Yusupha, thank you for this post. You were doing quite well sticking to the
issues until you reach your final paragraph. But let me just point that out
and move on.

As I said on several occasions, when we analyze the elections results in
Kiang, we have to make one distinction at the outset. We have to distinguish
between the voters that did not vote for UDP because they did not vote at
all (the so-called absentee vote) from those that did not vote for UDP
because they voted for APRC.

I pointed out to Joke from day one and I am sure your analysis also showed
you that the absentee ballot was more than the APRC majority in Kiang. So
from the get go people were just focusing (as far as I am concerned) on how
to obliterate the APRC majority. One way of doing that was to argue that had
all the absentee ballot been cast for UDP, the UDP would win. Another way to
surmount the APRC majority was to argue that had some people that voted for
the APRC candidate actually voted for UDP, the UDP candidate would have won.

So, when we realized that the under 800 votes' majority was less than the
more than 1000 absentee ballots, we decided to pursue argument one and did
not talk about argument two at all. I hope you are following me so far.

Now it came time to explain why we attribute the absentee ballot to
vote-buying to the detriment of UDP. As I pointed out before and immediately
after the elections, APRC stalwarts like Baba Jobe unashamedly admitted that
they were buying votes of UDP supporters. The Joke himself came here and
admitted that there was vote-buying. Gambian newspapers reported vote-buying
both before and after the elections. UDP supporters told the party that the
vote-buying was going on.

Now armed with this irrefutable evidence, we submitted that the vote-buying
caused the low voter turn-out. Some tried to counter that argument by saying
that we cannot just assume that all the votes that were bought belonged to
UDP supporters. We pointed out to them the absurdity in APRC buying the
votes of APRC supporters in order to disenfranchise APRC supporters. That
does not make sense. Joke also argued that we cannot assume that all the
thousand odd votes were bought to disenfranchise UDP supporters. To back up
his contention, he speculated that some might have died or migrated to other
constituencies or simply opt not to partake in the elections (voter apathy
you talked about). I pointed out to him that the difficulty in that argument
is that he was dealing with speculation. Whereas we had people like him and
Baba Jobe admitting buying votes, we did not have people admitting that
their Kiang relatives were dead and could not vote or migrated to Serrekunda
and did not want to go to Kiang and vote. It was a question of facts (
admissions from APRC) versus speculation. So I am still sticking to my
thesis that vote-buying was responsible for the absentee ballot. When I made
that conclusion I had not even heard the claims by the UDP candidate that
his supporters brought him thousands of voter cards to prove their support
for him prior to the election. To wrap up this topic, let me just say that
the problem the other side had was their inability to explain where the
thousands of voter cards that were in the constituency went on election day.
Our explanation was the admissions from Baba Jobe et al.

This is just a brief sketch of a series of back and forward in the aftermath
of the by-elections. People like Hamjatta also did excellent analysis of the
results. I urge you to read those. I also hope you realize that if we
successfully argue (like we did) that the 1000 absentee vote was vote stolen
from UDP through vote-buying then there goes the APRC majority of less than
800.

Here you also have to realize that you are dealing with a by-election (not a
general election) in a relatively small constituency (compared with places
like Serrekunda). So using absentee ballot figures in Serrekunda during a
general election to rationalize the voting in Kiang is a bit misleading.
Also you have to consider the candidate pool in Serrekunda and the divided
loyalties and the issues that matter to voters in Serrekunda. You also have
to consider the economic circumstances of the two peoples since we are
talking here about enticement with cash. Remember that the farmers in Kiang
are people that endured the last three groundnut buying seasons. We are
talking here about people that have to wait two months to see one fifty
dalasi note. Tell me whether it is unreasonable to picture this scenario:
Kebba is a farmer whose groundnuts have not been bought. He cannot even feed
his family with one square meal a day. Went months without seeing a single
fifty dalasis note. Kebba is well aware of Kiang politics. Matter of fact he
was part of the entourage that went to the UDP to give him their cards. He
is aware of the big support UDP has in Kiang. Two days before elections Buba
Baldeh comes to Kebba with two hundred dalasis and asks to buy Kebba's card.
Kebba is a bit reluctant but he thinks of his family and their hunger, and
is tempted. He tells Baldeh that he does not wish to part with his card.
Baldeh tells Kebba: 'take the two hundred dalasis and feed your family. This
card you are holding is worthless. UDP has a lot of support here. Your card
will not cost them the elections. This is just one card out of thousands
they are going to get. At least try and make some money from this worthless
piece of paper'. Kebba sees the logic in Baldeh's argument. Now he is
killing two birds with one stone. He can feed his family and he also knows
that UDP is going to win because he saw the cards that were presented to the
candidate and Buba Baldeh (an APRC stalwart) has just confirmed to him that
UDP is going to win. What Kebba does not realize is that Baldeh has told the
same story to more than a thousand UDP supporters that would naturally not
discuss this diabolical deal amongst themselves.

I hope I managed to paint a vivid picture of what was going on in the
constituency as far as vote-buying was concerned.

Now let us move to the people that voted for APRC instead of UDP. Here I
have to first of all tell you that you are dead wrong to assume that I was
just focusing on vote-buying and ignoring other issues that could have
caused the elections debacle. What you can say is that you did not read on
G_L what I said about the other causes. But do not assume that I ignored
those. Where you following Kiang politics right before the elections? I am
appalled that the people that come to G_L and elsewhere to accuse UDP of
tribalism did not also write about the APRC tribalism in Kiang. Buba Baldeh
was openly pitting one tribe against another. I do not expect Observer to
write about that. But it was not only Observer that accused UDP (wrongly)
about tribalism. So, here is one reason why certain people voted for APRC
and not UDP. Buba Baldeh lied about UDP and his lies were not effectively
challenged.

Another matter that could have impacted the elections was, allowing APRC to
convince the electorate that only APRC MPs can bring 'development' to their
constituencies. 'Opposition MPs cannot 'develop' the constituency. Yaya will
not give Kiang money when Kiang goes to the Opposition'. You know how this
could be debunked and whether the Opposition have taken heed of these
problems?

Another issue that need to be taken into consideration is the affiliation of
the APRC candidate with the July 22 Movement thugs and the role intimidation
played in the elections. Were people led to believe that if UDP won chaos
will ensue in the community? This is not a farfetched belief. After the
Baddibu results were announced, several UDP supporters were picked up and
jailed because they were jubilating and got into a fight with APRC
trespassers. Magistrate that eventually released them, got fired from his
job, while the police that effected the illegal arrests and incarcerations
are still at their jobs.

As you can see Yusupha, numerous things could have been responsible for the
election debacle. Some of those things are glaring because people like Baba
Jobe admitted to them. Some we have to find out from people that were
actually on the ground and would tell the truth without spin.

But it is wrong to speculate based on erroneous facts and APRC propaganda.
'The Opposition lost, it must be the fault of the leadership and the
candidate or the Kiangka that sold his vote or does not understand the
issues'. One thing that I refused to do from the onset, was to engage in
finger-pointing and blaming people we might need in October and next
January. Mahawa Cham will be in a lame-duck parliament for less than a year.
Why alienate the voters or the party leadership because of this
semi-illiterate that cannot get anything done?

I still think it is wrong to criticize the party for adopting a wrong
strategy without articulating the strategy you think they adopted. You
simply do not have the facts to make such assertions; not being on the
ground and following the strategies deployed by the party. If you do not
know what transpired, I cannot see how you can say the party was wrong. I am
not saying that mistakes were not made and things could not have been
better. What I am saying is that I am not prepared to give our enemies
weapons they can beat us with or alienate the voters we might need in
October or belittle our leaders because of a moron in a parliament that can
get very little done.
KB



>From: Yusupha C Jow <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: My opinion.
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:00:38 EDT
>
>KB:
>
>I surely do not have all the answers but I have already stated low voter
>turnout was a problem.  I never said UDP's message was the sole reason for
>the losses.  In fact, Joke might have said this and you confused me with
>him
>much to my chagrin.This is from my original post on 'elections and related
>issues':
>
>"They did not adhere to a strategy which was borne out of any type of
>detailed analysis.   When one compares the amount of people who actually
>voted to those who actually voted (registered to vote), it becomes obvious
>the voter turnout was extremely low.  "
>
>Voter turnout was low everywhere during the last  (1997?)  parliamentary
>elections but  interestingly  those  from Kombo and Banjul were the most
>guilty parties.  The numbers were as low as 63% in Banjul.  In Serrekunda
>East alone, almost 14000 out of 40, 000 people did not vote.
>
>  The same low voter turnout reared its ugly head during the recent
>by-elections.  You think it was due to vote-buying and I think it was due
>to
>reasons which the UDP is in a position to best explain and deal with since
>they have the resources on the ground to do this. I do suspect apathy
>played
>a very strong part in the low turnout throughout the country.
>
>  The UDP has not come up with any plausible reasons for low voter turnout.
>Not only this, but they allowed a repeat of the same scenario (low voter
>turn-out) during the by-elections.  Hence my statement about dem not
>strategizing to prevent the same mistakes (low voter turn-out)  from
>happening.  Again, I think in that scenario, a voter registration campaign
>(many probably did not register), serious efforts to sensitize voters
>(reduce
>apathy) and a stronger message will always help.
>
>You see the 'solid guy vs loser' argument which Saul postulated is a sound
>one to some extent.  But it is based on the premise that the good guy and
>stand-up citizen is expected to win, which is is certainly not always the
>case.  What about the message from both candidates? What about the low
>voter
>turnout?  What about the way the campaigns a managed and run? What about
>advertising tactics? etc etc  You know better than me that the diference
>between 'good' and 'bad' usually gets lost in the murky and tangled
>dealings
>of modern day politics.
>
>But again, the 'thinking alike' mentality rears its ugly head again when
>you
>use this argument to justify your incessant allegations of vote buying when
>other possible plausible reasons are ignored.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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

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

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------