Karamba and Bakary, thank you both for your response and as usual it was
done with maturity.  I will attempt to respond to some of your points, so
please excuse my flip flop.  Karamba, I have no doubt that the UDP
leadership thought through their reasons to boycott and the UDP supporters
paid heed to their call.  I am also glad to know that the boycott is the
beginning of the struggle to come.  However, in light of the fact that the
UDP did not participate in the elections, which the international observers
gave a clean bill of health, how can the UDP take this government on with
the current understanding of the international community?  Now that APRC has
full control of all aspects of our government, what would be the basis on
which any party out side of parliament would take them on?  At this time,
any attempt to take them on in the next five years might be seen at best as
interference in a "legal" government's operations by the international
community.  As I stated earlier, those that did business with the APRC are
still doing business with them.  Even the British and the French are still
waltzing with Jammeh and the APRC.  Our neighbors recognize the APRC and
Jammeh.  Please help me understand how this could be done without alienating
our friends in the international community.  How can we convince the
international community to change sides when they already anointed to
results of the both the presidential and parliamentary elections?

Bakary, I do not think it is irresponsible to take your supporters, a good
33% of the voters to the streets and demand justice.  Wade, the fellow in
Peru, and a whole host of opposition parties around the world with more
repressive histories did it.  It is this rationale that kept the APRC
government in Gambia.  When the students were massacred it was the same
mentality why we still do not have justice for them, yet still the APRC is
still trying to prosecute Darbo and company for the frame up that occurred
up-country.  When Wade said never again and Joof realized that this time
it's not business as usual, substantiated with the people showing the law
enforcers that any attempts to be brutal will be met with the same force or
worse, justice was achieved.  When the opposition in Peru boycotted the
elections, they conducted civil disobedience in the months before, during
and after the elections. Jammeh has not been tested and as long as he senses
fear in us, he is going to continue with his ways.  He started by killing
the soldiers around him and we said it was a soldiers problem.  He
progressed to civilians in his cabinet, and we come up with other excuses.
He killed the kids and Barrow, we blamed the kids.  He came to power barely
making ends meet and now he has more resources that the state, any
resemblance to Mobutu?  Well, how did Mobutu leave?  You stated, "Joe, If
you truly believe that this is just an excuse, why don't you try to go and
spearhead a demonstration against Jammeh in Banjul. I bet you will be very
fortunate to see daylight again. As president Jammeh would say " you will go
six feet deep".  As long as we think like this, we shall continue to succumb
to the misrule of Jammeh and the APRC.  If I was leader of any party that
strongly believed that the fix is on, I will do it.  You seem to
underestimate the power of the masses.  If Gambians really want Jammeh out,
he and his henchmen would not last a day no matter what stunts they pull.
When the kids were mowed down, had Gambians rose up we would have had a
different system of government today.  So, we have a choice, continue to be
afraid and fear what a thousand men could do to half a million or say its
enough and fill the streets and take the bull by its horns.  Show me any
tyrant that handed power without the people rising up.  The problem is, with
the missed opportunities listed above, how can the UDP take on this regime
now that they are not in parliament?  What would be the basis upon which a
civil disobedience can be justified?  Should Jammeh sign up for loans and
divert it as usual to his personal accounts, what could the UDP do aside
from going to the observer, point, or independent news outlets to vent thier
frustrations like all else?  Most nations or organizations that deal with
Jammeh are not interested in fighting corruption or human rights but their
vested interest.  Did'nt the british conduct Joint Military excercises or
train the same military thugs after the students were killed?

I agree with both of you that had all the opposition parties joined the
boycott preceded or followed up with civil disobedience until justice is
seen to be done, we would not be in our current situation.  When PDOIS
fought against Bishop Johnson's sacking the other parties were silent.  When
UDP was boycotting, the other parties contested.  Why this gap?  When we
pleaded for a United Opposition we found ourselves with a limited coalition.
  We on the outside have pleaded to all the opposition parties months before
the presidential and parliamentary elections to form a united front to bring
down the APRC but our call was not heeded.  Why is it that we have very
intelligent and capable leaders like Ousainou, Halifa and Sedia, Hamat, and
Sheriff and they never could share the same podium all throughout the reign
of Yaya?  Now we have Sedia, Hamat, and Halifa trying to stop the
unstoppable - 44 rubberstamps in one.  When are the opposition parties going
to realize the power in numbers and work out a winning plan for the benefit
of Gambia, not UDP, PDOIS, or NRP supporters?  It is this great divide that
greatly contributed to our current predicament in my opinion.  I hope the
next generation of political leaders would learn from this mistake.  The net
effect is a loss for Gambians and it would continue to be unless we see the
value in a united opposition.  I look forward to your feedback and I
appreciate your inputs.

Chi Jaama

Joe Sambou


>From: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Recent trip to Gambia Joe
>Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:47:30 EST
>
>Joe,
>         I'd like to try to address the issues you raised about the UDP
>regarding their decision to boycott the past parliamentary elections. You
>lament the net effect of  the boycott especially relative to the excesses
>and
>patently undemocratic nature of the regime of Yahya Jammeh. I wholly
>understand why you prefer an increased opposition representation in
>parliament  because you have consistently said and done something to
>facilitate the democratisation process. The coalition having fought hard
>and
>long for The Gambian people to be able to decide their fate within a
>democratic framework was faced with a stark set of realities . The
>realities
>are issues that are at the heart of a functional democracy and they revolve
>around the key issues of who is eligible to vote and how would they vote.
>The
>only resolution to these key issues is for all participants in the
>electoral
>process to agree  and abide by a simple set of rules that define who can
>vote
>and how. From the time Bishop Johnson and his colleagues were unlawfully
>removed from the I.E.C all of the opposition parties have consistently
>objected to their replacements by writing to the very crooks who were
>chosen
>by Yahya as replacements, newsconferences, litigation and official
>complaints
>to outside parties. The I.E.C at the urging of the government simply
>subverted their own regulations and all of the laws stipulating the conduct
>of elections. They saw and conducted themselves as a partisan agency
>actively
>engaging in outright illegal acts knowing fully well that the equally
>corrupt
>courts will not address these grave violations of laws. In correspondence
>over months, the coalition made it abundantly clear that they would not
>countenace any I.E.C regulation that altered in any way the key question of
>who is eligible to vote . This was prompted by an I.E.C floated idea in the
>way of press reports that they were going change their regulations to
>permit
>those who were not on the primary registers they had just concluded would
>be
>allowed to vote as long as they had valid Gambian identity papers. In
>effect
>they were going to actively participate in an out right fraudulent sceheme
>in
>which the government through the department of interior would issue
>official
>papers to foreigners both at offices and private homes and these folks
>would
>inturn go to the I.E.C and be issued voters cards .This had the express
>purpose of diluting the franchise of legitimate Gambian voters who
>underwent
>an arduos vetting process with all party representatives actively
>participating even as the APRC thugs did their best to disrupt  these
>undertakings through violence and socalled deportations. With all parties
>insisting on the integrity of the voter rolls, the I.E.C summoned the
>election monitors a few days before the polls and said they will let only
>voters registered on the initial rolls. Then on the eve on the elections,
>The
>I.E.C reversed itself and waited till 11.00pm and went on TV to announce
>that
>they were opening the flood gates to people they have illegally added onto
>the rolls . One may be tempted to ask why did the coalition and all the
>rest
>of the opposition go along with this grave violation that was going to
>invalidate the wishes of the majority of the Gambian people?". For the
>coalition who did not have access to the same TV to adress the relatively
>few
>Gambians with working TVs, it became  a question  of how to reach most of
>their supporters in the few hours left before the polls opened. Except for
>their poll monitors and some of their grassroot organisers who had cell
>phones, there was no practical way to reach even a fraction of their
>supporters. They were unwilling to announce a withdrawal from the
>preisdential elections that had no likelihood of reaching their supporters
>in
>time . Besides the supporters were entitled to a full explaination of how
>their franchise was being illegally usurped and within the span of a few
>hours there is no practical way this could be done. It was then decided
>that
>they would remain in the race and review thoroughly the altered voter list
>that was used in the flawed elections. Such a review process takes time
>because you had to meticulously look at every name at every jurisdiction to
>determined who else apart from the actual residents voted . When the review
>was completed it was determined that in excess of 50,000(fifty thousand)
>ineligible voters cast ballots. This number exceeds by far the margin  of
>victory in an election in which 500000 people voted. When these illegal
>voters were discovered, the coalition wrote to the I.E.C to ask them to
>specifically expunge them from the voter rolls. They are unwilling to do
>that
>not because these are fanthom names but it would in effect invalidate an
>election they have worked hard to rig. But on the other hand leaving over
>fifty thousand illegal voters on the rolls amounts to perpetually
>disenfranchising the Gambian people for the forseable future. This is why
>the
>coalition is insisting that this must be done because unless the people of
>our country are in a position to chose for themselves , it would just be  a
>charade. Electoral politics can only work if the rules are followed. If the
>party who by definition has a responsibilty to the nation and partcularly
>thier supporters see a blatant scheme to deny the Gambian people their
>basic
>rights of choosing their leaders, they must address it appropriately.
>Elections are all about the wishes of the people and the current state of
>affairs is designed to thwart those scared wishes of our people. The UDP
>members of parliament who gave up their seats have always taken their
>responsibilities seriously and worked hard for the interest of their
>people.
>They would like nothing more than continuing to do that. But they cannot
>represent their people within the context of a fatally flawed system that
>is
>designed to  thwart the wishes of voters within specific jurisdictions. It
>is
>immoral to knowingly mislead ones own constituency if you know that the
>government will bus in poachers to disenfranchise them . This is the issue.
>I
>can assure you that all of the coalition voters undertsand, agree and
>actively support the boycott. The international community similarly have
>the
>same sentiment because they too understand that the question of gets to
>vote
>is fundamental to any democracy. It has to be resolved to have any
>meaningful
>democracy.This government will see very soon what will happen. The
>coalition
>has a full fledged strategy on how to proceed and i am confident they will
>prevail. Their committment to our people and country is strong  and the
>democratic ideals they have always striven for will be validated to the
>satisfaction of all who wish our country well.
>           In conclusion I hope you understand that the boycott was onlyan
>intial step albiet a profound one. It was undertaken because it had to
>be.It
>was not a spur of the moment  decison. This government does not want to
>contest ideas. It is actively scheming to evolve a docile banana republic
>in
>which it would be government by sycophancy, terror and corruption.
>Politicians who represent Gambians who want a different country have to
>stay
>course and do what is right . And i think refusing to take part in blatant
>electoral fraud is a good start.
>Karamba
>
><<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>
>
>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]

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