PRESS RELEASE
THE OUTCOME OF THE PRIMARIES HELD BY PDOIS ON THE SELECTION OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Issued by the Central Committee
24th February 2016
Mr. Halifa Sallah, PDOIS Presidential
Candidate for 2016 Presidential Election
The People’s Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) is required by Article 91 of the Party Constitution to hold a Primary to select its Candidates for any election.
In this regard, the Central Committee issued nomination forms for every member of the Party to enable each member to participate in the first phase of the selection of the Presidential Candidate of the Party for the December 1st, 2016, Presidential election.
The rules indicate that should there be 2 or more nominees with 20 percent or more support from the members, election should take place between the two persons with the largest number of Party supporters.
In the absence of such support, any person with more than 50 percent support from members automatically becomes the Presidential candidate for the Party in that given presidential election.
Having presided over the counting of all the nomination forms submitted so far before the deadline established for submission, we the two appointed presiding personnel responsible for the declaration of results, hereby confirm that Halifa Sallah has been duly nominated as the Presidential Candidate of the Party for the 2016 Presidential election in the first phase of the Primaries.
March 19th 2016 is scheduled as the date for the inauguration of his candidature, and all Party supporters and well-wishers are invited to the ceremony and all subsequent rallies which will be held to mark the official launching of the PDOIS Presidential Campaign.
The authorised returning agents for the nomination process for the respective regions are as follows:
BANJUL
Ousman Sillah
Bai Mass Kah
Samba Jaye
Melvin (Atta) Jones
Ndey Secka
KMC
Amie Sillah
Omar Manneh
Mama Ceesay
IsatouJallow
Lamin Mass
WCR
SaikouNyassi
AbassManneh
FatouTouray
Pa Louis Jobe
AbassBangura
MaimunaJallow
MomodouJallow
SheriffoTouray
LRR
SuwaibouTouray
Edi Jallow
Jali Mass
YayaDarboe
SheriffoDaaCeesay
NBR
Momodou Sambou
Abdoulie Dibba
YayaFofana
Ebrima Darboe
Tapha Bojang
CRR SOUTH
Omar Dem
Kumba Faal
Omar Jah
Abdoulie Boye
Mam SaitBoye
FatoumataJallow
JonkundaCeesay
AnsumanaTouray
AdamaCeesay
FodaySisawo
DawdaJallow
Mali Ceesay
URR
AnsuSonko
KebbaTouray
Saikou Barrow
Safi Jawneh
Lasana Jawneh
Saikou Jawneh
Alhagi Lamin Touray
DusubaTouray
FodaySawo
Fa Sainey Barrow
SaibehJuwara
MenkehEbrima Barrow
We thank all those who took time and resources to participate in this democratic exercise.
Signed: Sidia Jatta: Presiding Officer No.1
Signed: Amie Sillah: Presiding Agent No.2
Ends
Waw!!! Congrats HS. Go forward. Such shall b declared on the 2nd December too. We together all the way.
If you want to preach democracy, you must be seen to be applying it in your own backyard. Charity begins at home. This is a perfect example that every Gambian should embrace.
Congratulations Hon. Halifa Sallah…You are indeed, a most worthy candidate…Wish you all the best and hope that your message is received well by The Gambian Electorate..
Chey Halifa Sallah?? This means there will be no coalition involving PDOIS unless all the parties join PDOIS, which is not going to happen. Coalition of all parties is now doomed. We should now focus on a coalition that encompasses the critical mass rather than trying to have all the opposition parties in a grand coalition. It is not going to happen, folks.
By the way, how comes there was a primary process ongoing on and yet nobody knew about it neither was it reported in the media. Isn’t that not strange? I never saw or heard it before in any part of this world.
Thanks
I am not sure if there will be any coalition or alliance this time around . Instead of fighting for electoral reform , all these opposition parties are keeping quite about election act 2015 and PDOIS has taken a wrong direction again .
Without coalition and electoral reform , any party which contest in this election is tantamount to legitimize dictatorship and such efforts are futile action. PDOIS and mr sallah has zero chance of winning presidential election in one billion years . Doing the same thing for 21 years without change of strategy or ideas result to futile action .
Stop being a prophet of doom…The political space should not be ceded to Yaya Jammeh and the APRC because they make life difficult for the opposition….After all, isn’t that what the APRC has always wanted..? : NO OPPOSITION…
If anything, this difficult political landsacpe should give the opposition more resolve and determination to “fight” the “war” to its logical and desired end, “battle” after “battle”…
I also share your disappointment at the lack of any visible challenge to the electoral amendment laws, but unless you are privy to what is happening at inter-party, diplomatic (both regional and international) and civil society levels ( including diaspora pressure groups), I will say it is still too early to be damning the opposition “for doing nothing..”
This fight, you may agree, requires a multi-dimensional, multi-pronged approach, and that takes time to bear fruits.. There is no quick fix to this problem and those who think the opposition alone can do it by themselves are living in cuckoo land..
As for legitimisation of dictatorship, I will once again disagree with you that taking part in the political process, at such serious disadvantages, constitute legitimisation…Legitimisation don’t come from participation (of opposition parties) in an election…It comes from the verdict of the people, expressed through their votes, declared by the IEC, upheld by state institutions and the majority of the people and recognised by the international community…
Regardless of whether the opposition participates in the election or not, if these requirements are met, the government will feel legitimate to carry on with the business of governance and the opposition will be powerless to reverse that trend in The Gambia…
I think PDOIS and (Hon) Halifa Sallah will be the first to acknowledge that they, especially, face extremely difficult challenges to win elections in The Gambia, but I don’t see why anybody should use that to ask PDOIS to cease functioning as a party…
Winning elections is, no doubt, the ultimate objective of any politician and party but PDOIS has also shown, since its inception, that they as happy to provide a service to the people, as winning an election….In fact, as a matter of principle, and as far as I know, PDOIS is the only party that never ask voters to vote for it on their political platforms and.never make unfulfilled promises of winning elections before the vote is even cast..
So waiting for a “billion years” might not be a problem for their calibre of politician..
Your party, the UDP has also indicated that it will select its presidential candidate when the time comes…That PDOIS initiated the process first and completed it first is a sign of the party’s focus on what they need to do…
As for a grand coalition, only PDOIS is clear about their position…They have stated that…
-Let parties continue to build their grassroots support and identify their presidential candidates..
-In the event that they succeed in reinstating the 2nd round, they can all rally behind the leading candidate if no clear winner emerged..
-In the event that there are no reforms, they can agree on a format that suits all…
But the most important thing for PDOIS is for parties to build their grassroots support because that is where the power for democratic change lies…
Bax, that is just a subterfuge. Halifa is only working according to his planned candidacy.
By the way, as the biggest opposition party in the country, one cannot expect UDP not to produce a candidate, and this is with or without a coalition. In other words, there will be a UDP candidate with or without a coalition as long as the party remains the biggest in the opposition camp. You cannot attach the same caveat to PDOIS for they are a fringe party with no reasonable claim to the candidacy of an all-inclusive opposition coalition. This is the point that your spinning won’t change.
Thanks
Wow…Only UDP has a right to declare presidential candidate because of their size..! All others must freeze and wait for the “mighty” UDP to say “jump” before they “leap”…! What twisted logic…!
Incredible show of contempt for the sovereignty and independence of the other political parties…
Wonder what my good friend, “independent analyst” Max, has to say about that…
Well, if we are talking about coalition, that is the rule; the biggest party leads. If you can’t stomach that then you are up to no good.
My question is still not answered; how on earth can a political party be engaged in a nation-wide primary election without anybody knowing about it or it been reported in the media?????? Any answers please?? It defies logic folks and that brings me to one conclusion; ‘a Sham primary’, was it not??
Bax, PDOIS engages in Ideology driven politics. The common sense, feasible and practical solution is to join coalition, alliance or endorse another party to ensure effective electoral victory. They are holding the country hostage and at the same time give legitimacy to the dictatorship in country. Halifa sallah knows that he cannot win presidential election, why can’t he simply drop out and join UDP for the sake of the country. Mr Bah needs to do the same thing. If you look at politics in advance democracies, presidential candidates drop out of race and endorse another candidate who they believe has the best chance of winning. This is what happen in USA politics every presidential election . In The Gambia, Mr. Sallah and mr Bah continue to be defiant and In the process, has given legitimacy to Jammeh’s regime. Politician don’t contest in an election for the sake of it, they contest to win. if they know they cannot win but decide to contest then they simply engage in fools errand or waste of resources and time. People think that PDOIS is a party of intellectuals but they have Not use sound political strategy to win majority support. Look at Donald Trump today in USA, despite the fact that Republican Party leadership and intellectual base do not like and support him at the beginning because of his rhetoric and their characterization that he is not conservative but as campaign continue you will see shift from party leadership to support him since he is winning. Mr trump has changed positions on many issues before and he has also changed political parties .But if you are obsessed with your idealogy and do not accept changes and unwilling to compromise, you will never achieve any progress in politics. Another example is Bernnie Sanders who has also changed positions and political party just like Mr. Trump. Even president Obama did not have majority support of his party leadership at the beginning but when he won so many states primaries, democractic party superdelegates and leadership came to support him against Hillary Clinton. When he secured nomination, Hillary came to support him. That is pragmatism and it show political maturity. Fighting to remove a dictator is very difficult task but if people are united the dictator can be toppled from power. Gambia’s politicians needs to get rid of egocentric characteristic in order to achieve greater good. Politics is all about compromise. Gambia’s politicians Needs to graduate from politics of personal interest to politics of collective interest and responsibility.
Ps…I can’t understand simple English but I don’t think PDOIS is presenting its presidential candidate as an “all-inclusive coalition” candidate..That’s only in your mind, mate..
That is only confirming what you won’t admit. Which is, pdois and Halifa sallah are not interested in having an all inclusive opposition coalition in The Gambia. Period. They can’t say it like this, and so they throw out blinders to hide their inner purpose.
Thanks
BTW, what grand coalition plan is your party offering this time..? Same old same…!
Max says of PDOIS, ” To do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is……. ” (I can’t remember how he finished it and I don’t want to misquote him, but you get a sense of what he means)…
I wonder if he views the UDP (previous) party led proposals in the same way…It will be doing the same things over and over again, if they come out with the same proposal, isn’t it..? I.wont be surprised if he comes out with a formula that exempts the UDP from this observation of his…
UDP will always be for a party-led alliance. However, we can have a modified version depending on what kind of conditions other parties would like to see attached to a proposed UDP led alliance.
Thanks
It’s always difficult to fathom the direction the Gambia’s dysfunctional opposition is taken. Even though it is crystal clear to Halifa he cannot in one million years win any presidentioal elections in the Gambia, isn’tt it time for the opposition to call for a united front with one flag bearer to contest against Jammeh.
Congratulations to Halifa Sallah for winning his party’s support to become its flag bearer in the forthcoming Presidential elections. Whilst this may appear to be good for PDOIS as a party, I am not too sure if it portends the same for the majority of Gambians clamouring for political change in the country. I think I am a pragmatist who prefers looking at the bigger picture and the winning formula in every situation.
The first impression I had when I read PDOIS’ Press Release was that the so-called “talks” of a united front, if there was any at all, has collapsed which necessitated PDOIS to move on as a party since there is little time to waste. In my view, if the inter-party talks had not collapsed, why would any party, taking part in such talks, come forth with a presidential candidate when talks are supposedly still in progress and the public has not yet been informed of the conclusions and outcome of the talks? Our (or to be sure, my) belief was that at the end of the talks for a united front, one flag bearer would emerge as the candidate for the United Opposition front. Therefore, if the foregoing premise is true, then I can safely conclude that the December 2016 Presidential election is a foregone conclusion as the incumbent, Yahya Jammeh, has won today. This is why I said coming up with a presidential candidate, at this stage, is not a good idea, in my view, as it does not portend well for the unity we the people continue to clamour.
The next question that any interested observer might want to ask is: why did the inter-party talks collapse? The only logical conclusion I can conceive, at this stage, is that no party wants to compromise their position and/or stance for the other or for the greater good. At this stage, I would like to look at the two parties that are of import to this debate – the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the People’s Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS). This does not mean that the other parties are of lesser significance. No! What it means is that the ideological dichotomy appears to be between these two parties, at least from the debates on the Kaironews platform.
At one end of the spectrum is the UDP, which, historically is the strongest Opposition party on the ground since 1996. This is an irrefutable fact. The UDP sees this as a political capital that should not be discounted by the other Opposition parties but rather, should be leveraged on for victory. They have a party leader who is a democrat by all reasonable standards and is well versed in the laws of the land. He has always been found on the right side of the law despite pressures on him, as leader of the biggest Opposition party, to act beyond the ambits of legality. He has also proven to be a man of integrity. In terms of approach, the UDP’s approach to local politics appears much the same as what Gambians have known from independence in 1965. Therefore, is this a sign of contentment with the status quo? Or it is a question of not wanting to rock the boat, which the voting public is accustomed to?
At the opposite end of the spectrum is PDOIS who, in truth, preceded the UDP in terms of longevity on the local political scene. The party emerged almost a decade before the UDP came into existence. They have differentiated themselves in terms of approach to politics. They have great ideas on good governance and their political vision is something that, in my view, depicts the height of democracy that all must aspire for. Their just-chosen flag bearer is a highly educated man with an entrenched political conviction anchored on demonstrated personal integrity. Despite these beautiful ideas, however, the party has not been able to make significant inroads into the country’s political landscape, compared to the UDP, although they have managed to have a representation (two people) in Parliament in previous elections. I am not sure if they have any now. Therefore, the question is: why have they not been able to win more support than the newer Opposition parties, despite their longevity and unmatched ideology? This might be an interesting area of research for future politicians and/or those interested in understanding the Gambian political arena. Also, is it a challenge of linking ideology with realism? Or is it an obsession with an ideology that must be seen by everybody else from their eye view?
Under normal circumstances, these two parties should be able to work together by focusing on their areas of strength (great ideas and grassroots support) to pull all the other Opposition parties along, to effect change whilst at the same time working together to narrow their differences. It is crystal clear that, under the existing dispensation, neither party can weather the storm alone. Therefore, when shall we accept reality and adapt accordingly, at least for the benefit of the suffering Gambian public?
Ironically, while putting my ideas together, some Senegambian Mbalax was playing on one of the radio stations “…Douma toppa deew, lolou soko deegeh fungen jem soriwul…”
Going by the aforementioned procedure of pdois in finally choosing a flagbearer, to my humble opinion, is anything but “Depicts the heights of democracy. …all must aspire for ” as you put it.
Primaries was mentioned to have happened and in the absence of candidates, 2 people -namely Mr. Jatta aand Mrs Sillah – wrapped up the primary and declared Mr. Sallah as the unanimous candidate.
Simple observation brings following perception:
– were there a genuine effort to motivate and enhance the candidate pool beyond the entrenched personalities like Sallah or Jatta?
– though the candidature was opened to all members, how come only 2 individuals are empowered to confer right to assume the role as flagbearer, in a highly regarded “model” democratic organization?
– a model democratic party would still hold a vote to select a candidate. I think the absence of an alternative candidate, is barely an excuse to entirely bestow the powers of appointment on just 2 individuals.
My impression, is that the selection is a staged managed selection process controlled by the Central command.
Kinteh, you made great observation about their so-called primary. I don’t think PDOIS guys understand what primary means. there is no other candidate mentioned who contested with Mr Sallah, so how can they claimed this is democratic process? My understanding is that it was the delegates across the country and supporters who have unanimously selected Mr Sallah whose name was put forward by party leadership. Remember, this is two man personality party. Why would Mr Jatta signed this endorsement if they believe in transparency and democracy? All they did was to write about their party rules and final selection of MrSallah. Who are other candidates who had less than 20% of votes? Did those candidate automatically endorsed Mr Sallah since they know they cannot win? If you look at their press release, they only informed us about their process of selection or primary but they never mentioned where this process took place and other candidates? In fact, majority of Gambian people are not aware of this process but it is only those who can read newspapers who are aware of this candidature. Why did they issued nomination forms to the vast majority of the citizens or supporters who we know are illiterates and they cannot read or write English Language? Or are they telling us that all their supporters are educated and they were able to read and write the name of their candidate of choice on those forms?
Therefore, I believe this was stage managed process by central command which selected Mr Sallah.
A big congratulations to Mr Halifa Sallah for being chosen by the PDOIS to be the Candidate of the PDOIS party in the next presidential election, come December 2016. The method of selection is also another indication that this party has greater foresight when it comes to national and international politics. The Primaries are conducted under a climate of tolerance unknown to many organizations like ours. It has set a pace for our type of countries under the yoke of tyranny.We are very proud indeed that there exists a party which can show the world and humanity what true democracy entails. We are also proud that we have a candidate who is by every standard knowledgeable, steadfast, competent, trustworthy and committed to carry the struggle on a systematic and scientific basis to victory. May you live long to witness the day of triumph when the best sons and daughters of our land will be allowed to lead our people. That day is not long, lets keep hope alive, we are hopeful.
Janko. I don’t know where you get this wrong impression or mis-information that there is an Inter-party discussion on Coalition going on between opposition parties. My understanding and i stand to be corrected is that the G6 group are collaborating to push for electoral reform only. Nowhere has the G6 mention that they were or are engaged in talks to form a coalition or alliance. These parties have never met to discuss about COALITION or ALLIANCE period. If you have any evidence in writing or anyhow, please help us the info.
PDOIS has always been saying that all parties should engage the people so that they could reduce the majority of the ruling party and once they have the majority on their side when they unite they would defeat the incumbent in the polls. PDOIS’ position has always been that all parties should select their flagbearer who would eventually meet to decide on the methodology or modality of selecting a flagbearer for the Alliance. It is PDOIS’ position that the people should be allowed to participate in selecting the flagbearer and that candidate should stand under an Independent ticket supported by all parties and independents. PDOIS is not rigid on any particular selection format as long as it will accord the people the democratic right to select their leader.
So PDOIS is ready, it now has a candidate to present to a Coalition should there be one or to go ahead as a single party if there is electoral reform which amendment includes a second round or if there is no electoral reform and no coalition. So PDOIS is preparing itself for all eventualities because time waits for no man.
PDOIS appears to be more ready than all other parties when it comes to UNITY. What it is waiting for is for other parties to also come up with a proposal in the public space and inform other parties on their official stand on the issue so that each would know how close they are, after which a meeting could be held to thrash out the little differences and announce the formation of a coalition or alliance.
My information is, PDOIS does not want to get into any talks which has the potential of failure because it would create apathy among the voters. Better not talk than to talk only to tell the people that we fail to agree. PDOIS’ supporters including my humble self are tired of failed talks or should i say afraid of people who are found wanting when it comes to implementing signed agreements. They want something a bit concrete, a bit more sure and a bit more commitment when it comes to serious national issues such as unity of the opposition. Mark you, Gambian people are looking for serious leaders who say what they mean and do what they say.
As a member of PDOIS, i know for sure that the party leadership will never betray the aspirations of the people and it never did; that it will always do what is in the best interest of the people and when it comes to uniting forces it will not be found wanting but will always be in the forefront.
Let’s remember that we want to salvage our country from the clutches of tyranny.
Ok you said these are PDOIS’ positions but did they consult or present this proposal to any of their potential allies, ie. the other opposition parties? The answer is ‘no’. That shows that these people are not serious on or about anything other than throwing blinders to hide their inner purpose. You cannot just stand at the Bantaba and shout your head off, as Halifa often do, and expect responsible political parties to take you seriously on what you are purportedly offering. There is a difference between attention seeking and real dialogue with a potential partner. I am not surprise anyway. It’s Halifa Sallah
Thanks
When you are questioned about UDP matters, you claim lack of knowledge because you are not an official of the party, but when it comes to its relationship with PDOIS, you know every single detail…
Your sources can’t be bothered to brief you about your own party internal matters, but they hold nothing back from you on PDOIS-UDP matters…Makes me wonder…
Oh don’t be silly Bax. Get your focus back on the issues.
Thanks
@Max…”Bax, PDOIS engages in Ideology driven politics…”
Max, you are “talking over my head”…Come down to my level please and tell me, in simple language, what “ideology driven politics” is or looks like..
Nobody goes into an election to lose, but losing in a contest where only one can win, is a fact of life for all politicians…
But for some politicians, rendering a service to the population, by way of offering an alternative, is as important as winning and I think PDOIS falls into that category..
Please, leave America out of any serious political discussions…America has many great things but its political system is the biggest joke ever…
It is actually embarrassing to watch their presidential aspirants in action and their campaign strategies…The constant changing of positions is a sign of deception….That’s not what we want to emulate…
Bax, changing position in politics is not deception sometime , pragmatic politicians change position to seek compromise . The greatest politician of all time of UK , sir Winston Churchill has changed positions . So changing position on issues is not a bad thing but honesty , decency and truthfulness should be integral part of that process . USA has greatest democracy in the world because they have proven it despite their own flaws.
Primary election process which PDOIS is obsessed with , is what makes each party and candidate for presidential election strong and formidable in USA. You cannot call PDOIS recent selection, a primary but a caucus process which was endorsed by party leadership. It is sham to called it primary when there was no other candidate mentioned who contested with mr sallah . Even if we assume that it is a primary, who are the other candidates ? Is it mr Jatta himself who contested against mr sallah and finally signed his selection as appointed officer? Come on use your brain to connect the dots.
My observations on queries raised so far…
(1)…@Lafia….”By the way, how comes there was a primary process ongoing on and yet nobody knew about it neither was it reported in the media. Isn’t that not strange?..”
Comment : Yes, I think it will be strange in a world of impartial journalism, but in Gambia ‘s world of online journalism, blanking out PDOIS (except publication of statements/letters) is the standard…The only time we read about PDOIS, outside of PDOIS sources, is when someone decides to throw a punch at them…and this is never in a positive light or way…
PDOIS has never stopped functioning as a party.. It is holding rallies and meetings and involved in grassroots sensitisation all the time…It is also conducting adult literacy programmes in villages up country, but we don’t read about these on.the papers…
PDOIS has most certainly announced (a long time ago) that it was preparing to conduct primaries to select its presidential candidate..It was the media’s duty and role to follow it up, in a media environment where the sole objective is to inform the public impartially…PDOIS is under no obligation to run to any media house, cap in hand, begging for publicity..
So the question really is, who is being indicted here..? PDOIS or the media, and the answer definitely is, the MEDIA …
(2)…@Kinteh…”Primaries was mentioned to have happened and in the absence of candidates, 2 people -namely Mr. Jatta aand Mrs Sillah – wrapped up the primary and declared Mr. Sallah as the unanimous candidate.”
Comment : Kinteh is questioning the credibility of the process by distorting the information before us to suit his purpose…How else can anyone view his above statement..?
Kinteh stated that there were no candidates (in the absence of candidates) and so two people wrapped up the primary and declared Mr Sallah as the unanimous winner…Is this the information before us…No indeed…There were prospective candidates but none got beyond the minimum requirement, except ONE…
The statement is very clear : that of the candidates who expressed interest in the position, only ONE achieved the 20% requirement..And since this candidate has also met the 50% requirement, the two PRESIDING OFFICERS, had to declare him the chosen candidate…
The statement listed names of returning officers in all regions, who all participated in the process but only the presiding officers are authorised to declare results…Isn’t that how it is done anywhere in the world…
Electoral bodies anywhere in the world, consist of many individuals, performing different roles, but only authorised persons can declare results…If PDOIS bestores that honour on two of their most senior members, why should anyone query that..?
Also Kinteh, to tell you the truth, I am shocked that there are people within the PDOIS party who still fill nomination papers after it was known that Mr Sallah was interested in the position, but I am not surprised that none made it past the 20% requirement…This fact, not only proves that PDOIS is democratic and open about its leadership position, it also rubbishes all malacious lies that Mr Sallah enjoys an “Ayatollah” status within the party…
If we turn the scenario round a bit and ask this question…If the age limit were to be abolished and Lawyer Darboe expressed the desire to continue as UDP leader, would we see the same level of democracy in the selection process..? Would there be any UDP members willing and daring to openly challenge Mr Darboe for the leadership position.? I doubt it very much…
Bax, my simple question is , who are other candidates who contested with mr sallah but did not get the 20% nomination requirement of the party ? Can you please provide their names or don’t you think for the sake of transparency and democracy those people’s names should be published in this press release .? I know you have publicly declared that you don’t belong to PDOIS and you are not a member but you are still defending them here , this is why I ask these questions . I hope Yero Ba or you will provide us with answers to above questions .
Thanks
Max, I am not defending PDOIS…Just pointing out the obvious facts…Unfortunately, anti-PDOIS attitudes, which has infected many of you, is what is clouding your judgements in relation to anything PDOIS…
Should PDOIS publish the names of all other aspirants to the party’s presidential flag bearer position..? Personally, I don’t think so and there is certainly no need for it in this statement of declaration…
Why..? Because I think this declaration was to announce the unopposed election of Mr Halifa Sallah as the party’s Presidential Candidate… When the election of an unopposed candidate is declared, there is no need to mention the names of other aspirants who failed to make it to be regarded as opponents…The person is simply declared elected unopposed..
Since no other aspirant(s) met the requirements to be considered an official opponent, the candidate is duly elected unopposed…
May be, in due course, PDOIS might release these names but that is absolutely unnecessary, as far as this declaration is concerned,.in my view …
Bax , after all your rambling and misleading information , here is the truth you finally stated ;
Bax said ” I think this declaration was to announce the unopposed election of mr sallah as the party’s presidential candidate “.
Why can’t you and PDOIS simply state this information in your press release rather than giving misleading and inaccurate information about nomination process you claimed to be conducted as primary which has never taken place . We know there was no primary , mr sallah was unanimously selected through the orchestration of party leadership and was endorsed by delegates across the country . You Must be obsessed with primary . I have observed that as pressure mount on you , you change your untruthful previously position and join the truth squad .
A primary selection of presidential candidate in any civilized country is an open election campaign among different candidates within a political party to secure a nomination. A primary involves electorates to vote for a candidate of their choice in various constituencies . Each constituency allocate a number of delegates to each candidate base on the percentage of the result each has in each constituency . There is specific required total number of delegates a candidate should acquire to be nominated as presidential candidate at the party’s convention . The rules of allocation of delegates from each state / constituency ( in the case of Gambia) will be determine by the party which conduct the primary for their selection of party’s presidential nominee . This rule can either be winner of each constituency takes all the delegates in each constituency or it is given based on specific percentage for each candidate . At the end of the primary elections , the candidate with majority of total delegates which has satisfy the party specific required total delegates when you combine all constituencies , is declare a presidential nominee at the party’s convention . If there is no clear winner or candidate with specific total delegates ( require delegates ) , then the party will have brokered convention in which various delegates from each constituency will be involved in political maneuvering to rally behind a candidate who they believe have the best chance of winning in general presidential election which involves all political parties in the country . This is how primary works .
Therefore based on the above explanation, the truth squad rated PDOIS characterization of mr sallah’s nomination for the party’s presidential candidate which they claimed of been conducted in primary process , as completely false , misleading and inaccurate . Such statement does not have an iota of truth and is mischaracterization of their selection process .
Thanks
Bax , to be honest sometimes debating PDOIS indoctrinated disciples is very frustrating and waste of time because you never agree to the truth even when it is written in black and white . This is why we cannot have any meaningful progress politically . It is behavioral pattern of PDOIS . Idealogy driven party which is good to evaluate others but never never admit their own mistakes . Gambian people are not stupid , if PDOIS pretend that they know better and won’t listen to anyone then voters will always have the final say . For 40 years , voters have spoken clearly .
Bax , I responded specifically to Janko’s likening of pdois approach to “height of democracy all must aspire for”. But then I read the party statement and observed that the very fact that 2-individuals can bestow leadership position, is not a “model” democratic dispensation we should aspire for.
The whole idea of model democracy, based on contemporary understand, is to ensure that as many people as possible can exercise voting rights and be voted for. That a choice is guaranteed and available.
I accept and respect the selection process of the party. My contention is calling it a primary, putting hurdles at 50% for nominations while knowing that the incumbent has a leverage other potential aspirants don’t enjoy. It begs the question: why not widen the net of aspirants , so that a minimum of at least two candidates can stand for a vote at the coming congress?
Alternatively, the whole exercise could be slashed since the incumbent , has given clear indication that he wants to stand again. Or just conduct a reconfirmation vote at the impending congress.
Mr. Sallah has my respect which of course is not at debate here. Borne of contention, is about how the exercise of selection is being sold.
Bax , the 50 % Threshold as a nomination support requirement is undemocratic because it means only half of the party supporters nominated your presidential candidate and other half objected to his nomination . Therefore your rule of 50% nomination support requirements is itself sham , undemocratic and does not represent an ideal democractic nomination process .
Let’s look at the rules again , it states ;
“The rules indicate that should there be 2 or more nominees with 20 percent or more support from members , election should take place between the two persons with the largest number of party supporters “.
Why do you automatically disqualify those who openly manifested their interest and have secured 20 % support or why can’t you leave it to individual candidate personal discretion either to continue on to second phase or endorse another candidate . How about if other candidates decide to support one candidate who has better chance of winning in general election than the candidate who has slight majority in first phase of nomination selection process . The rules itself is not democratic.
Your rules are not democratic and in this case the process is sham since you not have open election among candidates by voting in any where in the country. Simply name the candidates you disqualified .
This must be drawn from communism or former soviet era politics where state or communist party leadership decide or nominate their candidate . can you educate readership about where in the world you have such process taken place .
Kinteh…the idea that only 2 people bestowed leadership on Mr Sallah is not supported by the statement of declaration under discussion…
Yes, 2 presiding officers are said to be the legitimate authority to make the declaration and sign the declaration statement, but that in no way suggests that the process started and ended with them…So I don’t know where you got your idea from…
I think the involvement of every party member is what qualifies the process as a democratic one..Obviously, Mr Sallah’s status within the party gives him an advantage over many, but as long as every aspirant had the same or equal opportunities, there should be no problem…
And.until we see evidence to the contrary, we should not try to cast doubt on the process…
It’s good to subject politicians and political processes to scrutiny and I think it is good that we are scrutinising PDOIS’ selection process..
Bax, fully aware that you are not an official of pdois, hence am strictly separating your comments from the party statement.
In that vein, I am deeply unsettled by the following line from you “to tell you the truth, I am shocked that are people within pdois party who still fill nomination papers after it was known that Mr. Sallah was interested in the position, but I am not surprised that no one made it past the 20% requirement”.
If you take a moment of reflection, you might notice that 2 fundamental political miscalculation occurred to you.
First, the presumed intention of the party, would be in galvanising the base by integrating the grassroot in the selection process of the flagbearer. Otherwise there shouldn’t be any other motive , since as you said “Mr. sallah was interested in the position”. Then it is only right for the party to go for a maximum participation in both entitled voters and a sizeable number of contestants, in order to make the whole exercise productive. I.e. make pdois stand out from the rest. But by bestowing declaration on 2. people instead a vote at the coming convention, you rob the occasion any meaningful momentum. Also the exercise leaves a rough smack in people who are party members and fill forms just to make the whole exercise fruitful. Don’t be surprised if they come out disillusioned by the reception they received.
Secondly, your shock at the existence of people in the party, so to say, who dare to test out the incumbent, betrays a fear of disunity within the rank and file of the party and it gives the impression that the selection of Mr. Sallah is a priori (fixed from the outset). No body forced the party leadership to choose this route to flagbearer selection. It is my hope that this is not the official party intention going forward with the just concluded selection process. What is the use of initiating a democratic selection process when the true winner was determined from the outset? That is why I toil to make sense of the 20% ,50% hurdles and the authority conferred on just 2- individuals to bestow candidature. The whole exercise is barely worth the end result -if I have to be equally glad that no body else made it beyond the 20% requirement.
Kinteh, thank you so much for joining the debate and, as usual, enriching it with your perspectives. Having said that, I would like to refer you back to my comments in relation to the statement below:
“…. height of democracy all must aspire for”
You clearly have quoted the above phrase out of context because it never referred to PDOIS’ “process”, rather the above quotation referred to PDOIS’ “political vision” which is the ultimate objective. “Process”, as I understand it, refers to the ways and means of achieving something, in this context, PDOIS’ “political vision”. In fact, if you have carefully read through my comments, you could not have failed to realise that I was in fact being critical of PDOIS’ process and that is why I asked questions such as:-
1) “Why have they not been able to win more support than the newer Opposition parties, despite their longevity and unmatched ideology?”
2) “Is it a challenge of linking ideology with realism?”
3) “Or is it an obsession with an ideology that must be seen by everybody else from their eye view?”
The above questions are clearly a critique of PDOIS’ “process” or processes. It goes without saying that any political party with ideas as sound as PDOIS’, but still cannot make any significant impact on the political terrain, needs to question the efficacy of their processes. This is why I said from the very beginning of my comments that I am a pragmatist and I believe in adopting the winning formula. You may have the best message for the people but if that message is not being well responded to by the majority of the electorate, clearly, you need to revise the strategy in delivering your message. The message itself, in my view, must not be compromised because that is what we all want to see in a new Gambia.
Given the above, how do we win? Join hands with the biggest Opposition party (UDP) that has the largest appeal to the voting public to win. The leader of the UDP, in my view, a strong democrat and an avid respecter of the Rule of Law. None can dispute that fact. Therefore, agree on a formula that will ensure the implementation of your vision. Once you win, implement your vision. Isn’t this a winning strategy for both parties?
Janko, you have well articulated my position. Politics is all about compromise and winning strategy. I think all of us here want UDP led coalition or alliance except PDOIS indoctrinated disciples like Bax, Yero and kamalo. Lawyer Darboe is a real democrat who believes in rule of law, respects constitution and is a patriot. He has defended even those who don’t like him. When Jammeh is captured, lawyer can even represent him in court to show him that while he is a monster, lawyer Darboe is a genuine democrat who respects the constitutional rights of every citizen.
Kinteh, thank you so much for joining the debate and, as usual, enriching it with your perspectives. Having said that, I would like to refer you back to my comments in relation to the statement below:
“…. height of democracy all must aspire for”
You clearly have quoted the above phrase out of context because it never referred to PDOIS’ “process”, rather the above quotation referred to PDOIS’ “political vision” which is the ultimate objective. “Process”, as I understand it, refers to the ways and means of achieving something, in this context, PDOIS’ “political vision”. In fact, if you have carefully read through my comments, you could not have failed to realise that I was in fact being critical of PDOIS’ process and that is why I asked questions such as:-
1) “Why have they not been able to win more support than the newer Opposition parties, despite their longevity and unmatched ideology?”
2) “Is it a challenge of linking ideology with realism?”
3) “Or is it an obsession with an ideology that must be seen by everybody else from their eye view?”
The above questions are clearly a critique of PDOIS’ “process” or processes. It goes without saying that any political party with ideas as sound as PDOIS’, but still cannot make any significant impact on the political terrain, needs to question the efficacy of their processes. This is why I said from the very beginning of my comments that I am a pragmatist and I believe in adopting the winning formula. You may have the best message for the people but if that message is not being well responded to by the majority of the electorate, clearly, you need to revise the strategy in delivering your message. The message itself, in my view, must not be compromised because that is what we all want to see in the a new Gambia.
Given the above, how do we win? Join hands with the biggest Opposition party (UDP) that has the largest appeal to the voting public to win. The leader of the UDP, in my view, a strong democrat and an avid respecter of the Rule of Law. None can dispute that fact. Therefore, agree on a formula that will ensure the implementation of your vision. Once you win, implement your vision. Isn’t this a winning strategy for both parties?
Lafia, surely you must know the other candidate that challenged Halifa in the primary. You cannot be that ignorant of events in the Gambia. You must also be able to know how many delegates participated and how was the vote share for each candidate…the percentage of delegates from each region…
Why was the primary not announced is your query…and why did people only become aware of the result not the process?
I think you know the answers to all the above. Now tell us who else was in the race to be PDOIS candidate? If it is unopposed, there you have the answer you are unwilling to see. An unopposed candidate don’t require a primary result, because the candidate is running against himself. Are you saying, Halifa was running against himself and then claiming to have won a primary? Hell no.
Trump and Hilary are all engaging in primary campaigns but it is not in secret. So, the pdois one must have been in the open, may be only you missed it.
So it is your case that because there was no other candidate that’s why the process was not announced. Well, you have to announce the process first and publicise it so that you can attract candidates.
It is stage-managed and it is a sham, isatou
Hahaha…! I think you may have missed it, Lafia..If I am right, the good sister is being sacastic..
The Gullible sister has a fitting response from me despite her coded messaging. I am udp and so I am smart. Bit like lawyer Darboe although not quite like him. That’s why I am not the leader of the party and he is.
“You cannot call PDOIS recent selection, a primary but a caucus process which was endorsed by party leadership. It is sham to called it primary when there was no other candidate mentioned who contested with mr sallah . Even if we assume that it is a primary, who are the other candidates ? Is it mr Jatta himself who contested against mr sallah and finally signed his selection as appointed officer? Come on use your brain to connect the dots”.
Maxs, you either know what you are saying or you simply ask questions for the right people to respond. You cannot have it both ways. “The Central Committee issued nomination forms for every member of the Party to enable each member to participate in the first phase of the selection of the Presidential Candidate of the Party for the December 1st, 2016, Presidential election” I am a member of the PDOIS and I was provided a form and I was asked to nominate any member I feel is the best Candidate for this election. I did my nomination. It was explained by the returning officers that no one should select Sidia Jatta or Sam Sarr since they are all above the age of 65 years, but apart from them members can select whoever they prefer.You are now informed of the outcome of the exercise, call it Caucus or Primary, we members have selected Mr Halifa Sallah as our candidate. Will you respect our decision or not? Let your party the UDP also go ahead and conduct their caucus or what have you the way they feel is more democratic. No qualms indeed.
Maxs,are you now using your brain to connect the dots?
Yero Ba, here is what your party PDOIS said in its press release ;
PDOIS ” the rules indicate that should there be 2 or more nominees with 20 percent or more support from the members , election should take place between the two persons with the largest number of party supporters . In the absence of such support , any person with more than 50 percent support from members automatically becomes the presidential candidate for the party in that given presidential election ”
Yero ba , from PDOIS press release , there was no indication that we have other candidates in this so called primary , we do not know their names and how much percent each got in the initial votes . Since there was no other candidate mentioned then it is safe to say that mr sallah was unanimously selected by the party leadership and it was endorsed by central command or committee . By the way , I hope you can change that name ” central committee ” or command lol because that is associated with military lol . But in all seriousness , why can’t PDOIS announce that there was no other candidate, because of that mr sallah was unianimously selected as presidential candidate . Is that not honest, transparency and democratic way to announce your party choice of presidential election especially a party which pride itself as the most democratic and is the beacon of hope for Gambian people ? A party of awareness should have announced how much each candidate get in his initial result . Why do you publish your rules but never published the process and those involved or interested to contest with mr sallah ?
Yero Ba said ” I am a member of the PDOIS and I was provided a form and I was asked to nominate any member I feel is the best candidate for this election . I did my nomination . It was explained by the returning officers that on one should select sidia Jatta or Sam sarr since they are all above the age of 65 years , but apart from them , members can select whoever they prefer . You are now informed of the outcome of the exercise , call it caucus or primary , we members have selected mr Halifa sallah as our candidate “. .
Yero Ba , from your statement it is clear that you don’t know if there was other candidates . I think your party should have Informed its members that only mr sallah was unianimously selected for the sake of honesty and transparency in the whole process . if PDOIS is truly democractic , they should have called for press conference and lay out their agenda and how the selection process will be and who are the candidates . But you cannot tell Gambians that there was a primary when we don’t know any other candidates . It is just like Dictator Jammeh when he informed Gambians that he discovered oil but he refused to tell us the details even though he claimed that it was in a CD and soon exploration will begin . It has been 10 years we last heard from him about this oil exploration . Is PDOIS also heading to direction and refused to tell us about the details of its so called primary , the result of which was announced by central committee or command ? Gambian people deserve to know . Politics of transparency and honesty is what will move our country forward . Jammeh is watching and unless he is not in the same boat with PDOIS , he will be asking who are the candidates for their nomination . Please stop political projection which is shifting blame to someone else , that is UDP which you always said I should concentrate on .
Mr sallah is hand picked candidate from party leadership , the big three ( SSS ,Sam , Seedia , sallah ) and was endorsed by supporters . Call a spade a spade .
Udp conducts a congress and is the body that elects the leader. We are not copying anything from pdois, certainly not that sham primary of yours, Thank you very much.
Lafi: “UDP will always be for a party-led alliance. However, we can have a modified version depending on what kind of conditions other parties would like to see attached to a proposed UDP led alliance.
It is unfortunate since Lafia always say he is not an official of the UDP but if we are to go by his information,why then the party cannot inform the public regarding their stance on unity. What is wrong for the UDP to simply tell the public that this is their official position? Other parties will then know whether to approach the UDP or not. Is Lafia sure this is still the OFFICIAL UDP POSITION? The public is waiting.
The coalition suppose to be between UDP and other parties; not between the UDP and the public. Once the UDP manages to get any of the parties on the table to talk a UDP led alliance, the public will be informed of the outcome of such discussions.
By the way, UDP’s party-led alliance position is already public knowledge. There is no point- re-stating it if there is no coalition talks going on between the parties.
Thanks
PDOIS has made known to the public that they are going to hold a primary to select their presidential candidate. Therefore the method to select PDOIS’s presidential candidate is a foregone conclusion. A Primary. PDOIS has also made known to the public that they will hold a convention in March to select their presidential candidate. True to their word, a convention is held and a presidential candidate selected.
A Primary is a democratic process of selecting a candidate. What is of utmost importance here is the process, which is a democratic process. People are given the right to make a choice. You either make yourself available as a candidate or you select other people to be candidates.
The process also is govern by rules and regulations. The people who are nominated as candidates to participate in the primary have the right to either accept their nomination or turn it down. What is of utmost importance here is the principle, the rules and regulations that govern the whole process.
Therefore I did not see anything out of the ordinary on how PDOIS conducted its primary and the results that ensued as a result of that democratic process.
What has rattle the cage, however, is that a party-led alliance has now been rendered as an unviable proposition for a coalition agenda. It is not a democratic disposition.
Kamalo, a primary is a selection process within the political party when you have two or more candidates openly contesting to secure a political party presidential nomination by voting. In the case of PDOIS, do we have candidates openly contested to secure PDOIS presidential candidate nomination? The answer is NO. Please stop your misleading and inaccurate information. Your party is better off when you honestly and transparently inform Gambians about the actual process. A mere indication that there will be a primary does not make it forgone conclusion . When there is no other candidate, the party leadership should simply declare their presidential candidate for the supporters and the country. Remember he is vying for public office , we need to know the details.
Thanks
Max, forget about Kamalo. He is a delusional mislead. I will have Bax instead.
Guys, for the purpose of clarification and in the best interest of those who don’t have a clue, a primary doesn’t along with the concept of delegates. That’s for a convention. That primary goes with the concept of universal adult suffrage meaning the voter presents his/her actual self to cast a vote. Does anyone telling us here that Halifa Sallah actually gathered more than 50% of pdois’s general followership?? Well, we they can tell us that they might as go ahead and tell us how many people is behind pdois since they can only know Halifa has the support of more than 50% of this group if they know they actual total number.
Thanks
Max, the process is call ‘coronation’ not primary or anything. It is coronation of Halifa Sallah. Period.
Mr Jadama, you are absolutely right. I think “coronation” should be the right word. In fact, Mr.Sallah is their presumed heir at the moment since Sam and Sidia are above 65 years. PDOIS cannot fool us, we know how they operate.
Max, in his usual PDOIS bashing and idle talk mode, agreed with Kinteh and went on to make other observations…Since Max has a problem of understanding what is really being said, I am not surprised that he views Kinteh ‘s distorted version as a “great” point….
Max questions PDOIS’ understanding of a “primary” and went on to indicate his own uninformed understanding as thus :
@Max..” I don’t think PDOIS guys understand what primary means. there is no other candidate mentioned who contested with Mr Sallah,….”
“If you look at their press release, they only informed us about their process of selection or primary but they never mentioned where this process took place …..”
It would seem that Max’s understanding of a primary is ONLY one that involves a run-off between contending aspirants, and since this was absent in this case, he thinks it is not a primary….
This, however, is a deficient understanding of a primary selection process because a run-off, is actually the culmination of the process, rather than the “be” and “end” of it all ..
A primary is nothing but a selection process that begins from, say Point A and culminates at Point E, but must go through Points B,C,& D (D being the run-off point) before it can arrive at Point E…
So for there to be a run-off at Point D, two or more candidates must have gone through all the huddles at Points B & C…If only one candidate makes it to Point D, then he/she automatically becomes the selected candidate and it is still as valid a primary process, as when a run-off takes place..
Hence, contrary to Max’s objection, PDOIS’ primary is as valid as any, even though there was no run-off…
It’s the same in the US…It is only candidates that make it past the party conventions who get mentioned on the national ballot papers…Many who expressed desire with the Federal Election Commission, to contest in the Democratic Presidential race, for instance, have not been included on the ballot papers at Point D because they could not get past Points C & D..
…and though unlikely, if by chance, it had happened that only one got past to Point D, there would have been no run-off…Hillary Clinton, for example, would have been the automatic candidate if none of her challengers got the required votes/delegates to be on the national ballot papers, and the selection process would still have been a valid primary …
Max also claimed that PDOIS did not indicate where these processes took place…I wonder what statement he is reading…What does Max think all those returning officers were doing in all the region’s. .? Enjoying the sunshine.? I don’t think so..
Max is also querying the issuing of nomination papers to PDOIS members (not vast majority of citizens) because he assumes that they are illiterate and thus, unable to fill them…
Unless Max had actually carried out a survey on this subject, how could he possibly assume that PDOIS members have not been trained or taught to fill out nomination forms.? Is this beyond a party that has incorporated adult literacy programmes in its party activities…?
How does Max know that PDOIS has not catered for its “illiterate” members to be able to exercise their right to choice of candidate, through other means..? This is just idle talk ala Max style, I’m afraid to say..
Bax, don’t confuse yourself about primary selection process . You don’t understand what a primary is and all it is about . How can you call such a sham process a primary where there was no open selection by voting in any where in the country ? Do people go to election centers to vote? Stop your misleading propaganda . Do you have other candidates who openly manifested their interest in seeking PDOIS nomination ?
The simple fact is mr sallah has been unianimously selected by party leadership and was endorsed by delegates who are various party supporters across the country as evident by the names published .
The reason I asked where the selection took place is that in primary selection , there is election by voting in various places or constituencies throughout the country . In the case of PDOIS , do we have such process taken place openly for the people to participate ? The answer is no . So stop misleading and misinformation about the whole sham process . You better off when you speak the truth and honest in your presentation .
Thanks
But we would have known that Hilary is already in the ring and that the process was open for anybody else to join the ring because the primary would have been public knowledge and therefore extensively reported in the media. None of that happened in Pdois’s so-called primary, and that has the hallmark of a sham.
Thanks
You would have known Hilary’s participation because of the media’s interest which is lacking in PDOIS’ case…Kamalo has explained the forms of primaries so I.dont need to say anything on that…
PDOIS has its own media outlet and yet nothing about this so-called primary was reported there while the process was ongoing neither was it reported at the very onset.
Thanks
That’s a fair point…I hope the editors can explain that…I have also noticed that Foroyaa don’t even carry items on PDOIS meetings and political activities…
I suspect that the paper is trying to be “independent” and impartial, as far as reporting on political party activities are concerned..but you made a fair point…
Max….In addition to indulging in idle talk, I will now charge you with the “crime” of indulgence in the spreading of FALSE INFORMATION..
Here are two more examples of you in idle talk mode:-
(1)…”Bax , the 50 % Threshold as a nomination support requirement is undemocratic because it means only half of the party supporters nominated your presidential candidate and other half objected to his nomination ….”
This is nothing but idle talk because nowhere is it stated that only 50% or half supported Mr Sallah’s nomination…What the statement stated is as follows:
“In the absence of such support, any person with more than 50 percent support from members automatically becomes the Presidential candidate for the Party in that given presidential election.”
It is very clear that the nominated candidate received “more than 50%” of support from members, so positing that 50% rejected him is idle talk, mate…btw, “more than 50% could be anything between 51% to 100%…
(2)…”Why do you automatically disqualify those who openly manifested their interest and have secured 20 % support…..”
The statement has made it clear that no other person got 20% support from members, except the declared nominee, Mr Sallah…So the insinuation that some nominees “secured 20% support” is nothing but idle talk..
Here’s the charge for spreading false information :
“Since there was no other candidate mentioned then it is safe to say that mr sallah was unanimously selected by the party leadership and it was endorsed by central command or committee …”
No, it is not safe to make such a claim without proof…On the contrary, saying that Mr Sallah was unanimously selected by the party leadership and endorsed by central committee, completely disregarding the input of the entire membership, amounts to the spreading of FALSE INFORMATION about PDOIS…
Finally, since you are obsessed with the names of other candidates, allow me to help you to better appreciate the superiority of this most democratic selection method, that accords every member equal opportunities of nominating someone or being nominated by someone..
As far as my new found knowledge can show me, courtesy of Yero Ba and Kamalo, this selection process had got no pre-identified candidates.. Members, even those in the diaspora, were just issued with nomination papers and asked to indicate their choice of candidate amongst the membership, with the exemption of Mr Jatta and Mr Sarr…
The absence of a pre-identified candidate list, which restricts choice to only those on the list, means that every single member had the same right to nominate a candidate and the same opportunity to be nominated as a candidate..
If democracy truly means the unfettered expression of the will of the people to choose their reps and the (reasonably) equal opportunities to be chosen, is there any system more democratic than this..? If there is one, please tell me where it can be found..
And talking about democracy, it is about time that we scrutinise America’s claims, that you constantly chant here, to being the greatest democracy….
Continued…
Kinteh….Allow me, to first of all, express my surprise at how you used my personal feelings, which you acknowledged, are not representative of PDOIS, to make your observations about PDOIS’ selection process and about perceived fear within the party…
I think you will agree with me that my feelings of shock, are neither indicative of a lack or absence of grassroots mobilisation of PDOIS members, nor of any fear within the ranks of the party…
My feelings of shock was based on my erroneous assumption that prospective candidates for the PDOIS presidential position, had already declared their interests, which was known by all members, before nominations started…
It was on this basis that I was shocked, due to Halifa’s position, quality and standing within the party (from an outsider’s view point), to see that there would be party members willing and prepared to “challenge” him for the position..
Having read what both Yero Ba and Kamalo had to say about the process, I now have to admit that my feeling of shock was baseless because it was created or generated from an erroneous assumption…
It appears that Mr Sallah, in particular, or anyone else for that matter, did not declare his/their interest for the position….and I do humbly apologise to Mr Sallah for my erroneous insinuations earlier on…What seems to have taken place was the distribution of nomination papers to all members, asking each to nominate a candidate of their choice for the position, except of course, Mr Jatta and Mr Sarr. ..
The committee responsible for the process, having gone through all returned nomination papers, and having satisfied themselves that only ONE candidate met their election rules requirements, duly declared him the candidate for the party…
What more grassroots mobilisation are you talking about..? What better grassroots involved selection process can you think of than the one adopted by PDOIS here..? Isn’t this method far superior to any that any convention or congress, (where only delegates or those that can make it to the venue participate) can provide..?
You stated that you find my feelings “unsettling”, but what should be unsettling is the attitude that is being shown here, which to me, smacks of the attitude that says, “fuck the law” or “stick two fingers to the law”..
PDOIS has RULES and REGULATIONS that lay down how their party selection should be conducted…They have adhered to these rules and regulations to conduct their selection process and yet we have people objecting to this approach…I find that very unsettling because it is the total disregard of the rule of law in our country, that is at the root of our problems..
Even if we disagree with the choice of candidate, we should acknowledge and respect the fact that it was done in accordance with their rules, but the absence of such an attitude (of respect for law) is indeed very unsettling to me..
Finally, if we switch the scenario a bit, to a group that actually invokes God’s intervention so that their disqualified leader can become president, my feelings of shock, though erroneous in PDOIS’ case, will become feelings of concern for any member of this group that dares to challenge the anointed one for the position..
“This is despite the constitutional provision imposing age limit of 65 years for contestants.
The supporters and party members who turned out to celebrate their leader’s 66th birthday anniversary at his Pipeline residence last Friday, said the constitutional provision will not be sufficient deterrent to bar Mr Darboe from seeking the highest office of the land, which they said should be done without age discrimination.
The celebrations took the form of Qur’anic recitations which started in the morning and lasted until the evening. It was concluded with prayers followed by semi-formal speeches.
Former UDP Jarra West parliamentarian Kemeseng Jammeh told the gathering that the recitation and prayers were meant to ask for God’s intervention in clearing away all obstacles from the path of the party leader to becoming president in The Gambia.”Standard publication.
Maxs, Based on this above statement, who is playing the role heir apparent in his party, Halifa who was selected through a Primary or Ousainu Darbo who relied on a Quranic recitation to become candidate for his party.
Ousainu’s birthday is always celebrated that way since 1996. However, it is the Congress that elects him as the leader of the party.
Thanks
“Kamalo , A primary is an selection process within the political party when you have two or more candidates openly contesting to secure a political party presidential nomination by voting ”
What then do you call a selection process within a political party that is open to members of that party to nominate a presidential candidate? A Primary. This is exactly what PDOIS has done.
The selection process to nominate the party’s presidential candidate was opened to all members. The method may be different from what we see in the US, nonetheless, the process is a primary. You cannot call it by any other name.
“In the case of PDOIS , do we have candidates openly contested to secure PDOIS presidential candidate nomination ?”
What you fail to understand is that a Primary can be of two types: a Closed Primary and an Open Primary.
A Closed Primary is open only to party members. It is an internal selection mechanism open only to party members. Only party members can vote or nominate or be nominated.
An Open Primary is open to all voters. Members of other parties can participate in this selection process and can cast votes. This is the most likely primary method to select a candidate for an opposition coalition.
“The answer is NO . Please stop your misleading and inaccurate information.”
Now you understand that a primary is a selection process open to members of a political party. It can be a closed primary in which case only the party members can participate. It can be an open primary in which case all voters can participate. In the case of PDOIS only the party members participated in this primary process.
“Your party is better off when you honestly and transparently inform Gambians about the actual process .”
I believe that is exactly what the Press Release has done. To inform the Gambian people that PDOIS has conducted a Primary and its presidential candidate has been selected through that process.
” A mere indication that there will be a primary does not make it forgone conclusion . When there is no other candidate , the party leadership should simply declare their presidential candidate for the supporters and the country .”
There is no declaration of a presidential candidate. What we have is a selection process, a Primary, in which a PDOIS presidential candidate has been selected. It is a process. a Primary process. Again you cannot call it by any other name.
“Remember he is vying for public office , we need to know the details .”
Remember there are two types of Primary: a Closed Primary and an Open Primary.
Thanks
Kamalo , I know there is open and closed primary but in the case of PDOIS was no primary election . There was no campaign , no voting in each constituency where party members or non-members ( open primary ) vote for any candidate . A primary whether it is closed or open has to have campaign , the electorates vote openly and should be known by all citizens whether they are members of the party or not . How can PDOIS held secret meeting and called such a primary ? Who are the candidates who campaigned against each other for nomination ? Is mr sallah ran against himself and still called the process , a primary . A primary has to have two or more candidates who campaign to secure the vote of electorates who may be a party members ( closed primary ) or non-members ( open primary ) based on party’s rules . It is the party’s rules in each state or constituency which indicate whether it should be closed or open primary . Please stop misleading the people about your so called primary .
In absence of campaign to secure nomination , mr sallah was unanimously selected as nominee by delegates . If it was a primary , how many votes and delegates did he get from each constituency ?
Why do you have 50 % threshold for nomination which is undemocratic ? It mean only half of your party members support your candidate as presidential candidate .
Maybe it should be called ‘a convention’. However, it does’t change the fact that the process was a sham.
thanks
A convention takes place under one roof…This process happened across the country…How can you call that a “convention” ?
A primary takes place at the ballot with each voter representing his/her physical self
@Janko : “The leader of the UDP, in my view, a strong democrat and an avid respecter of the Rule of Law. None can dispute that fact. ”
Observation…Absolutely true but from my own view point, I think the root causes of our problem is not individuals, but rather, the system in which institutions and organs of state operate…
Janko, Sir Dawda was a person of impeccable character, a “democrat” and a respecter of the rule of law, but his government did not always rule by the law…And if I am not wrong, even though his government is acclaimed the whole over as respecter of the rule of law, no opposition party had access to the public, even at election time, which was constitutionally mandated, until PDOIS emerged and fought for that right to be respected…I may be wrong but until then, none of the older opposition parties appeared on Radio Gambia…
So Lawyer Darboe may be a respecter of the rule of law, but if president under the current status, he will be working within a system that is tailor made for total domination.and control of everything by the party in office…
“Therefore, agree on a formula that will ensure the implementation of your vision. Once you win, implement your vision. Isn’t this a winning strategy for both parties?”
The multi-million Dollar question is what formula should be agreed upon by all..? Is it :-
-one that seeks to.remove an entrenched party and replace it with another entrenched party; or
-one that seeks to remove an entrenched party, collectively work to reform the system and then hold general elections…
I hope that common.sense can.prevail and common grounds can be found for a grand coalition, but failing that, parties must go out there and do what they have to do…Whatever the outcome, the political space must never be ceded to the APRC again…
I do disagreed with Pa Nderry Mbye on many occasions but, for tonight he was spot on for stating that Halifa and PDOIS have abandoned their stance on electoral reforms and that Halifa Sallah is unelectable base on pass election results.
Alhagie, PDOIS is simply legitimizing dictatorship In the country. They have no winning strategy but they still believe that they can hold the country hostage by refusing to work with those who can win and remove the country from clutches of dictatorship. PDOIS is better off if they focus on socialism which deals withvsocial problems. Politically they have failed for 40 years since their existence. Gambia is very socially backward country which is why we are politically and economically backward . Our leaders are from the society, their behaviors is clear manifestation of the society they come from. This is why Jammeh continue to abuse and maltreat citizens on daily basis . I think we need to have more social based organizations in the country which deals with social development of the citizens such as cultural transformation of how we raise our children so that they can be open minded, civil liberties, civil rights, Needs to create more educational awareness about our responsibility as citizens and development of current social programs which help families and target our educational system. Majority of our political leadership are from generation which they always believe that each has the best thinking to solve our problems. This is why elders do not listen to young, those with highest degree do not listen to those who are not educated and so on . Their refusal to work together is clear manifestation of social backwardness of our country. It is social backward mentality which is why Jammeh do not listen to any one and our opposition leadership cannot also listen to each other. We need social revolution to eradicate that mindset. Without social revolution , we cannot have true democracy in our country. In any advance democracy whether it is Senegal, U.K. Or USA, they have gone through social revolution which leads to political consciousness .
I think PDOIS should focus on social problems to continue on awareness campaign for future generations. It is truly very frustrating to see social backwardness being responsible for political and economical backwardness of our country. A country with poor social classes cannot have good political leadership who truly care about general wellbeing of the citizens. This is the Dilemma of Gambia’s situation. I hope those with expertise in sociology should come to rescue the country. I know Mr Sallah has specialized in socialogy based on various reports and he should focus on this area.
Are you seriously saying that a party you dismissed as a “3% party” is holding the country at ransom..? That doesn’t add up…
PDOIS think that they can hold the country hostage despite their 3% support base which is concentrated in Wuli . We are giving too much attention and coverage to party which is not known to 98% of real people on the ground. If I declare my Candidacy today as an independent candidate , I am confident that I will have more support across the country than PDOIS because I will connect with the people more than they do lol.
Mr sallah is a good socialogist but he is not a good politician in my view . This is why he needs to focus on social problems which he studied .
Max….I may not understand “primaries”, but you are not doing any better to explain your understanding of primaries…All you have done, so far, is to concentrate on the run-off stage of the primary process…
Of course, the run-off stage, which involves either an open or closed vote, is an essential element of the primary process, where more than one aspirant makes it past the initial requirements, which I called “huddles” earlier, but where no more than ONE aspirant make it through, there will be NO reason for a run-off…. and it would still be a choice by the primary process, barring the run-off stage, though admittedly, this is very unlikely to happen in the US, due to its culture of active participation ..Why is that proving difficult for you to understand.?
According to the website usa.gov, candidates for US presidential elections must meet these first requirements :
“The President must:
-Be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
-Be at least 35 years old;
-Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years…;”
For anyone to take part in US presidential primaries, you must pass this first “huddle”…
Next, you must file for registration with the Federal Elections Commission and provide evidence that you have either received contributions in excess of $5000 or have expended the same amount, 15 days after you have filed for registration with the FEC…
So that is the second “huddle” for anyone who wants to be on the ballot papers for any primary process…
There is a third “huddle”, which is called the “Ballot Access Laws”…Basically, each state in the US has its own requirements that must be met before aspiring candidates can be on their ballot papers..
Don’t forget also that because primaries are expensive to conduct, a candidate needs financial backing to run one in the US…So though financial support may not be a legal requirement, nonetheless, it is a huddle that candidates must pass in the US…
It is only when an individual has gone through these first 3/4 requirements, which I call huddles, that they can be on the ballot papers and hit the campaign trail for votes in the primaries..
Since there are preliminary huddles to conquer before one can get on the ballot papers, it can be hypothised that it is possible, no matter how remote that positivity, that where only one candidate makes it through the first huddles, there will be no primaries in the US, because that one candidate becomes the unopposed nominee for his/her party’s Presidential ticket..That is exactly what happened in the PDOIS case, in my view…
You have picked on my statement that Halifa was unopposed and you have made a mountain out of it..Let me explain what I meant to show you how you indulge in idle talk…
According to PDOIS rules, a person must receive nominations from at least 20% of the members (first huddle) to be considered an official contender for the position…Logic follows therefore, that since only one person went through that huddle, he becomes the only contender for the position, and thus, UNOPPOSED…Simple logic..
All that this means, contrary to all these false charges, is that he was a very, very popular choice, the very essence of any democratic selection process, whatever you call it..
“Yero ba , from PDOIS press release , there was no indication that we have other candidates in this so called primary , we do not know their names and how much percent each got in the initial votes . Since there was no other candidate mentioned then it is safe to say that mr sallah was unanimously selected by the party leadership and it was endorsed by central command or committee,” said Maxs.
Maxs, every member in PDOIS has right to elect and be elected. This is why PDOIS gives out a form to every member to elect or be elected by whoever. It is simple language to say “if at the close of nomination, should there be 2 or more nominees with 20 percent or more support from the members, election should take place between the two persons with the largest number of Party supporters.
In the absence of such support, any person with more than 50 percent support from members automatically becomes the Presidential candidate for the Party in that given presidential election” This is the PDOIS Constitution which is approved by a Congress.
You should concentrate on your party’s law on selection of candidates. Lafia said the UDP congress selects the party leader but did not explain how your party selects a flagbearer or is the UDP flagbearer also selected by a congress? PDOIS uses this occasion to reach out to all members to make a choice and that choice is respected. What is your problem now?
‘Kamalo , I know there is open and closed primary but in the case of PDOIS was no primary election . There was no campaign , no voting in each constituency where party members or non-members ( open primary ) vote for any candidate . A primary whether it is closed or open has to have campaign , the electorates vote openly and should be known by all citizens whether they are members of the party or not .”
Max, I can see the difficulty you have relating the concept of a Primary in the US to the concept of a Primary that PDOIS has conducted. In essence you are trying to compare a Primary in an advanced democracy like the US to a Primary that PDOIS has evolved in the Gambia.
Regardless of the method of the Primary, in the US a lot of money is involved with campaign and financing, and in the case of PDOIS nomination papers, a fundamental element of the whole process is a democratic selection exercise open to all members of a political party. Here the principle of selection and choice is the overriding factors.
In the US campaign and financing is necessary for a candidate in a Primary contest. In the Gambia where PDOIS has evolved the concept of a Primary, the method of carrying out the Primary process is different. This is what we are trying to point out. It doesn’t nonetheless make it less of a Primary.
how can PDOIS held secret meeting and called such a primary ? Who are the candidates who campaigned against each other for nomination ? Is mr sallah ran against himself and still called the process , a primary .’
They have returning officers in all constituencies in the country. So there has been an actual election process. This process is however govern by rules and regulations. A candidate has to get 20 percent of the votes to be eligible to contest in the Primary. In the US Primary they have proportional representation, and even whereas one candidate is declared as a winner the number of delegates in the state are shared proportionally.
Aprimary has to have two or more candidates who campaign to secure the vote of electorates who may be a party members ( closed primary ) or non-members ( open primary ) based on party’s rules .’
Here you go: based on party rules. And PDOIS has rules that govern their Primary process. They have stated them in black and white in their PRESS RELEASE. And yet you still have a problem with a party’s internal selection mechanism.
“It is the party’s rules in each state or constituency which indicate whether it should be closed or open primary . Please stop misleading the people about your so called primary .
In absence of campaign to secure nomination , mr sallah was unanimously selected as nominee by delegates . If it was a primary , how many votes and delegates did he get from each constituency ?
Why do you have 50 % threshold for nomination which is undemocratic ? It mean only half of your party members support your candidate as presidential candidate .”
What more can we tell you. It seems you only want to argue for the sake of arguing. The rules states that a candidate must have 20 percent of the votes to contest. And in the event that you have more than two people who have 20 percent of the votes, the two that have the highest number of votes will contest in the Primary. In essence there will be a contest between two candidates that have the highest number of votes.
The threshold for any democratic representation is more than 50% of the vote. The rule again states that if there aren’t any two people who 20 percent of the votes to contest in the Primary, the person that has more than 50% support from the party members will become the nominee. This is as clear as the Northern Star.
According to Max’s never ending chants, America is a great democracy, so it is about time that we scrutinise this claim and establish whether America, in its current form, is even a democracy, never mind a great one, or something else…
Democracy is defined generally, as “a system of government, where power is vested in the people, exercised on their behalf (and in their interest), by their chosen representatives, who are elected at periodic free and fair elections… ”
So in a democratic setup, the following basic fundamentals MUST be present :
(1)…the (ultimate) power of the state must reside in the people ;
(2)…this power, which is deligated to representatives MUST be exercised, on their behalf and for their interest;
(3)…those who exercise this power must be chosen by the people at FREE and FAIR elections periodically…
In short, democracy is: Government of the people; For the people; By the people…
So if we use this as our yardstick, let’s see how America would fair under scrutiny….Let’s approach this task from the following perspectives :
(1)…CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES (do voters really choose their reps in America or not ?)
and
(2)…REFLECTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY PREFERENCES (of various sectors of the American public) and ACTUAL USA GOVERNMENT POLICIES (over a considerable period of time), using American sources for this purpose ..(in whose interest is power exercised)
First stop, the website usa.gov, which I believe to be a government website, as it ends with .gov… Here is a word for word quotation from this website :- (under the caption explaining the Electoral College system, the website makes a most undemocratic revelation).
“It is possible for a candidate to receive the majority of the popular vote but not of the electoral vote and lose a presidential election.”
This is an incredible piece of information…A candidate in the presidential elections of this “democratic” country, can receive more votes cast by voters at a given election (popular vote) than an opponent, but still lose the elections, through the Electoral College voting system…
It gets even worse because according to the website infoplease.com :
“Many Americans think that when they cast their ballot, they are voting for their chosen candidate. In actuality they are selecting groups of electors in the electoral college.”
According to another website, Archives.com or something like that :
“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States..”
So, an elector who received, for example, a Democratic popular vote in one state, is under no obligation to vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate at the electoral college and can choose to vote for a Republican Presidential Candidate, instead (though that could be an expensive political gamble)..
So from the perspective of CHOICE of representation, this is an absolute sham of.a democracy…And we have not even looked at the unfairness of the system due to the high cost of the entire process, which runs into millions…
Contributions to Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign funds alone have already surpassed the $100million mark…Only massive propaganda global media campaign can make people continue to see America as a “great democracy…”
Continued….
Bax, it’s your extreme leftism that is taking the best part of you here. You won’t distract us with such an ill-informed, ill-conceived, ill- placed and ill-everything take on what democracy actually means. I think we all know that democracy is measured by certain bench-marks and America has a very good score in all of that.
Thanks
Share those benchmarks with.the audience..
Bax , I know you will continue your anti-USA bashing without knowing anything how politics works in USA . first of all , you needs to understand that USA has 50 states and each of these states are different in sizes . USA Electoral college was established as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens according to www. archives.gov. Electoral votes is given by the basis of majority or popular votes in each state. Each state is allocated electors based on the size . 99 % of the time , electors vote to support popular votes . Electoral college was established to ensure fairness in electoral process and it also gives opportunity for state with more popular votes to have more electors while to allow smaller states have electors based on their size and popular votes. The idea was to eliminate biasness such as when you have a particular candidate from bigger state , most likely the citizens from that state will vote for the candidate from that state because he or she is favor to win as result of being a native . Example , Jammeh is from Foni , today majority of Foni people support him because he is simply from that area , which is biasness based on ignorance belief of their understanding of politics compare to others who didn’t come from that area ( Foni ) who might have best policies and programs . Going by USA electoral college , Foni will be given electors based on its size. This makes it fair for electors to vote at electoral college .
Before you jump to the conclusion , you should understand that democracy is fair representation of the people and gear towards creation of government which will ensure that common good is achieved . If you have majority of citizens who vote based on tribal or ethnic line without putting into consideration a national interest or welfare then such practice is not true democracy . Founding fathers of USA recognized this phenomenon early on because they knew they didn’t have political maturity at the time and people will vote not based on political party policies but simply based on factors such as ethnic , and being native of particular state .
you are on the record , complaining about people vote based on tribal line or region in The Gambia and you indicated that PDOIS do not support such politics , USA founding fathers recognized the same thing early on in their politics . They have been practicing democracy for 200 years and today their experimental democracy is the model of the world including PDOIS which confusingly try to copy USA primary process but they have no idea what it is .,
Educate yourself before you pick up one statement and fly with it , to propaganda falsehood .
USA electoral college was essentially established to ensure fairness , political maturity and serve the best interest of citizens .
Max…To conclude on that first point, I.will quote a female interviewee from the USA that I saw on the news recently ….When asked about Clinton and Sanders, she said something that sounds very familiar to me…
She said, “Bernie Sanders ticks all the boxes for me, but my heart is with Hillary Clinton..” How familiar is this statement to Gambian voters..? I can tell you that it is only propaganda, massive propaganda (in US media) that causes such contradictory positions …
Whether America is a democracy, in terms of its policy pursuits and how these relate to, or reflect the, preferences of various sectors of the America Public, is a subject of interest to many individuals in and outside of the USA, and has attracted a lot of scholarly studies and debates….
One such study was carried out by two notable Political Scientists, Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I.Page (Northwestern University)..
What this study ( “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,”) did, was to look at the preferences of the various sectors of the American Public (the top rich and powerful half; the middle class; and the bottom half) and gauge these against the actual policies of the government, over a period of about twenty years (1981-2002) and concluded as thus :
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study found.
The study also found: “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.”
In short, this is “Oligarchy” : the rule of the Rich & Powerful; For the Rich & Powerful; By the Rich & Powerful (though the study shied away from calling America an Oligarchy)…
Continued…
Though the aforementioned study did not call America an Oligarchy, many individuals interested in the subject, have not shied away from calling “a spade, a spade”…One such notable individual is former president Jimmy Carter…
Mr Carter is reported to have told Oprah Winfrey that:
“We’ve become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that’s been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I’ve ever seen in my life,”
Other notable and highly qualified individuals, who all, more or less, reached the same conclusions, on the destruction of the American Dream, in their scholarly writings and academic undertakings include :
– Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001;
– Professor Martha Nussabaum, philosopher and Professor of Law and Ethics at Chicago University;
– Professor Robert Putnam, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University;
– Professor Amartya Sen, (Indian) Economist and philosopher at Harvard University…
Another individual who wrote on the destruction of the American Dream, through the monopoly of wealth by the now popular 1%, is conservatist political scientist, Francis Fukuyama…
In his essay in 2014, America in Decay, Fukuyama stated that, liberal democracies and market economies tend to create “winners and losers” and amplify what James Madison term, “”different and unequal faculties of acquiring property.”
According to Fukuyama,…”This type of economic inequality is not in itself a bad thing, insofar as it stimulates innovation and growth and occurs under conditions of equal access to the economic system.
It becomes highly problematic, however, when the economic winners seek to convert their wealth into unequal political influence.They can do so by bribing a legislator or a bureaucrat, that is, on a transactional basis, or, what is more damaging, by changing the institutional rules to favor themselves — for example, by closing off competition in markets they already dominate, tilting the playing field ever more steeply in their favor.””
Continued…
Fukuyama went on to describe what he called, “Reciprocal Altruism”, as the biggest corrupting influence on the American political system, where the lobby industry pumps vast amounts of money into Congress and the House and later demands what it wants…
In 2009 alone, it is stated that 13,500 lobbyists and interest groups are estimated to have spent $5.3 billion to influence Congress….. The figures from the Israeli lobby groups alone, within a 5 year period, are absolutely staggering and unbelievable and the reason why Congress (in particular) is mostly apologetic and almost sub-servient to the dangerous and cruel policies of the Israeli State…
According to the Hoffpost columnist, Akbar Ganji :
” Netanyahu’s competition with the President for getting the votes in Congress to defeat the nuclear agreement with Iran leads to the question: Is this Congress a U.S. Congress or an Israeli one?…”
Is it indeed, a US Congress or an Israeli Congress, I ask my friend, Max..?
I think the argument has been made, that contrary to Max’s claims, America in its current form, is anything but a democracy, never mind a great one…
It is a great and prosperous country, though , but the reasons for that are very, very simple to explain…Perhaps, that will be a topic for another day..
Oh come on!! This is a distraction. Let’s talk about PDOIS’ sham primary. Bax has filled his head with wishy washy theories.
Your attitude clearly shows that you, as an individual, has no interest in changing the status quo in The Gambia…You are only interested in a change of personalities. Unfortunately, you are not alone and that is the most worrying obstacle in this struggle against Jammeh’s madness..
Bring it on…Let’s talk about PDOIS.. There are people here willing to debunk your false narratives.
You said this process was/should be called a “Convention” and I debunked that by reminding you that a convention takes place “under one roof…”
You countered by saying that “primaries involve elections”, but let me ask you this simple question…
“what primary, anywhere in the world, kicks off with elections straight away, without any preceeding process (es) or steps …?
In this case, a nomination process amongst PDOIS members across the country and abroad, clearly took place and the selection was done in accordance with the Primary Rules of the party..
And we are informed that the rule (that matters here) states that, where one nominee received “more than 50%” of nominations from all members, he/she becomes the declared popular candidate, in the absence of any other receiving 20% of nominations..
It should be pointed out that there would definitely have been elections, if more than one nominee received 20% nominations. That is as visible as the morning star from the statement..
What then are your problems..? You want PDOIS to disregard its constitution and carry out elections…? For what, if I may ask, because all their members have had a chance to select a candidate and they have made their choice known…
Like it or not, I contend that, as far as the democratic right to choose a representative is concerned, there is no better system anywhere…If you know one, please tell us where to find it and how it is superior to this method..
@Lafia : “Bax, it’s your extreme leftism that is taking the best part of you here…”
Lafia….Let me tell you something today so that you don’t repeat this error next time…I am old enough, with probably a bit of life’s experiences, not to fall for this type of mental suppression or subjugation…
I don’t know what “Left”, “Right”, “Center” and the “in-betweens” actually mean politically, but I am in no doubt, that these labels are an attempt to categorise vast numbers of people (not necessarily politicians) into specific groups, without much public information about the substance that these people may stand for..
This makes it easy to either stigmatise or praise the group or individuals from the group, for the purpose of shaping public opinion and controlling our behaviour..
My experience and observations have showed me that people who are placed in each of these groups, often exhibit certain common characteristics, which could then picked on by so called “experts” and “analysts” to either advance a certain cause or deride it…
My observations have also shown me that those classified as “Leftists” are often people with “human hearts” (like Jeremy Corbyn )…People who say :
-No, to the inceniration of fellow human beings with Nuclear weapons, no matter what;
-No, to the greed of the corporate world and.their wanton and destructive pursuit of profit, with little or no regard to its consequences;
-No, to the exploitation of workers around the world and demand that they (workers) receive a fair reward for their efforts in the global wealth they create;
-No, to war mongering and endless perpetration of wars, on weak and defenceless nations, to achieve geopolitical aims and secure economic interests…(just to name a few characteristics of people lumped into this group)
If that is.what you mean.by “Leftist”, then.let me inform you that I am proud and honoured to be labelled, “an extreme Leftist”…
Max…..
Thank you for that educative piece on the history and rationale of the American Elections System…
Unfortunately, it has not responded to my contention that it is not democratic enough because it takes away the right of voters to directly elect their representatives (popular vote) and places that right in the hands of intermediaries (college electors), who are NOT under any legal obligation to cast their vote to reflect their choices….
For example, Democrat Voters can have 15 College Votes in the Electoral College, but their Presidential Candidate is not guaranteed all 15 College votes because there is no Law requiring these electors to vote for the Democrats’ Presidential Candidate, even though their College Vote came from Democrat voters…
Obviously, a College Elector who does that would be putting a nail in the “political coffin” of their political career (so to.speak), which is probably a deterrent, but the fact that such a possibility exists, means the system can rob voters of their choices….and that can’t be democratic, no matter the history and rationale of the system…
I appreciate the concerns of the founding fathers but the fact remains that the system, though it may suit America, is neither democratic, nor fair..
It’s so expensive to run for elective office in America that elective office is the “hegemony” of the rich and powerful and without their support and “blessing”, folks don’t stand a chance…(I know you love the word “hegemony”…so there you have it, lol)
Bax , why did president Obama won both 2008 and 2012 elections when he ran against mitt Romney , John McCain , and other millionaires respectively in both presidential elections and primariy elections when he is the poorest candidate among them . American voters do not vote for candidates because they are rich and powerful ,if that is the case , Mitt Rommney who spend $40 millions of his own money in his campaign would have been the president in 2012 or Hillary Clinton because she is connected and powerful . Americans values success in terms of money or wealth but history has shown that money can not buy election in USA . Look ,mr trump used far less money in his campaign than Jeb Bush , but he is still winning though he is billionaire. In American politics , the most important thing is the ability of politicians to connect with the voters and talk about policies and issues that matters to ordinary citizens . This is why you don’t see stupid expression like ” if you don’t vote for me , you will not see development in your area ” as our lunatic president Jammeh will say to poor people of The Gambia . Election is a vetting process in USA , this is why every aspect of candidate backgrounds such as beliefs , association , history , policies and everything since the person is born and where he was born are all put into consideration .
Of course , money is important in political propaganda but it does not buy election . There are millionaires who lost election despite they used lot of money to campaign. John Edward and John Kerry are another millionaires who all lost election to W. Bush in 2004. Remember that Kerry’s wife is a millionaire too . Currently senator Rubio is running but he is not a millionaire . Dr Carlson is another black millionaire who is running but he is not doing well . Senator Bernie sanders is not a millionaire but his campaign like president Obama were mostly funded by small contributions from ordinary citizens . Senator sanders has zero money from cooperate America or Wall Street . All these examples are meant to show that money cannot buy election in political conscious society especially where majority of citizens are not poor like in third world countries . In The Gambia Jammeh’s stupidity is re-enforce by poverty of citizens which he use to exploit them .
Max….I believe this forum was a rich and educative one and it’s time to move on, but here’s my “parting shot” for you :-
The “Fairy Tale” story of President Obama, as a disadvantaged young man, from a humble background, with no connections within the “hegemony” of American politics, rising to occupy the Oval Office, through hard work alone, may not be that fairy tale after all, if we look deeper and beyond the “headline” narratives…
See you later…been very nice to engage again…
Absolutely true to say, in my opinion too, a searh for any comparison between an advanced democracy like that of the U.S and that of the Gambia, in other words the ‘PDOIS primaries’, ridicules all processes of restoring democracy in the Gambia. The most priority now, is to focus on the ELECTORAL REFORM that everybody know, what it angles.
Nothing bores like distracting political activities and efforts, much more in a state of emergeny.