Here is an interesting observation by Salieu EH John, a former lecturer, now retired of Gambia college.
Have a good day, Gassa.
THE CRUX OF THE MATTER – BY Salieu EH John (Retired Gambia College lecturer).
The unprecedented announcement by the UDP led coalition leader Lawyer Ousainou Darboe that his coalition would boycott the January 17, 2002 National Assembly elections came as a great shock to some, as disappointment to others and yet as betrayal to many. The reasons advanced by Lawyer Darboe are very flimsy and hold no water at all. After all, wasn’t it Darboe himself who voluntarily phoned Jammeh at State House to congratulate him even before the final results were announced?
We all appreciated the gesture described by many as a course in the right direction.
We enjoyed the jokes they shared. Didn’t Darboe say, “I was under no pressure? Some officials in my party were on the ground and I consulted them. The decision to congratulate him (President Jammeh) was a result of those consultations”, during an interview with Neneh Macdol of GRTS television?
Didn’t this earn Darboe both national and international acclaim? Why then did Darboe suddenly make a u-turn at the eleventh hour denying the potential of those UDP candidates who may have chosen to contest the polls as Independent candidates? Why didn’t Darboe and his party officials consider the issues they are now raising and scapegoating, before congratulating President Jammeh? Can we believe that Darboe really had consultations with his party officials prior to calling President Jammeh on the phone to congratulate him? If indeed he did, then the following is apparent of the UDP led coalition’s leadership
That is:
1. It is a party devoid of principles.
2. It is a party without direction and focus and lacks what it takes to lead a people, country and nation.
3. That Ousainou Darboe is simply a symbolic head. A head without authority, a leader who has no influence over those he leads.
If Darboe cannot lead the UDP led coalition, how can he be expected to lead The Gambia? After the 1996 presidential elections, Lawyer Darboe took refuge in the Senegalese High Commission asserting that his life was in danger and that he was at risk of being assassinated. Logically that made no sense absolutely. Why would anybody or group of bodies want to assassinate someone who had contested an election and lost? Had he made that allegation prior to the elections, it might have some sense as this would have meant that he was such a threat that if not eliminated he could cause trouble.
This time around, Darboe is using registration and election irregularities as a scapegoat for applying devious tactics, calculated to bring the Jammeh Administration into disrepute and to subject its credibility to question especially in the international community.
One is not in anyway postulating that there weren’t mistakes or any irregularities in the 2001 Presidential elections. But, going by the International Observers’ report, those mistakes or irregularities were not of the magnitude that they would or could have affected the results or outcome of the electoral process. They were of negligible proportion.
Some are of the opinion that the International observers wrote the report the way they did so as to promote peace in The Gambia. Fine! And did that mean that the UDP led coalition was not interested in promoting peace in The Gambia? I hope and pray not. What else does Darboe and his colleagues want? We all witnessed what happened in the last Presidential polls in the United States of America and we have our reservations about President Bush’s victory the same way as many Americans even republicans.
Al Gore and his campaign team in the interest of the progress and development of the USA decided to accept defeat in good faith regardless of whatever hitches there might have been. Regardless of whether the victory given to Bush was fair or unfair, just or unjust. The interest of America was what took precedence here. When will African opposition parties learn to accept defeat? As far as they are concerned, an electoral process can never be fair or just.
Now the crux of the matter in my view is that Ousainou Darboe and his colleagues, probably over carried by their numerical superiority over the APRC in terms of three parties coming together to team up against one, the APRC, to the extent that the coalition over looked some of the implications in the coalition. For instance the coalition failed to take cognizance of the fact that the PPP and the NCP had been out of active party politics for seven years whilst the APRC had been very active. That some of the supporters of the above mentioned parties might have switched allegiance to the APRC, PDOIS, NRP and NCP. That in the seven years that the APRC had made a very positive impact thus winning the sympathy and the support of the Gambian people. More significantly, that the inclusion of the PPP in the coalition could impact negatively on the coalition because PPP as a political party had lost the confidence and trust of the Gambian people, who query that the PPP had been around for thirty good years and couldn’t deliver the goods as expected.
On the contrary, they looted the treasury of the country and made no secret about it as the evidence was crystal clear in their flamboyant lifestyles. So bringing them back to govern this country would be disastrous. That some UDP sympathizers and supporters are disgruntled because they queried that they weren’t consulted about the coalition. All these are factors that might have contributed to the disappointing performance of Darboe in the presidential race. It shouldn’t be forgotten too that the UDP basically comprised PPP and NCP and when the ban was lifted and these parties became eligible to operate, some of their supporters might have decided to leave the UDP and return to their parties. So the poor performance of the coalition shouldn’t be blamed only on electoral misgivings, but other factors as well that might even have had more weight than the alleged electoral irregularities.
On the issue of the boycott of the 2002 National Assembly elections, I wish to reiterate that the reasons advanced by Darboe for the coalition’s decision to boycott were flimsy and do not carry weight. Darboe and his colleagues cannot rely on the registration of Senegalese citizen as a pretext for not participating in the National assembly elections, because there was no concrete evidence to prove that those non-Gambians who acquired Gambian voter’s card did so solely to vote for the APRC. Isn’t it possible that they could have voted for parties in the race?
So the crux of the matter is not what Darboe and his colleagues are alleging and trying to make the Gambian people and the world to believe. They have a hidden agenda for deciding to the NA elections. Primarily, they lack the confidence. For Darboe’s part, it is crystal clear that he is only interested in becoming the president of the Republic of The Gambia.
If not, why didn’t he contest the 1997 NA elections after loosing in the presidential race? His presence in The National assembly could have made a difference; he could have contributed more positively to the democratic process he is always harping about and the development of The Gambia generally. What the UDP led coalition may not realize is that by boycotting the January 17, 2002 elections, they have simply given the APRC a free ticket to the National assembly.
To date, they are only contesting for fifteen seats. What happens in the event that the APRC captures say eight seats? Like Hamat Bah puts it, boycotting the elections is not the solution to whatever problems there may be in the electoral process. Staying in and fighting within, would have been a more mature and sensible option.
In a recent interview with GRTS television, Ousainou Darboe in responding to a question regarding the source of some of his allegations against the IEC said that, The Gambia was a small place and that he could not divulge the source of his information and that if he disclosed his source he might not access other information when he needs it.
Certainly, there are errors in the Jammeh administration but to err is human. Besides, the important thing is to learn from our mistakes. In this regard, the unconditional amnesty granted to ex-president Jawara by the Jammeh administration is a clear manifestation that our young leaders are learning from their mistakes and that they are now putting their ears to the ground, thus lending credence to the education dictum that “mistakes are a necessary part of learning”.
In conclusion, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that with the acceptance of the amnesty by Sir Dawda, his announcement that he was retiring from active party politics, and that he is willing to work with the Jammeh administration in the interest of the stability, progress and development of The Gambia coupled with the Sheriff Mustapha Dibba’s NCP alliance with the APRC, the UDP led coalition could be kicking a dead horse.
There is a time in the life of every problem when it is big enough to see, yet small enough to solve. -Mike- Levitt-