By Janko Camara
It is not difficult to understand the logic behind Yahya Jammeh’s opposition to the idea of sending AU troops to Burundi. He is opposed to it not because of a non-interference policy in other countries’ internal affairs. No! He has a grand scheme. In opposing the idea, Yahya is laying the foundation for non-interference in The Gambia’s “internal affairs” when he begins to unleash his own terror machine, given that the tiny Western African country shall be heading to the polls in the last quarter of this year. This is what the Mandinkas call “FANG KOTO BAMBANGO”. Yahya has his own game-plan for the 2016 elections, part of which he unwittingly revealed to the public a few months ago when he publicly threatened to execute any Opposition member wanting the “cause trouble” in the country in the months and weeks leading to the polls. He is aware that his actions may draw international attention and, depending on the gravity of the situation, AU or ECOWAS might deem it necessary to intervene. So, in reality, he is pre-empting a repeat of history should this proposal to have the AU troops sent to Burundi succeed.
I think I can reasonably assume that The Gambia, under Yayha Jammeh, has no guiding Foreign Policy. The country’s Foreign Policy depends on the objectives and mood of the Maximum Ruler – Yahya Jammeh. This is because whilst he is now advocating for non-interference in the “internal affairs” of Burundi, he did not adopt same when Ivory Coast was going through their own “Internal” crisis. I remember Njogu Bah reading a formal Gambia Government “position” paper in a matter that, going by Jammeh’s twisted logic, was a purely “Internal matter” which concerns only Ivoirians. Momodou Sabally later made a similar pronouncement on national TV concerning another country’s “internal” affairs.
In view of all of the above, the lesson to learn here is this: Yahya is willing and ready to put into operation his terror machine to achieve his objectives. Therefore, we need no soothsayer to understand that our only strength, and by extension, ability to defeat such terror, lies in OUR UNITY. All this bickering should give way to sober thinking, unity and thus a strong resolve to kick out this government. Let us rally behind the Opposition party with the largest appeal, to vote out the Jammeh regime. The collective will of the people cannot be defeated by any mortal force. To ensure the new government acts in the collective interest of the people, a legally enforceable document, agreed to and signed by all the Opposition parties on the ground, detailing the priorities of the new government, should be created as a basis for the coalition. I do not see any other way out of this mess.
Ends
Janko , I agree with your view about the need to rally behind the largest opposition party to effect electoral victory . With opposition unity , Jammeh will be removed . I hope these smaller parties will Finally have courage and do the right thing to free the country from clutches of dictatorship .
Mr. Camara , a good analysis of the situation and yes I choose to input another perspective.
First, I think that the indecision is not a yardstick for gambia come Dec 16. The decision for a president to leave office unceremoniously in Africa is made somewhere else. By not deciding for intervention, AU has endorsed the sad tradition, whereby forces out of the continent will decide the fate of Burundi. Gambia is no exception, just like Gaddafi, Abacha, Taylor or of recent Gbagbo’s fate were sealed without the consent of AU.
Secondly, a party coalition is a welcome scenario. Primarily it will galvanise the electorate and bring to fore the common interest instead of an individual aspiration.
Nevertheless, I also believe that a loose MOU, as suggested above, could also be an effective working paper in which smaller parties forgo own candidature and endorse the bigger parties. It is my view, that UDP must lead and earnestly bring certainty to the question of flagbearer. The other parties will move forward likewise and a compromised can be achieved when that certainty is established.
Why not a non party led alliance…That way, no party feels that they own the process…And a selection process that is open, rather than closed to all Gambians, can be a huge motivator and an effective catalyst for change …
Let’s face it, past results clearly indicate that the combined votes of the entire opposition is less than the APRC share, so a strategy that can entice disgruntled and weak APRC voters, as well as the disinterested, must be the option…
Will disgruntled and weak APRC voters be willing to vote for any candidate presented by their bitterest rival..?
Would those who have never bothered to vote be coaxed out or motivated to vote for a UDP led coalition, when UDP’s (or other opposituon parties) participation on previous elections did not move them to the polling boots..?
The political realities of The Gambia should not be brushed aside for some none existent universal formula, if an electoral victory can be engineered against a.deeply entrenched party in government, presiding over one of the most deficient and corrupt democratic systems ever, with a largely, despondent and disinterested electorate…
Bax , I think you should always go for things which makes sense , is practical and feasible . UDP led coalition is the best strategy for the country . I think your party has zero chance and I will consider them as obstacle if they refuse to accept the coalition .
Kinteh , I think the Ideas of primary is not going to be helpful considering the financial aspect . These political parties should come together and formulate a working document which they will agree in principle . UDP needs to take some of their policies and programes in this document as part of coalition . This is the way forward . UDP needs to select woman flag bearer who , other parties will agree to in this coalition .
Thank you my good brother Bax, thank you Kinteh for introducing other perspectives to this debate. Thank you Max for your contributions. I would just encourage us to keep the debate mature, healthy and focused (on the issue at hand). Hopefully, at the end of the day, something acceptable might come out of this for consideration by our great politicians on the ground.
On the dereliction of responsibility by the AU, Kinteh’s perspective is well taken and there is high possibility that this might be one of the reasons for the Union’s indecision on Burundi even when all evidence is pointing to an impending human catastrophe in that country. The attitude of waiting for powers beyond the continent to take action in life and death matters regarding citizens of the continent is, in itself, a betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed on the continental body by the African peoples. If the continental body (to whose upkeep every African taxpayer contributes through their respective countries’ annual contributions) fails in their primary responsibility, then they need not exist; and the taxpayers need to be relieved of this unnecessary burden. I believe a good number of Africa’s leaders have mortgaged their countries to the so-called “West” in return for the safety and security of their regimes and persons. As a result, our resources (Africa is known for being a global player in the export of primary commodities) are plundered with reckless abandon by global corporates most of them acting in Unisom with governments of their countries of origin. This is the sad state of affairs which the next generation of African leaders should be ready to change.
Coming back home, and on the way forward for the local Opposition politicians, I acknowledge Bax’ idea of a “non-party led alliance” as an interesting one which could be experimented. However, I prefer being more realist than idealist. That is to say, I believe the idea could be effective only where the following conditions exist:
1) The voters’ level of political awareness cum education is reasonably sophisticated.
3) Sufficiency of time. In my view sufficient time does not exist to afford us the luxury of going through a process that would lead to the formation of a non-party led alliance; afford the alliance enough time to effectively sell their candidate to the voting masses that truly matter. In all this, we would seem to be forgetting that the voters only know a UDP, PDOIS, NRP, GPDP, PPP and GMC and not a new name that might emerge from such a type of alliance. This voter “loyalty” to party names cannot (and should not) be discounted, given the obviously low sophistication level of the average Gambian voter.
I would like to repeat that any political strategy that does not have the final voter as the centre of focus is bound to fail. Such a strategy could only succeed in drawing a wedge between the strategists/politicians and the voting public. It is not Rocket Science. It is simple logic and wisdom. We need to understand that we are dealing with voters most of whom are politically simple-minded with less sophistication in understanding things that should really matter to them. Therefore, pragmatism is essential here. I must admit that there are political parties that have truly invested time and energy in voter education to have them focus on issues that really matter and not on things that are non-essentials. However, it will still take a little more time before we get to that desired level compared to our cousins next door.
My good brother Bax, I tend to lean more towards “ownership of the process” by the voting public and not by any particular political party. My view to have all the other parties rally around the biggest Opposition party is premised on the fact that the voting public appear to like them more (apart from the ruling APRC) by virtue of the number of votes they have always secured from all the past elections since 1996. This is existing statistics, which is readily verifiable. This fact should neither be discounted and nor brushed aside. One of the reasons why Yahya Jammeh is much tougher with UDP than any other Opposition party on the ground in The Gambia is because the UDP, he very well knows, presents the greatest threat to his political survival. Therefore, he must crush them; and in his own special wisdom, BY ANY MEANS necessary. It is as simple as that.
Regarding voter apathy, this exists mainly because voters have come to the realisation that no party, on their own, can take out the ruling APRC, given the uneven nature of the political terrain in The Gambia. Therefore, until there is a grand scheme, which involves all the other parties, there is no chance of voting out the APRC under the current circumstances. In view of this, they prefer not to “waste time” voting in elections. There is very high probability that this will change once there is unity among the Opposition. Therefore, unity under a UDP-led coalition may achieve the twin-objective of pulling out the largest number of votes in any elections while at the same time greatly reducing, if not eliminating voter-apathy, which has plagued the past two presidential and parliamentary elections in The Gambia. Having the strongest Opposition party lead the coalition will be very inspiring to those “who have never bothered to vote” because of the high chances of success.
Finally, assuming the smaller Opposition parties are very concerned about establishing a TRULY democratic Gambia, and they are in doubt as to the ability and/or sincerity of the largest Opposition party to do so, then they can easily use their collective strength as a leverage to have the lead party in the coalition (UDP) to accept and address those concerns. How do they do this? Get them (and all the other Opposition parties) to agree on a plan of action to be taken and the processes to put in place once victory is achieved. These must be documented, signed by all the parties concerned and should be given a legally enforceable status. This way, we can achieve a win-win situation. The UDP, being the biggest Opposition shall have been seen to have been given recognition, whilst at the same time, the concerns of other parties like PDOIS, NRP, PPP, GMC, GPDP, etc. shall also have been given due attention and taken into full consideration. Victory shall have been achieved for the long suffering Gambian people. Some may suggest that this was done in the past when NADD was created. I beg to differ. The mere adoption of the name NADD implies the biggest party did not lead the coalition and, in its stead, a new party, called NADD, came into existence. NADD was a somewhat “neutral” and novice player to be propped by all the stakeholders in the political process. I remember the legal, albeit flimsy, challenge that the APRC/IEC wanted to use regarding the name NADD and their status, at the time, as a recognized political party in The Gambia.
Over to you Bax, let me hear your view
Leadership failure in Africa is at the heart of the continent’s many problems…And the propping up of these leaders by Western Governments, many of whom are their creation and serve their interest, is often the real problems behind the humanitarian crisis across the continent, but this calls for a completely separate forum from our own Jammeh conundrum and our attempts to devise strategies to address it…
Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that the very nature and composition of Africa’s political leadership today, is the reason why the AU is disregarded in the global decision-making process, even when their member nation is the subject, and completely marginalised in the distribution of global power..
Libya ia a case in point…Despite opposition to foreign intervention in the internal affairs of a member state, US/NATO alliance disregarded their concerns, bombed Libya into chaos and created a problem in their own backyard, which is being “solved” with almost, no input from the continental body…Completely reduced to irrelevance in African matters, who will consult these incompetent bunch in global matters, anyway…? How could they even deploy troops when they are almost all sustained by foreign “aid”..?
And talking about foreign “aid”, two of their (imperialists) darlings, life presidents Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) and Paul Kagame(Rwanda, who was Museveni’s intelligence liaison officer during his bush war), both creations of Western Imperialism, and whose economies are incidentally portrayed in Western capitalist media as models for development, are perhaps the greatest “sales agents” creating “markets” for the “humanitarian aid” racket and scam of the West….
From Darfur to DR Congo, Somalia, CAR, and even Kenya, the finger prints of.these two are everywhere…The results of their nefarious activities, that create humanitarian crisis across the continent, which is then used to further consolidate the strangulating grip of the continent by imperialist interest, is why they are hailed as model leaders and their ruthless and criminal regimes escape the scrutiny and condemnation they deserve..
The interconnections between these criminals in the West and their counterparts in Africa, is often disguised in a network of “legitimate” business interest dealing in the natural mineral sector and this provides the perfect front for gun running to the various “rebel and jihadi” movements in the continent… These “rebels and jihadis” operating in all regions of the continent, are nothing but agents of destabilisation for imperialist incursion and exploitation of our natural resources…
Jean-Pierre Mbemba, the Congolese rebel leader, for example, is connected, through his brother in law, Anthony Texeira, to billionaire Tony Buckingham, the oil tycoon, who is also believed to be founder of Executive Outcomes and Sandline International, two mercenary organisations operating in Africa…Buckingham is also a partner in Heritage oil, one of.the oil conglomerates with concessionary rights over Northwestern Uganda region, where oil is believed to be present…Joseph Koni of the Lord’s Resistant Army gives Museveni the perfect excuse to clear the area of.the local people, through genocide, which is not reported anywhere. .
The connection is found in the South African firm, Energem, which is involved in the trans-Uganda- Kenya pipeline and whose connection can be traced to big oil firms with shareholders in the highest echelons of the imperialist West..
The same nefarious activities can be found in all African countries that have mineral riches. Whether it is Sierra Leone or Mali or Niger or Sudan, the havoc that corporate greed wrecks on.Africa, with the active help of her sons and daughters, is simply unprecedented in modern history. ..
Africa is in.a.complete mess and.the situation looks ever bleaker…
I will do this in parts to avoid a lengthy piece….Part 1.
I need to point out, first of all, that contrary to views held by some contributors, I am not a PDOIS militant or a blind supporter …and will not hesitate to express my disagreement with PDOIS, where any exist…
I am just a contributor who thinks PDOIS has been unfairly singled out for criticism for the failure of the opposition to form an alliance…My position is that if we must apportion blame, then the entire opposition must be blamed, without exception…
Let’s acknowledge first that the decision to form an alliance or not is entirely that of the political parties…As disenfranchised stake holders in Gambia’s political process, all we can do is exchange views on what we think is a fair and workable arrangement that reflects the political realities on the ground…and hope that someone out there may be listening and considering our views…
I have stated this before and I will state it again..I will be as happy as anyone, if all the parties decide to rally behind the UDP and go with their proposal or adopt the PDOIS proposal…I.have no problem with either if there is unanimity or a concensus…
I came into these discussions because I refused to blame the PDOIS alone and preferred to take a look at what both sides are offering to make up my mind as to who is the real obstacle…
It was not difficult for me, from that perspective, to see that whilst PDOIS’ position is not dissimilar to the joint position of the opposition, sanctified with the MOU to create NADD, the UDP’s position is 2011 was entirely different from what they agreed to in 2006…
And to the dismay of many, the UDP in 2011 seems to be questioning some of the very things they signed up to in 2006…That did raise some serious questions which have been ignored by the many PDOIS bashes. ..
Let’s remind ourselves that the UDP, as far as I know, withdrew from NADD because they disagreed with its registration as a political entity that can contest elections and not the content of the agreements they signed in the MOU.. (but I may be wrong and may have missed some things….If so, pls forgive me)
The questions then arise : why question, for example, the rationale for the impartiality of the flag bearer in any subsequent elections to usher in the 3rd Republic, which is contained in the MOU that they signed..?
Why question the allegations of incumbency advantages when that is also contained in the MOU…?
If I was a political leader involved in this process at the time, I will be very suspicious of any partner who behaved in this manner and I will not be part of any alliance, unless I am absolutely certain that I will not be fighting the same old battles again, against a group I actually helped to put in office…Knowing Gambian politics, that could finish any opponents off completely…
Continued….
I am aware that there are many who would prefer that the “ghost” of NADD be laid to rest, perhaps because it reveals uncomfortable truths (who knows), but a problem cannot be solved unless it’s source is traced and identified and alliance efforts in the 2nd republic, began with NADD… So it is important that we reflect on NADD, but I will leave that to rest for now..
Of the two proposals for an alliance, I agreed with the nonpartisan approach as proposed by PDOIS because, quite simply, it offers the fairest deal to all alliance partners and the most winning strategy…
Why the fairest deal..?
The leadership of the entire opposition have agreed, at least in public, that no single party can defeat the APRC by its own efforts, and therefore whatever votes one may poll at previous elections, there is no legitimate claim to the right to be put in government…
Some.may argue that it’s an alliance government that will be formed, if they win, but what they fail to consider is that Gambia’s laws are not designed for an alliance government..It’s a “winner takes all” constitution, with the chief executive having powers to appoint and remove without question…
An alliance under the UDP may be an alliance in name, but as far as the law is concerned, all other parties have simply not contested the elections….It was a UDP candidate, UDP symbols, UDP colours, UDP ballot boxes and most importantly, a UDP President that was sworn.in…..
I am not a lawyer but challenging the decisions of the government in.court, when it goes against whatever has been agreed in opposition will be a waste of time,.unless the laws of the country are changed..
For example, if an agreement stipulates that no coalition partner holding a position in government can be removed by the alliance president, would any court uphold that against the constitutional provision that empowers the president to remove ministers, if the president decides to remove a coalition partner from their position..?
Can anyone envisage serious disagreements arising in an.allinace government where the leading party only promised to undertake reforms, but has failed to indicate the depth of these reforms and the pace..?
Suppose a coalition partner is unable to continue in government due to disagreements and either gets fired or resigned, what then..? Being a party leader or senior party operative, would anyone from their party take their position.? Obviously not…The position may simply be filled with a UDP official…So it is possible that we could start off, with say 40% non.UDP cabinet but end up with 100% UDP cabinet…That’s the first point of unfairness…
To be continued tomorrow….
Part (3)
Many people may argue that President Jawara was the type of individual whose character and style of leadership was so appealing to the voters that it would have been impossible to defeat him at the polls, but the same cannot be said of Yaya Jammeh, and yet he has continued to win election after election since 1996, and in this fact lies the basis of my next point…
The political system and culture…We all pretend that it doesn’t matter, except when we point out APRC abuses of the system, but our system of politics and culture of inducment and “winner takes all” politics, is at the heart of Jammeh’s “success” at the polls…
In such an environment, self perpetuation becomes the natural consequence of.the system, rather than the comcious design of the political class, though many actively use it to their advantage….
The introduction of a presidential term limit will only address one aspect of self perpetuation but not the other, and the possibility of the next party in government perpetuating itself until another military adventurist intervenes, is actually greater than Albert Einstein passing the Common Entrance (during his life time)..Ok, that’s an over exaggeration but that’s how defective our system of politics and governance truly is…
The most possible outcome of the UDP led alliance, if successful, is that the UDP, except for the presidential term limits ( which could be amended with control of National Assembly as happen throughout the continent) could be the next PPP, with unrivalled domination of the political scene for a long time…
So we will effectively have a situation, where a party that had a very little chance of getting into government, as an opposition party, now dominating the political scene at the expense of its alliance partners in opposition…Here in lies another unfairness of the party led arrangement..
We saw that in the SOPI coalition in Senegal, where coalition partners became the bitterest rivals, after succeeding to effect change, but under the same system and culture, nearly plunging that country down the abyss…
Many, like ex-President Wade, who lack comtentment and self restraint, will tuck into government coffers straight away because society puts immense pressure on individuals in such positions, to live “the life” and help family and friends…Hanging in there (self perpetuation) at all cost becomes a necessity to maintain that standard, as well as, enjoy the protection of incumbency. ..
Is there anybody in this forum who does not agree, therefore, that we need a grace period to re-orientate ourselves and prepare the citizenry for active and constructive participation in the 3rd republic, rather than usher the new republic in with the same lackadaisical, disinterested and passive citizenry in how the country is run, except at election time..?
Continued….
Part (4)…
Whether we acknowledge it or not, political parties exist because they want to get into government, and each is not only independent of the other, but has its own programmes and plans that it wants to implement in government…
In our case, the experience of our political parties in opposition for the past 20 years (30 years for PDOIS) has led to a lack of confidence in the unfair electoral and governance system, genuine suspicion about each other’s motives and understandable disagreements or divergence, not only on how the country should be run, but what type of alliance to forge….
Under such a climate, the best alternative would be one that puts confidence in the process, narrows the differences into a common agenda and grants no member an unfair advantage over the rest, either during the transition process, or in the ensuing cross party elections to usher in the 3rd Republic…
In my view, it is only a non-partisan approach, with preferably an independent leader from outside the political spectrum, but with an appealing character, charisma and personality, who has no political ambitions beyond the transition period, that answers our problems…
In all honesty, it is the PDOIS Proposal which fulfills this requirement, rather than the UDP Party led one and that is why I agree with the PDOIS Proposal..
Which of the two presents the most likely winning formula ?
I will have to say that either proposal can achieve victory, if all other factors fall into place, at the right time, in the right manner, but I.will grant the non-partisan approach that little extra edge over the party led one…
And here’s why..?
There are 3 distinct groups in The Gambian electorate : APRC voters, Opposition voters, Abstention (potential) voters…From previous records, we can ascertain, at least in the most recent elections, that the APRC share of votes was always more than the combined votes of the opposition presidential candidates…
To defeat the APRC, not only would the opposition need to entice the abstention voters into voting for their candidate, they may also need to draw APRC voters, who may be dissatisfied, into their ranks….
Although we are all hoping that the current opposition leaders can achieve this under a united alliance, what guarantees have we got that voters who have found no attraction in any of them for the past 20 years would suddenly find them attractive and worth voting for. .?
Continued…
Part (5)
This is a question that I want fellow contributors to answer…Personally, I think only a “new kid on the block” has the greatest chance to achieve this feat for a united opposition…
There is no doubt however, that APRC voters, who constitute a significant number of the voter population, will not want to vote for any of.their opponents, especially their betterest one, the UDP, against their own party leader…But the fact is that the opposition candidate will need to increase their share of votes, as well as, diminish that of the APRC to be assured of electoral victory…
The counter arguments….
(1)…UDP is the biggest party, with the biggest following, and deserves to lead any alliance…
I agree with the first but not necessarily the second, and don’t see the connections either, given the political realities on the ground…Ours is a simple majority, first past the post system, in which only the first past the post, “deserves to lead”…
All other contenders, regardless of how close or further away you were from winning, must go back to the drawing board to wait for.another five years….The votes acquired, except for the winner, are absolutely irrelevant and of no use to anyone, except to yourself, historians and statisticians….
Throwing around this weightless weight in any attempts to form an alliance will not be a problem if everyone accepts it, but it becomes an obstacle when it is not accepted by all…And continued insistence that this weightless weight be the determiner of who leads amounts to an attempt to hold all to ransom, because of your influence in the political arena…
(2)…Universal coalition format…
Is there any such thing as a “Universal Coalition Format” ? I don’t think so…Alliances or blocks are instruments used to address political situations and since political situations may be similar but not the same, it is impossible to have a universal formula for all…
Each alliance is built to address the challenges faced by the interested parties, taking the political realities for them into consideration, including practices, traditions and law…Indeed, in most instances, coalitions are led by parties with the most votes/seats, but we will be guilty of distortion if we only point to that fact and ignore every other factor present in each case…
Whether it’s UK, Senegal or Nigeria, there is always a factor or several that are present in each of those countries, but absent in our case. Pointing to those countries as proof to support UDP led alliance amounts to a distortion of the truth, to say the least…
In the UK, coalition leadership is based on both practice and law, but a party with less seats than its main opponent at a general election can still form and lead a (minority) government…
In Senegal, the 50% or more rule means that if none acquires that at the first round, the two closest challengers (from the top) fight it out in a second round…Others have no choice but either to align with one or the other, or simply go on holiday…Who leads under that system is determined by law, and only the one with the most votes amongst the opposition can lead…
In Nigeria, it was a merger of all interested parties into a NEW party that achieved electoral victory, and although Buhari’s candidature was a forgone conclusion, he still had to go through a leadership selection process to put credibility into the process…
Continued…
Part (6)
(3)…Primaries are inter- party selection tools; not intra-party
Whilst I have to admit that in most cases primaries are used for inter-party selection purposes, I have to disagree with the views that they cannot be used for intra- party purposes…
Infact, in.exchanges on the same subject with Lafia, I have provided examples where intra-party primary have led to candidates that went on to defeat incumbents or win elections…The most recent such candidate was Mauricio Macri in Argentina, who defeated the incumbent in a.run off last year…
To silence those who point to a lack of time, it should be known that selection does not have to be through primaries….How about a ONE DAY Convention…? Nigeria did it and they succeeded.. No excuse of a lack of time then…
(4)…Only a UDP led alliance is realistic
Excuse me, but what do you mean by this..? Why should one form of alliance be realistic but the other not so…? The truth is both are realistic because they could be realised if the goodwill is there…
I strongly believe therfore, that given the political realities on the ground, a non partisan approach is the fairest, with the most likely winning formula, that can win the trust and confidence of all partners…
I will conclude here by offering my own views on why the UDP would insist on leading any alliance in government…The UDP, like all other parties, have invested heavily in the political process since 1996.. It is, however, the most likely successor of the APRC to usher in the 3rd republic, but only if…
The UDP is very well aware that the APRC, if defeated at the polls, will be in so much “hot soup” and disarray, that even if it is not barred from the political arena, it will not be in any position to contest elections….It’s a “house of cards” held together in the center by one man, Yaya Jammeh…If the center goes, the structure collapses..
But the APRC would hold the ace in the outcome of any elections to usher us into the 3rd republic, through its contingent of voters…Whilst it will be natural, in the Gambian context, for these voters to change allegiance to a UDP in government, I cannot imagine, in my wildest dreams, that they will be voting for a UDP still in opposition…But their vote will be crucial for any party or candidate in the cross party elections…
It is this “fear” and calculation of missing out their opportune moment that is at the heart of their insistence to lead and form a UDP Government that would accommodate the opposition…
Without being in government, there is absolutely no guarantee that the UDP will win the ensuing elections at the end of the transition because of the APRC factor..
END
I strongly disagree with the writer. Jammeh was just ensuring that the rules laid out by the AU itself are strictly adhered to. This is very common in Africa that we lay out rules but never follow them because of convenience reasons.
The Gambia will never see things happening in Burundi today. We are peaceful people and we love each other.
I think these kinds of reasonings could be very dangerous. Please lets refrain from speculations.
Malang….”Non interference”, in the internal affairs of sovereign states, is a great tool to guarantee regional or global peace and ensure respect for each other’s sovereignty…
However, non interference does not prevent intervention where a state is engulfed by conflict that could lead to genocide, as happened in Rwanda and Burundi…
Both Sierra Leone and Liberia were rescued back to normalcy because of the intervention of regional countries with international help…
Nkurunziza has lost control in Burundi and that country, which went through a brutal ethnic conflict not long ago, could be sliding back into conflict, if no action is taken now…
Of course, Nkurunziza is opposed to intervention because he knows his fate will depend on the regional body if intervention goes ahead, and his desire to stay in power may be thwarted…
Jammeh lacks the moral grounds to argue for non intervention because The Gambia National Army was part of the intervention force in Guinea Bissau to bring normalcy to that country…
How could Jammeh defend his dual position of leading intervention in Guinea Bissau, but oppose to the same in Burundi…Is it because Bissau is closer to home and any prolonged conflict may spill over to neighbouring countries, including The Gambia..?
Gambia has not been peaceful since Jammeh came to power. He used force to take over power and used brute force to keep it. ‘We love each other’ and yet Jammeh is eliminating opponents day and night. You can give such misleading statement because you have not yet been Jammeh’s victim but soon this will change.
Bax, brilliant analysis. I cannot agree more. These are the kind of thought processes that can immensely help our political cause. But this is not the case, understandably, because we all come into such discourse with our own biases and allegiances.