Here is another evidence that the Gambian opposition is full of power hungry
leaders. It is clearly written in WALLS that NO OPPOSITION PARTY can defeat
Jammeh on its own, or even make a dent in hi support. I know for sure that
this SS Daffeh fellow knows that HELL WILL FREEZE OVER when we hear UDP
defeats Jammeh on its own. And yet, all he sees is Darbo. If Darbo is not
the leader no coalition. Oh well, get preapared for your 9% come
November....  GOD BLESS APRC AND PROFESSOR JAMMEH.


Gambia: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous

STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous

By SS Daffeh, Secretary-General UDP UK

BANJUL, THE GAMBIA—Sometime ago, in December 2010, Mr. Musa Jeng of the
U.S-based Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP] presented in the media a
proposal he dubbed ‘‘The Compromise’’ in which he articulated how an
agreement could be reached to break the stalemate that has taken grip of the
coalition negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party
[UDP] and a purported representative of 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. He,
however, did not state what this experience was and why UDP should be held
responsible for it.

As a result of two recent online radio talk shows in which its chairman, Mr.
Banka Manneh, participated, we now understand Mr. Jeng’s proposal to be in
total convergence with the position of the Save The Gambia Democracy Project
[STGDP].

First of all, the STGDP should be reminded that this process like all
coalition negotiations requires an honest approach that puts national
interest above all others including ideologies, personal egos and
differences. This can only be done if all stakeholders including PDOIS
accept the universally practiced conventions and standards of coalition
building to be the unfettered guiding principles of negotiations. This
requires 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 Gambia. It also has a bigger and more robust grass
root support base than any other opposition party. To put it in a nutshell;
UDP is by far the biggest opposition party in The Gambia. This is
irrefutable and beyond questioning. Therefore, I do not see any wisdom
whatsoever, in STGDP’s call for the UDP to join a smaller party, NADD, in
the guise of compromise. If abandoning one’s party for another is the only
solution to this stalemate, then the common sense approach would be for the
smaller parties including NADD, to join UDP since the latter is the biggest.

As a matter of fact, what this process requires is not for parties to
abandon their ship to join another but for the smaller parties to rally
behind the biggest in line with internationally recognised and acceptable
standards and norms of coalition building and as a matter of political
legitimacy and necessity.

Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006, I
find it utterly incomprehensible that the SGTDP would like to think that the
resurrection of the same old squabble that causes serious damage to
inter-opposition party relations can engender a realistic compromise
solution to this impasse. If they had done a careful and balanced assessment
of the situation and the facts on the ground, I have no doubt that the
STGDP would have realised that this idea has no potential but for the
opening of the Pandora’s Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise
to be engendered let alone realised in that kind of environment.

By virtue of their usage of an unexplained grievance that the PDOIS party
apparently holds against the UDP as a sole rational behind their proposal,
the STGDP has also failed to take into account the grievances of the UDP in
the same respect 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
[NADD] and which cost the leader of the NRP, Mr. Hamat N.K Bah, his
parliamentary seat. Therefore, both the UDP and the NRP can and quite
legitimately, equally use their experience of 2006 and prior as a
justification for their withdrawal and reason for refusing to return to
NADD. The premise of STGDP’s compromise proposal is therefore fundamentally
flawed in its lack objectivity and appreciation of the facts on the ground.

Their 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 after careful
consideration. Therefore, if there was any UDP claim to NADD, that claim has
been entirely relinquished in 2006 when the party pulled out.

Suffice it to say; the NADD that the UDP participated in creating was
intended to be an alliance, not a political party, and this is
clearly stipulated in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Memorandum of
Understanding [MOU] that established the alliance. However, that creation
was completely and utterly obliterated when NADD was clandestinely
registered with the Independent Electoral Commission, despite opposition
from the UDP, as a political party and thereby changing its nature and
status. Therefore, it is completely and utterly erroneous to state that NADD
as it currently stands was created by all the opposition parties.

A genuine pursuit of national interest and goals must always be guided by
principles and values that are universally recognised and cherished.
Otherwise it is bound to fail before it even starts. Thus, the idea that the
universal principles and standards that underpin coalition building
everywhere in this world should be forgone in our case for national interest
is utterly simplistic at best; and disingenuous at worst.

STGDP should also explain why it continues to be their position that it is
the UDP that must do everything inconceivable and unheard of to break this
coalition stalemate when the PDOIS/NADD party, on the other hand, is ever
determined to remain firm in their trenches of unreasonableness and
intransigence, not to mention their persistent refusal to reciprocate UDP’s
overtures.

If the STGDP wants UDP to return to NADD, then it would be advisable for
them to consider actively lobbying for a complete de-registration of NADD so
that it can re-claim its original and intended status, an alliance, with a
flag bearer chosen from within the UDP and sponsored under a UDP ticket.
This must be so as the UDP would still be the largest constituent party in
the alliance anyway.

Talking about compromise; the onus is obviously on the smaller parties
including PDOIS and NADD to first recognise and accept the political
legitimacy of a UDP led alliance, at least in principle, and then state
whatever condition[s] they would like to see 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 compromise more
realistic and feasible. This is how a compromise solution can be engendered.
However, PDOIS and NADD mustn’t think they can have it both ways; they would
have to either indicate their willingness to become part of the proposed UDP
led alliance with conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to
talk about conditionality in that respect.

In my view, the NADD issue is an antiquated one that has not only been
rendered obsolete but also lacking taste.

*PDOIS’s Subterfuge*

The pronouncement by PDOIS that a party led alliance is only prudent where
there is a second round electoral system is the most ridiculous statement
ever made in this 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 Brazil
and yet it is the biggest party that led the coalition which brought that
country’s new president, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff, to power. - The list can go
on- In all these cases, the idea of a primary to select a leader/candidate
had been unthinkable and none-existent. PDOIS’s pronouncement is therefore
not only baseless but also and very clearly, a preposterous subterfuge that
they are now clinging on, regrettably, to hide their intransigence and
refusal to heed to the popular call for the opposition to forge an all
inclusive coalition to challenge the incumbent APRC in the forthcoming
elections.

SS Daffeh

Secretary-General

UDP UK

www.udpgambia.com

-- 
*
*****************************************************************************
GOD BLESS THE GAMBIA.
LET US JOIN HANDS AND SUPPORT SHEIKH PROFESSOR DR. ALH YAHYA JAMMEH (NASIRU
DEEN) TO BUILD OUR COUNTRY. *


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤