Edi, The UDP insisted on leading any coalition that they would partake in as the biggest opposition party because that is the democratic norm in the world that we live. We also take cognisance of the fact that coalitions are always formulated on the basis of compromise; meaning prospective constituents would have to accommodate some element of each others' view or positions on issues. That is why we conceded, in the context of a coalition, the pdois proposed 5yr limit and all its attendant conditions. The UDP never asked for a proportional representation for it is already our position that based on our status as the biggest party who consistently pulled far more votes than the other parties in every elections since the birth of the second republic, we have already acquired the legitimacy to lead any coalition in which we are to partake, and this is an entrenched democratic principle in the world that we live in. The PDOIS primary/convention proposals were specifically designed to reject the legitimacy that the people have given to the UDP as the official opposition time and time again. Before you start talking about proportional representation which, by the way is a pdois proposal, you need to ask yourself what component of the UDP proposal did pdois accommodated? The answer is nil. The next question you need to ask yourself is whether it is reasonable for pdois to insist that the coalition would be formulated entirely on the basis of their proposal and in total contempt and disregard to udp proposal, who are, in fact, the convenors of the unity talks? Well, that's exactly what pdois has done and you said nothing about it. The size factor you alluded to is only there to demonstrate that the UDP already got the legitimacy to lead. Therefore, submitting ourselves to a convention regardless of whether or not we can win it, especially in that unconventional format; will only invite malicious and insincere challenges to UDP’s legitimacy to lead a coalition. That is not and will never be acceptable to us as long as we remain the biggest opposition party or become the incumbent party. The UDP is the biggest opposition party in the country. That is an incontrovertible fact. What is also true is that more people elected Ousainu Darboe to be the leader in the 2010 Jarra congress than the 189 delegates who elected Hamat at the PDOIS engineered convention. Also, if you believe that the outcome was a forgone conclusion if UDP had partake in the convention, i.e. UDP victory, why a convention then? You also need to acknowledge that Hamat has explicitly stated on several occasions that he was not going to be part of any alliance that is not led by him. Thus, even if UDP had partake in the convention and won as you predicted, that would not have resulted to unity but mere waste of money, further polarisation and disharmony in the opposition camp. The intransigence that pdois has exhibited against anything udp also meant that even if the UDP had partake in the convention and won, we would not be able enlist the support of pdois wholeheartedly. Again, this defeats the whole essence of unity. In any case, the primary/convention among different contenders who do not belong to the same party is unheard of and without precedent. The norm is that coalition leadership is always given to the party with the largest followership with questioning, and that party is the United Democratic Party. The sheer hypocrisy being exhibited by so-called elites is both ungambian and ungodly. I think you need to give us a break. Regards Daffeh On 9 November 2011 16:02, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Edi, > > > > The UDP insisted on leading any coalition that they would partake in as > the biggest opposition party because that is the conventional room. We also > take cognisance of the fact that coalitions are always formulated on the > basis of compromise; meaning prospective constituents would have to > accommodate some element of each others' view or positions on issues. > > > > The UDP never asked for a proportional representation for it is already > our position that based on our status as the biggest party who consistently > pulled far more votes than the other parties in every elections since the > birth of the second republic, we have already acquired the legitimacy to > lead any coalition in which we are to partake, and this is an entrenched > democratic principle in the world that we live in. The PDOIS > primary/convention proposals were specifically designed to reject the > legitimacy that the people have given to the UDP as the official opposition > time and time again. > > > > Before you start talking about proportional representation which, by the > way is a pdois proposal, you need to ask yourself what component of the UDP > proposal did pdois accommodated? The answer is nil. The next question you > need to ask yourself is whether it is reasonable for pdois to insist that > the coalition would be formulated entirely on the basis of their proposal > and in total contempt and disregard to udp proposal, who are, in fact, the > convenors of the unity talks? Well, that's exactly what pdois has done and > who said nothing about it. > > > > The size factor you alluded to is only there to demonstrate that the UDP > already got the legitimacy to lead. Therefore, submitting ourselves to a > convention regardless of whether or not we can win it, especially in that > unconventional format; will only invites malicious and insincere challenges > to UDP legitimacy to lead a coalition. That is not acceptable to us as long > as we remain the biggest opposition party or become the incumbent party. > The UDP is the biggest opposition party in the country, and more people > elected Ousainu Darboe to be the leader in the 2010 Jarra congress than the > 189 delegates who elected Hamat at the PDOIS engineered convention. > > > > Also, if you believe that forgone conclusion, if UDP had partake in the > convention, was a UDP victory, why a convention then. You also need to > acknowledge that Hamat has explicitly stated on several occasions that he > was not going to be part of any alliance that is not led by him. Thus, even > if UDP had partake in the convention and won as you predicted, that would > not have resulted to unity but mere waste of money, further polarisation > and disharmony in the opposition. > > > > The intransigence that pdois has exhibited against anything udp would also > mean that even if the UDP had partake in the convention and won, we would > that be able enlist the support of pdois wholeheartedly. > > > > In any case, the primary/convention among different contenders who do not > belong to the same party is unheard of and without precedent. The norm is > that coalition leadership is always given to the party with the largest > followership with questioning, and that party is the United Democratic > Party. > > > > The sheer hypocrisy being exhibited by so-called elites is both ungambian > and ungodly. > > > > Regards > > Daffeh > > > >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 9 Nov 2011, at 12:y49, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> No Edi. The perfect compromised would have been as thus; UDP accepts >> one component of PDOIS's Agenda 2011 in return for pdois's acceptance of a >> UDP led alliance. >> >> UDP had conceded the 5yr term limit and all the attendant conditions >> proposed by pdois but pdois, on the other hand, accepted nothing from the >> UDP proposal. That's why compromise could not be engendered. >> >> The convention is a pdois proposal that was placed in opposition to the >> entirety of UDP's proposal. So clearly, what you are asking for is a >> coalition that is based entirely on pdois's proposals. That is not >> compromise; that is called imposition. It was the UDP that tried engendered >> compromise in the face of stiff opposition from pdois who were determined >> not to entertain any element of UDP proposal. >> >> Thanks >> Daffeh >> >> On 9 November 2011 12:17, Edi Jah <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Suntou, thanks for the forward. >>> >>> ''It was recommended that proportional representation be introduced to >>> enable the UDP to have its majority and then leave the delegates to select >>> one person among the opposition to be the flag bearer. After the selection >>> of the flagbearer a motion could then be introduced to propose that the >>> delegates make a decision for the flag bearer to contest under a party >>> ticket or an Independent ticket. When the motion is seconded and subjected >>> to voting whatever the delegates decide would be accepted as binding to >>> all. '' >>> >>> IMO this recommendation would have been a perfect compromise because it >>> takes two most contentious issues into account - party sizes and putting >>> the flag bearer issue to a vote. >>> >>> Folks, If you think this was a missed opportunity please advance some >>> reasons? >>> >>> If you think this compromise wasn't good enough please advance some >>> reasons? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jah >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:23, suntou touray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> > Halifa: The flagbearer wanted to run on an NRP ticket while the >>> parties recommended that he runs under an Independent ticket. It took time >>> for the flag bearer to make a decision. >>> > >>> > Foroyaa: Was this not made clear by the MOU? >>> > >>> > Halifa: The MOU provides for the delegates to elect a flag bearer and >>> determine candidature which could be either party led or independent >>> candidature. >>> > >>> > Foroyaa: Is this not confusing? >>> > >>> > Halifa: It is not confusing if the explanation is clear. The Gambian >>> people wanted everyone onboard so that we could have one candidate within >>> the opposition to contest against the incumbent. It was recommended that >>> proportional representation be introduced to enable the UDP to have its >>> majority and then leave the delegates to select one person among the >>> opposition to be the flag bearer. After the selection of the flagbearer a >>> motion could then be introduced to propose that the delegates make a >>> decision for the flag bearer to contest under a party ticket or an >>> Independent ticket. When the motion is seconded and subjected to voting >>> whatever the delegates decide would be accepted as binding to all. >>> >>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ >>> 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤