Like most of the people calling for the resignation of the entire opposition leadership, I can really understand the reasoning and the disappointment that all of us felt. The leaders inability and failure to see the coalition strategy to the end, is a legitimate reason to call for their heads. To our disappointment and utter dismay, the only chance we have had for a peaceful change was squandered. But, this is no time to just paint them all with the same brush, it is fundamental to show their individual responsibly to the disintegration and ultimate contribution to the failure. I think throwing collective responsibility is an easy way out in dealing with the problem. If there was one reality that we all agreed on from the get go was that president Jammeh will not be easily removed without a coalition of opposition parties. To most Diasporans, our desire to see Jammeh removed was really base in the fact of the lack of a semblance of democracy and the rule of law in the Gambia, the t
win pillars for any form of development. The idea of a coalition was sold to the political parties, and they went along because it was the only sure bet for their chance of winning. Publicly, they understood and supported the idea of the coalition which majority of Gambian sees as the only way to remove Jammeh. Interestingly, they also had their own agenda, which was to be expected from politicians; unfortunately their participation to the effort was base on the accommodation of these varieties of agendas. If we are serious in finding out, or to at least determine how the NADD coalition failed, we need to revisit the stakeholders, look into their agendas, contributions to the coalition effort and the final break up.

Waa Juwara’s role:

Mr. Juwara was one of the leaders always very eager to talk to STGDP; we have had several telephone conferences with him. A year before we invited the politicians to Atlanta for the Meet the Diaspora summit, Waa was invited to a July Fourth conference. For the first time we witnessed a dynamic Gambian, poise, articulate and a straight talker. I was absolutely sold into the Waa bandwagon and was personally impressed by him. For the first coalition talks, he was represented by his deputy, Ousainou Mbenga who happens to live in the US. The NDAM philosophy was initially wrapped up in militancy, and they held the belief that enough of politics as usual, and it was time to hit the streets and pursue civil disobedience to remove Jammeh.  This was their mantra at the first coalition talks, and was not entirely sold into a coalition as a strategy to remove Jammeh. Although NDAM and Waa was critical of the idea of a coalition, but like their counterparts they were willing to go along and see
 it play out. In the process of wait and see, I believe that Juwara eventually saw the coalition as an opportunity to settle score with his political nemesis, Ousainou Darboe. Waa was initially not too crazy with the idea of a coalition but was willing to give it a chance as long as Ousainou does not become the leader and he was ready to do everything to see that does not happen. His agenda was to deny Ousainou the leadership, or any kind of political capital for that matter. He has done everything during the process to do just that. On several occasions STGDP will raised the importance of selecting the leader now, and that would give the process legs and credibility. Waa would always dismiss it and even accused us of being obsessed with the leadership. He would always reaffirm the so-called realities on the ground and that the leadership issue will never derail NADD.   Of course, for Ousainou and the UDP, selecting a flag bearer now was the only important thing to do. I personally
 believe that for Waa, coalition for the removal of Jammeh and the implementing of democratic environment was only important as long as his agenda of ABD (any but darboe) is accommodated. If Mr. Darbor was the first leader to desert the NADD coalition, for Waa his prayers were answered and held the belief that the opposition can still succeed without his nemesis. Although, Waa never walked away from the coalition and stayed with NADD to the end, but his contribution to the original intent of NADD as a strategy to defeat Jammeh and bring about democratic change was not at the top of his priority. Yes, Waa went along with the coalition talks, and of course after series of by-elections wins and NADD becoming a household name, his commitment to the enterprise became stronger. On the same token, his commitment to deny Ousainou the leadership also became more determine. All through the talks, I understand their relationship was cordial, but they both understood that there is no love betw
een them.  I have come to the conclusion that Waa was never ready, for the sake of the removal of Jammeh and the establishment of democracy, willing to bury the hatchet with UDP/Ousainou to make the coalition a reality. In conclusion, Waa was in the coalition because he was a leader of a new opposition party and was invited to be part of the effort. His relationship or lack thereof with Ousainou did not help the effort and basically hurt our chances of a coalition compromise. He was in it to fight Jammeh and get him out of office, but his feelings to Ousainou was never too far away, no matter what the cost. As stipulated in the MOU, as to the selection process of the flag bearer, and to this Waa would always remind us, but you can always know that this is going to derail the whole process... I could still remember in one of our meeting in Atlanta, Waa said – I am not interested in being a King, and it is not that I am not qualify or could not win, but I prefer to be the King Maker.
 Now, I really know what he meant.

Hamat Bah’s role:
Mr. Bah was one of the interesting players in this poker game. He kept his cards very close to his chest. Mr. Bah was never interested in the proposed coalition; he is not the type that would play second fiddle. Although, he understood that the coalition was the only thing that opposition supporters have appetite for, especially in the Diaspora. He was not going to be left behind by this massive political revolution, and was going to play it safe, and would go along as long as his agenda was accommodated. Hamat was in it to fight for the leadership, nothing wrong with that, but also had no intention to play second fiddle.  If there was one thing that took me by surprised when it happen was Hamat joining Ousainou and the UDP, but then again Hamat is not your predictable politician, he is one of those typical African politician, and this was his last ditch effort to fight the coalition of all opposition parties.( I will elaborate subsequently to this point)


Hamat Bah & the contradictions

For most of us the beginning of the building blocs of a democratic Gambia starts with bringing down the APRC and president Jammeh. We arrived at this conclusion because of the actions of the APRC, and a clear indication that Jammeh is only interested in staying on to power at all cost.

For STGDP and as citizens, we have also arrived at the conclusion that our efforts are geared not only to the removal of president Jammeh, but to initiate the foundation of the building blocs of democracy.  Hamat Bah, a major player in this effort has demonstrated over and over again that he does not have the discipline or the wherewithal to help this effort. Hamat was a challenge and an enigma all through the process, we could not place him right, and he was not forthcoming. Really, he was not very comfortable with the truth. My first interaction with Hamat Bah was when I sent a letter back in 2001 inviting his party – the NRP to the “Meet the Diaspora summit”. It was this invitation, the first initiative to the road to the formation of a coalition. Mr. Bah was the first party leader to reply, and the message was promising, definite and very much welcoming to the idea of coming together to remove tyranny. I still have the copy of the letter. Unfortunately, it is now evident that e
ven from the start Mr. Bah was never interested in the whole coalition affair. The invitation was seen as an opportunity to get his lieutenants within the NRP hierarchy to get visas and make it to the US. That NRP leader is still lurking in the streets of New York. Let me be clear the intent here is not to malign or expose this person, but for the sake of our country the truth has to be put in perspective. Mr. Bah never made it to the summit, instead he used his lieutenants who were already in the US to represent him, and we were not told of this until couple of days before the NRP party arrived. Another important indication was Mr. Bah’s consistently absent from the coalition meetings in Banjul, and was wishing the coalition idea to die a natural death of inactivity. It is important to revisit Mr. Bah entering the political scene in order to put in context and to understand the Man. Initially he was taking seriously as a party leader, and really NRP as a political party is only Ha
mat Bah. The executive of NRP is Hamat Bah, absolutely no room for disagreement. If anyone really believes that getting rid of Jammeh to replace him with Hamat Bah/NRP will bring us closer to democracy, you are really setting up yourself for the disappointment of the century. For STGDP, we have kept communication lines open with the entire opposition leadership and have had conference calls with all the leaders during this effort. We have never had a single communication with Mr. Bah, and have always avoided talking to us. To their last trip to the US, STGDP had confirmation from all the party leaders that we were going to use the last year before the elections to bring them to the US as a campaign strategy to raise funds. After we purchased a ticket for Hamat Bah, he decided not to come the last minute and we ended up losing $1,500.00 down the tubes. The man was consistently lying or deliberately frustrating all efforts to bring about a coalition. I would really like to draw your 
attention to Hamat’s explanation why he joined UDP:  UDP is a bigger party, according to Hamat and that is a sufficient reason for all the troops to rally behind UDP. This of course is a legitimate reason. The only problem is that this was not his previous position during the talks, therefore why the change of heart from Mr. Bah? In the beginning of the talks, UDP was clear that the coalition should be base on party led, and that they should lead the coalition and to be supported by all the parties, and I do not think they ever gave up on that idea. Interestingly, Mr. Bah was one of the advocates dead set against the coalition to be led by a single party, especially not the UDP. If Hamat was a serious advocate of the big party concept, I am absolutely certain that would have helped tremendously in the selection process and the issue of the leadership. The real truth is that Hamat’s losing his seat in the bi-elections changed the political dynamics.  When he lost his seat in the by-
 election, Hamat has also lost his political capital and the idea of being the flag bearer was going to be an uphill battle. In fact, joining the UDP only became an attractive choice after the disintegration. He was not even present to participate in the selection process, only to over rule his representative and ultimately contributed to the confusion. The removal of Jammeh, and the establishment of democracy was not at the top of his priority of Hamat, and in the final analysis, he got what he wanted. He was never seriously interested in the coalition effort, and he has frustrated the effort at every turn. Finally, my last meeting with Hamat was in Atlanta, this was after the coalition break up. Hamat held a meeting in Atlanta, and basically telling us the reason behind the break up and trying to convince us that the new alliance could still win. Obviously, for Hamat this was not his typical crowd and he was put on the defense. In the final analysis, he promised us that he was go
ing to put the coalition back together when he returns back to the Gambia, and in fact if anyone could do it is him. The reality is that the more you listen to Hamat the more you can glean that this is not the man driven by principle or dying to see a democratic Gambia. It has always been about him, and sacrifice in order to bring about change and democratic Gambia was only a consideration if he drives the bus, or at least be a co – driver. The only change we would have seen in a Hamat government would be different faces of players, but same corrupt and upholding the patronage system.

In my next posting, I will continue the contribution to the failure of NADD from OJ Jallow, Halifa Sallah and Ousainou Darboe.

Thanks
Musa Jeng

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤