Hi Kebba! I have to first of all apologise for not replying earlier but I simply have not been able to. Thanks for bringing in your perspectives. You wrote: "It will be a mistake for us to be hard on the UDP leadership and the electorate." Could you please quantify why you think the UDP should not be put on the spot like other parties such as APRC, PDOIS, NRP etc.? Is it not a form of disservice to them if one treats them with rubber gloves even when there is something to be pointed out? I do not have anything against the UDP. In fact, I am impressed with some of their leaders and policies but that should not mean that if they are seen to be making mistakes one should not point it out. My opinion is that all political parties and their representatives, as public figures vying to control the destiny of our country, should be put on the spot to make them realise that they are being watched so that they do not become complacent. You also wrote: "It is very easy to engage in this Monday morning quarter-backing and second guessing of what went wrong here." What I attempted to do in my post was not to apportion blame but to provide humble analyses, which hopefully will be helpful. I strongly believe that there are a thousand lessons to be learnt from every failure. I will not argue with the fact that my contributions on the L in general and pre the elections have been trickling but that is due to other engagements that limit the amount of time I have to engage in debates. That however does not mean that issues that are of significance to The Gambia are not discussed and dealt with in other places. The by-elections were a test for the opposition in the country and the activities of the opposition prior to and what they do after the elections will have a significant impact in the coming elections. The UDP performed less than most expected and thus the outcry. It will be fine to keep quiet and not put the UDP, the largest opposition, on the spot to at least jolt them into further analyses of what went wrong for them this time and how they can avoid them come the next elections. Would this not be a disservice to them? I do not want to appear to be chattering about this but I believe that even if one did not have time prior to the by-elections to contribute, one can make contributions now in the form of analyses etc. in light of the fact that the big prizes are yet to come. You wrote: "As opined by many, including yourself, the fact that the Opposition did not carry Kiang shows that our message is not adequately engraved in the electorate. We should accept responsibility for that and not try to say that the people did not get it because they are stupid. That does not mean that the message is wrong." I did not say that the message is wrong or that the people are stupid. Regarding the message, one can have the absolute best message but without the right delivery, the message fails to make its point. It is a simple case of marketing. One can have the best product in the world but with inadequate marketing strategies, someone else with a much inferior product will outsell and outdo him/her. Elections have in the past generally not been premised on issues but on which party can create the most fanfare and create a sense of this candidate is my uncle's friend, or my neighbour's sister or our grandparents were friends etc. feeling. This is not unique to The Gambia but is a characteristic prevalent in most developing countries due mostly to poverty and illiteracy. That is why many politicians of the First Republic who only remembered the electorate every five years were able to win landslides election after election. The emphasis is on marketing. Even though these politicians had nothing to offer the people, they knew how to entice them into voting for them. It is therefore important to have an effective means of delivery. Regarding the people, I did not say that they are stupid. What I said was whether they have been given too much credit in the face of circumstances that render them victims to those with less than honourable political machinations. Something is wrong somewhere when one sells his/her voters card for 25 Dalasis or 2000 Dalasis. The essence is to find that wrong something and remedy it be it through enlightenment about the importance of a single vote or through other means such as vigilance on the part of the parties. You further wrote: "Instead of second guessing UDP now, Gambians with functioning brains (not to mention journalists and other Opposition parties) should have been talking about these ISSUES BEFORE the elections and showing how APRC cannot take the country forward. You do not wait until after the elections and say that APRC might have won on the ISSUES. What issues? Surely, the issues I read from Foroyaa and heard from calls made to Gambia, cannot be winners for APRC. Clowns on G_L and elsewhere theorizing that UDP might have lost these elections because they did not discuss the ISSUES, do not know what they are talking about. Gambian newspapers are replete with reports showing that UDP tackled the issues during the campaign rallies." I did not say anywhere that the APRC won on issues or that the UDP lost on issues. What I asked was whether the electorate views the things that we view as people living abroad important enough to bring the government down over. The central theme of our contention with the government deals with human rights issues. This should be important to all people but I know for a fact that Gambians can be quite detached as long as an issue or an act does not directly affect them or their loved ones. Many would in the heat of the moment say "ndey saan" but forget about it a day after. The UDP of course tackled issues, but my point was whether they tackled the issues dear to the heart of the electorate in such a manner that they were won over. That is the issue. The opposition has to talk about all the issues but has to analyse which issues are more important in which part of the country. For example, basing an election campaign in Banjul on farming issues would be a mistake because the population of Banjul is not engaged in farming. So they have to diversify the issues and zero in and hammer home issues that are dear to the electorate in various parts of the country with regard to the prevailing circumstances and realities. This has to be done effectively in order to yield results. I asked whether the APRC delivery machinery was more effective than UDP's because despite all the human rights issues and all the problems the farmers and ordinary people are facing, the UDP lost to them. This says something and this something must be examined to determine how to create an effective delivery system. Sorry for this long post. Thanks for the compliments. Have a good weekend. Buharry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------