Buharry, thanks for your piece. Let me just focus on the way forward and
talk about future negotiations. As I said before, I have no problem with
that. My only thing is that the Parties should enter these negotiations with
the understanding that the leadership of the Alliance is off the table. That
has already been decided.

The things you mentioned about the transition government are also agreeable
to me. As I said on Friday, apart from PDOIS’ suggestion that a new person
lead the Coalition, all the other suggestions are NOT new. The MDRG(UK) drew
out a comprehensive proposal that was circulated to all the Parties
(including PDOIS) that included these proposals PDOIS is now talking about.
This is NOT news. To be brought out in the open in this manner, is just
political grandstanding if you ask me. The Alliance has already said that a
Committee was to be set up to look into the modalities of the Alliance
government. Surely, the workings of the transition government is on the
table. I am confident PDOIS will NOT have problems selling these proposals
to other Alliance members. To my knowledge all the Parties agree to a short
transition period during which policies will be implemented to ensure a
level playing field in coming elections. Only an Alliance government can do
this. APRC will NOT level the playing field.

As I said, I personally did NOT want a short transition period and I made my
views known when the matter about this Alliance proposal was discussed in
private. But, since the majority of the Parties on the ground (the most
important people) agree that they want a short transition period, I had no
choice but to go along with that. I will NOT even talk about my reasons for
wanting a longer period for the coming administration. In short, I fervently
encourage the Parties to continue to meet. But let them look FORWARD. The
leadership issue has been decided. Let them talk about the modalities of a
transition government. Thanks again for your contributions.

I wish to take this opportunity to address some of the PPP haters on this
forum. I don’t want to exhaust my quota for the day. It might be necessary
for me to forward some mails for Hamjatta today since he is having problems
with his subscription and have not heard from List Management yet.

To me it makes no difference if Darboe was nominated by OJ or Waa Juwara.
This is just semantics. As I understand it, PPP haters are upset because
Darboe was nominated by OJ. Should I take it then that had Darboe been
nominated by Waa Juwara but the PPP delegates at the Meeting voted for
Darboe, SM Dibba would NOT walk out of the Meeting?

To say that some of the arguments I read against the Coalition are childish,
is putting it mildly. But at the end of the day, I am glad that almost all
of the negative postings did NOT mention Darboe at all. Sadly though, the
postings also did NOT mention Yaya either. What we had were postings
obsessing over Jawara and the PPP who are no longer in power. Had PPP stood
up against Darboe, there will be no end to PPP bashing from the same people
that are currently bashing PPP. Now PPP comes out to support the Alliance
and people are still mad and are prepared to spoil the Coalition just
because they hate Jawara. So, now Dibba and his supporters are prepared to
punish Darboe because of Jawara.

I reminded Dibba the other day about whose side Darboe was on when Dibba was
railroaded in 1981 (Dibba’s major grievance). When that happened Darboe
fought on the side of the victims (such as Dibba and Pap Cheyassin Secka)
against the PPP regime. Darboe worked more than a decade in the private
sector and was accused by PPP stalwarts of being an ‘Opposition’ member.
When people like BB Darboe joined the PPP, Ousainou Darboe had the chance to
join the PPP. The man stayed to his calling, practicing law in the private
sector. No one can pin Darboe with PPP vices (by any stretch of the
imagination). I will NOT get into certain PPP vices that can be pinned on
people like Dibba, because I do NOT want to dwell in the past.

Now, how does someone who has exhibited such independence throughout his
professional life all of a sudden be a puppet to PPP special interest? When
PPP was powerful and in government, Darboe was NOT kissing up to them. Why
would he start now? It is a great disservice to the man and to the country
for people to spread such vicious lies about the man. It is more
disheartening when the lies are coming from people that know Darboe very
well and know the man’s sense of independence and know that the man has even
fought for some of them against the PPP regime and the AFPRC/APRC regime.

Getting PPP to join the Alliance, Darboe might have pulled the biggest
political feat in the country. He managed to get the support of perhaps the
largest Party in the country without giving them the leadership of the
Alliance. What did Darboe get from such an important coup? Second-guessing
from other potential allies. People that hate PPP so much they are willing
to tolerate child murderers so long as PPP is out of power. These people are
NOT even satisfied that PPP is NOT leading the Coalition. What is baffling
about these PPP/UDP criticisms is that APRC has more prominent PPP
politicians. But you do NOT hear these critiques pouncing on APRC for
bringing PPP back. But when Darboe asks for and receives PPP support, the
critiques are all over the place accusing the man of being a puppet. Where
were these critiques in 1981 when Darboe was fighting against PPP for none
other than SM Dibba himself?

Other Parties can hate PPP all they want. That hatred should NOT be taken
out on the Gambian people by depriving them an Alliance in October. If these
Parties and their supporters that hate PPP that much are true to their
convictions, let them fight PPP in January 2002 in the Parliamentary
elections. That is the ideal time to engage PPP in a fist-fight. Engaging
PPP now is ludicrous. Jawara is NOT running. Darboe is. And NOT even SM
Dibba can honestly stand up and say that Darboe is a puppet. And that
argument about Darboe being controlled by PPP has to be made before one can
honestly engage in PPP bashing because of their limited participation in the
Coalition. What do all these critiques want? For PPP to join APRC or put up
their own candidate and split the Opposition? Why is Dibba NOT mad with APRC
because Buba Baldeh is the APRC top propagandist? Why is Dibba NOT mad with
APRC because of the PPP ‘Yai Compins’ that went to APRC?

This is mind-boggling. So, people that supported PPP before are NOT welcome
in the Coalition? That is nonsense.
KB



>From: Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: On The Opposition Alliance
>Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:52:12 +0200
>
>Hi Kebba!
>                 Sorry for not replying earlier. You wrote:
>
>''When I said that the PDOIS and NCP will be treated in the way they
>deserve by me, you should have asked yourself what these Parties deserve
>before you conclude that such an utterance is a 'mistake detrimental to the
>cause of the opposition'. For all you know, PDOIS might 'deserve' the
>support of the Alliance if certain things were to chance. ''
>
>Thanks for the clarification.  Maybe I jumped the gun but when you drew the
>line and said that PDOIS and NCP are not part of the alliance and will
>therefore be treated the way they deserve, I saw it as a 'mistake
>detrimental to the cause of the opposition'.
>
>You also wrote:
>
>''I don't know whether you have been reading my mails thoroughly.
>Otherwise, you would not ask me whether I think that PDOIS' and NCP's
>decisions about the Alliance is written in stone or not. How many times did
>I appeal to NCP and PDOIS supporters to engage their leaders to try and
>change their decisions?
>
>I didn't miss your appeal. That is why I quoted one and said that's the
>spirit. It is however difficult to fathom your appealing to us to engage
>our leaders in one sentence and drawing the battle lines and castigating
>PDOIS and NCP in the other. That is why I said we should avoid doing the
>APRC's job free of charge. No, I am not accusing you of anything but if
>PDOIS and NCP supporters had also drawn the line and engaged in PPP, UDP
>castigation, we would be unwittingly doing the APRC's job. We would in the
>process be wasting valuable time and effort.
>
>As to the question of blame for the loss of the alliance, you wrote:
>
>''The Alliance because they did not send PDOIS a 'proper' invitation to the
>Meeting?''
>
>As you alluded, each is entitled to his opinion on this question and I
>definitely agree with you. That is why I found it difficult to understand
>how PDOIS and NCP can be blamed for the alliance's loss if it should
>happen. As to the issue of the meeting, I was saddened when I read I read
>the NRP deputy's statement in the article forwarded by Beran Jeng. The
>relevant portion reads:
>
>"According to Honourable Njadoe, NRP had never been informed that an
>inter-party meeting would be held at the YMCA building on Monday, August 13
>by the opposition
>parties. He said he met Mr Omar A Jallow (OJ) the week before in Banjul who
>informed him that such a meeting was to be held at the Independence Stadium
>but because of the absence of the NRP leader, Hamat Bah, it would be
>postponed till further notice. "I am just hearing that they have had the
>meeting finally. I do not know what topic they raised at the meeting," Mr
>Njadoe added that the NRP had not been informed of such a meeting. "
>
>We have to admit that procedural errors have been made and no matter how
>insignificant to us as individual, they have resulted in the creation of
>mistrust among the parties concerned. It is therefore not only PDOIS that
>is claiming that they were not invited to the meeting. The NRP is also
>claiming the same. I don't think there is any party in the world that would
>allow itself to be bound by decisions in which it has equal interest but at
>the negotiation of which it was not present.
>
>You wrote:
>
>'' I hope by now you have engaged your Party to convince them to rethink
>their position and join the Alliance. Guess not!, because like
>Jassey-Conteh, you are waiting for 'official word' from them. "
>
>Yes. I was waiting for the official word not only from PDOIS but also from
>the NCP and NRP. There is always more than one side to every conflict and I
>have learnt a long time ago never to rely on one side to make an informed
>decision. That is why I was cautious not to draw any conclusion before
>hearing the other sides.
>
>You also wrote:
>
>"On your hypothetical about a Sidia Jatta or a SM Dibba candidacy, I guess
>the only thing I can say is that you have a lot to learn about me. "
>
>I know you are a man of your words. You will be truly, truly, truly
>surprised.
>
>
>I am glad that the door is still open for the other parties. Many seem to
>be preoccupied with the leadership of the alliance. There are many other
>important issues. While I support PDOIS' suggestion for a neutral woman to
>be presented as the presidential candidate, I will gladly support Darboe's
>candidacy on condition that he agrees to an interim mandate. The purpose
>will be create a level playing field to give the Gambian voters the right
>to choose who they will without any form of hindrances. Allow me to quote
>from Foroyaa:
>
>"A one year term by a coalition presidential candidate should be sufficient
>to open the national media for civic education to enlighten the people in
>the country so that they will no longer be susceptible to any form of
>intimidation or patronage, eradicate all provisions which impose
>unreasonable and unjustifiable restrictions on any one from exercising his
>or her political and civic rights, open up the national media to every
>political party on a weekly basis to put their programmes to the people
>without insults or
>promotion of any sectionalist form of politics.... The reorientation of
>security forces, the establishment of a complaints commission to settle
>grievances and the concerted
>utilisation of the powers of the courts to provide redress would provide a
>cornerstone for a genuine democratic society. Standards would have been set
>for the emergence of a new political order. New presidential and National
>Assembly elections could be held for any party to seek the mandate of the
>people on the basis of its own merit. A one year transition programme which
>will not allow any personality or
>party to entrench itself and which will be designed to build the democratic
>instruments, institutions, structures and practices that would make free
>and fair elections possible, so as to come up with the undiluted choice of
>the people, should provide the basis for a coalition."
>
>Would you not agree that the above plus other contributions from UDPand
>others geared towards giving the Gambian people the true democratic right
>to choose their leaders would be a good foundation for the alliance. There
>are therefore many other issues apart from the presidential candidates and
>this is where negotiation and compromise come into play. Let the parties
>call another meeting. Let them put all their positions on the table. Let
>them negotiate. If PDOIS loses on some of its proposals, it gains somewhere
>else. Same goes for the UDP. If at the end of the day, Darboe is not the
>interim presidential candidate, I bet there are many issues that the UDP
>have apart from the presidential candidate that they will gain. Same goes
>for the other parties. At the end of the day, a compromise will hopefully
>be reached that will accomodate the parties and be the foundation for a
>true and genuine alliance. Thanks.
>
>                                                      Buharry.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------