barracks – and do a Jerry Rawlings if they interfere with the Army”!, said someone);
JAMMEH WILL BE OUT was said in 2006 but DISUNITY killed that hope;
JAMMEH WILL BE OUT was said HOPELESSLY in 2011.
If the Opposition cannot unite in 2016 (next year!), no one should parrot “JAMMEH WILL BE OUT”!!
By the way Lafia, if I was in NADD in 2006 and I had been called National Association of Donkey Drivers, I would have adopted the Donkey and Cart FULLY LOADED with rice as my party logo. The Donkey is greatly respected in Africa. The fastest growing “New York of Africa” skyscraper city at the moment is Addis Ababa and you find the Veritable Donkeys and their loads jostling with Pajeros & Mercs right in the Central Business District. When I was a kid we could only take goods to my remote village (Dambi El Dima) up the steep rocky valley using the Veritable Donkeys.
Long Live NADD! Respect to the Donkeys and Drivers!.
By the way, Kannifing Municipal Council would have no problems with RUBBISH if they co-opted 100 Donkeys and Drivers to do the job. “RUBBISH KMC” was my headline on the front-page of the Daily Observer back in 2008.
Lafia…I am aware of the UDP statement but its reproduction here does not change much of what we already know..
It may be convenient for you to look at the coalition efforts from 2011 and ignore what preceded that, but that is not an informed way of dissecting a problem.
It will be indeed foolish to think that anyone is bound by NADD anymore, but the experience of NADD, and the factors surrounding its collapse, cannot be completely ignored, if we want to understand why alliance efforts are proving to be difficult ..That is the reason why reference is sometimes made to NADD..
UDP’s assurances of a free press are all very good, but without a structure that everyone has confidence in, I don’t think many will be convinced…
After all, PPP ministers have claimed that there was free access to the public media but we know how that worked…
The APRC claims there is free access to the media but we know how that works..
You cannot guarantee free access to the media to all, especially the public media, in a situation where politicians have control over the institutions and can dictate policies or even programming …
Public media must be independent of government influence and control before assurances of equal access and editorial/programming independence can be taken seriously..
There is no point in repeating previously made points, but it should be pointed out, once again, that there is NO UNIVERSAL FORMAT to build allinaces/coalitions…
Political alliances are strategic tools to achieve strategic objectives and their nature varies, depending on the challenges to be addressed…
Indeed, in many instances, leading alliance partners have been parties with the most influence and voter number records, but that fact alone does not say the whole story..We have also seen in many other instances, where other formats were followed..
What is also true, is that in such instances (majority party leading), the leading alliance partners have a history of winning general and/or presidential elections by themselves and often have a record of being in government by themselves..
In a situation like ours, where no opposition party has a history of winning general or presidential elections by themselves, and are unlikely to do so anytime soon, given the realities on the ground, it is difficult to understand why any party would insist that they should lead and form a government, albeit, an alliance one..
In my view, this is the major obstacle to any alliance efforts and unless it changes, I will be surprised to see an all party alliance in The Gambia…
Hence, this debate will continue to rage on, as long as there is the need for an alliance to effect democratic change, and that is a good thing.
What is not good, unhealthy, disingenuous and misleading, is the accusations that the failure to reach a compromise and form an alliance, is somehow evidence that some parties are happy with the status quo..
Nothing can be further from the truth and those who make such accusations are guilty of disingenuity, falsehood and misinformation..
Don’t accuse me of misinformation then because what I have said has basis in official and authoritative statements.
I know you will never concede but that is not my issue.
Where is The Dormant Deputy Leader of Gambia’s main opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) and former PPP candidate Yaya Jallow , since his daughter Fatoumata Jallow’s visa scandal?
Who is current Deputy UDP leader and why not active with party affairs. The Deputy Leader should have been sent to attend.
QUOTED that “Mr. Darboe noted that the UDP has accommodated in their proposal, the 5yr transition and all the attendant conditions that PDOIS articulated in their Agenda 2011. Notwithstanding this, those calling for a convention to select a flagbearer were still not inclined to accommodate any element of UDP’s proposal, he added. He also indicated that he respects other views but that they did not see anything wrong with their view.”
POINT 1: Not ” all the attendant conditions that PDOIS articulated in their Agenda 2011.” were accommodated because that would have brought the United National Front launched by PDOIS with NRP and GPDP at Atlantic Hotel; that made way for Hamat Bah to lead after resigning from NRP to be on common ground.
POINT 2: 5 year term is incorporated in agenda but not own by PDOIS. Both UDP and PDOIS noted it as proposal so its a general consensus.
It was the mode of selection of a candidate as proscribed by PDOIS that was rejected and rightly so. By the way, can you tell us PDOIS wanted a coalition that is based entirely on their terms and conditions at the exclusion of everything that the UDP had proposed??
The UDP noted the 5yr transition has a PDOIS proposal. The proposal was first contained in Halifa Sallah’s Agenda 2011 which was endorsed and adopted as a party policy document at the PDOIS Congress held at the Atlantic Hotel In 2010. The UDP considered the proposal and then decided to accommodate/accept it in the interest of the nation and also to achieve a coalition. It was PDOIS which refuses to accommodate any UDP proposal and was insisting on a coalition that was entirely based on their terms and conditions and at the exclusion of everything else. That’s why Halifa had that big show down with Hamat Bah at the last minute. In the end Hamat had to back down to save the coalition they formed with PDOIS in 2011.
Again, this is what Darboe told Sidia in their meeting of 7th November 2010 which preceded the final coalition meeting UDP convened in 2011. It shows Darboe making enquiries about PDOIS’s 5yr Transition proposal and its attendant conditions. The UDP national executive met after this meeting and decided to accommodate/accept PDOIS’ 5yr transition proposal and its attendant conditions but this was not reciprocated by PDOIS and thereby resulting to no coalition with UDP:
“In the course of the discussions I questioned Mr. Jatta on the rationale for imposing a condition on a successful all opposition alliance presidential candidate not to contest elections or support any candidate for election at the end of what is described in Agenda 2011 as a transitional period. The UDP has always advocated and will continue to advocate for a two year term limit. I told Mr. Jatta that the imposition of such a condition to my mind calls into question the integrity of the person who is selected by the alliance as a candidate. I made it clear to him that for the UDP such a condition suggests that the person so selected will not abide by the accepted rules and that he would only perpetuate himself in office. I made it clear to him the UDP will not consider such a person fit to be selected as an all opposition alliance candidate because there is some latent doubt that when elected to the office of president he will not honour his commitment to ensuring that all parties operate in a level playing field. Mr. Jatta in reply said that the stipulation of such a condition was not putting into question the integrity of any person who might be selected as an all opposition alliance candidate but that such a person would have an advantage over others. I took my enquires further and asked Mr. Jatta what this advantage(s) might be but he could not say.”
It was unfortunate that the UDP succeeded in wasting the time of the other oppositions in 2011 when it was clear to them that their only proposal was Party-led when Darboe and all the rest of parties had asserted that they would never leave their parties and support another leader under his/her party candidature. This was why Darboe pretended that NADD was a party and therefore he was leaving NADD to go back to his party even though he had appended his signature on the NADD MoU. UDP did not accommodate any of PDOIS proposals in 2011. Like Dawda said 5 year term is a general consensus among all stakeholders. PDOIS was and is only interested in a process where all parties are going to be equal players and no party will be marginalized during the transition period. So just because you have a few percentage points above others in a past election does not justify being selected as flagbearer in a coming election. Macky Sall is a very good example. If all Senegalese parties were to come together as one before the last election, many of the old parties would argue the UDP way that they had more votes but Macky who has never stood in an election had defeated all of them in the first round. So the PDOIS is just interested in a process which is democratic and credible and is likely to produce the right candidate in a coming election, not a past election and who is likely to unify a cross section of people and win people from the ruling party. My problem is, why is the UDP adamant in pursuing a proposal which other parties have rejected and which it has also rejected if it were the proposal of another party? This is why the PDOIS suggested putting the flagbearer under an independent ticket to show every voter that it is a collective grouping and is seen to be so.
I think pdois wasted the nation’s time by insisting on a coalition that as entirely based on their terms and conditions and at the exclusion of every other proposal. It is commendable that the UDP rejected any condition that is formed or advocated on that basis.
It was the supreme Court that confirmed that Nadd was a political party, not Darboe.