Yusupha, thanks for your response. Again, if you want us to engage in a
civil discourse, you should state the facts as they are and refrain from
misquoting me or insinuating certain facts that I painstakingly tried to
clear for you apparently to no avail. I could have from the onset referred
you to the various postings I have sent on this matter and stopped there.
But I thought that would be rude. As you are well aware, the last posting I
sent on this matter is not the typical posting I send to prove certain
points. I tried to treat you civilly and I expect the same courtesy from you
as we move on.

To be very frank with you, I think you and not Joke is the distraction here.
You see, what you are arguing now is exactly what Joke brought here a month
ago and his garbage was debunked. Because I do not believe in cutting people
short, I will play along with you until I have more important things to take
care of.

Now when I read your second paragraph, I wondered whether you wrote it. It
appeared from your post that this was the first time you heard me say that
there could be other potential causes of the Kiang by-elections debacle.
Three days ago you misquoted me saying that I said that vote-buying was the
sole cause for the election 'defeat'. I painstakingly explained to you that
that was never my position and I asked you to quote me where I have ever
said that. You appeared to have retracted from your earlier misstatements,
but in this posting, you started acting again as if it was a new revelation
I was making when I said that there were more than one causes to the
election debacle. You see, the littlest of misstatements irritates me. So,
please always read my statements thoroughly before you quote me. I always
maintained that I was using vote-buying to explain the 'absentee vote'.
Votes were bought to disenfranchise more than 1000 voters which could have
eradicated the APRC majority. The other causes that could be responsible for
people voting for APRC instead of UDP was not the topic of discussion here
as far as I am concerned. Is it difficult to decipher from this statement I
made several days ago to you that I recognize that there are other causes
responsible for the election debacle? Joke was the one that was mainly
arguing on the government side. We did not get past the argument about
vote-buying and he decided to pursue other interests on G_L. I hope you
understand this time what my position has always been on this issue.

You call my statements on vote-buying a theory. I think you are confusing
things here. What you are doing using figures to reach certain conclusions
should have been characterized as 'theorizing'. Even at that this is not
good theorizing because your data (the figures you are using) is unreliable
and in certain places it is downright irrelevant. I went through the trouble
yesterday to tell you that when you look at stats on voter-turnout you have
to consider the type of election you are dealing with (general or bye
election?). You also have to consider the mood of the electorate vis-a-vis
the burning issues of the day at the time of the election. Kiang in 1996 is
different from Kiang in 2001. Farmers are poorer. Children have been
massacred. AFPRC/APRC now has a record one can scrutinize, etc. Issues that
energized people in 1996 are different from issues that would energize them
in 2001. Party leaderships that might not have time to campaign thoroughly
in a particular constituency during general elections, would now have time
to campaign in a bye-election. You are comparing apples and oranges. Just
like I proved to you yesterday that you cannot use the Serrekunda figures to
'theorize', the general election figures from 1996 are also unreliable data.
You can use those figures if you want, but recognize that it will just
weaken your theory.

You asked a rhetorical question about the 'absentee vote' in 1996. Wanted to
know whether the absentee vote could be attributed to vote-buying. Here you
insinuated that I was arguing that whenever there is an absentee vote, there
must be vote-buying. I never said that at all. I painstakingly told you that
it was reported in Gambian newspapers BEFORE the elections that APRC was
engaged in vote-buying. I came to G_L BEFORE the elections to say that APRC
was engaged in vote-buying. Call APRC admissions of vote-buying as rumors if
you want. No one can force you to acknowledge what you do not want to
acknowledge. Stick to what you believe and I will stick to my belief. But if
you are waiting for Baba Jobe to go on national TV and admit that he bought
votes, I am afraid you will never see that. If you did not know, it is
illegal even in The Gambia to buy people's votes in order to influence the
outcome of an election. I know APRC does not care so much about our laws,
but they desperately want for people to recognize them as legitimate. Apart
from morons like Joke, no APRC stalwart will come to a perceived enemy and
admit that their election 'victory' was illegitimate (illegal). But be my
guest and wait for evidence other than the reports I stated above from
Gambian newspapers. So, the answer to your rhetorical question is NO. I
cannot say that there was vote-buying in 1996 because I have no evidence of
that. Unlike 2001, no one in 1996, complained that UDP was buying votes in
Kiang. I did not see any newspaper reports in 1996 saying (prior to the
elections) that UDP was engaged in vote-buying. I also did not hear stories
of  any UDP stalwart admitting that he bought votes; like Baba Jobe. I base
my conclusions (theories) on EVIDENCE (not speculation or fuzzy math).

If you want, you can speculate that the 1996 numbers were caused by voter
apathy. I cannot say that because I do not have the facts to help me
theorize. Others can 'postulate' all they want. But I think it is
ill-advised to look at absentee figures and conclude voter-apathy. Did you
check to see whether the voter registers show reliable numbers to determine
the total number of eligible voters? Is there double registrations that
inflated the total number of eligible voters? Have some votes been discarded
without being counted for the candidates, thus reducing the number of votes
cast? There are many variables that need to be taken into consideration when
analyzing these figures. When you consider those variables, you look at
EVIDENCE in order to reach a conclusion. You do not just look at figures and
bamm: voter-apathy or vote-buying.

The question you raised in your point number two is a legitimate one. Joke
raised the same question. So I will give you the answer I gave him. If we do
not take the 100% of the absentee vote, how much do you want us to take? Do
you, like Joke, want us to assume that some of the registered voters might
be dead or are apathetic? Quite legitimate assumption. Only problem is, this
is speculation. You did not poll Kiangkas and get people to tell you that
their family members that were registered to vote, died or did not want to
vote. On the other hand, we have APRC stalwarts admitting that they were
buying votes. Simply put, we cannot substitute our facts with your
speculation. Again, those percentages have to be backed by EVIDENCE. Don't
just assume that 80% of the people voted the last time, therefore 80% will
vote this time. You have to study WHY 20% did not vote the last time and
contrast that with the reasons why people are not voting this time. These
figures do not just appear in a vacuum.

Parts of your point number three, I think I have already addressed. To me,
reports on Gambian newspapers about events they saw on the ground is enough.
On top of that I think I mentioned here immediately after the elections that
I had an APRC stalwart confess to me personally that in 1996 he was involved
in vote-buying using suitcase-full of money to go up country. So I know
first hand that this is the APRC modus operandi. But like I said, you can
decide to wait for more evidence from Baba Jobe et al. You do not have to
rely on what the newspapers say.

Turning to why the UDP did not pursue these matters in court. If I am not
mistaken, just last week or so I saw here on G_L that UDP was going to
challenge the Kiang results and people were castigating them for that. I
might be wrong on this. Correct me if I am wrong. In any case, they could
have had various reasons for not pursuing a legal option in order to prove
the illegal vote-buying. Their decision not to pursue legal action does not
prove that there was no vote-buying. Joseph Joof refused to pursue legal
action against the murderers of our children. That does not mean that our
children were not murdered. In other words, to sue or not to sue is
determined by various factors. That someone did not take you to court does
not mean that no crime was committed.

On point number four. The fact that voter-cards were presented to the UDP
candidate prior to the election was not something I made up. The UDP
candidate said it and it was reported on Gambian newspapers. Call those
reports childish if you want. But as your statements show, you cannot
disprove that fact. Are there people that were on the campaign trail that
can tell you that this did not take place? You might not understand Gambian
politics, but this is a common occurrence. Party stalwarts always do this.
They always show voter-cards to their candidates to prove their influence in
the community and assure the candidates that they have enough cards to first
ensure that the candidate is nominated by the party and hopefully ensure
that the candidate gets victory in the elections. Ask people familiar with
Gambian politics about this phenomenon. Then I don't think you will discard
the remarks as childish.

Going to the other 'reasons'. Who said tribalism was illegal in Gambia? We
are talking about reasons for the election debacle and you went off
discussing the morality or illegality in this type of bigotry. We all know
that tribalism is wrong. The issue is whether Buba Baldeh was engaged in it
and whether that impacted the election. Again, if you follow Gambian
politics you will notice that right before the Kiang bye-election Buba
Baldeh had taken some Kiangkas to Yaya in one of their 'courtesy calls'. The
remarks made during that meeting were reported in Gambian newspapers. Having
heard those remarks, if someone comes to me to tell me that Baldeh was
engaged in the same dirty campaign in Kiang, I will not doubt that person.
Now, tell me that bigotry does not influence certain people's votes;
especially when the voter is told not to vote for a certain tribe (party)
because that tribe will subjugate him. I cannot honestly tell how you can
argue that such types of vicious propaganda cannot influence elections in
The Gambia. As I understand you, if certain tactics are 'dirty politics',
then they cannot be reasons for an election loss. Please help me here. Are
you telling me that if APRC uses dirty politics and lies to convince people
to vote for them, UDP cannot point to those lies as one of the reasons why
UDP lost the elections?

To discard the argument about the July 22 Movement by just giving us a story
about you and your grandfather during a totally different era is just
mind-boggling to me. My point was that intimidation could have played a
part. I said that the Opposition should consider how the APRC's candidate's
affiliation with the July 22 Movement impacted the elections. Did people
think that if they vote for UDP and UDP wins, July 22 Movement will bring
chaos to the constituency? To buttress that contention I told you what
happened in Baddibu in the aftermath of the UDP 'victory'. Now what does
that have to do with how you were attacked some twenty something years ago?
Are those thugs the same as these ones? Did those thugs have a military
regime and Decrees to back up their heinous crimes? Wake up and realize that
you are dealing with a totally different Gambia where innocent and
defenseless children will be slaughtered in broad daylight and nothing comes
out of it. Did you follow the revelations of the ex-members of the July 22
Movement that were made during the by-elections campaign? We are dealing
with a different animal now.

I responded to most of the issues raised in your last paragraph. What is
your EVIDENCE to show that voter-apathy was the most 'plausible fact'? Tell
us why you think that voter-apathy was the most plausible reason for the low
voter turn-out in Kiang. Surely, you can do better than just throwing
figures at us. Figures you got from other elections. Figures that even the
Americans (not to mention Gambians) have very serious doubts about. Tell us
about polls that were taken in Kiang of 2001. Those are the figures that
matter.
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.  - Kebba Dampha
>Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:59:34 EDT
>
>KB:
>
>I was going to respond to your post yesterday but my postings had reached
>the
>daily quota (6) by the time of your last posting.  So my responses were
>rejected by some silly message which informed me that only the list manager
>was worthy of this privilege ( more than 6 messages).
>
>It is extremely refreshing to see you partially emerge from the shell
>called
>'voter buyout'.  At least you have acknowledged the possibility of other
>reasons for the loss.
>
>The premise for the buyout theory is extremely shaky for several reasons:
>
>1.  The number of absentees was roughly equal to the amount during the
>parliamentary elections in 1996.  That time around, almost 800 voters were
>absent.  The opposition won then.  Was there voter buyout then too? Or does
>this strengthen the 'voter apathy' theory which others have postulated as a
>reason for low voter turnout?
>
>2. Let's assume that your buyout theory is legitimate for a minute here.
>Don't you think claiming all 1000 of the absentees to make up for the 800
>vote loss is pushing it a bit too far? This would assume a 100% voter
>turnout, an unprecedented event in the history of The Gambia and the World
>perhaps.  Even if 801 out of the 1000 absentees voted for the UDP resulting
>in a 1 vote margin for the opposition, a record for voter turnout would be
>set (over 95%).
>
>3. On the alleged confessions of Baba Jobe and the APRC, we need more hard
>evidence than a story from Radio Kang Kang.  The fact remains that there is
>no hard evidence which supports these claims.  An admission to vote buying
>by
>the APRC, would be grounds for the UDP to go to court for the reversal of
>election results.  Why didn't the UDP take up this strategy if there was
>hard
>evidence that this was indeed true? You call this irrefutable evidence! And
>no Jokes from Jobe please.
>
>4. On the thousands of voter card story, it sounds like those extremely
>frivolous Bantaba or barber's shop topics which have no basis.  There are
>just too many frailties with this story and it would be an absolute waste
>of
>time trying to point them out.  A school kid of about 12 would be able to
>figure this one out.
>
>5.   The Kebba and Baldeh money exchange deal is a remote possibility.
>But
>taking this as gospel is to assume an overwhelming majority of Kiangkas
>have
>no integrity or common sense.  This is hard to believe because from my
>experiences in The Gambia, people still do have pride despite the
>overwhelming amount of poverty there.  Nevertheless, this contrived story
>loses its credibility completely when you state that Kebba, despite being
>an
>APRC supporter, was somehow part of the entourage which delivered the pile
>of
>uncounted ballots rumored to be in the 1000s to the UDP candidate.  And I
>am
>accused of speculating here?
>
>Let's look at your other reasons for a moment here:
>
>Tribalism is not illegal in The Gambia in the same way racism is not
>illegal
>in the USA.  If your allegations are true, Buba Baldeh lead a dirty
>campaign
>but this is nothing new to politics back home.  Yahya Jallow
>(ex-comissioner
>of Basse) was one of my father's best friends.  He is definitely an
>excellent
>gentleman and probably would not associate with a party stooped in
>tribalism.
>  But this is the nature of politics: Dirty campaigns are run and it is up
>to
>the opposition to counter these claims with their own effective propaganda.
>The 'non-developemnt theory' also falls into the same category as the
>tribalism ploy: Dirty but not illegal.  Again, this is not an excuse for a
>loss in my opinion.
>
>The 22nd of July movement excuse is very weak.  This movement is known for
>sneak attacks and they cannot terrorize the people of Kiang without severe
>repercussions on Baba's boys.  I was once privy to what it is like to enter
>hostile opposition territory.  Despite my tender age at the time, the
>incident sticks clear as day in my mind.  I was with my late grandfather,
>an
>old PPP stalwart, when we ventured into he main square in Baddibou on a
>trip
>upcountry somewhere.  It took less than 5 minutes for a hostile crowd to
>gather and, under desperate barked orders from the old man, the driver made
>a
>quick and narrow escape while bricks and stones rained on the PPP marked
>Land
>Rover from all directions.  A truly terrifying moment!  Baba Jobe's boys
>will
>probably be in for the same treatment should they drive into these
>territories.
>
>Again, it is amazing that you refuse to entertain the most plausible fact;
>voter apathy.  This has always been a problem associated with Gambian
>politics judging by the poor voter turnout in past elections including the
>1997 one.  If as is very likely, this was the reason for low voter turnout,
>the UDP did not do a great job of preventing this from happening.  There
>are
>other reasons for the loss which we should also address rather than go with
>the easy answer: Voter Buyout.  The oppositions is doing a disservice to
>themselves by making such unwarranted allegations and by not doing the
>necessary analysis and/or efforts required to avoid further defeats like
>this
>in the future.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------