My apologies, I meant to say Daffeh. Wandifa, I apologize On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Joe Joe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Opposition discussion is a none issue for Gambians at this time. The > discussion has long ceased to be opposition anything. I wonder who the > partisans are preaching to, except their choir. Just go sweep the polls! > > Joe > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:36:32 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A > SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION... > To: [log in to unmask] > > > Wandifa, > I bet all your colleagues from the other opposition parties disagree with > you... they may not come directly here to confront you but they will soon. > As for me, dont mind me... All I want you to record in your diary is that > UDP by itself will not pull 10%..... > > Have a good day > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:26 AM, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask] > > wrote: > > Fankung, almost all coalitions are premised on the recognition that no one > party can do it alone. However, that has never precluded the legitimacy of > the majority party to lead. That is why the Conservative Party of David > Cameroon is leading a coalition government here in the U.K despite the fact > that they could not have formed a government on their own without having to > coalesce with another party, the Liberal Democrats. In a democracy, > legitimacy is always derived from the majority, not the minority or your > silly notion of equality. > > My rejoinder is only meant to clarify issues. I have no interest > whatsoever, in fostering a ping pong game with people like you on this > coalition issue. > > My advice to you is to consider inculcating some element of sincerity in > yourself when debating national issues. > > Have a good day. > > Daffeh > > On 4 April 2011 13:28, Fankung Fankung Jammeh <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > > 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > > > > > -- > * > > ***************************************************************************** > 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > -- * ***************************************************************************** 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤