Thank you Suntou for sharing the erudite and circumspect Daffeh again. I always enjoy him.

On his take on Father Mose, I think if he understands what I understand about the man, Daffeh wouldn't be surprised that Uncle Mose manufactures a compromise out of a dead horse.

On my uncle Sidia, Daffeh is spot-on about general disappointment in Uncle Sidia's merry-go-round and to accept the role of negotiator/partner in alliance-building when he knew he is not a reliable partner in such momentous conversation is utterly disappointing to me as his nephew. From the beginning, when Hon. Halifa suggested Uncle Sidia was to represent NADD in these friggin negotiations, I suggested it was a landmark ruse. First of all, despite their kidnap of OJ and Waa, these two honourables' estrangement to decision-making concerning NADD is spectacular. In "NADD", what PDOIS says goes, Goes. Don't even kid yourself. And NADD is a dead horse. Or shall I say dead donkey as the idiot Yahya is wont to quip. Every idiot gets a revelation once in his/her lifetime. And to then saddle a dead donkey with a trick of an Agenda as reins is even more insiduous and dishonest.

I associate myself completely with Mr. Daffeh's sobriety. Which is more than can be said for Father Mose.

 


 Haruna. I love you people.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: suntou touray <[log in to unmask]>
To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Dec 28, 2010 8:33 am
Subject: Daffeh on Musa Jeng's compromise: Will Musa explain his stance much better?


Musa Jeng Got it Wrong on ' The Compromise'
by SS Daffeh

Madam Editor, 

Please allow me space to respond to an article, The Compromise, I read in your well established and reputable medium, 
authored by none other than our dear friend and brother, Mr.  Musa Jeng of the U.S based Save The Gambia 
Democracy Project [STGDP].  

In this article, Mr. Jeng articulated how a compromise could be reached to break the stalemate that has taken grip of the 
coalition negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party [UDP] and 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. However, he did not state what this experience was and why UDP should be held 
responsible for it.

First of all, Mr. Jeng should be reminded that this process like all coalition negotiations requires an honest approach that 
puts national interest above all others including ideologies and personal egos and differences. This can only be done if 
all stakeholders including PDOIS, accept the universal standards and practices of coalition building to be the unfettered 
guiding principles of negotiations. These standards and practices require 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 country. It also has a bigger and 
more robust grass root support base than any other opposition party in the country. To put it in a nutshell; UDP is by far 
the biggest opposition party in The Gambia. I am sure this is a fact that Mr. Jeng himself would not like to challenge for it 
is irrefutable and beyond questioning. I therefore do not see any wisdom in his call for UDP to join a smaller party or 
entity in the guise of compromise. This is obviously illogical and lacking conformity with the dictates of common sense. It 
is like, as one observer put it, Hilary Clinton offering the vice presidency to Barack Obama when in fact, it was Barack 
who had the most votes. It doesn’t work like that in politics, am afraid.

The common sense approach would be for the smaller parties and entities including NADD to adopt the UDP as a 
vanguard and rally behind it in line with internationally recognised and acceptable norms. 

Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006, a dispute that still lingers in the background, I 
find it incomprehensible that Mr. Jeng would like to think that the resurrection of the same old squabble that causes 
serious damage to inter-opposition party relations could engender a realistic compromise, especially given that the 
demand for opposition unity is more palpable today than ever before. If he had done a careful and balanced 
assessment of the situation and the facts, it would have surely occurred to him that this idea has no potential except for 
the opening of the Pandora’s Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise in such an environment.

The premise of Mr. Jeng’s compromise solution is also flawed and lacking objectivity. In using an unexplained grievance 
that the PDOIS party supposedly has against the UDP as the sole rational behind his proposal, Mr. Jeng has failed to 
take into account the already known UDP grievances in the same regard and 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 and which cost the leader of NRP, Mr. Hamat N.K Bah, his parliamentary seat.

It is obvious that both NRP and UDP can also use, and quite legitimately, their NADD experience as a reason to reject 
Mr. Jeng’s proposal. Thus, pandering to personal egos and differences as a form of appeasement just for the sake of it 
is not helpful in debates of this nature. Our task should be to allow national interest to reign supreme over all others and 
ask the same of our political leaders.

Mr. Jeng’s 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 together with the NRP after careful 
consideration. Therefore, if there was any UDP or NRP claim to NADD, that claim has been entirely relinquished in 2006 
when both parties pulled out. The rest of that story is now history and it would be pointless for me to deliberate on it. In 
any case, the NADD debate is an antiquated one that has not only being made obsolete but also lacking taste.

Talking about compromise; it is clear that the onus is on NADD and PDOIS to recognise and accept the political 
legitimacy of a UDP led alliance at least in principle and then ask for a policy concession[s] that accommodates their 
core values, or concessions in respect of positions in a subsequent government. This is the norm, and it is the kind of 
approach that is capable of creating an environment in which a real and fair compromise could be engendered and 
achieved. Any proposal that does not take cognisance of this is not likely to deliver a fair deal and therefore, not likely to 
result to a compromise. It is the bigger parties which have more to bring into any coalition arrangement than the smaller 
ones, and this has to be recognised.

PDOIS is being Disingenuous 

In another development, I have stumbled on an article written by the gibberish talking Administrative Secretary of PDOIS 
in which he described the position of the UDP, in respect of the coalition talks, as ‘support for a UDP led alliance without 
any conditionality’. This is clearly a misrepresentation. UDP’s position has been widely disseminated and understood as 
calling for a party led alliance in which all parties throw their weight behind the biggest. Anything further than this is 
nothing but a blatant embellishment that does not represent UDP’s position in anyway. This is how the UDP leader 
articulated his party’s position in his statement of 8th December 2010;

‘‘I then made the point that the well known norm for the creation of an opposition alliance is for the majority party to lead 
and others throw behind that party’’.

Neither Hon. Sidia Jatta, who was purportedly representing NADD and PDOIS, nor Mr. Ousainou Darboe, who 
represented UDP, made any mention of conditionality in their separate and conflicting statements regarding their 
discussion.

It is not for UDP to attach conditions to their own proposal- that is simply an unreasonable expectation- but for those who 
would like to see conditions attached to first accept it in principle and then demand, as a bargaining chip, that conditions 
be 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 final resolution to the impasse more realistic and feasible.

If PDOIS wants to see conditions attached to UDP’s proposal, the sensible and most practicable approach would be for 
them to accept it in principle first and then state what kind of conditions they would like to see attached. However, PDOIS 
must not think they can have it both ways; they would have to either indicate their willingness to be part of a UDP led 
coalition with conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to talk about conditionality. 

The statement by Hon. Sidia Jatta to the effect that the international standard of coalition building posited by the UDP 
cannot be adopted in The Gambia in the light of the absence of a second round voting system is the most ridiculous 
statement I have come across in this whole 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 the United 
Kingdom and yet it is the Conservative party of Prime Minister Cameroun that is leading the coalition government here 
despite having not won an outright majority in the last general election- the list can go on-, and in all these examples, it 
is the biggest parties which assume leadership without any resort to primaries. Hon. Jatta’s statement is therefore not 
only absurd but simply lacking basis. It is nothing but a glib.

It is really sad to see a man [Hon. Sidia Jatta] who is widely acclaimed to be a man of impeccable integrity falling for the 
temptation of misinforming Gambians just to score cheap political points against perceived opponents. His Guinea 
Conakry-Ivory Coast comment is totally irresponsible and without a place in this all important debate.

SS Daffeh
Essex, United Kingdom.




-- 
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran

www.suntoumana.blogspot.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interfaceat: 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-lTo 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤