According to Prof. PLO Lumumba, “parties that rely on the support of an ethnic group are not really parties but mob groups”. And I say “Any party which does not have an ideology that it could rely on to mobilize its supporters but relies solely on trumpeting ethnic sentiments is a mob and UDP is precisely such a mob.”
Even at their Brikama rally, its supporters sang at the rally that ‘UDP would thrash any ethnic group that blocks thier way which song they sang to their sweat and enjoyed it to the brim while Ousainou Darboe and other mobsters stood there and enjoy it.
Halifa Sallah would have stopped such a song with lightening speed or coach them to sing something much enlightening than that thrash.
This is the fundamental difference between PDOIS and UDP.
In another vein, UDP leader has refused to abide by the agreement between his party and other parties after he left prison expressing that the arrangement is a thrash but swiftly went to grab one of the most lucrative positions in the cabinet. Halifa Sallah and Sidia Jatta would have obeyed the arrangement but declined to take position in government since they did express disagreement with the coalition agreement. This is another fundamental difference between a party and leader of principles and one that lack a basic semblance of it.
Coming to structures of the two parties, it is clear to anyone with little experience of party building that UDP and PDOIS are fundamentally different. While UDP and parties like it arose spontaneously to avenge their anger and mobilises members on the basis of not only that anger but continually targets someone as a scapegoat for their failure, PDOIS relies on education and enlightenment to mobilise members who freely and consciously provide their support to the party without any strings attached but only on the basis of their conviction.
Fundamentally, PDOIS members would have removed Halifa Sallah if he condones corruption at high places, unlike the UDP that appears mute when Ousainou Darboe told GRTS Fatu Show that there is nothing wrong with Barrow providing 57 vehicles to members of the parliament which vehicles no one knows the source.
Everyone knows Barrow cannot afford to purchase even two brand new vehicles with a salary of less than D100,000 a month, talk less of buying 57 new vehicles.
On the other hand Halifa Sallah, Sidia Jatta, Suwaibou Touray and Ousman Sillah with hindsight knew that a president who has just come to power with such a salary cannot in any way afford such expensive vehicles without indulging in some high handedness, refused the offer not only on the principle that they are in government not to serve themselves but to serve the people.
The problem with Mathew and his kind is that Halifa and co have departed away from everything they knew to be politics and move far beyond them to the extend that they cannot be comparable. And therefore could only criticize on the fringes, not substance, such as to say “they pretend to be the paragon of knowledge.”
Mathew knows like I do that Halifa and Darboe are not comparable since they do not culture themselves on the same plain. While Halifa comes from the Pan African school of thought which shuns all practices of corruption, greed, wastage, mediocrity, tribalism, racism, bigotry, and all other vices, Mathew and Darboe on the other hand do not care about any of the above, while believing that the poverty and suffering of the people are caused by some divine power and therefore to try to change that condition is futile.
I could go on and on to give more examples but there is no need for comparing a person like Halifa Sallah to Ousainou Darboe.
The question is, why did Mathew not compare himself to Halifa rather than bringing in Ousainou Darboe? Because Mathew has accepted that he, is not comparable to Halifa Sallah.