Demba, Demba, Demba, I don't think you read my notes. Neanmoins, I will oblige you with your current notes because I think they could further help in our discernments and perhaps yield some ideas for our friends and coleagues here. [-----Original Message----- From: Demba Baldeh [log in to unmask] To: GAMBIA-L [log in to unmask] Sent: Fri, Jun 18, 2010 5:26 pm Subject: Re: NPR's Hamat Bah all over the Map!!! Not allowed to hold Rally Haruna,] Demba. Yes my friend. Do you know the US open is going on??? And that Taiga Woods is there Demba? Men, if I didn't love you, I would have waited till tomorrow or som'n. [All respect to you my dear friend...] Demba. Acknowledged. I reserve same for you Demba. [what I think is a gross misunderstanding is the fact that people are so hung on the outcome of NADD instead of the fundamental reason why NADD was put together. NADD was not the product of one party or person - even though some may want to believe so because they did not get their desired outcome.] Demba I agree with you Demba. And I have always felt sorry for the folk who had that misunderstanding. Thank you for yielding perspectives here. Although the fundamental reason why NADD was facilitated (not put together. It never was) has no bearing on the position of the partners to NADD. [Forget about the end results for a minute and think about the reason why all the opposition leaders agreed to come together to form NADD in the first place?] Demba. OK. [No one was forced to sign on to a unity?] Demba. That is correct. I agree with you here. [No one was brain washed to sign onto something they did not know...] Demba. This is also true. [it was the duty of every leader to closely examine the unity proposal and either sign off or reject... they all signed up...] Demba. I agree with you again Demba. [So whatever unity and peaceful coexistence we are calling for now comes down to the fundamentals of NADD...] Demba. Well wait a minute Demba. I think when you say unity here, you are referring to coalition of opposition parties as one to contest elections am I right. And if I am right in that presumption (forgive me and correct me please), then you will also agree that peaceful coexistence is completely different from coalition formation and that peaceful coexistence does not need a coalition. It will be nice for you to clarify your meaning here. [that is opposition unity to unseat the president or force the regime to allow level playing field.] Demba. What I meant when I encouraged NADD was for the opposition parties to determine for themselves how they can combine their fortunes to effect Regime Change so Gambia can be liberated from Yahya and APRC. The level playing field that will accrue from an opposition government will necessarily come later and all of us must ensure that. We cannot just expect a level playing field by a mere unseating of President Yahya. No matter how many agreements you sign or resign from. [That was the reason for NADD and it remains so...] Demba. That was my reason for supporting the idea of the NADD conversations. And it remains so. [It is easy to blame when things don't go right...] Demba. You mean it is easy to blame when things don't go your way. I agree with you Demba. [so anyone who believes in sustainable democracy must support a term limit...] Demba. Not necessarily. I believe in Democracy. But I do not believe democracy is sustained or not sustained by term limits. Although I support term limits for all public officials to include the president but for other reasons besides sustainable democracy. [anyone who believes in a level playing field and restoration of democracy in the Gambia must agree to a constitutional change to what we currently have...] Demba. I agree with you here with some reservation. The constitution we have now is not that bad if you look at it closely. Some parts of it requires ammendment. However, the constitution does not yield a level playing field unless its tenets are adhered to. A country does not appreciate democracy unless it has a functioning constitution. Whatever that constitution is. In the case of Gambia, it is the President and the APRC that needs to be removed and be replaced by the people's choice of President and party to administer the constitution. After Yahya and the APRC are replaced, the constitution could still use some much needed ammendments and the new officers must be held accountable to adhere to the precepts of the constitution. [anyone who believes in removing a dictorial regime and replace it with a viable multiparty system must certainly agree to a transition government...] Demba. NO. I don't agree with you here Demba. I agree with replacing the APRC dictatorial regime and her president Yahya AND I believe in a multi-party system for Gambia's electoral politics, but it is non-sequitur for me to also have to believe in a transitional government. I have no say in that and I have no preference for that one way or the other. I don't even know if a transitional government is necessary for Gambia. Once you have a multi-party system, unless in a case where a constitutional emergency is imminent, there is no need for a transitional government. Besides, with term limits, there is no need for a transitional government. It could very well be malignant to have a transitional government absent a constitutional crisis or impasse. I guess I'm not following your logic very well Demba. Are you saying that you need a unitary opposition to contest elections in order to have a multi-party system??????????????????????? I don't understand. [that was the fundamental reasons NADD was put together...] Demba. NO. NADD was suggested so partners to a prospective coalition can discuss the parameters of such a coalition. If that coalition does not arise out of the negotiations, then the partners are free to contest the elections on their own or as alliances where possible and as they desire. [No one wants to cry over a fractured unity...] Demba. Certainly not me. I can see if I have been partner to those negotiations and my aims and desires did not come to fruition. Then I might cry. Even then, I will try something else before I just sit and sob like a friggin baby Demba. I better not catch you crying on the steps of NADD Hall either. [if they can't trust each other no one expect them to work together... but no matter what unity we are calling for here, it comes down to the same basic principle of restoring democracy...] Demba. NO Demba. I was under no illusion that a coalition of opposition parties is even capable of restoring democracy by themselves. The way I see democracy, it is not the purview of just the opposition parties. It is the purview of all the citizens whether or not they belong to any of the opposition parties and there are conscientious folk in APRC also you know. We must not discount them. [Thanks ] Demba. Thanx to you too Demba and I am pleased to be in your company. I hope this conversation here will afford some perspectives and reconsiderations for our coleagues. Haruna. On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Demba, I want to share with you that I am never optimistic or pessimistic about people and what they do. I only do that for events. Would this mean then that you want to be pessimistic about them? And I don't understand what you mean by "we've been fried before". How so? I think the problem is that you have overly burdened yourself with a particular outcome of the erstwhile NADD conversation. I encourage you to wean yourself of the NADD idea. It is DEAD. What the partners were able to yield in from the NADD Jurga were: UDP/NRP Alliance = ARC. ppp/NDAM/PDOIS Alliance = nadd Then later we were introduced to GMC. Then ppp/NDAM/PDOIS Alliance became ppp/ndam/PDOIS loose alliance. But PDOIS is campaigning as if ppp and ndam do not exist at all. But all these were adhoc for the 2006 elections. NOW we have a clean slate of: UDP NRP GMC nadd ppp PDOIS APRC. What we should be encouraging is for these parties to form suitable alliances where that opportunity exists to contest the 2011 elections. I hope you think long and hard about what I share with you because I think when idiots give sober people peace to think, they stumble on a Eureka moment. Let us stop wasting time about what could or should have been in 2006. We were not partners to that negotiation. I know we facilitated it but we should be considerate enough to afford the partners their freedoms of choice, expression, and association. Quoi que sa soit! I love you Demba. Really I do. I hate to appear to be on a different side of significant Gambian issues from you. Haruna. -----Original Message----- From: Demba Baldeh <[log in to unmask]> To: thegdproject <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Fri, Jun 18, 2010 3:07 am Subject: Re: NPR's Hamat Bah all over the Map!!! Not allowed to hold Rally Haruna, No. I know exactly what Hamat is saying. There is no misunderstanding on my part. I know you want to be optimistic about these people, but remember we have been fried before and the signs are all over the place again. This time Gambians will not be taken by surprise. Trust me... we will call it as we see it.. Demba On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:36 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Demba, you still do not understand what Hon. Hamat is saying. Please read your quotations of him again. I will be happy to share ideas with you on this because I think you are genuinely confounded. Hon. Hamat's intelligence and spirit is cosmic. Haruna. If you omit the entire speech or interview, it is easy to get confounded. -----Original Message----- From: Demba Baldeh <[log in to unmask]> To: dialog <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:45 pm Subject: NPR's Hamat Bah all over the Map!!! Not allowed to hold Rally "The NRP leader further told the journalists that he has no intention of joining anybody in any alliance for a single candidate in the forthcoming presidential, parliamentary and local government elections. "I don't believe that the NRP party for now will participate in any discussions with any opposition for the consideration of an alliance," he said, adding that he will never mortgage his party for any presidential ambition, as of now". Hamat Bah is at it again: Read this story and make a decision if you can trust what is being said by these people: Courtesy of the Point: http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/nrp-not-allowed-to-hold-rally-says-hamat-bah The writings are on the Wall... flip flopping politicians makes me uneasy.... Demba ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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 ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤