I absolutely I agreed with some comments here. It has come to my understanding there are folks in UDP who are not ready for opposition compromise. They come with all tactical games. It is incredible to read in this forum that Sedia Jatta is not the right person to discuss opposition compromise with UDP, because he is a nominated member of NADD. I considered this statement as a dramatic twist. A flashback of the UDP rally in Brikama, we have all watch the video, where the UDP leader made a personal call on Sedia that his doors are open for him, to discuss opposition coalition, because Sedia is more like a brother to him. Why a "U or V" turn here? Therefore, it is absurd and ironic to read such statements in this forum. It seems there are folks who will not stop at nothing but personal attacks , innuendos and even if they can make you disappear they will for only criticizing or saying something negative about UDP.Where is the democracy we are talking about ? They may crusade against anybody and event attempt to manipulate the world so as to make it conform to their view of reality. Rather than try to change the map, they will engage us with emotional and personal attacks as if what the psychologist describe as "transference", outdated map, stage. Sadly, they may expend much more energy ultimately in defending an outmoded view of our predicaments than would have been required to revise and correct it in the first place.This is why it will be difficult to make a coalition.Unless , we Gambians, get away with the habit of treating our future leaders as "alpha and omega " of our society and stop praise singing. This is what created the monster (president Jammeh) we have now. It was the same preferential treatment given to PPP. Rhetorically, why do we fail to be dedicated to reality? For truth is reality. That which is false is unreal.Therefore, the more clearly we see the reality of the world , the better equipped we are to deal with our present problems in the Gambia.The less clearly we see the reality of our problem , the more our minds are befuddled by falsehood, misperceptions and illusions. It is also the less able we will be to determine correct courses of action and make wise decisions for the future of our country. Our view of reality in this compromise is like a map with which to negotiate the terrain of a prosperous life for our children, grandchildren and for ourselves.If the map is is true and accurate , we will generally know where we are , and if we have decided where we want to go, we will virtually know how to get there. If the map is false and inaccurate , we generally will be lost and become failed people. We are all aware that the voting system in the Gambia has been manipulate just to suit the whims and caprices of King Williams professor Jammeh with a simple majority. There is no second round, so why do folks cling to the idea of majority Party? Therefore, they must impose and condition smaller parties to join them. What is more beautiful than joining together only for 2 years and then all of you go to your individual parties to context for election? Is it that our future leaders do not care or proud of leaving a legacy behind them? Badou's quot for new year... "what I saw in that urn is not silver and gold but a cancerous dust , unless we change our thinking" Badou Samba. ________________________________ From: Joe Joe <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 2:51:57 PM Subject: Re: Daffeh on Musa Jeng's compromise: Will Musa explain his stance much better? Oh, Musa, why bother. Do you see Gambians jumping up and down about the obvious - Opposition Coalition? No, folks have better things to do. The people spoke and that is what matters. How come it is the same four or five individuals that keep surfacing trying to sound like a crowd. Please do not be fooled. These folks know none is listening to their howls and they either come off their ignorance and arrogance or be handed a schalacking come November 2011. They have also been informed that Gambians are not interested in useless analysis of why a schalacking, which is where this bunch is headed. I am with the UDP, they are the Super Opposition and have won the battle before it starts. They will carry every constituency and Yaya better get ready. Not remotely ready for Prime Time! What a waste. Oh tribalism, the cancer of our lot. Joe ________________________________ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:17:28 +0000 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Daffeh on Musa Jeng's compromise: Will Musa explain his stance much better? To: [log in to unmask] Suntou: If you remember we have spent countless Saturdays on a three to four hours marathon meeting, debating and trying to find a way to make this coalition a reality. Let me rewind back to couple of years ago, STGDP sent a proposal to be considered by all the opposition parties which mirrors the present UDP's position. I was one of the advocates and defender of that proposal. I personally do not have a problem with a UDP led coalition, even thoug I am also absolutely convinced that unless we have a coalition that is seen accepted by all the parties and carries the features of an alliance, it will without a doubt defeat the strategic advantages of a coalition. We need to remind ourselves why we are all on this coalition bandwagon, without it we have no chance in hell to make the 2011 elections competitive. If 2011 is all about UDP programs and flag waving, I am not so sure that is the best card we have in our arsenal to go after Jammeh. This election is not about party politics, but to make it about us against Jammeh, and why every Gambian should take it upon themselves and come and contribute and vote agianst Jammeh. After we take our country back we will have lots of time for party politics in a sembance of a democratic environment, and will have a real barometer of which is the biggest party. I am sure you will agree with me that using the elction results during the APRC organized elections is not the most ideal yardstick for judging the strength of parties. It reminded me Sheriff Mustapha Dibba, in the campaign of 2001 and his claim that the NCP was the bigest party because he has gotten over 30% of the votes against president Jawara in few General elections and should without a doubt be the leader of a proposed coalition. Ironically, the leader of the UDP was chosen because he was seen as the non politician, the new kid on the block that was not tainted with the politics of yester year and was seen as much more attractive. I am a firm believer that politics is all about timing, and we should work on finding a compromise rather than fighting which helps no one but the status quo. THe challenge is still to come with a compromise that parties are willing to at least look at, and maybe give us an opportunity for a deal. Brother Daffeh kept giving me the party line and their talking points, and at this juncture I do not think that is what going to give us a deal. If his only interest is to show that UDP is right and PDOIS is wrong; therefore, PDOIS is responsible for our potential lost of the 2011 elections he can have at it. For me and my friends at STGDP, we have put in lots of manhours, emotions and financial investment to help bring about a coalition that we all know is the only hope to be competitive. It is very clear - Jaharang for the need to find a middle ground to hatch a deal As for my good friend Haruna, oh well, what can I say. Brother Haruna, we need to get together I am looking forward for another summit this coming July, What do you say? laugh Musa Jeng ----- Original Message ----- From: "suntou touray" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:41:06 AM Subject: Re: Daffeh on Musa Jeng's compromise: Will Musa explain his stance much better? Haruna Musa, i guess is desperate like other stakeholders to say or do all that is necessary to make a break through. Daffeh on the other hand was honest with the position that, the whole problem here is about leading the opposition outfits. And if the normal route which known all over the world is ignore merely to please a difficult group, then what is the point wasting time on them? Lets be fair, NADD itself has entrench clauses that will make matters difficult. Why shouldn't the bigger lead the opposition? This is what the whole merry-go-round is about. Guinea did it, Kenya, Senegal, U.K yet we cannot do it because.. Your uncle waas serious embarrased with the subsiquents PDOIS responses. On the whole, he was merely an MP who cannot speak for his group, what a drama. It Says a lot about our country, small but complicated. Suntou On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Thank you Suntou for sharing the erudite and circumspect Daffeh again. I always enjoy him. > >On his take on Father Mose, I think if he understands what I understand about >the man, Daffeh wouldn't be surprised that Uncle Mose manufactures a compromise >out of a dead horse. > >On my uncle Sidia, Daffeh is spot-on about general disappointment in Uncle >Sidia's merry-go-round and to accept the role of negotiator/partner in >alliance-building when he knew he is not a reliable partner in such momentous >conversation is utterly disappointing to me as his nephew. From the beginning, >when Hon. Halifa suggested Uncle Sidia was to represent NADD in these friggin >negotiations, I suggested it was a landmark ruse. First of all, despite their >kidnap of OJ and Waa, these two honourables' estrangement to decision-making >concerning NADD is spectacular. In "NADD", what PDOIS says goes, Goes. Don't >even kid yourself. And NADD is a dead horse. Or shall I say dead donkey as the >idiot Yahya is wont to quip. Every idiot gets a revelation once in his/her >lifetime. And to then saddle a dead donkey with a trick of an Agenda as reins is >even more insiduous and dishonest. > >I associate myself completely with Mr. Daffeh's sobriety. Which is more than can >be said for Father Mose. > > > >Haruna. I love you people. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: suntou touray <[log in to unmask]> >To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Tue, Dec 28, 2010 8:33 am >Subject: Daffeh on Musa Jeng's compromise: Will Musa explain his stance much >better? > > >Musa Jeng Got it Wrong on ' The Compromise' >by SS Daffeh > >Madam Editor, > >Please allow me space to respond to an article, The Compromise, I read in your >well established and reputable medium, > >authored by none other than our dear friend and brother, Mr. Musa Jeng of the >U.S based Save The Gambia > >Democracy Project [STGDP]. > >In this article, Mr. Jeng articulated how a compromise could be reached to break >the stalemate that has taken grip of the > >coalition negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party [UDP] >and PDOIS with the former joining > >NADD, a political entity he described as belonging to all opposition parties, >and assume leadership of it. He posited this > >as the only realistic option to break the stalemate, and went on to justify his >call on the basis that due to their experience > >in 2006 and the aftermath, PDOIS will never be willing to go along with what the >conventional wisdom dictates and > >become part of a UDP led coalition. However, he did not state what this >experience was and why UDP should be held > >responsible for it. > >First of all, Mr. Jeng should be reminded that this process like all coalition >negotiations requires an honest approach that > >puts national interest above all others including ideologies and personal egos >and differences. This can only be done if > >all stakeholders including PDOIS, accept the universal standards and practices >of coalition building to be the unfettered > >guiding principles of negotiations. These standards and practices require that >the biggest party be adopted as a > >vanguard and for all other parties and political entities to throw their weight >behind. > >In 2006, both NADD and UDP presented themselves before the Gambian electorates >as independent sovereign political > >parties and tested their individual electoral strengths. The UDP had almost five >times more votes than NADD and > >currently has more representation in parliament than any other opposition party >in the country. It also has a bigger and > >more robust grass root support base than any other opposition party in the >country. To put it in a nutshell; UDP is by far > >the biggest opposition party in The Gambia. I am sure this is a fact that Mr. >Jeng himself would not like to challenge for it > >is irrefutable and beyond questioning. I therefore do not see any wisdom in his >call for UDP to join a smaller party or > >entity in the guise of compromise. This is obviously illogical and lacking >conformity with the dictates of common sense. It > >is like, as one observer put it, Hilary Clinton offering the vice presidency to >Barack Obama when in fact, it was Barack > >who had the most votes. It doesn’t work like that in politics, am afraid. > >The common sense approach would be for the smaller parties and entities >including NADD to adopt the UDP as a > >vanguard and rally behind it in line with internationally recognised and >acceptable norms. > > >Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006, a >dispute that still lingers in the background, I > >find it incomprehensible that Mr. Jeng would like to think that the resurrection >of the same old squabble that causes > >serious damage to inter-opposition party relations could engender a realistic >compromise, especially given that the > >demand for opposition unity is more palpable today than ever before. If he had >done a careful and balanced > >assessment of the situation and the facts, it would have surely occurred to him >that this idea has no potential except for > >the opening of the Pandora’s Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise >in such an environment. > >The premise of Mr. Jeng’s compromise solution is also flawed and lacking >objectivity. In using an unexplained grievance > >that the PDOIS party supposedly has against the UDP as the sole rational behind >his proposal, Mr. Jeng has failed to > >take into account the already known UDP grievances in the same regard and >particularly on the question of registration > >that altered NADD’s status from that of an alliance to a political party in >contravention of the terms of the Memorandum > >of Understanding [MOU] that established it and which cost the leader of NRP, Mr. >Hamat N.K Bah, his parliamentary seat. > >It is obvious that both NRP and UDP can also use, and quite legitimately, their >NADD experience as a reason to reject > >Mr. Jeng’s proposal. Thus, pandering to personal egos and differences as a form >of appeasement just for the sake of it > >is not helpful in debates of this nature. Our task should be to allow national >interest to reign supreme over all others and > >ask the same of our political leaders. > >Mr. Jeng’s claim that NADD belongs to all opposition parties is not borne by >facts. Although the UDP participated in the > >creation of NADD the alliance, they did actually pull out from the organisation >in 2006 together with the NRP after careful > >consideration. Therefore, if there was any UDP or NRP claim to NADD, that claim >has been entirely relinquished in 2006 > >when both parties pulled out. The rest of that story is now history and it would >be pointless for me to deliberate on it. In > >any case, the NADD debate is an antiquated one that has not only being made >obsolete but also lacking taste. > >Talking about compromise; it is clear that the onus is on NADD and PDOIS to >recognise and accept the political > >legitimacy of a UDP led alliance at least in principle and then ask for a policy >concession[s] that accommodates their > >core values, or concessions in respect of positions in a subsequent government. >This is the norm, and it is the kind of > >approach that is capable of creating an environment in which a real and fair >compromise could be engendered and > >achieved. Any proposal that does not take cognisance of this is not likely to >deliver a fair deal and therefore, not likely to > >result to a compromise. It is the bigger parties which have more to bring into >any coalition arrangement than the smaller > >ones, and this has to be recognised. > >PDOIS is being Disingenuous > >In another development, I have stumbled on an article written by the gibberish >talking Administrative Secretary of PDOIS > >in which he described the position of the UDP, in respect of the coalition >talks, as ‘support for a UDP led alliance without > >any conditionality’. This is clearly a misrepresentation. UDP’s position has >been widely disseminated and understood as > >calling for a party led alliance in which all parties throw their weight behind >the biggest. Anything further than this is > >nothing but a blatant embellishment that does not represent UDP’s position in >anyway. This is how the UDP leader > >articulated his party’s position in his statement of 8th December 2010; > >‘‘I then made the point that the well known norm for the creation of an >opposition alliance is for the majority party to lead > >and others throw behind that party’’. > >Neither Hon. Sidia Jatta, who was purportedly representing NADD and PDOIS, nor >Mr. Ousainou Darboe, who > >represented UDP, made any mention of conditionality in their separate and >conflicting statements regarding their > >discussion. > >It is not for UDP to attach conditions to their own proposal- that is simply an >unreasonable expectation- but for those who > >would like to see conditions attached to first accept it in principle and then >demand, as a bargaining chip, that conditions > >be attached. That way, we can move this process one step forward from the >principal issue of formula to a more > >secondary issue of conditionality and thereby making final resolution to the >impasse more realistic and feasible. > >If PDOIS wants to see conditions attached to UDP’s proposal, the sensible and >most practicable approach would be for > >them to accept it in principle first and then state what kind of conditions they >would like to see attached. However, PDOIS > >must not think they can have it both ways; they would have to either indicate >their willingness to be part of a UDP led > >coalition with conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to talk >about conditionality. > > >The statement by Hon. Sidia Jatta to the effect that the international standard >of coalition building posited by the UDP > >cannot be adopted in The Gambia in the light of the absence of a second round >voting system is the most ridiculous > >statement I have come across in this whole coalition debate. As far as facts are >concern, there is no second round > >voting system in South Africa and yet it was the ANC that led the coalition >which brought President Jacob Zuma to > >power; there is no second round of voting in India and yet it was Sonia Ghandi’s >Indian National Congress that led the > >coalition which returned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to power; there is no >second round voting system in the United > >Kingdom and yet it is the Conservative party of Prime Minister Cameroun that is >leading the coalition government here > >despite having not won an outright majority in the last general election- the >list can go on-, and in all these examples, it > >is the biggest parties which assume leadership without any resort to primaries. >Hon. Jatta’s statement is therefore not > >only absurd but simply lacking basis. It is nothing but a glib. > >It is really sad to see a man [Hon. Sidia Jatta] who is widely acclaimed to be a >man of impeccable integrity falling for the > >temptation of misinforming Gambians just to score cheap political points against >perceived opponents. His Guinea > >Conakry-Ivory Coast comment is totally irresponsible and without a place in this >all important debate. > >SS Daffeh >Essex, United Kingdom. > > > > >-- >Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22 >"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the >difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for >men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran > >www.suntoumana.blogspot.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] >¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ >¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] >¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > -- Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22 "And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran www.suntoumana.blogspot.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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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 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 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤