Critical Analysis On Causes Of The Coalition Cracks

Coalition governments are synonymous with internal feuds and clash of principles and interests. However, the maturity and leadership qualities of leaders are most tested during such disagreements.

Unfortunately, some have already failed while I extol the ones who refused to give to politics of blackmail, distortion, conjecture and character assassination. It is my convinced opinion that the entire leadership of the Gambia’s coalition all meant good for our country but approaches differ.

In light of these divergence of approach, compromise and pragmatism becomes integral in order to stay united and resilient. The current feud and terse exchange of words both among the leadership and surrogates is really unfortunate; our strength lies in graduating into politics of inclusiveness and compromise. Spectating the recent developments, I believe the following are the problems that need to be addressed or at least lessons learnt if we are to enjoy the change we all so desired.

I) The refusal of PDOIS to take up cabinet appointments was seen as an insult and demeaning by the other coalition stakeholders especially given that it was mutually agreed to take up such appointments upon victory. Although, this may be strongly grounded on the parties fundamental principles of governance, a compromise could have made a lot of difference in order to maintain the coalition spirit. It paints PDOIS as selfless, principled and pure at the expense of the other players who may have sacrificed some radical principles of their parties and what they stand for in the interest of a united coalition. Albeit, it may have been difficult for mighty Halifa (a persona of great wisdom and charisma) to serve in cabinet as he elucidated in his latest press conference, the likes of Sedia, Sam or Amie Sillah could have filled the gap. Consequently, some stakeholders concluded that the PDOIS does not share the common interest of the coalition government and is busy scrutinising and circumventing their decisions.

II) As special adviser to the President on Governance, wasn’t the amendment bills presented to him for advice before being tabled in parliament? If no then President Barrow has goofed seriously because “moving water cannot jump a hole” and therefore such a gross disrespect to the office of the special adviser should cease immediately.

However, the question am still battling with is, if this was brought to Halifa’s notice before it was taken to parliament why didn’t he advise accordingly or did he advise at the time but was ignored? If his advice was sought hitherto to sanctioning the amendment in parliament and its unconstitutionality was not highlighted then, raising the flag after it was done is disingenuous and at best questionable which I want to exonerate the honorable Halifa from until proven otherwise.

III) I culled from the press conference held by Halifa on the disagreement amongst coalition partners about the approach to the national assembly elections that out of eight, only two had reservations on the independent approach. This means 6 stakeholders including PDOIS believe the best approach would be the independent candidates option; however, his subsequent press conference reveals that PDOIS decided to be neutral between the two approaches with only one party now maintaining the independent. This is seen by many as inconsistent and divisive and I believe should be remedied.

IV) Although the UDP and co’s proposal for a tactical alliance may have initially been seen as a deviation from the coalition approach, it seems it was largely reactionary to the points mentioned above. I for one felt it was better to maintain the coalition spirit by going independent if that is the majority’s position and I am convinced most of the criticisms and condemnations were based on the same spirit. Again a compromise from the UDP and co could have quelled all that impasse.

V) The politics of the slogan of biggest parties and tribal bigotry should be contained. A good politician is the one who endeavours to win the heart and love of all irrespective of differences. I am not in anyway attributing the issue of tribal bigotry to the UDP leadership as I strongly believe they have lived above that but rather some of their surrogates are found wanting sometimes.

However, let me qualify that this issue is now more prevalent and deep amongst all our political parties that no one party can be made to own it. There is beauty and strength in our diversity.

VI) On the issue of the 3 year transition period that Lawyer Darboe promised to challenge anyone in court who tries to enforce it; right or wrong, this was a fundamental campaign promise of the coalition, of course with constitutional amendment. In as much as this was a gentleman’s agreement, President Barrow agreed to it and least I would personally expect from him to honour his word and not see those who would like to religiously stick to the 3 years transition as foes.

Finally, our politicians especially the coalition stakeholders should see each other as complementary partners in development and avoid profanity and derogatory remarks. Although some have undoubtedly sacrificed more than others which we should also recognise. Let’s embrace each other and continue to underpin the coalition’s agenda with inclusiveness. I welcome constructive debates and exchange of ideas on these.

BB SANNEH

Ends

3 Comments

  1. Omar camara

    I agree with you one hundred percent.

  2. Thank you Mr Sanneh for your analysis. Just few things to be noted. Regarding your observation under
    I) The refusal of PDOIS to take up cabinet appointments was seen as an insult and demeaning by the other coalition stakeholders especially given that it was mutually agreed to take up such appointments upon victory. Although, this may be strongly grounded on the parties fundamental principles of governance, a compromise could have made a lot of difference in order to maintain the coalition spirit. It paints PDOIS as selfless, principled and pure at the expense of the other players who may have sacrificed some radical principles of their parties and what they stand for in the interest of a united coalition. Albeit, it may have been difficult for mighty Halifa (a persona of great wisdom and charisma) to serve in cabinet as he elucidated in his latest press conference, the likes of Sedia, Sam or Amie Sillah could have filled the gap. Consequently, some stakeholders concluded that the PDOIS does not share the common interest of the coalition government and is busy scrutinising and circumventing their decisions.

    For your information Mr Sanneh, the same was the position of PDOIS in 2011 when Hamat Bah was put up as an independent presidential candidate supported by a United Front comprising NRP, GPDP, PDOIS and an indepemdent candidate Assan Martin. So the position of PDOIS in not taking taken a cabinet position is not new.

    As regards to

    II) As special adviser to the President on Governance, wasn’t the amendment bills presented to him for advice before being tabled in parliament? If no then President Barrow has goofed seriously because “moving water cannot jump a hole” and therefore such a gross disrespect to the office of the special adviser should cease immediately.

    Mr Sallah has made it clear in a Radio programme with Journalist Kebba Camara on paradise FM that if the same bill was shown to him before being table in the parliament then he could not come out to say it is unconstitutional and advise President Barrow not to assent to. According to him if he does that, it would not have made sense. That’s a clear indication that he didn’t know the content of the bill before it,s presentation in parliament.

    III) I culled from the press conference held by Halifa on the disagreement amongst coalition partners about the approach to the national assembly elections that out of eight, only two had reservations on the independent approach. This means 6 stakeholders including PDOIS believe the best approach would be the independent candidates option; however, his subsequent press conference reveals that PDOIS decided to be neutral between the two approaches with only one party now maintaining the independent. This is seen by many as inconsistent and divisive and I believe should be remedied.

    For your information the position of PDOIS from the beginning of the discussion on the issue of whether candidates for National Assembly elections should run on party tickets or independents was neutrality. It was ready to go with whatever is favored by the majority of the coalition partners.

    These are the positions of PDOIS. However whoever wants to know the positions of the party on any issue I think it is fair to contact its,s officials directly for clarifications instead of resorting to speculations or unfair accusations as many people are doing.

  3. Kinteh (kemo)

    A good opener to more discussions on the issue. I think coalitions every where have their highs and lows. Ours is doing a good job under the circumstances. Of course more effort is required notwithstanding we must also remind ourselves about the legacy of 22 years violent rule.

    I hope also that we avoid the connection between UDP and tribalism -albeit the denials of one sided accusations by writers that so often accompany such juxtaposing. I just feel that this juxtaposition is unhelpful in bringing about constructive criticism and dialogue. UDP cannot be reduced to tribalism as we all know and proponents of such schemes cannot reach out to many people because by implying a connection, the platform for discussions is decisively compromised.

Leave a Reply to Kinteh (kemo) Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*