Mboge, Thanks for forwarding Daffeh's messages. I find his views very interesting. Thanks, Madi --- Lamin Mboge <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I will send Daffeh's or any newspapers article i see > on the net, if any body do not want to read it > delete > it. If Kebba Foon a tribalist can insult all > Mandinkas > and got backed by people, we will see how an > intellectual argument cannot be accepted here. We > have > seen false names like Birago. > > If Mr mballow think that respect will work here, i > will tell you it will not work here. > > LL Mboge > > > > > > NADD’s Flag bearer selection- An Appalling > Cherry Picking Fiasco > > > Mr Editor > > On the 2nd of March 2006, Jabou Joh, in an internet > based Gambia-L discussion wrote: ‘What has > transpired > is that some of those who had subscribed to this > magnificent ideal have decided that they did not > like > what the results of a democratic process to select > the > representative or flag bearer may bring, that this > process may not result in things going the way they > want it, and so they decided to break their word and > abandon an agreement that they had made to the > Gambian > people in order to have their way.’ > > I consider this as a desperate attempt to sewage > attentions from my previous article. Nevertheless, I > would like to commend her for expressing her > sincerely > held opinion. However, I have no doubt that she has > erred. She does not seem to understand the term > ‘democracy’. I wonder whether she is alone in this. > Democracy is not simply about majority vote. > Democracy > operates on two scared principles. That is respect > for > the rule of law and for minority rights. These > principles are so scared that they cannot be > overridden by even a majority decision. That is why > most democracies do have them entrenched in their > constitutions. Even in the United Kingdom where > there > is no written constitution, a position has been > adopted since the thirteenth century that a residuum > of justice resides in the Crown. This has long since > been recognised by both Equity and the common law > jurisprudence. The Lord Chancellor was accordingly > referred to as ‘the keeper of the King’s > Conscience.’ > If the US for example, passes a law that bans the > practicing of Islam simply because that great > country > was founded on Christian values or because majority > of > her citizen are Christians, she will loose her > credibility of being a democracy notwithstanding the > fact that such a law would transgress on the rights > of > only a tiny minority. What this shows is that an > arbitrary exercise of majority power cannot be > described as democratic. It has to take cognisance > of > certain inalienable rights and principles. Otherwise > it is not democratic. > > The so-called democratic process referred to in > Jabou’s article was meant to produce a sellable flag > bearer. The scared word here is ‘sellable’ and as > far > as the MOU is concern, this was well embedded and > entrenched. No matter how the selection process > is/was > dealt with, it would be flawed if it does not > produce > a sellable candidate even if supported by a > majority. > > NADD was confronted with the task of selecting a > flag > bearer. Since there were several aspirants, this > task > ultimately requires them to determine the > electibility > of the different contenders so as to enable them to > select the most sellable. The MOU postulates that > this > must be achieved by way of unanimity at least at the > executive level. Since this was the case, one would > have thought a rigorous scrutiny exercise would have > been conducted to that effect. That would have > enable > NADD to easily achieve the mutual consensus referred > to in the MOU thereby aborting the ugly impasse that > later ensured. People would have understood why > Candidate ‘A’ is chosen and not Candidate ‘B’. That > would have also made easier for different factions > within the camp to easily reconcile their > differences > and together, we could have chanted the slogan, > ‘Jammeh Jeepo’ in the spirit of unity and for our > common aspiration. The absence of this was a cartre > blanc for the sword wielders who eventually hijacked > the process in furtherance of their vicious personal > hidden agendas against the personality of Lawyer > Ousainu Darboe. As a result, constructive debate was > relegated in favour of their individual likes and > dislikes of each other. The whole selection process > became heavily vitiated with malice and flirty > conspiracy. That is certainly not democratic. Is it? > It was an appalling cherry picking fiasco. Contrary > to Ya-jabou’s assertions, the selection process was > in > fact fettered and therefore a transgression on its > originating authority, the MOU. That is what makes > it > flawed and that is what makes it undemocratic. > > NADD having realised that the first selection > process > had alienate the electibility requirement, an abuse > they know the UDP would never accept, decided to set > up a committee that was to draw certain criteria to > guide the process. In my view, this was actually > good > because it provides NADD with an opportunity once > again, to debate the electoral strengths of the > different contenders, something they had > persistently > and deliberately refused to do. However, the > condition > precedent attached to the process, which is a > declaration that one would accept any outcome that > may > emerge from the process, was unacceptable because it > effectively thwarted the possibility of invoking the > primary election provision of the MOU in the event > of > a continuing impasse. That was certainly a > usurpation > of the sovereign authority conferred on NADD’s grass > root membership by the MOU. That can’t be right. Can > it? PART 111 [8] of the MOU states: > > 'The selection of a candidate of the alliance for > the > presidential, National Assembly and Council > elections > shall be done by consensus; provided that in the > event > of impasse selection shall be done by holding a > primary election restricted to party delegates on > the > basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the > chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party > from each village/ward in a constituency.’ > > What is clear from the above, particularly in > relation > to the attached condition precedent is that the > later > have rendered the spirit of the MOU completely > obsolete. That is a serious travesty and should not > have been condoned. Even if the UDP had subscribed > to > this dodgy deal, there is no guarantee that other > parties would have acted bona fide. Nothing will > stop > the rogue elements from going back to their dirty > game > knowing fully well that UDP would be left with no > option but to accept any outcome even if it is > perverse on the MOU because they [UDP] would have > made > a declaration to that effect. That was the > blackmailing tactics NADD was playing and it is a > complete grotesque. Mr Darboe brilliantly spotted > this > grotesque behaviour and decided to honourably resign > in order to save his well-cherished integrity. > Therefore and contrary to Ya- jabou’s postulation, > this process was completely flawed. It has > despicably > fallen short of democratic standards. That is why > the > UDP decided to opt out. Therefore, any suggestion > that > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤