On Apr 5, 2011 5:52 AM, "UDP United Kingdom" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤