If the news or I hope it is mere rumor circulating is true, then we are about to fall off the cliff. It is being reported that the Coalition has been unable to agree on a unified strategy to contest the upcoming parliamentary elections as some member parties prefer to go it alone. This may be because individual member parties are looking far too ahead of themselves, thinking about political opportunities after the three or five year term-limit of President Adama Barrow. It is important for all and sundry to understand that it took us two decades and dozens if not hundreds of innocent lives and bastardization of our economy as well as our social fabric for us to throw away our individual egos and ambitions and came together to send our common tormentor on exile. This achievement is not the sole work or efforts of any individual party or citizen. It has only been possible through our collective efforts. The diaspora Gambians contributed their dollars and used social media to campaign and convince family and friends to dump Jammeh for a better system. Gambians at home even sacrificed more by coming out and supported the Coalition in all forms fully knowing the risk associated with that in Jammeh’s Gambia. In our time of need, specifically during the political impasse, our neighbours in the ECOWAS region and AU in general have invested their valuable time and resources to support us to make sure we get rid of the evil Jammeh regime. Mobilization of Ecomig forces and endless ECOWAS summits cost millions of dollars.
Are you coalition leaders oblivious to all these sacrifices? Or do you think the ordinary Gambians who sacrifice in one way or the other are idiots? Thinks twice. Do not let your egos or individual selfish political interests kill the aspirations of hundreds of thousands of Gambians who have been patiently waiting far too long for a true democratic and responsive government. Any participation by the coalition in the upcoming parliamentary elections short of a unified force or at least strategic alliance is doomed to fail and will surely unravel our hard fought achievements. You members of the Coalition if you are listening please take into account the following points:
- If you contest the parliamentary elections individually, you are going to split the potential coalition votes among yourselves. This fragmentation of your votes will make winning extremely difficult if not impossible. Remember as a coalition, you pulled less than 45% of the votes and if you have to split that percentage among competing coalition party members you are surely not going to win. Do the Mathematics!
-
APRC party is still alive. Ignore them at your peril. They pulled closed to 40% of the votes. Assuming their popularity has gone down since the exiling of their benefactor and the ensuing enlightenment of the Gambian population since then, that does not mean they are dead. They still have their supporters. Any sign of weakness in the Coalition will encourage a lot of people to stay with APRC.
-
Mama Kandeh’s GDC pulled 17% of the votes on its own. With a fragmented Coalition fighting for votes among its supporters, Kandeh’s party can easily come out as the winner. Ignore this scenario at your own peril.
-
A discord within the coalition can actually jolt APRC and Mama Kandeh to form a strategic alliance and sweep the polls. They can wait until last minute and form this alliance when they know that it is too late for the Coalition to unite.
The outcome of these scenarios will be a national assembly dominated by APRC/opposition which will make the reforms that we want to achieve impossible. We did not vote for you for you to become another “African leaders” who think they are privilege to be presiding over us. The coalition needs a total control of the national assembly to accomplish the changes we need in our economy, police, army etc. and ensure swift delivery of justice for the victims of Yaya’s twenty-two years of brutality.
The way forward for the Coalition is to drop your individual or party ambitions and look at the interests of the Gambia as a whole so that you can sweep the national assembly elections and accomplish the necessary reforms that will lay the foundation for future prosperity of the Gambia. As it stands, you have only two options that will lead to success. You must come together and field independent candidates in every constituency in the name of the coalition and this independent candidates can come from individual member parties depending on who is strong where. How you allocate these candidates, you should figure that out. You are adults!
The second option is similar to the first in that you will present candidates in the name of individual parties but strategically avoiding competing among yourselves. Here again you will decide which member party will present a candidate in which constituency and the rest of the member parties will avoid presenting their own candidates and rather rally around that chosen candidate. You should figure out how to do that since you are all adults.
As a final appeal, you must act now and decisively and show the wounded Gambian population that you could be trusted to do the right thing. Go into this parliamentary elections as a unified coalition so that we can sweep the polls and accomplish together what we have started. You will never be forgiven if you let your egos and political ambitions blind you to the collective aspiration of Gambians. We have come too far to fail at this point. Do the right thing!
Sadibou J.
Ends
I hope they all listen to your wise counsel and do what best serve the interest of our country.
Sadibou, your analysis and inputs are very objectively constructive in finding an amicable way for the coalition to contest the election in a way that the spirit and intent that led to the voting for president Barrow, remain sacrosanct as we move forward.
In my opinion the 2nd option is viable. The individual entities want to be relevant and rightly want to have future after the coalition government- regardless how long it last. The interests are wide so that I think can be best handled at the cabinet table headed by an independent president and vice president.
That is why I regret the absence of pdois from the coalition cabinet. This is where policy is drafted and it is where the coalition should govern the country together. It also makes it easy to communicate with one another thereby eliminating misunderstandings when the avenue to share differences is not there. I don’t mean it will be easy but a coalition is primarily to govern at cabinet level and by alliance, push through govt agenda in the legislative assembly.
Therefore the way forward -I’m my opinion- is to settle on a strategic alliance as you rightly outlined above. First, it will return a majority for the coalition participating parties. The coalition govt would have solid majority to push through reforms and at the same time ensure that compromises are sought at the cabinet desk because it will require the backing of all legislative members of the coalition to push through reforms.
Secondly, it frees up the coalition from constantly having to maintain decorum in the national assembly. Because for a reform to pass, compromises will be sought and a party can be blamed if there is non. Otherwise everyone could hide behind coalition for non-action.
Thirdly, the problem facing the coalition is all too familiar. Macky Sall had the same rocky start. I even believe letting the parties file own candidates, on strategic alliance basis, will enhance the coalition government than the coalition selecting candidates as one block. In my district more than 20 people want to stand on behalf of the coalition. Who will filter all these people? So this a logistical problem that would prove difficult than as was the case with filing a single presidential candidate. We have more constituencies to cater for. It also requires a disciplined selection process which I think cannot be administered by the coalition at this point in time. Individual parties are more effective enough to nominate someone based on track record and not just base on pure opportunist.
Finally, what I hear and read all this time about the NA elections is the fear that UDP might get a landslide and become the dominant fraction in the NA. I think this fear is unfounded. First UDP will not take all the seats even if they were to contest all (which supposedly is NOT their intent). Secondly the UDP fraction in the NA will be part of the reform agenda signifying their presence in the coalition government. If they don’t compromise, they will not achieve their goals and that is a zero-sum game.
At last I appeal for calm and that we let the democratic process take it’s course. What we should aspire for is a free and fair election. I believe with our able IEC chief Mamorr Njie, those people will get into the NA who deserve it. The people will be the final arbiter!
I absolutely agree with you. Let them not disappoint us.
The only difference within d coalition is allocation of constituencies to individual parties. Parties who use to contest in 3 or 4 constituencies all of a sudden want to be allocated equal number of seats as d UDP. This is d only difference. Talk of sacrificing individua ambitions or party aspirations is only beating about d bush. I cannot understand why there is no PDOIS represatation in d executive. For me thats when d coalition started to be not fully dancing to one tune. It will be a problem if smaller parts of the equation would want any coalition agenda to be equally distributed among the member parties. I do also dont think it will be good for our young democracy to have a National Assembly without a strong opposition. So maybe contesting on individual party bases (albeit strategic alliances in some constituencies) might not be a bad idea. A diverse parliment must be good for democracy.
Fabs
I too support a coalition vonyesting8the electioj8on a unified platform rather than on individual party line. This may lead to fragmentation of coalition and show the seed of suspicion, mistrust and potential discord in the government.
I don’t agree with Sanyang’s view for the simple reason since they agreed to form a coalition government, why not a coalition parliament. If there individual party parliament it will be difficult and time consuming to push through important policies.
I have the feeling that some big parties think that they can.sweep the polls independently but they fail the factor the possibility that the Gambian electorate can potentially punish them for their perceived obtinacy in forging an alliance. GAMBIANS are energetic and politically conscious and could give sympathy vote to small parties. Just look at the global coalition votes and it tells a lot about the last elections. There was a lot of tribal affiliation voting across the constituencies. Where their is strong Fanafana and Fulani votes, APRC and GDC did very well and who knows, they can do a tactical voting and peril the chance of UDP as single party.
@Fabakary Sanyang : “The only difference within d coalition is allocation of constituencies to individual parties. Parties who use to contest in 3 or 4 constituencies all of a sudden want to be allocated equal number of seats as d UDP. This is d only difference.”
Observation: You have not stated the source of this information. Are you a party to those discussions and have first hand knowledge of what you’re claiming here or did you receive this from a reliable source ?
The issue of who contests where and how many candidates each party should present only becomes relevant when the alliance strategy is abandoned. Under the alliance strategy, candidates will be representing the alliance, not individual parties and when elected, they will be NAMS of the ruling alliance.
A strategic alliance in some constituencies is a good idea until ambitions overlap, as they are bound to. The best solution is an all party alliance to complete the alliance project for political change. Identifying a strong candidate who is fit to be a NAM for the alliance, would solve all these petty, little problems.
After all, it’s a transition arrangement and soon, all parties will be entitled to go out and contest under their own tickets. But for now, let’s put all the pressure we can generate on the UDP and NRP to uphold the alliance strategy for the 2nd phase of the project for political change. We have had so much praise from around the world and it will be criminal to destroy our achievements by shooting ourselves in the foot. Least we forget, the APRC can still derail the project by denying the alliance absolute majority in the house. So we should be wary of divisions within and promoting false hopes.
I don’t understand why the absence of PDOIS from cabinet is an issue at all. PDOIS is still actively involved in alliance activities. Serving in the cabinet is a choice and if they excuse themselves, then so be it. Let the President form his cabinet and work with PDOIS in whatever capacity they want to contribute. What is important is that all have come together to defeat Jammeh and usher in a new political dispensation. Opposition parties who never realistically had any chance at the polls are now in government and running the country.
The notion that pdois can choose to be in the cabinet or not while still available to contribute in other areas, is clearly inconsequential and to a large coalition supporters rather vaque. Taking up a cabinet position in a coalition government is the first step of committing to the coalition. It is also about taking collective responsibility for the good or bad outcomes that inevitably occur in administering a country.
I personally don’t think that Halifa must take up cabinet position. But I was dismayed that they rejected or politely rescinded the cabinet position allocated to pdois as a party. And since not only Halifa and Sidia are pdois party members, they could have filed suitable members to these cabinet positions.
Problem now is that the RIGHT pdois reserved themselves to excuse themselves from taking cabinet positions, that same RIGHT is also available to the other parties to opt for other models of alliance building in contesting the NA elections.
I don’t believe that the APRC can recover again in the absence of state resources/coercion. I don’t also believe that the spirit of the coalition will be dented however they contest the NA elections.
I am confident that the coalition parties will return with a majority from the elections no matter which model they finally contested on.
Mr Darboe I will have to disagree with you. The coalition came together with a unified objective of removing devil jammeh and replacing it with sanity and democracy. Therefore policy formulation and implementation should be a collective responsibility. Why should PDOIS remove itself from that basic and fundamental objective of the coalition. PDois is not only Halifa or is it.
Secondly the coalition must have a selection process. Wether as independent or party candidates there must be a process of selecting candidates. For instance how do u select the NAM candidate for Banjul central. Local party structures must be involved rather than a committee of experts sitting at d Kairaba hotel imposing their choice on d people. Democracy is best served with grass roots participation. The issue of who contests and where cannot and should not be decided by a few coalation committee members without d participation of grass roots party structures.
Fabs
Bax,
fabakary is right – Halifa jumping off the Cabinet-ship ended the Coalition. But there is another Coalition – see my take on this story @ https://sambagate.com/2017/03/04/cabinet-coalition-for-parliamentary-elections/
Your comments are obviously bias. Saidou’s piece shows his understanding of what’s at stake. The alliance team needs its own team in the House and alliance partners who seek to serve the alliance as NAMS are still part of the alliance, much the same way as APRC NAMS were still part of the APRC team serving their party from the House.
What kind of thinking is this view that Halifa is no longer part of the alliance because he wants to serve from the House.
Absolutely ridiculous. It’s nothing but using every excuse in the book to justify attempts to pursue party interest in the House.
By the way, why are you all obsessed with Halifa alone. The last time I checked, the alliance was made up of SEVEN partners. Only two want to go it alone.
1. There is no data to support your belief that the APRC is a spent force, just 4 months after losing power. That’s just mere assumption, but going into such a crucial election on the bases of mere assumptions is very dangerous and risky for the alliance project.
2. Those parties that want to abandon the alliance strategy for their own are within their rights to do so, but they should not relate their actions to PDOIS’s absence from cabinet, because that will be a very bad excuse. The two (executive and legislative arms & elections) are independent of each other in every respect.
3. Moreover, PDOIS’s absence from cabinet impacts on no one group more than PDOIS itself, because being in government, within Gambia’s political context, is the biggest profile enhancer for any politician or party. And it (position in government) comes with lots of influence and prestige too. So, it is PDOIS’s loss and no one else’s.
4. As far as the collective responsibility argument for failure goes, I think the fact that PDOIS will also not be able to lay claims to any successes of government does equalise that equation perfectly. NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILURES; NO CREDIT FOR SUCCESSES.
5. We have achieved the most unlikely electoral victory, by utilising a winning strategy, against a well entrenched dictatorship. Why does anyone think that abandoning that winning strategy for one that has proved inadequate for 22 years, is a good idea ? If we go into these elections on false hopes, we might wake up to a shocking reality on results declaration day.
6. Alliance strategy for political change also includes embarking on a wide range of reforms and this is not possible without an alliance team in the NA assembly, pursuing a COMMON reform agenda. What worries me is that there may not be a common reform agenda and parties that want to leave the alliance, may have a different reform agenda, which may not go as far as may be necessary to eradicate ruling party domination of the political landscape.
I hope I’m wrong but some of us have warned that there are many who just want Jammeh out, but not necessarily overhaul the whole parochial and sycophantic system that is a requisite for a Ruling Party monopoly of power through a democratic dictatorship, like we had in the first republic.
Bax, you have indicated that the first republic was democratic dictatorship under sir Dawda Jawara. Well you must have lost your equilibrium if you actually believe that we had democratic dictatorship in The Gambia. It will be interesting to see your evidence to that claim .
Max…
You and I have had several exchanges in the past and I am not sure whether it was yourself or my good old friend Lafia, to whom I once made the observation that the reason the APRC and UDP constantly clash is because they are two of the same, politically speaking. The politics of anger, of enmity and the readiness to engage in violence is common to both. They are twin brothers. The only difference between the two is their status (one in power; the other in opposition) and the character of their leaders: One is a hot headed buffoon and the other is a highly accomplished professional and level headed gentleman.
The statuses have been reversed now but the violence hasn’t disappeared. We saw the Kanfenda incident and you only have to watch a clip on you tube to see what was happening. In fact, the violence against perceived opponents have taken a new turn never seen before. A Foroyaa journalist was almost lynched by UDP supporters for merely asking their leader a question they didn’t like at their last press conference. So much for press freedom !!!! So much for respecting free speech !!!!
Their anger was not limited at the reporter alone. They could be heard clearly raining insults on Halifa Sallah in the presence of their leader. Even he could not restrain them. You can say all the bad things about Yaya Jammeh, but I don’t think any APRC militants would dare behave like that at his press conference. Absolutely and utterly shameful behaviour. All freedom lovers and advocates of a free press should condemn their behaviour with all the emphasis we can command.
Unless the UDP issues an official apology to the reporter and a public statement to condemn the behaviour of those members, we will have no option but to conclude that they condoned it.
In my opinion the strengthening of the coalition is firstly served when leaders or suitable members of the participating parties take ownership of the coalition government by taking up positions at the executive level. In other words take responsibility for the coalition’s deeds and be part of the drafting side and not ONLY wait at the criticising end.
Failure to be part of the coalition cabinet, opens up the possibility that others are likely to use their rights to opt out of other arrangements that in their view does not serve them. Now it is a question of whose excuse is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OR ACCEPTABLE?
I guess we leave that to the voters to decide.
Hi Bax
First there is no party that wants to abandon the coalition. That is a misrepresantation of facts as a result of halifa’s recent press release. He deliberately refused to state d alternative proposal of the UDP and the NRP even though he was specically asked by a member of d press. Contesting the national Assembly election as a coalition was not in the MOU signed to establish the coalition. The coalition consists of political parties and not individuals. So why should we insist on aspiring parliamentarians to resign from their respective parties. The presidential elections involved a single candidate and easy to stand as an independent candidate. Cabinet minister are not requird to resign from their respective parties so why should.
NAMs. Let halifa as d coalation spokesperson tell us d other proposals that were put forward for the coalition to contest the NA elections. As usual he only gave us his views. Typical Jalifa stuff
2. When d coalation came to power there was a call for all hands to be on deck. All parties are morally oblige to give their best to president Barrow. A case in point is d failed attempt to change the age limits in the constitution. Any honest sincere and well meaning member of the coalation should give an in house advise when mistakes are made father than rush to the pressure. Wether he gets a salary or not is irrelevant and as that is a private matter it has no relevance to the coalition agenda. Do u sincerwly belief that PDOIS as a party has no competent people to put in cabinet. Why deny Gambians such talent at this crucial time. I know Halifa wants to be president cus he contested at the coalition convention with d support of the whole PDOIS executive. If he was d chosen flag bearer some of those executive members will be in d cabint.
Will come back on your other points.
Fabs.
Ps: Now that we are free no need for any body to hide his/her identity
Fabakary….
I did not say that some want to abandon the coalition. My point was about the “strategy”, rather than the coalition itself. You very well know that the coalition strategy that won the presidential election was to rally around a single, non-partisan, independent candidate. It is obvious that there are some who want to abandon this strategy for their own.
Of course, how the National Assembly election will be fought wasn’t in the MOU, and it this loop hole that is seized upon by these parties, much in the same way as they seized upon a similar loop hole in the NADD MOU to “kill” it. The reason why many support the alliance winning strategy is because it has proven successful. This is a no brainer at all. Why change what has proven successful, against all odds, to something that has failed time and time again ?
My view was not formed as a result of “misinformation” of facts from Halifa’s press briefing, and it is not true that Halifa deliberately failed to inform the press about the existence of an alternative option. I have just listened to the full English version of his press briefing in which he made it very clear that “UDP & NRP did not agree with the line that the majority has actually accepted at the moment, that is to stand as coalition independents”……but also added that there is “a process of dialogue still taking place.” How could that be interpreted except that an alternative strategy exists besides the “coalition independent candidates ?” Sometimes, a fact need not be obvious. Inferences are made/drawn to understand what is being stated.
Why should we insist that aspiring parliamentarians should resign from their parties ? The simple answer to that is because it is a proven strategy, as the presidential elections have shown. Party sponsored candidates have proven to be unsuccessful to even have a respectable opposition presence in the Assembly for 22 years. Why do you think it will be successful this time around to win the majority necessary to carry out the alliance reform agenda ?
But the most important answer is that the alliance project for political change was initiated and embarked upon on the understanding that individual or group political interests and aspirations will be put aside during the transition period, so that everyone will work towards creating a level ground for reasonably free and fair multiparty contest to take place, to usher in a new era of democracy. Even if this was not spelt out in black and white in the MOU, it is the understanding and wish of many Gambians.
In response to your second point about everyone giving their best, and the subsequent statement that advise should be given in house when mistakes are made, rather than rush to the press, I will say the following :
!. If you know anyone who is not giving their best, you should point them out. In that way, we can gauge their input and determine whether their best is being given or not. In my view, giving one’s best to President Barrow is neither limited, nor restricted, to cabinet alone. There are a variety of ways President Barrow can be supported, and as far as the alliance agenda for political change is concerned, the best of the best support would be to support his (alliance) reform agenda in the Legislature, because the whole essence of the alliance was political reform to create a level playing field and remove obnoxious laws from our constitution.
2. (i) The matter of the unconstitutional amendments was raised by a journalist at the press briefing. It was already a matter of public concern, as many people have voiced their opinions on the matter. It is therefore incorrect and slanderous to advance the view that Halifa rushed to the press to make a statement about it. It was a question from a journalist at a press briefing and he was obliged to answer it honestly, unless of course, you think he should deceive the nation.
2. (ii) What makes you think that advice has not already been given before the holding of the press briefing ? Didn’t Halifa conclude on that question by revealing that the matter will be rectified ? How could that be if advise had not already been given and accepted ?
It is worth noting that the chief legal adviser to the president is the Chief Justice and the president has already appointed a chief justice when those mistakes happened, even if he was out of the country. Also, the minister who tabled the bill before the assembly is said to be a qualified lawyer ? How come he didn’t see that he was contravening the constitution ? Furthermore, many of the NAMs who debated and voted on the bill have been in the House for a long time. How come they didn’t see the problem ? Cabinet itself, which must have dealt with the matter, comprises of lawyers, technocrats and seasoned politicians. How come they all missed it ?
An honest person, Fabakary, would be asking questions of those people and holding them responsible for the error; not someone who is neither in cabinet, nor in parliament, but simply doing his job of briefing the nation, through the press.
Whatever you say about who will be in cabinet if Halifa was the flag bearer and president is mere conjecture and speculation. I would suggest that you deal with the facts. Looking forward to a fruitful exchange.
Ithe is not a bad idea that political parties can present for the coming election.In a democratic parliment diferent ideas are good for a country.The coalition has done his job to kick out Yaya Jammeh and now we need new ideas from all members of parliment.The opinions of all Gambians can only be heard from diferent parties.We need diferent colours in parliment and not like the one voice out going parliment.
Sadibou, I agreed with you entirely. I have great respect for the Coalition leaders. But what is surfacing now is not very encouraging. No one should underestimate the GDC and APRC factor, thus it is in our interest and the Coalition interest in particular to contest the parliamentary elections with a strong winning formula- Strategic Alliance. The Strategic Alliance could be formulated in this way : letting the party that has the strongest support base in a given constituency to present a candidate there. We should remember that the Coalition does not win the Presidential election with a significant margin. Frankly, this was just a narrow defeat.Though we won the Presidential election no Coalition party should claim that it has majority support base. I will attribute the Coalition win to the GDC factor. It was GDC that split APRC votes, how matter how one wants to chew it. And I know my good friend and brother, Lamin Gano would be smiling when reading this post. But this should not be interpreted that GDC will have an easy ride during this parliamentary election .Well in politics it is numbers that matters and IF the Coalition fails to implement Strategic Alliance then the Coalition might not able achieve its original goals and objectives. Let hope and pray that the Coalition leaders listen to our concerns .
Max…
If you have a political system where ONLY one party thrives for 30 years because it controls everything, then you have a dictatorship in all but name. It may not be one that abuses rights, but it is still a dictatorship because it suppresses divergence by denying it any room in the (official) public space.
And because it’s a “democracy” that allows regular elections, it becomes a “democratic dictatorship.”
You want proof..? How about reflecting on political participation in the first republic :
-PPP dominated parliament through elections that are anything but fair;
-There was no distinction between state and party. In fact local government offices, like KMC, were transformed into party branches.
-Radio Gambia, except during campaign period, which only started in the last decade of their rule, was not open to divergent view. It was a no go area for opposition.
-debate was killed and opposition was caricatured for whatever they had in mind, at the time of campaigns.
-The axe/sword of Damocles hung over the heads of every state officials, through concentration of immense powers in the President and executive, and even if Jawara didn’t use it as Jammeh, its existence is enough to put officials in line.
I can go on and on to justify the label of democratic dictatorship. We may be witnessing a desire to go back to those days, rather than effect the changes that we voted for, and yearn for post Jammeh.
Bax , dictatorship is authoritarian rule or tyrannical regime characterized by human rights violations such as Violence and severe punishment as well as having absolute power concentrated in one person. Was JAWARA a violent leader? Do you have these characteristics in jawara’s regime? The answer is no. So stop confusing yourself with such a belief. Do we have restrictions of freedom of speech and associations in the country during jawara’s regime? No so stop confusing yourself.
I have told you Max. When you have a political system where one (ruling) party controls everything, you have a dictatorship. Of course, Jawara regime wasn’t violent, but it curtailed freedom of expression by not granting equal access to state media. It was also not transparent, as information from government was not accessible to the media. That is a restriction of information flow, which is a form of curtailment of freedom of expression, because it denies access to information.
Civil servants, even though they were guaranteed protection from dismissal from their jobs for participating in politics, were dismissed if they were suspected of sympathising with opposition. Others who are connected were saved from the sack but never enjoyed benefits, like promotions and lucrative appointments. So, stop kidding yourself. It was a dictatorship alright; albeit, a non violent one.