Brother Hamjatta:
 
Couple of quick opinions here:
 
1. The possibility of voter-buyout in Kiang east is very high.  No one 
disputes this.
 
2. Your 'theory' ends to overemphasize this as cause for the loss, 
specifically the 1000 absent votes.
 
3.  Your theory is so shaky that it starts to fall apart at it's very seems 
at the slightest examination from the most untrained of eyes (me). 
 
4. Overemphasizing such a shaky theory serves as a disservice to the 
opposition here (L) because it gives less credit to other equally and more 
plausible opinions.  A more positive and practical approach would serve us 
better.
 
Now a quick look at your 'voter-buyout' theory:
 
Your theory makes a fundamental assumption that voter-buyout was the main 
reason for the high percentage of absentee ballots.  This, in my opinion, is 
a very dangerous assumption even though you tried to provide legitimate 
reasons as to why this was the case.  It also assumes that in the absence of 
these underhanded tactics by the APRC propaganda wing, the UDP loss in Kiang 
East would have been reversed.  
 
Before looking at the theory alone, lets look at the reasons why I tend to 
look a bit skeptically at the voter-buyout theory as opposed to other more 
plausible reasons for the high absentee count.

  The numbers in previous parliamentary elections in The Gambia show that low 
turnout is nothing new.  There are other reasons but voter apathy is a very 
strong one to point to. Apathy is defined as indifference. This indifference 
in my opinion can be caused by a multitude of factors and not only the one 
you posited in your email about people not caring because they can afford to 
stay at home and live comfortably.  An additional reason for this 
indifference is when people feel like their vote will not make any difference 
to what is already a terrible situation.  In other words, they are resigned 
to poverty and a life of suffering. Furthermore, lack of education because of 
poverty resulting in people who really don't understand the significance of 
these votes is another plausible reason for indifference.  How else can one 
explain the low voter turnout which has been a hallmark of Gambian and Third 
World elections from day one? Voter turnouts in more developed countries are 
usually higher than those of less developed countries.  Therefore, to assume 
the turnout would increase this year because Kiangkas have suffered more 
harshly than in previous years is being overly optimistic.  So, in short, I 
do not believe voter-buyout by itself is capable of explaining the 1000 
absentee ballots.  It is strange that you use the word ‘mysterious’ to 
describe these absentee ballot as if to say this is something new.
 
The following were my contentions with the theory alone by itself.
 
After your 'forensic' scrutiny of the numbers provided courtesy of Mr. Ebrima 
Sillah, you came to the following conclusions:
 
1. The UDP's loss in Njolfen can only be attributable to voter-buyout because 
the absentee vote was 4 times higher than what they actually polled (7%) when 
it was a known fact that they had strong support in
this area (over 50%).
2. Also, this Njolfen loss and the fact that the UDP vote was lower than the 
absentee ballot in other polling stations points to a massive amount of 
voter-buyout.
 
Brother, you simply cannot make these assumptions.
On assumption number 1 (see above), the fact that purportedly most UDP 
supporters stayed away should not be a reason to cry voter buyout.  Instead 
the UDP should objectively look at these numbers and ask themselves this 
question honestly:
“In the absence of voter-buyout, what did we not do and what did the APRC do 
to ensure that their supporters turned up while ours did not?”
 
Once this question is answered, the UDP could move on to more objective and 
practical answers and solutions to this low turnout predicament.  This as 
opposed to just assuming that voter-buyout was the main culprit.  I hope you 
(Hamji) are now beginning to see why taking the easy way out can serve as a 
disservice to the opposition.  There is no point in listing the other likely 
explanations for the problem in Njolfen.  You are an extremely bright man who 
should be able to come up with other alternatives.
 
On point number 2 (see above), I just don't see a correlation here. How can 
one say because the absentee vote was higher than the numbers UDP polled, 
voter-buyout must now become a factor?  This statistic in my opinion proves 
zilch.  We can come up with a multitude of scenarios here.  I shall not even 
go into them for a lack of time.
 
 
Anyway, I shall keep this short and conclude now.  But please note that I do 
not think your voter-buyout theory is a solid one.  We need not overemphasize 
this theory at the expense of more practical and sensible ones.  

This opinion should not be considered as an affront to the opposition or 
yourselves in anyway whatsoever.
 
Have a nice day!

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

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