Yes I am fine, Haruna. There is no point responding to this duo. One is a
walter mitty, the other a disingenuous hysteric.

Thanks for checking on me.

Daffeh

On 5 April 2011 06:27, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Daffeh, I hope you're alright!!!!!!!!
>
> Haruna. Cousin Fakoo Fakoo is closet UDP.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
> To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Mon, Apr 4, 2011 9:26 am
> Subject: Re: STGDP=?windows-1252?Q?=92s_?=Call for a Return to NADD is
> Disingenuous - WHAT A SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
>
>  Fankung, almost all coalitions are premised on the recognition that no
> one party can do it alone. However, that has never precluded the legitimacy
> of the majority party to lead. That is why the Conservative Party of David
> Cameroon is leading a coalition government here in the U.K despite the fact
> that they could not have formed a government on their own without having to
> coalesce with another party, the Liberal Democrats. In a democracy,
> legitimacy is always derived from the majority, not the minority or your
> silly notion of equality.
>
> My rejoinder is only meant to clarify issues. I have no interest
> whatsoever, in fostering a ping pong game with people like you on this
> coalition issue.
>
> My advice to you is to consider inculcating some element of sincerity in
> yourself when debating national issues.
>
> Have a good day.
>
> Daffeh
>
> On 4 April 2011 13:28, Fankung Fankung Jammeh <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Here is another evidence that the Gambian opposition is full of power
>> hungry leaders. It is clearly written in WALLS that NO OPPOSITION PARTY can
>> defeat Jammeh on its own, or even make a dent in hi support. I know for sure
>> that this SS Daffeh fellow knows that HELL WILL FREEZE OVER when we hear UDP
>> defeats Jammeh on its own. And yet, all he sees is Darbo. If Darbo is not
>> the leader no coalition. Oh well, get preapared for your 9% come
>> November....  GOD BLESS APRC AND PROFESSOR JAMMEH.
>>
>>
>> Gambia: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous
>> STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous
>> By SS Daffeh, Secretary-General UDP UK
>>  BANJUL, THE GAMBIA—Sometime ago, in December 2010, Mr. Musa Jeng of the
>> U.S-based Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP] presented in the media a
>> proposal he dubbed ‘‘The Compromise’’ in which he articulated how an
>> agreement could be reached to break the stalemate that has taken grip of the
>> coalition negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party
>> [UDP] and a purported representative of PDOIS , with the former joining
>> NADD, a political entity he described as belonging to all opposition
>> parties, and assume leadership of it.
>> He posited this as the only realistic option to break the stalemate and
>> went on to justify his call on the basis that due to their experience in
>> 2006 and the aftermath, PDOIS will never be willing to go along with what
>> the conventional wisdom dictates and become part of a UDP led coalition. He,
>> however, did not state what this experience was and why UDP should be held
>> responsible for it.
>> As a result of two recent online radio talk shows in which its chairman,
>> Mr. Banka Manneh, participated, we now understand Mr. Jeng’s proposal to be
>> in total convergence with the position of the Save The Gambia Democracy
>> Project [STGDP].
>> First of all, the STGDP should be reminded that this process like all
>> coalition negotiations requires an honest approach that puts national
>> interest above all others including ideologies, personal egos and
>> differences. This can only be done if all stakeholders including PDOIS
>> accept the universally practiced conventions and standards of coalition
>> building to be the unfettered guiding principles of negotiations. This
>> requires that the biggest party be adopted as a vanguard and for all other
>> parties and political entities to throw their weight behind.
>>  In 2006, both NADD and UDP presented themselves before the Gambian
>> electorates as independent sovereign political parties and tested their
>> individual electoral strengths. The UDP had almost five times more votes
>> than NADD and currently has more representation in parliament than any other
>> opposition party in The Gambia. It also has a bigger and more robust grass
>> root support base than any other opposition party. To put it in a nutshell;
>> UDP is by far the biggest opposition party in The Gambia. This is
>> irrefutable and beyond questioning. Therefore, I do not see any wisdom
>> whatsoever, in STGDP’s call for the UDP to join a smaller party, NADD, in
>> the guise of compromise. If abandoning one’s party for another is the only
>> solution to this stalemate, then the common sense approach would be for the
>> smaller parties including NADD, to join UDP since the latter is the biggest.
>> As a matter of fact, what this process requires is not for parties to
>> abandon their ship to join another but for the smaller parties to rally
>> behind the biggest in line with internationally recognised and acceptable
>> standards and norms of coalition building and as a matter of political
>> legitimacy and necessity.
>> Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006, I
>> find it utterly incomprehensible that the SGTDP would like to think that the
>> resurrection of the same old squabble that causes serious damage to
>> inter-opposition party relations can engender a realistic compromise
>> solution to this impasse. If they had done a careful and balanced assessment
>> of the situation and the facts on the ground, I have no doubt that the
>> STGDP would have realised that this idea has no potential but for the
>> opening of the Pandora’s Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise
>> to be engendered let alone realised in that kind of environment.
>> By virtue of their usage of an unexplained grievance that the PDOIS party
>> apparently holds against the UDP as a sole rational behind their proposal,
>> the STGDP has also failed to take into account the grievances of the UDP in
>> the same respect particularly on the question of registration that altered
>> NADD’s status from that of an alliance to a political party in contravention
>> of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established it
>> [NADD] and which cost the leader of the NRP, Mr. Hamat N.K Bah, his
>> parliamentary seat. Therefore, both the UDP and the NRP can and quite
>> legitimately, equally use their experience of 2006 and prior as a
>> justification for their withdrawal and reason for refusing to return to
>> NADD. The premise of STGDP’s compromise proposal is therefore fundamentally
>> flawed in its lack objectivity and appreciation of the facts on the ground.
>> Their claim that NADD belongs to all opposition parties is not borne by
>> facts. Although the UDP participated in the creation of NADD the alliance,
>> they did actually pull out from the organisation in 2006 after careful
>> consideration. Therefore, if there was any UDP claim to NADD, that claim has
>> been entirely relinquished in 2006 when the party pulled out.
>> Suffice it to say; the NADD that the UDP participated in creating was
>> intended to be an alliance, not a political party, and this is
>> clearly stipulated in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Memorandum of
>> Understanding [MOU] that established the alliance. However, that creation
>> was completely and utterly obliterated when NADD was clandestinely
>> registered with the Independent Electoral Commission, despite opposition
>> from the UDP, as a political party and thereby changing its nature and
>> status. Therefore, it is completely and utterly erroneous to state that NADD
>> as it currently stands was created by all the opposition parties.
>> A genuine pursuit of national interest and goals must always be guided by
>> principles and values that are universally recognised and cherished.
>> Otherwise it is bound to fail before it even starts. Thus, the idea that the
>> universal principles and standards that underpin coalition building
>> everywhere in this world should be forgone in our case for national interest
>> is utterly simplistic at best; and disingenuous at worst.
>> STGDP should also explain why it continues to be their position that it is
>> the UDP that must do everything inconceivable and unheard of to break this
>> coalition stalemate when the PDOIS/NADD party, on the other hand, is ever
>> determined to remain firm in their trenches of unreasonableness and
>> intransigence, not to mention their persistent refusal to reciprocate UDP’s
>> overtures.
>> If the STGDP wants UDP to return to NADD, then it would be advisable for
>> them to consider actively lobbying for a complete de-registration of NADD so
>> that it can re-claim its original and intended status, an alliance, with a
>> flag bearer chosen from within the UDP and sponsored under a UDP ticket.
>> This must be so as the UDP would still be the largest constituent party in
>> the alliance anyway.
>> Talking about compromise; the onus is obviously on the smaller parties
>> including PDOIS and NADD to first recognise and accept the political
>> legitimacy of a UDP led alliance, at least in principle, and then state
>> whatever condition[s] they would like to see attached. That way, we can move
>> this process one step forward; from the principal issue of formula to a more
>> secondary issue of conditionality and thereby making compromise more
>> realistic and feasible. This is how a compromise solution can be engendered.
>> However, PDOIS and NADD mustn’t think they can have it both ways; they would
>> have to either indicate their willingness to become part of the proposed UDP
>> led alliance with conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to
>> talk about conditionality in that respect.
>> In my view, the NADD issue is an antiquated one that has not only been
>> rendered obsolete but also lacking taste.
>> *PDOIS’s Subterfuge*
>> The pronouncement by PDOIS that a party led alliance is only prudent where
>> there is a second round electoral system is the most ridiculous statement
>> ever made in this coalition debate. As far as facts are concern, there is no
>> second round voting system in South Africa and yet it was the ANC that led
>> the coalition which brought President Jacob Zuma to power; there is no
>> second round of voting in India and yet it was Sonia Ghandi’s Indian
>> National Congress that led the coalition which returned Prime Minister
>> Manmohan Singh to power; there is no second round voting system in Brazil
>> and yet it is the biggest party that led the coalition which brought that
>> country’s new president, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff, to power. - The list can go
>> on- In all these cases, the idea of a primary to select a leader/candidate
>> had been unthinkable and none-existent. PDOIS’s pronouncement is therefore
>> not only baseless but also and very clearly, a preposterous subterfuge that
>> they are now clinging on, regrettably, to hide their intransigence and
>> refusal to heed to the popular call for the opposition to forge an all
>> inclusive coalition to challenge the incumbent APRC in the forthcoming
>> elections.
>> SS Daffeh
>> Secretary-General
>> UDP UK
>> www.udpgambia.com
>>
>> --
>> *
>>
>> *****************************************************************************
>> GOD BLESS THE GAMBIA.
>> LET US JOIN HANDS AND SUPPORT SHEIKH PROFESSOR DR. ALH YAHYA JAMMEH
>> (NASIRU DEEN) TO BUILD OUR COUNTRY. *
>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>  ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤