In response to Malick Kah,
Malick: << Phew, Ngorr, your conclusions on PDOIS borders between naivety and catatonic stupidity. If failure to perform in an electtion is the only yard stick you can use to pass judgement on PDOIS, well then you are politically immature. >>
Here, you first exhibit your state of ignorance and silliness of the issue under contention at a breath-taking scale. Nowhere was PDOIS’ electoral successes or lack thereof discussed. Rather, the point raised about PDOIS was the extent to which they have remained consistent, and whether recent events have not only denuded them as inconsistent to their much vaunted "principles" but also as closet Jammeh apologists – au fond.
Malick: << The PDOIS leadership has
reconcilled to the fact that they may never be elected by the people,
nonetheless this does not ditter them from dispensing their civic duty as
highly educated and well enlighthened politicians. I hope, instead of
distracted such people from such a noble mission we give them at least the
moral support. To accuse them of being Jammeh apologist is both futile and
insincere after all the entire nation can bear wittness that they have been
offered miniterial positions in the APRC but because they are principled
people they decided to shun it. If they were really aspirants as is the case
with many inconsistent politicians they would have jumped at the opportunity
and argue that they were doing it for reconcilloiation and national intrest.
But because they are who they are selfless and dedicated people they opted
for the rough ride, a ride that is difficult and perilous. If they were not
intrested in the welfare and enlightenement of the Gambian people they would
not have sacrificed all their resources, time, energy and knowledge. >>
Let me be a wee bit facetious here: how about tidying the rubbish you invariably send to Gambia-L? Have you, for a moment, considered the difficulties people have to go through when they sift through your incomprehensible, waffly and unadulterated rubbish to make sense of it? I notice a conscious effort on your part to make your writing lucid enough to be comprehensible; but I’m sorry to say that it is still a mumbo-jumbo – at best. I hope this time around – again! – you wouldn’t lay the blame at the door-step of your backward PC and typing skills, as you did the last time. This writer types with one hand, and is not techno-savvy; but that never stops him from tidying his writing to make it more comprehensible. BTW, what does ‘ditter’ mean, and what is its relevance in the aforequoted passage?
Back to your contention vis-à-vis what criteria effectively reduces one to be appropriately labelled as an "apologist" of something… To be an apologist of something, one doesn’t have to be directly, or even, indirectly benefitting from something. Take, for instance, western leftist intellectuals like G.D.H. Cole and the Webbs who were apologists of the Bolshevism and Stalinism during the Cold War era. These people never benefitted directly or indirectly from Bolsheviks or from Stalin; yet, that never stopped them from being apologists of the said regimes. Similarly, PDOIS can shun ministerial appointments from Jammeh, and even reject indirect benefits that invariably comes with cozying up to Jammeh, that doesn’t negate in any way for them to be intellectual rationalisers of the Jammeh devilry. That they continue to flip-flop as events unfold, and in many instances rationalise corrupt political and electoral processes, especially during the past two presidential elections and the processes leading to them, is a pointer to their apologist status in the grand scheme of Gambian politics – albeit being closet apologists.
Malick: << I we all realise that PDOIS participation is very consistent, only sceptics will try to make
a meal out of it. If UDP was honest and true to their word this whole issue
could have been resolved before the elections, after all it was PDOIS who
never wanted to accept the legitimacy of the IEC due to the procedural
violations that saw the appointment of the current chairman. >> Emphasis mine.
Well, at least you know the issue that is under contention – albeit in a silly and convoluted way, attempted to bury it in your mumbo-jumbo. Grudgingly, many thanks for the self-revelatory statement that: "after all it was PDOIS who never wanted to accept the legitimacy of the IEC due to the procedural violations that saw the appointment of the current chairman." So, PDOIS noticed that Jammeh acted illegally when he sacked Johnson as chairman of the IEC only to illegally replace him with Roberts. On matters of "principle", they decided to boycott the electoral process unless Johnson was re-instated, and, even, together with other opposition parties, mounted a legal challenge on Jammeh’s unilateral decision to sack Johnson and rehire Roberts. For this reason, they even boycotted the Kiang and Baddibu by-elections. Then, like a thunderbolt out of the blues, PDOIS announced that it was contesting the presidential elections; and even rationalising that democracy in the Gambia is in the process of consolidating from the gains made in the past. What has changed fundamentally in their earlier objection to participating the electoral process to warrant them to have a change of heart? Has Johnson being re-instated? Has Roberts been sacked and the new occupier of the chair of the IEC democratically settled or chosen? Has PDOIS won a judicial review on the illegal sacking of Johnson? What has literally changed in the scheme of things that PDOIS objected to, i.e., the Johnson dismissal and the rehiring of Roberts as chairman of the IEC, for them to have a change of heart? Where is the consistency in the whole of this?
PDOIS – on "principle" they informed us – extricated themselves from the electoral process; yet, without anything changing whatsoever in the things they have objected to, they did a 360 degrees turn-around, and decided to contest the presidential and National Assembly elections. Is this what you call consistency? What utter puerile piffle. What garbage. What nonsense. Only PDOIS goofballs like yourself would continue to fool yourselves that PDOIS is consistent, and is opposed to the "elective dictatorship" – to pinch a phrase from the late Lord Hailsham – we have back in the Gambia parading as democratic. PDOIS is anything but… if PDOIS is anything today, or can be classified as anything, it is the degree to which they are helping to make sense the nonsense we have back in the Gambia.