Yes I am fine, Haruna. There is no point responding to this duo. One is a walter mitty, the other a disingenuous hysteric. Thanks for checking on me. Daffeh On 5 April 2011 06:27, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Daffeh, I hope you're alright!!!!!!!! > > Haruna. Cousin Fakoo Fakoo is closet UDP. > > -----Original Message----- > From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> > To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Mon, Apr 4, 2011 9:26 am > Subject: Re: STGDP=?windows-1252?Q?=92s_?=Call for a Return to NADD is > Disingenuous - WHAT A SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION... > > 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤