Lasana, thanks for your response and sorry for my delayed reply.  Regarding
my views about the maneuverings of the last election, they are mine and mine
alone, and I respect your difference to them.  You asked thus, "What stopped
the voters from endorsing Dibba, Jatta, or Bah if the UDP's rejection was as
a result of their association with the PPP?"  In my opinion, it was a matter
of perception.  Everyone perceived the UDP as the largest opposition party
and it was doing well up to days before the unbanning of the PPP.  The only
thing that Jammeh was hauling at the UDP was that it was a party of drunks,
and that was not sticking.  No sooner than the PPP arrive at the scene, then
Jammeh forgot about Darboe, Juwara (to a lesser extent), et al and focused
on the PPP folks.  In his tirades about the PPP record, he even used his own
PPP turn APRC servant, Buba Baldeh and to a lesser extent Juwara, a former
PPP turn UDP to bolster his rhetoric about the era of do nothing.  PPP in
turn could not convincingly refute Jammeh's volleys.  All they kept saying
was that the projects Jammeh was showcasing are projects they started or was
in their pipeline.  This was not enough, especially if you had 30 years to
do it.  Thus the link in the people's mind of the perceived relationship
between the PPP and the UDP, with the former perceived as using the latter
as a stepping stone.  Jammeh could not say anything about Darboe's record as
a lawyer, or Sidia's record as an MP, or Hamat Bah's.  But which record did
he use over and over again?  The PPP's, even though the PPP represented a
third of the limited coalition and among the newest entrants in the
campaign, officially. So, if the coalition were composed of untainted
leaders, there is nothing Jammeh could have used against them that those who
sat on the fence would buy.  This mistake, coupled with the inducements,
tribalism, and voter registration fraud, etc., that you eloquently stated
are what gave Jammeh another five years.  There were many variables that
gave him victory and in my opinion, the biggest was they PPP record, which I
know you and many others disagree with, and that's ok.

The moral of this exchange is that, if the PPP is in the mix again, the
majority of the electorate would prove us wrong again and give an
overwhelming majority of the house to the APRC.  The PPP is an unnecessary
baggage that the opposition don't need at this time.  This may not be a
popular statement to some on this list, but I strongly believe that.  I know
the PPP is not going to abstain, thus the need for the parties to meet now
and broker concessions before it is too late.  My guess is that the initial
campaign of the coalition after the election (couple of weeks ago) is an
indication that should UDP attend an alliance brokerage, they would go in as
a three party block (UDP, PPP, GPP). This rolls this discussion into our
idea of a tactical alliance, which was an idea shared by many on this list
and for which Malamin Johnson drafted a petition on our behalf to the
parties, including PPP.  The intension is to encourage the opposition
parties to negotiate however they deemed necessary as a group, without mini
sidebars in the process.  The idea I'm looking at is for the parties to come
up with a formula for each party to nominate a contestant in each
constituency.  Once that is done, then the representatives would sincerely
debate and weigh the merits of each candidate and select the candidate that
has a better chance of winning against the APRC candidate for that
constituency.  This is my suggestion, however, other people may have a
better strategy.  The intension here is to use whatever works.  The idea of
a tactical alliance is owned by all of us and if we put our heads together,
we can achieve uncommon results.  I hope this explains my thoughts regarding
our suggestion for a tactical alliance.  If the above satisfy your request
for clarifications as to how to go about aligning, could you please advise
me on whether the UDP is in favor of the proposal, however, they see it.
I'm asking you with the believe you have a reason to know.  Please correct
me if I'm wrong and my apologize for my assumption.  Let's all keep talking,
we shall find a solution.

Chi Jaama

Joe Sambou


>From: Lasana Jorbateh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: UDP Complaints
>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:12:01 EST
>
>Joe,
>I beg to differ as per your views on the october 18th. elections which you
>discribed as a referandum for the PPP. Five presidential candidates
>contested
>and Jammeh came up with an absulute majority. What stopped the voters from
>endorsing Dibba or Jatta or Bah if the UDP's rejection was as a result of
>their association with the PPP?
>
>Yes The Gambian voters may have two faces but not in a vacuum. You are
>right
>when you talked about inducement.  That can come from neither NRP, NCP, UDP
>led coalition nor PDOIS. All other unconventional methods used during the
>election was by the APRC.--- inducement, intimidation, harrasement,
>registration of forign nationals, tribalism, killings, arrests and
>detention
>etc. With all these in place how can you call it a referandum for PPP and
>APRC?
>
>Concerning the tactical alliance you proposed, parhaps you need to go a
>little bit into details. Long before the lifting of the ban on the former
>politicians there was a lot of debate on this topic and everybody including
>all opposition parties agreed in principle as to the need to come together
>and fight the APRC regime. What was missing was the details of how to go
>about it. Please favour me with your views on that.
>
><<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>
>
>To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
>at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
><<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>