In a message dated 9/10/2006 12:54:22 P.M.  Central Daylight Time, Gunjur 
writes:
Brother Sidibeh,

You  wrote:

"NADD could have evolved into a society-oriented politcal  
movement, i.e a political instrument that reorganises society as a way of  
changing the state; as opposed to a state-based politcal group - which have  
invariably failed everywhere in Africa. NADD could have forever altered the  
nature of politics in Gambia!"

In deed this is true and that is why  we Gambians are so heartbroken over the 
disintegration of the coalition with all  the possibilities it held for our 
people at this critical hour and I cannot  imagine for one moment that those 
who tossed it into the gutter in exchange for  self and personal interest can 
have the interest of our people at heart and I  believe that no amount of 
negotiation will bring them back to the table. They  are marching to the tune of a 
different drummer. If a decision can be made to  abandon the idea of a 
coalition at this critical juncture, we cannot waste time  on worrying about the 
fragile egos of those who cannot withstand the heat of  scrutiny because of two 
reason, they are aspiring for political office for the  wrong reason which in 
turn does not serve the interest or purpose of the  aspiration or the people, and 
 scrutiny will certainly reveal them for what  they are, self centered and 
self perpetuating and those are not the  qualifications to fill the position. 

Any unrealistic notions of a  reconciliation are just that, unrealistic 
notions because it has been abundantly  clear that reconciliation is not on the 
agenda in view of all that has  transpired and in view of all of the weak and 
untruthful and insincere excuses  that have been rendered. Therefore, we should 
desist from the fallacy that  reconciliation is a possibility now or in the 
future. It is clear that the  UDP/NRP etc want reconciliation only according to 
their own terms, that they  have the leadership, and without the term limit as 
outlined in the NADD  agreement, even if this ensures that the APRC remain in 
power and it is against  the interest of the people to continue to encourage 
such modes of thinking. It  is a condition that is counter to the ideal of the 
NADD agreement and it is  therefore an effort that was devised to abandon the 
original agreement and  resort to force the hands of others after having 
signed on to the original  agreement. It is most insincere and anyone who has the 
interest of our country  at heart knows that what is needed now is not only to 
dislodge the APRC regime,  but most importantly, to put into place an interim 
government that will bring  about the needed reforms. The UDP/NRP does not 
subscribe to this idea, they just  want power at any cost, the same as Yaya 
Jammeh does instead of sacrificing  personal gain for the welfare of Gambians. We 
cannot afford to encourage that at  all and they will never abandon those 
aspirations and all they have said so far  is proof of this. So we will continue to 
inform the people about those who  betray their interest.

You also wrote:

"Mr. Darboe, of course,  deserves much respect, but the party he leads, I 
thought even then, came to be  the natural abode of disgruntled politicians and 
businessmen made homeless by  
APRC purges of the PPP and NCP. It posesses neither the ideological  
conviction nor the organizational tradition to carry the struggle for power  beyond 
mere protest against corruption and the excesses of an egoistic political  elite 
feeding on the spoils of power. It cannot control and alter the role of  
institutions even if it assumes state power. This conclusion 
brings me to  the reason I think the coalition is of major importance"

I will add that  the UDP is not only "a natural  abode of disgruntled 
politicians and  businessmen made homeless by APRC purges of the PPP and NCP" as you 
rightly  stated, it is also a natural abode for the corrupt and inept former 
PPP  officials with their trademark nepotism and tribalism and their use of 
these  sentiments to divide our people and exploit them to satisfy their own 
quest for  personal power, a quest in which the welfare of our people do not 
feature at  all.

You also wrote:

"But where other variables such as  unprincipled rivalry, vanity, ethnic 
identity, 
acquisitiveness, fear and  even populism sway voter sentiments greatly, 
violent criticism is often  taken personally. The effect is that the 
prospects for a future confluence  of opposition parties becomes more remote 
than formerly"

My response  to this is that it is time  that we stop babysitting the 
politicians who  are driven by nothing but self interest because you see, the process 
is not  about feeding any single individual's ego, but it is about the search 
for the  most qualified to lead in all the aspects that qualification has to 
be measured  by.  It is about educating the people so that we can free them 
from the  bondage of being used as pawns by unscrupulous politicians in search 
of personal  power alone and who neither posses nor have the capabilities nor 
the conviction  to put the interest of the people first.  In-fact, we cannot 
afford to feed  their vanities and lack of self confidence anymore, and if any 
politician takes  criticism by the people personally, they are definitely in 
the wrong business  and need to respectfully excuse us because we are not 
looking for a sovereign  who is above reproach. We the People are looking for 
someone to fill a position  and they will be scrutinized to see if they are 
qualified for the Job. I think  too often, some of us tend to  forget this small but 
very significant fact.  It is time to start educating our people to choose 
according to these ideals  instead of continuing to feed the vanities of the wrong 
people "just for the  time being".

We have to choose between the welfare of our people and our  country and 
worrying about politicians taking criticism personally and if they  do take 
criticism personally, it further reinforces the fact that they belong  elsewhere and 
not in politics because in aspiring for political office, they  seek to 
qualify for a job and those poised to "hire" them by casting their votes  will 
scrutinize them to see if they are fit for the job. If they tend to forget  that 
they are applying for a Job to serve the people and have to be qualified  for 
the job, it is our duty to remind them. 

And some may argue that most  of our people are ignorant about what qualifies 
a person to run our national  affairs and instead are victims of exploitation 
by devious politicians who have  encouraged them to make their decisions on 
who to support based on some of the  variables you have mentioned, then if 
those of us who say that we know what the  decisive criterion that is best for the 
people to adopt in choosing our leader  do not prioritize educating and 
exposing our people to that fact, then we are  not sincere at all.

Where the norm has been to have people cast votes  based on factionalism and 
the insincere have created, nurtured and exploited and  continue to exploit 
that most heinous of crimes against the people in The  Gambian as in the rest of 
Africa, some of us believe that it is time for this to  come to an end. It is 
time that all those who profess to care about the welfare  of Gambia and 
Gambians, and indeed the welfare of Africans as a whole to step up  to the plate 
and be on the side of the people for once, and to be part of the  process of 
making sure that we weed out those who fail us time and again by  promoting 
divisiveness and self interest above national interest even at the  most critical 
of times as they are in The Gambia at this moment.
No time has  ever been darker  nor more critical in our history than the 
nightmarish and  evil reign of the APRC regime. No generation of Gambians could 
have ever  imagined that we would ever experience what the people are 
experiencing under  the Jammeh regime. From corruption to cold blooded murder in broad 
daylight, to  the resultant fear that has gripped our people, and most 
surprising of all, to  the complacency that some of the populace have engaged in also 
to satisfy their  own material interest.

In this light, any effort that would have made it  possible to dislodge these 
gang of thugs is more precious than life itself.  Therefore, anyone whose 
actions and choices to gamble with this effort to see if  they will win a coveted 
position and thereby compromises such an effort cannot  have the interest of 
our people at heart and therefore is in-fact an enemy to  our people because 
they have made choices that leave them to the possibility of  continuing to 
live under a regime where murder, disappearances and cold fear is  the daily 
norm. No one who cares, loves and puts our people first would ever do  that and I 
would even go so far as to say that they are an enemy to our people.  No one 
can be allowed to hold the people hostage while they pursue a personal  quest 
for power and to even suggest that we entertain such a thing nullifies any  
other utterances that are made in support of liberating our people from  tyranny.

You also wrote:

"Since its formation in the mid eighties,  PDOIS behaved like a modern 
politcal apparatus. It recorded and archived all  its ideas about governance, 
presented its opinion about all issues of  national and regional 
significance, debated and defended its positions on  these and operated 
consistently as an alternative government. Because it  keeps records, and 
because it can date(!) national events it has opened up  itself to probing 
and and can easily allow for transparency and more  importantly, running an 
effective adminstration. One might not like Foroyaa,  but one can remain 
confident that it provides a consistent and progressive  source of political 
currency, even if one may not agree with it at all  times. With sufficient 
resources, such a politcal apparatus can create and  control a very strong 
organisation,"

You are quite right and it is  quite evident that these are the building 
blocks of good governance and there is  no doubt that even those who do not 
support them, the people behind such an  organization not only have the ingredients, 
the conviction, the dedication and  the capabilities to lead us into a bright 
future, they stand out head and  shoulders among the political parties in our 
country.  . Thus, in the  interest of moving our people and our country 
forward, let all sincere Gambians  emulate them even if they do not support them 
and concentrate our energies  towards educating our people about political 
issues and their rights so that  they make choices correctly instead of making 
excuses on behalf of those whose  actions have demonstrated without a doubt that 
they are anathema to that effort.  That is the only way we can make real 
progress towards shedding the yoke of  tyranny as opposed to just paying it lip 
service while supporting inexcusable  behaviour that ensures taking one step 
forward and two backwards.

Jabou  Joh

In a message dated 9/10/2006 9:05:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:
Sister Jabou Joh and Brother  Joe,

I had no intention to get to this point in this exchange. It  feels 
premature, because there is likely to be a gruesome period of  soul-searching 
amongst Gambians after the coming elections. But I also fear  that, akin to 
previous periods of post-election trauma, all of that may end  up into 
nothing more than having therapeutic effect. I hope I will be proven  wrong, 
in all counts.

It is true that scrutiny is necessary.  In normal circumstances, I would 
have joined the fray to lay bare every  political attempt at power in Gambia 
even if that alone is hardly  sufficient. But my sensibilites are affected by 
the believe that the project  towards "unifying" the Opposition even after 
September 22 would be crucial  for the evolution of participatory democracy 
in our country. I tend to think  that our proclivites towards the state of 
the opposition coalititon and the  political alignments that the elections 
would produce, dictates present  individual preoccupations.

Ideally, we should demand the best and  should not lower our standards. But 
the very essence of a coalition gestures  precisely towards reaching 
compromises on those qualities we hold as best  and of higher standard; 
endearing us to construct a half-way house between  idealism and realism.
But as I said, if one believes that the process  is dead, the field opens 
up for internecine struggles of all sorts, exposing  what is worst in 
eachother's closet of ideas. This should be unproblemmatic  in developed 
polities where the contest for power rages within the realm of  ideas. But 
where other variables such as unprincipled rivalry, vanity,  ethnic identity, 
acquisitiveness, fear and even populism sway voter  sentiments greatly, 
violent criticism is often taken personally. The effect  is that the 
prospects for a future confluence of opposition parties becomes  more remote 
than formerly. And not only that!
We all know the UDP,  don't we? It has been around for the last ten years, 
and so to seek  certainty about its intentions in an election manifesto is 
like aspiring to  define the APRC from dictated fiction gleaned from its 
Vision 2020 document.  The UDP, like all of Gambia's post independance 
political parties (except  PDOIS) rides on varying doses of populism, 
nevermind its professed  assimilation of neoliberal, social democratic 
values. When sometime before  the 2001 elections, Hamjatta Kanteh marketted 
Mr. Ousainou Darboe on  Gambia-L as a most patriotic Gambian who sacrificed 
everything to wage a  struggle against the quasi-military tyranny, some of us 
scoffed at that sort  of politcal commerce. Mr. Darboe, of course, deserves 
much respect, but the  party he leads, I thought even then, came to be the 
natural abode of  disgruntled politicians and businessmen made homeless by 
APRC purges of the  PPP and NCP. It posesses neither the ideological 
conviction nor the  organizational tradition to carry the struggle for power 
beyond mere protest  against corruption and the excesses of an egoistic 
political elite feeding  on the spoils of power. It cannot control and alter 
the role of institutions  even if it assumes state power. This conclusion 
brings me to the reason I  think the coalition is of major importance.

Since its formation in  the mid eighties, PDOIS behaved like a modern 
politcal apparatus. It  recorded and archived all its ideas about governance, 
presented its opinion  about all issues of national and regional 
significance, debated and defended  its positions on these and operated 
consistently as an alternative  government. Because it keeps records, and 
because it can date(!) national  events it has opened up itself to probing 
and and can easily allow for  transparency and more importantly, running an 
effective adminstration. One  might not like Foroyaa, but one can remain 
confident that it provides a  consistent and progressive source of political 
currency, even if one may not  agree with it at all times. With sufficient 
resources, such a politcal  apparatus can create and control a very strong 
organisation, even if such an  organisation may not necessarily be 
democratric in character. (I cannot  vouch for how decisions were reached 
inside PDOIS, thus my scepticism). It  is this character of PDOIS as a 
modern, workable institution, that appeals  to educated, young Gambians, 
perhaps because it rekindles a familiarity with  structures. Informed 
Gambians who oppose it are, therefore, easily  identifiable. As important as 
they are, I would refrain from mentioning the  characters of its leaders, as 
these, unlike the nature of the organisation  they represent, are transient. 
There has never been a political party with  such administrative, 
organisational and political potential in our country,  and these are the 
qualities with which it would have infused the character  of a coalition of 
opposition parties. NADD could have evolved into a  society-oriented politcal 
movement, i.e a political instrument that  reorganises society as a way of 
changing the state; as opposed to a  state-based politcal group - which have 
invariably failed everywhere in  Africa. NADD could have forever altered the 
nature of politics in  Gambia!

NADD's failure to mature into what we had hoped for is of  historic 
significance in a state as small as ours, and the responsibility  for this 
failure, spreads more widely than many seem to think. To  resuscitate NADD at 
time a time when the struggle for power is at its peak  is simply more 
difficult than doing so after the elections. I think that  effort should be 
pursued with even more vigour, and I do not think continued  internecine 
squabble will help it.

Cheers,
sidibeh  

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤