(JollofNews) – The outcome of the recent parliamentary election is ringing endorsement of the UDP as a dominant political force. The key challenge for our new democracy now is how to create an effective opposition force that has the capacity to face up to a dominant political force.
As oppositions remain fragmented and divided, this raises the question whether the UDP’s absolute majority is likely to lead to the insulation of one dominant-party system. Obviously, there is an intrinsic relationship between the attainment of a dominant status and the effective opposition’s concept.
In this sense, the ineffective opposition is likely to enhance the dominant political force’s ability to consolidate its support base, and ultimately engender the decline of the oppositions. This may well be prevented if the oppositions act together on common grounds, to advance the aggregated interest of the society. Failing to do so, the ruling elite will remains unaccountable, and many more self-serving missions seem inevitable consequence. In my view, such pitfall poses the greater threat to equal political representation than the overstated tribal divisions.
Our unity to advance the collective good of the society seems an attractive choice, rather than pontificating about tribal divisions that are overly exaggerated to benefit the proponents. We are Gambians; we transcend tribes to build a fairer and pluralistic society. The former USA President Barrack Obama eloquently said this, “the future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common, as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict. ”
The President’s assertion captures two main features of multicultural society, namely, conflicts and unity. The former can be avoided if we accept our differences as distinctive tribes and work for the collective good. The latter is necessary for the stability of our country as we come together to build a prosperous Gambia. The same proposition is espoused by Philosopher Will Kymlicka, in his theory of Liberal Multiculturalism, he postulates that a greater integration of the communities is better achieved if different groups respect and preserve each other distinctiveness. We are bound together through marriages and friendships for centuries. Recognising each other distinctiveness has allowed us to live in an inclusive society. So let us remain committed such values to imbue unity among all tribes.
While the UDP appears to have gained the support of the major tribes, it is representative of Gambians’ society as its MPs hail from different ethnic backgrounds. It may be controversial, but coherent for individuals to align themselves with a political party through a tribal line. Tribal politics is distinct identity political practice deploys by many political parties in order assume political power.
Of course, political parties are likely to exemplify values such as cultural practice, language that are essential to tribes so as to influence the political thinking of the voters. This may fan the flames of political discontent, but it seems necessary so to attain political power. In any case, if political parties are to be successful in bringing out meaningful changes in ordinary Gambians’ life they must attain power by any reasonable means. After all, political power tends to grow out a barrel of a gun. So it is a realistic expectation for political parties to deploy tribal politics in furtherance of their political ambitions. What seems abhorrent is the differential treatment of one tribe at the expenses of others without any legal justification. Such principle cannot sit comfortably with the notion of equality.
Nonetheless, the opposition must succinctly scrutinise the legislative process of the government to protect the interests of those they represented. A scattered gun approach may not be so effective in holding the government to account given the absolute majority of the UDP. What seems necessary is a united opposition force with common objectives to balance the power of the incumbent. Indeed, the less effective oppositions are, the more their ability to oust an incumbent diminishes. This was self-evident in the way in which the Coalition attained political power.
It is a given fact when there is no realistic prospect for a political party to form a future government,’ the party’s protagonists will desert the party as the promise of a change disappears into a distant future. Consequently, series of political capitulation (in Gambian’s political term cross carpeting) to the ruling party may follow to splinter the parties’ support base. In this regard, the party in question will find it inherently difficult to build a formidable political force capable of winning the political power. Take, for instance, the NCP was in similar position for many years without increasing its electoral success. In fact, its support was in serious decline. Similarly, the re-invention of the PPP seems to have spectacularly failed to reinvigorate its former support base. The APRC’s heavy loss provides another explanation why voters are likely to desert a political party which is deemed to have no chance of assuming power.
The fact is that it was unconvincing to the voters that these parties had a realistic of winning political power. Therefore, there was no need to vote for impotent political parties that may not bring out change. It is safe to say, an effective and united opposition can only provide political parties with a realistic path to government. It can also be seen as an effective way of ousting entrenched ruling elite.
In conclusion, while the UDP represents a dominant political power in the Gambia, an effective opposition seems necessary to balance the power in the legislature, so as the other organs of the state in order to protect all Gambians’ interests. Failure to do so, our democracy runs the risk of being reduced to one dominant- party system. That may transform itself into a light dictatorship with the ability to control all narratives through media, at the expense of our well-fought democracy.
Forward with the Gambia!
Solomon Demba
The argument for an effective opposition is valid, but when one endorses tribal politics and seems to okay politics that appeal to tribal loyalties to get into office, as this writer seems to have done, then that individual, for me, has completely lost the argument.
Tribal politics has no place in a modern state and the very notion of counterbalance, between “dominant” ruling party and opposition, will be defeated if we accept tribal politics as essential to gain political office, because a party that relied on tribal loyalty to get into office, will not hesitate to use the same to entrench itself, if it is so inclined.
The change that we should all desire to see in The Gambia, is one that ushers in a departure from the politics of “old”, where politicians appeal to popular sentiments, family and tribal loyalties, to a new era of politics of serious programmes and policies that address the issues faced by the nation.
The UDP, despite numerous attempts to argue otherwise, is a member party of the 2017 Coalition and must use its majority in the National Assembly to support the agreed reform agenda of the Coalition, as laid down in the MOU. If it fails to do so, then it will be our responsibility to ensure that it (UDP) does not morph into another PPP type administration, that wasn’t repressive, but was so dominant that it was effectively a one party “dictatorship” for three decades.
Countering the power of the UDP to stop it becoming another PPP is not the responsibility of the opposition alone, and if history is anything to go by, the opposition will be incapable of doing this under the same political climate and environmental, as we saw in the past.
I think the bigger issue facing Gambia is corruption.
From what I witnessed, nearly all public officials had some kind of scam or ” sideline” attached to the relevant position they held. It was a passport to value added income. One of the few guys who I came across who wasn’t any of the above was Gambia’s Inspector of Taxes. It’s a way of life, hard to resist. It starts as soon as you get off the aircraft.
I think the appropriate phrase is;
” should he cut off his nose to spite his face “?
One Government Minister said to me : In gambia you can be anything you want for 200 Dalasis.
We will watch closely what the next 5 years will bring. Unlike an individual, a nation can never go totally bankrupt. As long as the citizen needs an income, the tax on it will surely flow. One law for the rich>.No law for the poor.
My in-law, the writer states as follows:
“It may be controversial, but coherent for individuals to align themselves with a political party through a tribal line. Tribal politics is distinct identity political practice deployed by many political parties in order to assume political power.”
You think he is wrong to “endorse tribal politics” in this way, and clearly he refers to the UDP. What about Banjul, my in-law, which voted PDOIS and PPP and REJECTED UDP – could it not be argued that is tribal “politics too”? What about the Fonis and APRC?
I think the REALITY is what the writer says: “Tribal politics is distinct identity political practice deployed by many political parties in order assume political power”.
This REALITY is not just in Africa, but World-Wide: even in the USA only one tribe, the White tribe, voted for Trump.
Similarly in UK, the Conservatives are the party of the White Tribe – Blacks and Asians overwhelming vote for the Labour Party.
Everytime Anglo-Saxon USA goes to war, it is the Anglo-Saxon Nations that back her: UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand ALWAYS fight with USA – it is a TRIBAL thing.
Having accepted that REALITY, then what we need to do, as the writer suggests, is to make SPACE for other “distinct identities” to be heard – through an effective Opposition Grouping. And of course, the Constitution and the Rule of Law guarantees the Rights of ALL irrespective of party allegiance of “identity”.
The Majority Party, as stated in Lawyer Darboe’s recent speech, must be a guarantor of the rights of all – and the Minority Opposition Parties are there to be the watchdogs of the rights of all.
Put that way, I think the writer makes a good case for a strong Opposition – “tribally” based or not.
My in law, I accept that the reality of Gambia’s politics today is that tribe is a significant factor of influence for the choices that many voters make, but I DO NOT accept that we should create “space” for other “distinct identities” (which would they be: religious; gender; age; sexuality ?) to be heard, to have an effective opposition.
I think tribal politics, however harmless and advantageous it might seem, given our disposition to tribe and tribally related issues, is a very dangerous route to take in The Gambia.
We can have effective opposition by changing the way we relate to our political parties/politicians and the way we make political choices, but our political system, culture and practices need to change, through education (both formal & informal) and an open society, where debates and dialogue are encouraged and allowed to flourish. And I agree with Kinteh (Kemo) that this will take time.
You know very well that in the Anglo-Saxon/USA “tribal world”, the “tribal pendulum” often swings from one “ethnic group” to the other because, not only are their “tribal loyalties” less significant (to individuals) and deep rooted like ours, the loyalties only go as far as issues that are of concern to the public. That’s why we can have a Clinton one day, a Bush the next, an Obama the day after and a Trump too.
Reality is indeed different from ideal. UDP must pursue the ideal that brought change. An ideal Gambia in which institutions become stronger, democratic pluralism prevails, constitution is reformed so that fundamental principles of human rights are entrenched, laws repealed that, in any form, stifles individual liberties. An ideal Gambia in which all can compete freely to usher in economic prosperity.
Reality on the other hand caution that an ideal Gambia must be steadfastly guarded and strengthened. In that vein I support the arguments of the writer regarding the need for a strong opposition albeit with some reservations. Theoretically there are only 10 opposition members in parliament – albeit still a significant number compared to Jammeh era parliament. Can aprc/GDC block serve as strong opposition? It is not yet clear what both stand for and with whom they want to alliance with. Hence, I am apprehensive about the chances of these 2 entities coming together to forment a united front. Added to the wound, is that both entirely appeal to narrow ethnic sensitivities – ironically a seed sowed by their “godfather” Jammeh.
Therefore the role of constructive opposition or govt scrutiny must be sought within the broad spectrum of the Gambia state. To me, these are the press, healthy competition among the coalition parties in NA, civil society groups, diaspora pressure groups, students associations , bar association etc.
Nevertheless I would be naive not realise that Gambia is an evolving democracy and the ideal for an effective opposition party would need time. And the reality is that due to the ousted govt ways, many Gambian see UDP in the strong position to embody a strong state party and thus is poised to dominate politics for the foreseeable future. I think that is reality.
Sorry my in-law, I missed this: “… if history is anything to go by… ”
You shouldn’t go by history! At least 50% of Gambia’s current population were born after the PPP lost power. It is a new generation who see themselves as Gambians first. Trust me, if a UDP-government fails to deliver, it can’t depend on the “tribal card” to hang onto power as the PPP did in a previous generation. This is a new informed social-media and on-line generation and they will vote according to issues rather than “tribe” – sorry but PDOIS lost on issues!(Couldn’t resist that dig my in-law!).
I am not convinced that a UDP Government will be punished by voters if it fails to deliver. I don’t think any party in government, under current circumstances, will be punished by Gambian voters just for failing to deliver. There will always be a convenient excuse to make or “culprit” to blame, and the majority will fall for it.
Yaya Jammeh lost through the ballot because he became senselessly stupid, unbelievably cruel and incomprehensibly arrogant. However, the margin of ONLY 18,000 votes, despite the suffering and cruelty of his regime, writes its own story about Gambian voters.
We need attitudinal change and the political awareness to relate our hardship to our political leadership, rather than God, and the courage to abandon our parties and vote for democratic change that offers answers to our questions, anytime we have those questions.
When we reach that level in our political evolution, we will cease to be taken for granted by any party or politician. Otherwise, in my view, no amount of social media campaign (some of which is aimed at maintaining the status quo) will change the reality of our politics anytime soon.
Bax, “We need attitudinal change and the political awareness to relate our hardship to our political leadership, rather than God” Lol, Classic (god willing) as most people say, your correct Bax, people have to smell the coffee and rise up.
I wouldn’t believe all that an anti western African has to say about Western values. Clearly the creation of the Welfare state in the UK in 1948 by a Welshman Nye Bevan, of The Labour Party, set the imbalance between the rich and the poor on a courageous path towards equality and a new concept of fraternity known as human rights.
It is another concept for The Conservatives to be the mirror image of Americanisation as of Thatcher Blair and now May. They would wish to rejoin historical allegiance to the Privatisation of everything as the holy grail of elitism for the rich over the poor. The concept of something that is free at the point of need is far above their political ideology.
In any case the NHS and the benefit system, is once again under attack. The American’s would wish they had it and scorn because they don’t and cannot bring themselves to own it.
As for Gambia/ 52 years of feeding the rich and starving the poor is becoming a bit of a perennial philosophy that the bankers chase after with glee.
As Blair once said ;” The West could cure Africa’s problems if it had a mind.”
He also said “Africa is the scar of the conscience of mankind”
To date;
No cure.
No conscience.
Only debt.
Quote: “As for Gambia/ 52 years of feeding the rich and starving the poor is becoming a bit of a perennial philosophy that the bankers chase after with glee.”
Observation: I don’t know if it’s “fake news” or not, but I heard a very agitated Pa Nderry Mbai accusing ministers in the Barrow Administration of being allocated with 3 vehicles for their use:
One as official; one for school runs; one for the missus.
That’s what both Jawara & Jammeh ministers enjoyed.
I think my “old Friend “Baba Jobe had one for each wife and then some.
Me am happy to clean one car once a week. I got rid of all my wives;even though I let them think they got rid of me .lol
I mean what does a class “E” heavily indebted nation actually mean ?
Could Gambia set a record as being the first nation to have twice the debt of its total Gross annual income. No wonder hon. Halifa wanted none of it. and guess what? You have 4 years 8 months to go.
There is a chapter in the Holy Book which described Jesus marching into the temple of God to throw over the tables of the money lenders.
I think our man knew a thing or two about greed.
How many Prime Ministers has the UK had in my lifetime ?I’ve lost count. Some resign, Some are pushed and Some fade away to become a ” non person”
It makes me wonder why they all wanted the job in the first place; But ambition and privilege is a “Monster”
Term limits would certainly assist the Gambia, refresh and move forward. Likewise a strong opposition capable of bringing a different perspective to the table.
That reminds me; I need to go and vote/