Subject: Re: [G_L] Hamat Resigning from NRP and going Independent....He has Rolled Over
Daffeh, thanks for your input. UDP's acceptance of the one term limit for the coalition flag bearer was a great gesture.] EJ.
UDP's acceptance of a 1-term limit for a coalition president was to accomodate PDOIS' insistence on a transition period.
[That said; I believe the UDP is advocating a two limit for subsequent Presidents after the five year transition period.] EJ.
Yes. After the 1-term transition period, the UDP believes the opposition parties must maintain their independence and unique identities. And in furtherance of democracy, the UDP believes in a 2-presidential-term-limit for all succeeding presidents of Gambia.
[So it wouldn't be lost on UDP why most of us here - across party lines would want to see the one term and subsequent two term limits implemented.] EJ.
That is implemented by the CONSTITUTION of GAMBIA. A Convent of NRP/PDOIS/GPDP/Martin group of opposition parties cannot implement that nor can a PDOIS congress implement that.
{For me the major stumbling blocks that scuppered a fully inclusive coalition was UDP's insistence that it's size be taken into account by way of other parties falling behind them as the biggest of the group to form a coalition[Party led].} EJ.
I'm afraid you misunderstood Edi. The UDP insisted, and rightly so, that the UDP is in the best position to lead a united alliance of opposition parties once that is formed. The United Alliance, once formed, should be led by the UDP on account of that party's superlative electoral affinities and political capacity. If you read your statement carefully and compare it to this statement, you will recognize the valuable distinction of the different designs. They are not the same.
[And PDOIS' insistence that it needs to be voted on through a primary/convention.] EJ.
Once a United alliance is formed, there is no need nor rationale to choose the leader of the alliance of political parties through a primary or convent of delegates. The idea is TO CHOOSE THE LEADER OF A UNITED ALLIANCE/COALITION of OPPOSITION POLITICAL PARTIES. When you add a layer of a super convent, you are effectively abnegating the citizens' expression of will for their leaders. Let me explain it another way:
If you, Daffeh, and myself, representing 3 different political parties, come together to form a united alliance of our 3 parties because we had each been chosen as leaders of our respective parties by our subsections of Gambian society, and we all say the reason we are coming together is to remove BMW from leadership of Gambia, we are mandated by our different partisans to enter into the contract to UNITE. Once we edge Daffeh out to advance our individual party desires, and decide to choose a leader among Edi and Haruna by way of a Delegate Convent, we have effectively discarded the URGENCY of our expedition to come together. Think about it a little bit. By default, we are ensuring that BMW continues to govern us and our partisans.
[If this recommendation taking UDP's size into account was adopted it is my contention that Darboe would come out on top and we would've had a filly inclusive coalition.] EJ.
The very exercise of choosing a UNITED opposition flagbearer by way of a Delegate Convent rejects UDP's size. I think you are understanding a Convention as the mechanism to form a UNITED alliance of opposition parties. It is not. It cannot be. The Convent implies a UNITED opposition alliance had already been formed and agreed upon. The Convent was intended by Halifa to choose the leader of that ALLIANCE of opposition parities. WHich then ignores the sizes of the constituent parties who formed the alliance. AND if UDp were to come out the choice to lead such a UNITED alliance of opposition parties via a Delegate Convent, it would have still abrogated the authorities of the various parties to form the UNITED Alliance in the first place. Let me try to explain further; If I gave you power of attorney or agency to enter into an agreement with a third party on my behalf and you made that agreement. Then you turn around to complete another secondary (based on my primary) agreement without my consent or participation, by default, you have obviated the primary agreement, and now by extension, you have undermined your secondary agreement by virtue of fraudulent agency. How many powers of attorney do you now imagine you will obtain when you come back to me with a fraudulently sealed agreement to seek my re-certification??????????
[UDP's size would've counted and the other sides would've be given a chance to vote on it.] EJ.
UDP's size would have been rejected and it is not the purview of any other party to determine the size of any other party. Those sizes had already been determined by the partisans.
[To me the questin is not who proposed the different components, but how we could've had a way that is fair and seen to be fair by all or at least the majority.] EJ.
You are right Edi in that it doesn't really matter who proposed what. The idea is that there is common agreement on the value of forming a UNITED opposition alliance. Size was one element that is fair and is seen to be fair by all or at least the majority of Gambians. That connotes superlative size.
[I believe this proposal came from Musa Jeng of STGDP.] EJ.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. What proposal came from Musa Jeng??? And do you really believe what you said earlier? That it doesn't matter who proposed what??? The proposal to accrue a divided opposition, if that's what you mean, is a malignant proposal. And if Musa Jeng came up with that cacamayme proposal, he'll have me to answer to.
[Chers Jah] EJ.
Back at you Jah. Think about this a bit more. Haruna.
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 unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html