Mboge,
Thanks for forwarding Daffeh's messages.  I find his
views very interesting.

Thanks,

Madi

--- Lamin Mboge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I will send Daffeh's or any newspapers article i see
> on the net, if any body do not want to read it
> delete
> it. If Kebba Foon a tribalist can insult all
> Mandinkas
> and got backed by people, we will see how an
> intellectual argument cannot be accepted here. We
> have
> seen false names like Birago.
> 
> If Mr mballow think that respect will work here, i
> will tell you it will not work here.
> 
> LL Mboge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       NADD’s Flag bearer selection- An Appalling
> Cherry Picking Fiasco
> 
> 
> Mr Editor
> 
> On the 2nd of March 2006, Jabou Joh, in an internet
> based Gambia-L discussion wrote: ‘What has
> transpired
> is that some of those who had subscribed to this
> magnificent ideal have decided that they did not
> like
> what the results of a democratic process to select
> the
> representative or flag bearer may bring, that this
> process may not result in things going the way they
> want it, and so they decided to break their word and
> abandon an agreement that they had made to the
> Gambian
> people in order to have their way.’
> 
> I consider this as a desperate attempt to sewage
> attentions from my previous article. Nevertheless, I
> would like to commend her for expressing her
> sincerely
> held opinion. However, I have no doubt that she has
> erred. She does not seem to understand the term
> ‘democracy’. I wonder whether she is alone in this.
> Democracy is not simply about majority vote.
> Democracy
> operates on two scared principles. That is respect
> for
> the rule of law and for minority rights. These
> principles are so scared that they cannot be
> overridden by even a majority decision. That is why
> most democracies do have them entrenched in their
> constitutions. Even in the United Kingdom where
> there
> is no written constitution, a position has been
> adopted since the thirteenth century that a residuum
> of justice resides in the Crown. This has long since
> been recognised by both Equity and the common law
> jurisprudence. The Lord Chancellor was accordingly
> referred to as ‘the keeper of the King’s
> Conscience.’
> If the US for example, passes a law that bans the
> practicing of Islam simply because that great
> country
> was founded on Christian values or because majority
> of
> her citizen are Christians, she will loose her
> credibility of being a democracy notwithstanding the
> fact that such a law would transgress on the rights
> of
> only a tiny minority. What this shows is that an
> arbitrary exercise of majority power cannot be
> described as democratic. It has to take cognisance
> of
> certain inalienable rights and principles. Otherwise
> it is not democratic.
> 
>  The so-called democratic process referred to in
> Jabou’s article was meant to produce a sellable flag
> bearer. The scared word here is ‘sellable’ and as
> far
> as the MOU is concern, this was well embedded and
> entrenched. No matter how the selection process
> is/was
> dealt with, it would be flawed if it does not
> produce
> a sellable candidate even if supported by a
> majority. 
> 
> NADD was confronted with the task of selecting a
> flag
> bearer.  Since there were several aspirants, this
> task
> ultimately requires them to determine the
> electibility
> of the different contenders so as to enable them to
> select the most sellable. The MOU postulates that
> this
> must be achieved by way of unanimity at least at the
> executive level. Since this was the case, one would
> have thought a rigorous scrutiny exercise would have
> been conducted to that effect. That would have
> enable
> NADD to easily achieve the mutual consensus referred
> to in the MOU thereby aborting the ugly impasse that
> later ensured. People would have understood why
> Candidate ‘A’ is chosen and not Candidate ‘B’. That
> would have also made easier for different factions
> within the camp to easily reconcile their
> differences
> and together, we could have chanted the slogan,
> ‘Jammeh Jeepo’ in the spirit of unity and for our
> common aspiration. The absence of this was a cartre
> blanc for the sword wielders who eventually hijacked
> the process in furtherance of their vicious personal
> hidden agendas against the personality of Lawyer
> Ousainu Darboe. As a result, constructive debate was
> relegated in favour of their individual likes and
> dislikes of each other. The whole selection process
> became heavily vitiated with malice and flirty
> conspiracy. That is certainly not democratic. Is it?
> It was an appalling cherry picking fiasco.  Contrary
> to Ya-jabou’s assertions, the selection process was
> in
> fact fettered and therefore a transgression on its
> originating authority, the MOU. That is what makes
> it
> flawed and that is what makes it undemocratic.
> 
>  NADD having realised that the first selection
> process
> had alienate the electibility requirement, an abuse
> they know the UDP would never accept, decided to set
> up a committee that was to draw certain criteria to
> guide the process. In my view, this was actually
> good
> because it provides NADD with an opportunity once
> again, to debate the electoral strengths of the
> different contenders, something they had
> persistently
> and deliberately refused to do. However, the
> condition
> precedent attached to the process, which is a
> declaration that one would accept any outcome that
> may
> emerge from the process, was unacceptable because it
> effectively thwarted the possibility of invoking the
> primary election provision of the MOU in the event
> of
> a continuing impasse. That was certainly a
> usurpation
> of the sovereign authority conferred on NADD’s grass
> root membership by the MOU. That can’t be right. Can
> it? PART 111 [8] of the MOU states:
> 
>  'The selection of a candidate of the alliance for
> the
> presidential, National Assembly and Council
> elections
> shall be done by consensus; provided that in the
> event
> of impasse selection shall be done by holding a
> primary election restricted to party delegates on
> the
> basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the
> chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party
> from each village/ward in a constituency.’
> 
> What is clear from the above, particularly in
> relation
> to the attached condition precedent is that the
> later
> have rendered the spirit of the MOU completely
> obsolete. That is a serious travesty and should not
> have been condoned. Even if the UDP had subscribed
> to
> this dodgy deal, there is no guarantee that other
> parties would have acted bona fide. Nothing will
> stop
> the rogue elements from going back to their dirty
> game
> knowing fully well that UDP would be left with no
> option but to accept any outcome even if it is
> perverse on the MOU because they [UDP] would have
> made
> a declaration to that effect. That was the
> blackmailing tactics NADD was playing and it is a
> complete grotesque. Mr Darboe brilliantly spotted
> this
> grotesque behaviour and decided to honourably resign
> in order to save his well-cherished integrity.
> Therefore and contrary to Ya- jabou’s postulation,
> this process was completely flawed. It has
> despicably
> fallen short of democratic standards. That is why
> the
> UDP decided to opt out. Therefore, any suggestion
> that
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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