We have followed the debates on the L regarding elections. PDOIS's position
is that there can be no sovereign people without the exercise of their right
to be architects of their own destiny. Representatives are mere emissaries
of the people. Elections are instruments through which the people assert
their authority to determine their manner of government.
In our view a sovereign people can only take charge of their destiny if they
are free from ignorance. They must know that they control power and must be
determined not to allow any representative to usurp their power through
intimidation or inducement and rule over them like monarchs. The unfortunate
thing about the Gambia is that when it became a republic in 1970 no effort
was done to spread enlightenment so that a new sovereign Gambian people
would be born. Consequently, a sovereign republic emerged without the
development of the sovereign people who could truly be the guardians of
their destiny.
Notwithstanding since periodic elections took place to determine
representation, the sovereignty of the people still remained the corner
stone for acquiring authority to manage the affairs of the country.
The Coup of 1994 abrogated the essence of having a sovereign republic. A
government was imposed not by inducing or intimidating voters but by
negating the electoral system all together. This also negated the republic
and transformed the country into a semblance of a monarchy.
The fundamental task before the Gambian people was to restore the republic
by restoring the sovereign rights of the Gambian people to select
representatives. This is what had given birth to the second republic.
PDOIS's position is that the restoration of the sovereignty of the people
appears meaningless as long as the people are not enlighten to know how to
ensure their liberty and prosperity through the ballot box. This however, is
the task of democratic awakening. While a republic and the sovereignty of
the people can be restored through the ratification of republican
constitutions and holding of elections democracy has to be built by making
the people to own their minds and make their own informed choices without
fear or inducement.
Secondly, restoration of the sovereignty of the people, become meaningless
if elections can be rigged. The task of enlightening the people is a duty
for every Gambian who loves his or her country. The task of creating an
election machinery that would prevent elections from being rigged is also a
duty that should be shouldered by every Gambian. This is precisely the
reason why PDOIS is conducting civic education among the people while
scrutinising the election machinery to ensure that standards are maintained.
The 1997 constitution created an Independent Electoral Commission, which is
suppose to be focal point for exercising management and supervision over the
electoral system. It is empowered to demarcate constituencies, districts,
and wards, register voters, set dates for elections on the basis of
constitutional provisions, accept nomination papers, establish campaign
period, control the issuing of permit, the coverage of candidates by the
media, the introduction of a code of conduct, the conducting of voting, the
counting of votes and the declaration of results.
There is a constitutional guarantee that in the performance of its
responsibility, the commission shall not be subjected to control by any
authority.
Prior to the by elections, the commission was under scrutiny by the Gambian
public. It had demarcated constituencies by relying on the principle of
equal representation for equal number of inhabitants. The actions of the
commission was subjected to national scrutiny and even those who disagree
with the commission could not advance any reasonably justifiable argument to
back their disagreement. This gave the commission clout. It held elections
in Sami and declared the results of each polling station, which ultimately
led to unexpected results. This increased the confidence of the people. The
commission went to court in order to get the Supreme Court to interpret
certain provisions of the constitution, which affected its work.
In short, the commission wanted to be bound by no other authority except the
law. The commission created an inter-party consultative committee with a
view to settle any disputes regarding the electoral system. A day was
established to inaugurate the consultative body.The day before the
inauguration, the chairman of the commission was removed as well one of its
members. Out of the five members of the commission, one person died and
another resigned prior to the removal of the chairman. Only one member was
left, the commission was completely paralysed by the decision of the
executive. It is clear that if the executive can actually remove members of
the commission and create a state of total paralysis, how can its
independence be safeguarded? What would prevent the executive from waiting
until three months before an election, remove all the members of the
commission and replace them with new appointees. The reason why the
constitution established a fixed tenure and asserted for a tribunal of three
judges to be established to review any allegations against a member of the
commission is precisely to safeguard the independence of the commission.
This is why PDOIS considers it a matter of principle to wait for the Supreme
Court decision on the removal of the two members of the IEC one of whom is
the chairman before working with the IEC. The Supreme Court has made a
ruling that it will not stop the current appointees from doing their work
prior to determining the constitutionality of the removal of the two IEC
members. This gives the current appointees the Supreme Court mandate to
operate. This is what legitimises their conduct of the by elections. PDOIS
did not object to UDP participation in the by elections. PDOIS's position,
however, is that a relatively legal legitimacy cannot be equated with
constitutional legitimacy. In this case, the longer it takes the Supreme
Court to determine constitutional legitimacy, the more a culture of impunity
is consolidated. A wrong action that cannot be redressed with immediacy is
given a cloak of legitimacy. This undermines standards in democratic
governance. This is why PDOIS's refusal to cooperate with the current
appointees is precisely to focus attention on the unconstitutionality of the
action of the executive and the danger that poses to the independence of the
electoral commission. The issue therefore is not whether PDOIS intends to
participate in elections or not. That is a foregone conclusion. As long as
we are convinced that the Gambian People can go in a voting booth and vote
in secret; as long as our polling agents can be present in every polling
station to monitor the exercise; as long as all the ballot boxes are opened
at the beginning to be checked and closed in front of our polling agent; as
long as those ballot boxes are at all times within the sight of our polling
and counting agent; as long as counting takes place in front of our counting
agent, PDOIS will participate in elections. Inducement and intimidation can
only work if the people are not properly sensitised and emboldened. This is
the challenge that all democratic forces must confront in the building of a
democratic political culture. There will always be forces, which rely on
inducement and intimidation to acquire or consolidate power. The just forces
which aim to liberate and empower the people must become stronger if the
forces based on inducement and intimidation are to be rendered
insignificant.
The question which, should be raised, is whether the Supreme court is an
appropriate body to give the power to be an interpreter and enforcer of the
provisions of the constitution. The provisions of the constitution cannot
enforce themselves. As long as there are rulers who see themselves as
monarchs instead of leaders who are mere public trustees and who should
perform their duties according prescribed laws, constitutional provisions,
which are designed to safeguard standards of governance and the integrity of
the sovereign people will always be encroached on. The Dictum that justice
delayed is justice denied is applicable here. If the Supreme Court acts with
speed to resolve the constitutional dilemma, there will no obstacles to
PDOIS's participation. The obstacle therefore at the moment is our
commitment not to compromise with the culture of impunity and the failure of
the Supreme Court to act with immediacy to redress such impunity. In fact,
one policy on terms of constitutional development that PDOIS is considering
is the establishment of a constitutional court with a time frame established
to determine all constitutional questions with immediacy. This is how
matters stand.

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

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