(JollofNews) – The United Democratic Party (UDP), the National Reconciliation Party (NRP) and the Gambia Moral Congress (GMC), have jointly proposed a tactical alliance approach within the framework of the coalition.
The purpose of the tactical alliance is to achieve coalition victory in the upcoming National Assembly elections scheduled for April, 2017. These parties strongly believe that the proposed tactical alliance would be the most effective approach for the consolidation of power by President Adama Barrow to enable him and his team to fulfill their mandate for reform and reconstruction in the Gambia.
In the past few years, the UDP, NRP and GMC have proposed or participated in various initiatives aimed at forming a coalition to defeat the repressive APRC government. These initiatives include:
* The “Gambians united for change” rallies in 2013/2014.
* The 2016 UDP congress resolution mandated the party leadership to negotiate with all opposition parties on the formation of a united front that would sponsor a single candidate to contest the presidential election.
* The formation in 2015 of the inter party youth forum initiated by Honourable Samba Jallow, the minority leader, comprising several opposition parties.
* In March, GMC hosted a multi party meeting at Taibatu, URR with a view to facilitating the formation of a united front for the 2016 elections and paving the way for a single candidate for the 2016 presidential election.
* In furtherance of the efforts for political unity, the UDP, NRP and the GMC hereby call on all members of the coalition to join them in implementing a Tactical Alliance strategy in the forthcoming elections.
Coalition 2016 was formed for the sole purpose of selecting a unified opposition candidate to unseat the former President. The coalition agreement dated October 17, 2016, dealt with the election of the presidential candidate. The agreement did not cover matters concerning the National Assembly elections. No agreement was reached on how the coalition partners should cooperate in the sponsorship and selection of candidates for the forthcoming National Assembly election.
However, in the spirit of continuing and maintaining the coalition, the UDP, NRP and GMC have proposed a tactical alliance strategy among all the coalition partners. This entails choosing a candidate whose party is strongest in a particular constituency or one who is markedly qualified to represent the coalition in the said constituency.
Under the UDP/NRP/GMC proposal, no member of the coalition will sponsor a candidate in any constituency where the tactical alliance has selected a candidate. This approach will preserve and protect the coalition spirit as well as the parties and their ideological positions within the coalition. With this approach, a party will sponsor candidates in areas where it commands the highest support and its coalition partners would give support and vice versa in the name of the coalition.
All National Assembly Members elected within the framework of the tactical alliance will owe allegiance to their various parties and will support the president and his transition government, in the coalition spirit.
In addition to the above, the UDP/NRP/GMC strongly believe that the proposed tactical alliance will engender benefits including the following:
1. Maintain and promote multi party democracy;
2. Enhance electoral success for the coalition;
3. Promote coordination and harmonization of coalition legislative programmes and agenda;
4. Promote collegiality among coalition 2016 legislators
5. Allow the various coalition partners to maintain their political visibility and competitiveness, and
6. Allow all the coalition partners to support President Adama Barrow’s legislative agenda while maintaining their political identities
The proposal of having 53 independent National Assembly members representing the coalition is neither wise nor feasible because of various reasons including the following:
1. The legislative agenda for the development of the country must be based on the collective (partisan) ideological plans and programmes developed by all the parties over the past 22 years. This cannot and must not be thrown away. To entrust the nation’s legislative agenda to 53 independent representatives who do not have a common platform is recipe for chaos, confusion, inefficiency, constant stalemates and lack of direction.
2. It would also create a disconnect between the well developed programmes of some of the political parties and the legislative activities of the elected members of the National Assembly.
3. Each party has a right and duty to continue to assess the political realities and socio-economic needs of the country and to formulate legislative actions consistent with the party’s philosophy and vision. This would be lost if there is no party representation in the National Assembly.
4. Legislators always caucus and form voting blocs based on political ideology and vision. This is an integral part of the legislative process in any democracy to achieve the development programmes of all political parties. The tactical alliance being proposed by the UDP, NRP and GMC will allow the coalition National Assembly members to present a united front based on a common platform, as opposed to creating a chaotic situation whereby 53 National Assembly members proceed on their own individual paths.
5. The tactical alliance will promote accountability. The public will be able to judge the performance of the various parties based on their achievements in the National Assembly. The UDP, NRP and GMC are opposed to the proposal of having 53 independent candidates because, in part, it prevents the Gambian citizens from being able to assign credit or blame for their legislative successes and failures.
Finally, the UDP/NRP/GMC would like to reiterate that as founding members of the coalition 2016 which removed Yahya Jammeh from power through the ballot box; their parties will continue to commit their support to the coalition government of President Adama Barrow. Any rumour that these parties are not agreeing to an independent party platform and therefore have intentions of breaking or destroying the coalition that they fought so hard to create, is not only false and deliberately misleading but utterly dishonest.
The UDP/NRP/GMC wish to assure our coalition partners and indeed the entire Gambian population that they will never relent from playing their part in the coalition in the interest and wellbeing of the Gambian Nation.
TO: HAMAT BAH, THE LEADERSHIP OF NRP AND THE SUPPORTERS:
Hamat Bah Should Turn Arround and look at the Wall behind him at the Conference room above. Whoes in the Picture behind him? His naivete may not only cost him and his Party, but the Gambia a lot for many years to come. UDP under Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty are Not a Party in the Political sense. WITHOUT THE COALITION, GAMBIA WOULD BE WORST THAN THE ALLEGED REPRESSION THE SECOND REPUBLIC WAS ACUSED OFF BY THE SAME GANG OF TWO, OUSAINOU DARBO AND MAI FATTY. It is an Ethnic Group led Cult bent on turning Gambia into a Despotic and Single Ethnic Dominant Party in the Gambia. Such a Party does not entertain any true Opposition Parties including NRP. Wake up before it is too late. Hamat Bah, You are being used and played for a Chump, the Only Value UDP and Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty place on you, is the Votes they Want you to Deliver to them. You will be Sidelined as soon as they’re finished with you. Be careful. As soon as their Schemes are achieved, you can bet that you will be Ejected and Rejected by Virtue of “Outsider” Status within UDP and its Leadership. Gambia’s future Destiny, Sustainable development and Advancement depends on the Defeat and Containment of two of the most dangerous and noxious brew of Personalities in the names and persons of Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty and the UDP.
It is now laid bare for all to see. Politicians are opportunist interested in grabbing power and enriching themselves. Those who think politicians prime motivation is nation building and public service are going to be disappointed. I must confess that this action by all the stakeholders is expected, what is surprising is how quickly it happened.
It is sad that these men, given a unique and sacred opportunity to do something historic, to help direct the affairs of our nation, chose to squander that opportunity and instead pursue selfish ambition.
God Bless The Gambia.
I am amazed on how ungrateful is Darbo towards Gambians. Instead of thanking Gambians for electing Adama Barrow whose hand made him a free man, although his case is still pending at the Courts. Gambians voted for the Coalition and not UDP. Yaya JAMMEH must be dancing in exile telling his people, ‘I TOLD SO”
Jammeh will indeed rejoice and confirm himself in his thesis that the Mandinkas are indeed bad and that’s why he relentlessly persecuted them. His followers will doubtlessly bemoan the lack of a strong warrior to show the mandinkas their right place –》Mali.
Just like Hitler’s impenitent towards his victims. His followers continue to celebrate him. Such is normal nowadays I guess.
Misfortune for Jammeh and co. Is that they were not able to accomplish the total extermination of the hated Mandinkas in the Gambia. Maybe next time!
That is pure racism! Dangerous, awful!
It is very unlucky for Jammeh and co. to accomplish the total extermination instead he become exterminated by the mandinkas, you need to accept that fact. A foolish thinkers like you and your co. are paest. Never underextimate the Power of the people, do you know that Jammeh have done more ham to his own tripe than any other tripe in the Gambia. Ignorancy is a very dangerous disseas. I wish you have done your home work about Jammeh than vomiting such nonses of tails. Please note this, there will be no next time, Gambians have hold their heads high in this World today in terms of democracy. I hope you will come to your senses one day and join the good Gambians for the benefit of all its Citizens. Untill then take care of you for the better.
” 1. The legislative agenda for the development of the country must be based on the collective (partisan) ideological plans and programmes developed by all the parties over the past 22 years. This cannot and must not be thrown away. To entrust the nation’s legislative agenda to 53 independent representatives who do not have a common platform is recipe for chaos, confusion, inefficiency, constant stalemates and lack of direction.”
Truly Gambian politicians lack analytical reasoning. Putting selfishness aside, how can you imagine party minded members of parliament to be more united in their actions than coalition minded members. Gambians be mindful of low headed politicians who really doesn’t understand how to think about leading a nation. In as much am glad the people removed dictatorship from their land, am disappointed in seeing how those who lead the change are acting only in their own selfish interest and shows clear lack of reasoning in tackling issues.
It is emotional for many but I don’t see how the coalition can contest the NA elections as one entity. The divorce of coalition partners is the norm after the election goal is achieved.
Sooner or later these parties will part ways. I think it is prudent to say that the earlier this parting happens, the better.
Or you advice the president to create a coalition party whereby the individual parties will cease to exist.
I agree that the parting must be handled in decorum and respect.
The example of coalition that led to the victory for Macky Sall in Senegal, is a case study.
Is this the same Macky Sall who UDP savaged and poured insults on over the years for “not helping them get rid of former President Yaya Jammeh?” They even ACUSED Macky Sall of aiding and abetting Jammeh by “making life hard for their Supporters who were in the Senegalese capital, Dakar. How Cosy and Convenient for UDP and Supporters to Chumy up to Macky Sall now. Let’s see how long this Marriage of Convenience Orchestrated for individual personal greed and self-service would last. Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty are a Despotic DUO who were and are still interested in nothing but Creating an Ethnic Group Party Hegemony with the likes of NRP of Hamat Bah as the Window Dressing Mascot, not unlike the 32 years of David/Dauda Jawara’s Regime Co- Opting other Parties to maintain the Regime’s Majority Mob Rule. In Power. This is the regime that did any and everything possible to Destroy any and all Politicians and Parties that Opposed the Jawara Regime. GAMBIANS must not allow Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty under UDP to Succeed with their Betrayal and Majority Mob Rule Coup. They should be Stopped, and Stopped by any means available to all Gambians endowed with a Sense of Justice and Strength in Unity. GAMBIA is more than the Sum Total of One Individual, One Ethnic Group and Region. One Gambia, One People, One Destiny.
The UDP, GMC and stooge NRP Tactical Alliance!
Fellow folks, it is now clear that the third republic is being orchestrated under Coalition shrouded in tribal sentiments of the early 1980’s when it was believe that one tribe is the main and only tribe capable and larger than any other tribe. For the records and throughout the history of Senegambia, after nearly a century of the coexistence of the tribes in the Gambia and the Senegal region, and the impasess we suffered, yet some people still feel unsatisfied unless they lead by all means.
Mr President Barrow, your naivety could be a potential cancer to the Gambias social culture of mutual coexistence. Take the heart to remove Darboe, Mai Fatty and Stooge puppet(Amat Bah) from your Coalition cabinet else you will fail gambian and be a failure( the histroy of your government performance will remain in the achives!)
The so called tactical alliance by UDP led trio is just a smoke screen wrapped under tribal and partisan pomposity and selfishness. The marks are clear to see.Yaya Jammeh is being vindicated about the UDP true image and intent!
Our neighboring Senegal is brighter example to follow. ! Mr President Barrow take the example of your Brother; Son Excellence Monsieur Macky Sall, . The coalition in Senegal is 6 years old and no one care about party dying because the people are bigger any leadership.
If you fail to act before the Parlimentaries, your government is set for the doom by sneaking hijackers covered in wood-ash
Buba Camara ( Camara-Lie)
Tabokoto
I doubt president Barrow would listen to you.
Look at the presidential voting records and you will realise that those areas who overwhelmingly voted for the coalition, were areas sympathetic to the plight of Darboe & Co. at the notorious mile 2 and more importantly wanted something done about the death of SOLO SANDENG.
The decisive coalition partners for Barrow is very clear and he is quite aware of this.
Of course we must acknowledge the role of all partners in the fight to dislodge Jammeh-dodger.
But trying to put a wedge between Darboe and Barrow would not work. For Barrow knows that people calling Darboe names will not spare calling him tribalist and all sorts very soon.
What is going on is a normal democratic process. The people will decide who they want represent them at the polls and IEC chief Njie remains neutral and fair.
Like it or not in any African country, there must be a major tribe, so Mandingkas being the major tribe in the Gambia cannot be disputed. Oppositions deared not to hold political meetings in Foni but no one call them tribalist. In Babilimansa’s entire ruling only one Jola man openly criticized Yaya Jammeh, that was Single Nyassi but no one call them tribalist. How may mandingkas were supporting APRC? why do Jolas still support APRC and reject other opposition parties? was it not Mandinkas who asked Yaya Jammeh to contest presidential election in 1996, and where were the Jolas?
if Yaya can call Mandinkas foreigners, who together with wollofs and akus fought for the independence in 1965, where were the jolas? Sir Dawda , Edward Francis Small, Garba Jahumpa, JC Faye, Sir Farmang Singhateh, Sanjall Bojang, Famara wasa touray etc, please name me one Jola who participated in the independence struggle.
Buba Jarju
None my friend.
Buba Jarju:
I will name a few. Pa Ansumana Bojang, Kombo South Western Division, the Badgies of Sibanor, The Jarjus of Biam, the Bojangs of Jambanjelly Jola Kinda and the Bojangs of Kartong, my childhood friends’ parents registered Jolas for the PPP AND Some for UP to Vote for the Independence Ticket. They Collected Funds and Canvased for Votes, even though No Jola was among the then Political Personalities. That is, no full fledged Jola. There were some who were said to have a Jola mother or who may have Changed their Tribal Affiliation to gain Acceptance from a Society that Marginalized Jolas. Your Youthful or Naked ignorance may be blinding you to the evidence of Jola Contribution toward Gambian Independence and beyond. Being a Marginalized and not Included Minority, their Contribution toward Gambian Independence was not Highlighted by the “His Story” tellers. I know better and a lot of deligent and honest GAMBIANS who want to know about this Neglected Story can find out from the few elders still alive. The best Source is former President David/Dauda Jawara and other living Politicians of both PPP, UP Party. From Karting, Gunjur, Brikama, to Biam, Sibanor, and many other Villages, Jola Community Leaders Sweated for PPP and UP to Vote for Independence Ticket. Like in all Societies where Prejudice and Discrimination is ripe for the picking by Narrow Ethnic Minded Scoundrels, Marginalized Groups Contributions and Achievements are usually buried or discarded in the “Dust Bin of History”! That has been the faith of Jolas who fought for Independence in the Gambia, just like the African Americans’ Contribution and Achievements in America have been either Appropriated by the Caucasian dominant Group, or kept out of the history books or journals. I hope next time you think of a way to continue the Old False Narrative to help you feel better about yourself, please, take the opportunity to Consult those in the Know. First hand eye witnesses are still alive and may be willing to Rectify your Expensive Miseducation about this Neglected Story. Gambia is more than the Sum Total of One Individual, One Ethnic Group and Region. One Gambia, One People, One Destiny.
Sidi N.Bojang..
You are an educated man Sidi N. Bojang and rather than direct the “ignorant” to Sir Dawda, who is old and may be frail of memory, why don’t you rectify this anomaly by writing a book or producing a historical record of the contribution of prominent Jolas in the independence struggle.
The Blacks in America, UK, West Indies, etc, all got up and did something about the injustice of erasing their contributions to the advancement of their societies from their histories.
I’m sure people who question contribution of Jolas don’t mean any harm; they just don’t have the information.
So get up and do something about it. That will be one of the greatest services to our country.
I don’t think it is true that other “marginalized” tribes “mandikanized” to fit into society. The loss of tribal identity and gradual “absorbsion” into the dominant culture of any community, affected all tribes.
Early Mandinkas, who settled in and around Banjul, were gradually losing their Mandinkaness, through assimilation into the Wollof culture, as Wollof was the dominant culture. I have grown up and went to school with “Mandinka” kids who can’t say a sentence in Mandinka because they were born and grew up in Banjul.
The history of my own community is that it started off by being Creole and speaking Aku because the founders were immigrants from Sierra Leone. Then it change to Mandinka, as the 1st generation began marrying into Mandinka from surrounding communities. My generation, even though we have Fula, Jola, Susu, Mankange, Mandiago, etc, either speak Mandinka or Wollof. Trust me, my siblings can’t speak a word of Fula. All speak Mandinka, but we are Fula by tribe. We didn’t change because we wanted to fit.
Today, it’s changing into Wollof as that language becomes the most spoken in the greater Banjul area. This is just a natural process that spares no group of people. Of course, there may be situations elsewhere where change may happen to fit in, but I don’t see that in Gambia.
After all, what would one achieve as a tribe, by changing into Mandinka under Jawara. It’s not like they were treated exceptionally well. They suffered the same way like any other tribe, whether that’s in education, health, social care, transportation, poor infrastructure, etc.
I read it Bax but stories is flawed.
Many have been jailed and many disappeared in the last 22 years . why credit the victory to the most recent evident? it show a shallow view and sadly even the school children the tomorrow future has been jailed, killed or left the Gambia. How qucik can people claim cheap popularity when tThat people voted bcos Darboe and Co were Jailed is self defeating and a cheap propaganda. The fact is there were 7 political partiest united to make change.. The victory could have happen years ago had Darboe and Co elements agreed to the coalition since 2001? The reasons are history but very well known.
My friend the Prophet SAW has taught us to say the trust even if it you being affected. Darboe and co should really be dismissed from the Coailition and their cabinet positions should they opt for a so called tactical alliance.It is clear that you cannot be singing dancing and listening your music. Darobe , Mai and Amat must go should proceed to cleft the very fragile boat are building.
That Mr. President Barrow should allow himself to be swindled by so called king maker is conspiring and He and only He would be blamed for any wrong in the third republic just like Jammeh is being blamed even though he had enablers.
The MoU signed between would not have happened has Darboe not been in jail. So we would have been blaming Jammeh for our predicament when we are the very breeders of the environment.
It is sad that when it comes to truth only a few can accept it. In the end , the truth will prevail . This a mere hide and seek. In would take look for the even the blind to catch us all
I said solo Sandeng’s murder and darboe’s imprisonment was catalyst for people who felt threaten by the genocidal intention of Jammeh-dodger to close ranks and overwhelmingly vote him out against all odds.
Of course the student massacre is still fresh in my own mind (withnessed it physically).
The catalyst for a mass affront against tyranny was made possible thanks to the sacrifice by SOLO SANDENG and by extension those people who went out to demand his body dead or alive. And we are still waiting for his body! And all other victims.
Buba Camara
What you are saying can only be described as a horse-shit marinated with a lump of bull crap. Tactical alliance is an educated,intelligent and rational tactical move that is needed in our country to get things done. 53 independent parliamentarians unbound by a single central authority is a recipe for gridlocks, recriminations and ultimately chaos. This is the rationale behind the tactical alliance put forward by Darboe,Fatty and Bah. As we are all aware of the mess inherited by this government, i think unrestrained dim witted rants based not on knowledge but rant for the sake of it is not helpful to our country and our people. It is easy for so called analyst as yourself who never utter a word during the Kanilai fiefdom can come out now and call for the dismissal of those who put their lives in harm’s way to free our people from bondage. Your assertion that Jammeh could have been dislodged years ago had Darboe and co agreed to a coalition is utterly false and it show how ignorant,shallow and petty some of you brothers are. Darboe is an outstanding intellectual who could have taken the easy way out by accepting a plump job in the previous administration or even accept an international appointment. Why do you think he forsaken all that, only to be abused by unscrupulous and semi educated imps like yourself. What is the comparison between you and these 3 outstanding elites you just disparaged in your rants? I will tell you Buba— They are patriotic heroes whose sacrifices ushered in the freedom that you are misusing with your insolence of talking over your head.
Long Live President Barrow and his coalition government and forward always.
Well spoken = right comment!
Just in that the coalition voted 6 to 1 (with 1 abstention) in favour and tactical party alliance. So my question: is UDP respectively Darboe the spoiler? It is easy to hide behind the coalition to make all sorts of claims. Fact is UDP is part of the coalition and a party at the same time. The other parties are not saints and are not selfless as is being suggested.
@Kinteh (Kemo): “Is UDP respectively Darboe the spoiler?”
That’s a bit misleading given the context of your opening statement about the vote. The impression one gets is that those who backed independent approach are going against the vote, but that is absolutely not the case.
That vote was the result of a meeting with the President, after the different press briefings, and the outcome of the vote has not been contested by anyone. All have agreed to go into party tactical alliance. Just to straighten the records.
I just want to set as record what Mr. Sallah said at the press conference. That a vote was held on the competing models for coalition participation in the NA elections. That vote went 6 against 1 (with 1 abstention) in favour of the tactical alliance. The model to be executed now based on unanimous backing. Of course great respect to Mr Sallah for accepting that democratic decision. No grudges at all.
Part 1.
We should not be surprised if both NRP and GMC eventually dissolve and merge into the UDP. There is absolutely no difference between the three, except in party colours, symbols and leaders. A merger into the UDP is very possible, once power is assumed, as it now seems to be. (I will explain that in series, to avoid a long piece, which sends my in law to sleep)
It is clear that their preference for party supported candidates is motivated largely, by their desire to advance their agenda in the assembly, but equally, to enhance their party profile, in preparation for the next round of elections.
It could be argued, and rightly so, that the UDP already enjoys a high profile in the Gambia, but despite this fact, it too, needs to enhance its profile, as there are still a lot of votes out there to be contested for and won, in the next post Jammeh era elections.
After all, the margin of victory at the Presidential was only 18,000 votes. So everyone needs to enhance their profile during this transition period.
In fact, they have stated that much in their statement as follows:
“The public will be able to judge the performance of the various parties based on their achievements in the National Assembly.”
The question is, “why else would any party want their performance to be judged by their own contribution in the National Assembly, except to further enhance their profile?”
At first, I couldn’t understand the rationale of what is being proposed by the coalition of three. How couldn’t they see that, despite their claims, their proposal and alliance model is a recipe for chaos ? How could they promote harmonization and coordination amongst a group of NAMs who owe loyalty to their individual parties, pursue a legislative agenda that is based on their party’s “ideological plans and programmes” (to borrow from them) and working with a head of government who has no team of his own, to pursue his ideological plans and programmes in the assembly ? Surely, that is the most obvious blue print for woeful failure.
And when they claim that there is nowhere in the world where the Parliament is made up entirely of independents (which is of course true, as far as I know), perhaps they should be reminded that there is also nowhere in the world where the head of government (Prime Minister or President) does not have his or her own team in Parliament, often forming the majority.
However, things begin to become clearer to me and begin to make a lot more sense when I factor in utterances on the print and social media, mainly by UDP militants, including their leader (as reported by Fatunetwork.com), but also by supporters of their camp. Let me explain.
Bax, now you are making sense.
And you do NOT jump on the stupid “tribalist” bandwagon.
The catalyst of the recent support for the UDP – and the Coalition victory – is undoubtedly the murder of SOLO SANDENG and the imprisonment of Lawyer “Mandela” Darboe: that is what made the Coalition come together and that is what made Jammeh lose power.
COMING BACK TO NOW, UDP & PDOIS have totally opposed PROGRAMMES and approach and that has NOTHING to do with tribalism.
Of course it makes sense for parties with different philosophies to go their own way. Let each put their ideas to the voters and see what votes they will get.
BARROW is UDP! UDP, GMC & NRP MPs will support Barrow’s programme – they have said it.
OJ’s rather personalised attack on Darboe (Freedomnewspaper today) reminds me of 2004/2006 when a Freedomnewspaper interview of OJ put NADD’s unity chances to rest. Pa Mbai has always wanted OJ as his President. Pa Mbai sees himself as a “Kingmaker” and that is why he is using every opportunity to attack Mai Fatty and Darboe. But I think that will back-fired … because every unfair attack makes the supporters even stronger in their support and in their condemnation of the unfair attacks: in the long run Pa Mbai runs the risk of making himself irrelevant with such attacks.
As said earlier, I think Darboe’s “Tactical Coalition” will capture 32 of the 53 seats, Halifa may capture 3, and GMC will capture 12 and APRC will capture 6. REMEMBER you read it here first!
You see, under normal circumstances, a head of government would have won the mandate of the electorate by his/her party’s own efforts, to pursue his/her ideological plans and development goals/agenda, and he/she would be assisted by his/her team in parliament, to effect the legislative reforms that align with their ideological plans and programmes. If he/she has the required majority in Parliament, then the job is easy. They just bulldoze their way through, legislation after legislation, whether the opponents like or not or whether it’s good for democracy or not. That’s what the APRC did all those years.
If he/she lacks the required majority, then the job becomes a bit trickier and they have to wheel and deal with other opposition members, cut deals here and there, make sacrifices great and small, to achieve individual party objectives.
On the face of things, President Barrow is an independent all-party candidate, belonging to no individual party, but when you listen to the utterances of the UDP, it becomes apparent that they view President Barrow as their own. Darboe is quoted by Fatunetwork.com as thus : “President Barrow’s home is UDP. Why should I betray him.” Earlier in the same report, he was quoted as saying that coalition independents will have direct impact on party ideologies and identities. This is coded language, Gambia. What he is saying is that President Barrow may “independent” but his impact will reflect UDP party ideology and identity.
Hence, their tactical party alliance makes sense now. The head of government has his team in the National Assembly and it is the UDP NAMs. Once they secure the required majority in the National Assembly, they will forge ahead with a legislative agenda that mirrors their party’s ideological plans and programmes.
Ha, ha, ha … we are writing at the same time and I answered your points 30 seconds before you made them – LOL!
In their view, which seems to become an official position now, they were the architects and masterminds of coalition efforts from the beginning. In fact, the catalyst for the change was the immense sacrifices they made during the dictatorship, culminating with the death of Solo Sandeng and incarceration of their leaders, and thus, in their mind, they are entitled to claim the fruits of this victory. Those who want to join them are welcome and those who refuse will be destroyed. And since Halifa and PDOIS are the ones perceived to be raising their objections to this entitlement, they are now enemy number one.
And this is what constitutes a betrayal of the coalition project, as envisaged by many, many people during the negotiation efforts. It constitutes a blatant betrayal of the trust of many, many proponents and supporters of the coalition efforts. It is the equivalent of a coup to use our collective, non partisan efforts that achieved a most unlikely victory against APRC, to pursue a partisan agenda of legislative reforms that may not reflect our common reform agenda.
I could offer rebuttals to every point they made in their statement, but I will only deal with one.
Quote: “To entrust the nation’s legislative agenda to 53 independent representatives who do not have a common platform is recipe for chaos, confusion, inefficiency, constant stalemates and lack of direction.”
I find this statement misleading, at best and deceitful, at worst.
The coalition has agreed that legislative reforms are required, during the transition period, to reflect the political environment we all want to bring about post Jammeh. Why would they select candidates for election to the National Assembly who don’t subscribe to this platform ? Won’t selected candidates be members of various parties or individual outside party setups who are supportive of coalition reform agenda ? Can’t they establish a body within the Coalition Executive Committee that would work with cabinet to identify areas of reform and prepare bills that would be pushed through by the coalition NAMs ? What nonsense is this claim of chaos, constant stalemates and lack of direction. That would actually only happen in a situation where NAMs owe allegiance to their parties, pursuing their own party reform agenda and no party has the required majority to push a bill through. That would be chaotic, directionless, time consuming and expensive.
Please, come with better excuses. These are very, very bad ones.
Look my In-Law, it is not good talking of “a coup”. As I put it earlier, it is Heroic Halifa who won the war and lost the peace (because of his Achilles Heels – his EGO!). Once Halifa decided to remain outside the Cabinet – and use FOROYAA to criticise the government – the Coalition fell apart. No “coups”.
On the second point, party MPs as in USA and UK follow party lines and support Governing Party Programmes. As I said, Barrow IS UDP and a UDP-majority would support his programme for government. PDOIS would NOT because PDOIS has its own Socialist Agenda – whereas UDP has a business-friendly agenda: PDOIS can be seen as the UK Labour Party and UDP as the Conservatives — trying to govern with such “independent” MPs would be impossible. So Darboe and UDP are going for their own party-majority so that they can put their party agenda into practice. PDOIS will try to get as many MPs as possible so that they can become the Official Opposition – that is DEMOCRACY.
Like I said, that constitutes a betrayal of our coalition project and trust. It wasn’t meant for any coalition member to consolidate their position in power and contest the subsequent elections from a position of strenth, but for me, it isn’t a surprise.
I have observed a long time ago, in exchanges with Lafia, that the real worry of the UDP during those difficult coalition format negotiations, was the aftermath of the transition period.
You see, the two major forces are APRC and UDP, but the relationship between the two is almost akin to “blood enemies”. My contention then, and now, is that the APRC will be confronted with so many issues when it loses power (not immediately, but in the long term: say in 5 years), that they will be lucky to even remain existing as a viable party, never mind contest elections, but their mass body of voters will have a definitive say in who becomes the next president after coalition government, if that’s what topple them.
My view is that the UDP is worried that without the influence of being seen as the governing party, they will have little chance of wooing these APRC voters in significant numbers and that’s a huge risk they weren’t going to take. Hence their insistence on a UDP party led.
Gambian voters are swayed by incumbency and APRC voters will have no qualms shifting loyalty to the ruling UDP party in significant numbers, but not a UDP that is just another opposition party.
So, the insistence on parties maintaining their identity in the Assembly, and the open presentation of President Barrow as UDP, has effectively turned a “NON PARTISAN ALLIANCE ” into a “UDP LEAD ALLIANCE”.
And viewed from this angle, the real reasons for their tactical alliance strategy becomes vividly clear.
This is the reality and the rest, especially PDOIS, have to deal with it in the best way they can. The hand of this clock is irreversible.
But this action constitutes a Judasian betrayal of trust.
In my humble opinion, aprc or it’s leader has dealt itself a terminal blow. The hand of blood will forever plaque this party. UDP needs not attack that party. They have already eliminated themselves. GDC and somebody called Beyai will be benefactor of votes from aprc end. Added to that the voters just need audio records of jammeh ranting against other tribes(prominently the mandinkas) and that the government follow on with the promised commission of enquiry. Doesn’t need much to unveil the true character of Jammeh and his enablers.
The tribal power diola de yaya diamé should not be replaced by a tribal Mandingo power This would betray the aspirations of the Gambian people. A gambia destabilized by tribal tensions would be a threat to the national security of Senegal If a peaceful coexistence among the tribes In the Gambia can not exist in the Gambia If there is an ethnic war in Gambia Senegal will be forced to intervene in the Gambia because its sovereignty will be threatened
There won’t be any ethnic war in Gambia. Be rest assured of that. Its all political posturing to gain advantage. Nothing else.
Bax
Your points are made and are very clear on the wall. The sheer propaganda on UDP being the catalyst for change ( Solo and Darboe ) is a cult of smearing political campaign to call the “banding ya” Banding Fasa’ . Was this the first such case since 1994, What about the death in Basse Rally? Why did,t Darboe Catalyze the win and pull the other parties to make changes? Hey, The truth will come post election. The fact is why a break away from the MoU agreed as a political contract just becos of individual party interest. What will the gambian people gain from UDP having 53 Seats that will will not gain from the Coalition having 53 Independent seats headed by An Independent President?
UDP will not win all the seats. Do not hide behind coalition to show case your fear of a UDP landslide. The coalition partners parties will do well and a balanced NA will become reality. And if UDP should lose badly, then be it as it will be a leason for them. The government can live with a aprc/GDC dominated assembly. Nothing wrong with that. But it is unfair to blame one party although what many of you wanted was the continued tyranny of Jammeh-dodger.
Bax, you are very right, there will be no tribal war in the Gambia. Bax you have given us a lengthy analysis of UDP strategy can you please give us PDOIS strategy in the same depth? I believe that will balance the argument and it will help a lot of us to understand the issues better. Thanks
APRC will join UDP after the election. Bojang the APRC “leader” will make sure of that.
Buba
As far as I can make out, and this is public knowledge, PDOIS subscribes to the idea of coalition candidates contesting as “independents” and supported by all. There are claims being made about this strategy and PDOIS’ reasons for supporting it, which are, quite frankly, simply laughable because they lack any substance whatsoever, when scrutinised.
From my personal view point, I think this strategy does not only sustain the coalition spirit into the second phase of our change project, it provides a united platform to identify areas of reform, collectively agree on the proposed alternatives, present bills to be enacted as laws reflecting our common reform agenda, and get these passed without much wrangling, thus saving valuable time and much needed resources. It’s as simple as that really.
I don’t know how the alternative, and now agreed strategy would work, but it can only be one of two ways: (1) either individual parties identify their own areas of reform, prepare and present their own bills to the House and try to get them passed, without any prior consultation with the rest of the coalition or (2) individual parties identify reform areas, present these proposals to the Coalition Executive Committee (or what ever organ is created) for agreement, before it is presented by the party to the House, in whole or with adjustments.
Both options are fraught with serious problems that could defeat the objective of the coalition and reduce the assembly to just another rubber stamping House for the block (alliance of parties; eg, UDP,NRP,GMC block) that can form an absolute majority.
Under option (1) for example, the potential for long, heated, tedious and time consuming debates is the most likely scenario, especially, if the bill(s) presented reflect the ideology of a party that others don’t agree with. In such a scenario, the bill can only be passed if the presenting party belongs to a block that can use their majority to bulldoze their way through their bills. The House thus becomes, a Rubber Stamping Assembly for the largest block of parties. They can pass their reform bills and block those of the others.
Some may argue that this is good for our democracy because that’s what democracy is all about, but that’s a flawed argument in my view, because you can’t claim to have what you are fixing. Gambia is trying to fix a broken system to usher in a democratic system, and until we fix the system, or at the very least, lay the foundations for our democracy to take off, we can’t claim to have a democracy. Its like managers insisting that their players play beautiful football on a pitch that is being fixed. That’s an impossibility. We have given ourselves 3 years to fix the system and we should do so as ONE unit, pursuing a common reform Agenda; not as fragmented units, pursuing own reform Agenda.
Option (2) may seem similar to the independent strategy, where bills are only presented after consultation and agreement with the coalition partners. This would be so if the proposals presented to the coalition partners are agreed and supported by all or majority. Passing such bills should not involve much wrangling, as the contents has already been agreed to, just as under the independent approach.
The problems would arise when the contents are not agreed at the consultation level and the proposing party presents their bill(s), without any adjustments. You will end up with the same wrangling, ending up with the bill either being passed by sheer number of the block (if the party belongs to one), or rejected for lack of one.
I have already addressed the claims associated with the independent strategy: that it is chaotic, inefficient, directionless, etc. The impression that is being created is that the 53 independent candidates will pursue different agenda and be under no one’s control, but this is absolutely misleading. The alliance will not select candidates for election to the National Assembly and then leave them to operate as they wish, knowing that they have a specific reform agenda. Moreover, identified candidates will come from within the coalition partners and probably some “outsiders”, but who all subscribe to the coalition project. Why should anyone claim that they will be pursuing their own agenda or won’t be under any direction ? That is just not accurate.
The other claim is that Halifa wants to get the presidency through the back door by attempting to control and influence enough independents to do his bidding, because he cannot get it through the popular vote. It doesn’t take much scrutiny to see that this is absolute nonsense because the National Assembly DOES NOT elect the President. The most Halifa can do if he controls the House is to impeach the President, but even that wouldn’t make him president. He still has to contest for the popular vote if the subsequent referendum goes his way: that is, the voters voted to remove the impeached president. So both claims are absolute nonsense.
Bax, thanks for sharing your take on this issue. Personally I think we Gambians like to complicate things for ourselves by over analysing things. I don’t give one hoot if Halifa, Mai and Ousainou don’t see eye to eye. I see it as a blessing in disguise for Gambians because then they will expose each other’s unscrupulous side to the public which can only be good for us. However I think it is unfair to heap all the blame on only Mai and Ousainou and excuse Halifa because they have all acted appallingly. Halifa should also try and deal with coalition matters internally until he exhausts all avenues of dialogue instead of calling a press conference anytime someone disagrees with him. That is not a trait of a good team player. Halifa, OJ, Ousainou, Hamat Bah and Mai should have waited until they reach the end of the road before talking to the press or just tell the press that they are discussing the modalities of how they are going to contest the election.
Bax, if Halifa is made Speaker, his profile will be higher than the others. Perhaps that’s what annoys Ousainou and Mai. Especially if they had all agreed to serve in the government and Halifa decided to decline a post in the government in the last minute. They might have felt out man-oeuvred by Halifa because if he should contest in the general election, his profile will be raised and with only Independents in the Assembly he may be easily coronated as Speaker which will make his profile higher than Ousainou and Mai. This may be the reason why they suggested contesting on Party lines to out man-oeuvre-him. Politics has only Permanent interests not permanent friends. Ousainou is the only Party leader who’s job won’t be seen or even understood my a good number of the electorate. Therefore having UDP National Assembly members may be his best chance to remain relevant in Gambian politics. But Buba, that is selfish you will say. And i won’t disagree with you. But he is a politician and politicians are a bunch of selfish people. They are all the same, Halifa, Ousainou, Mai, Hamat, Gomez, Dr. Touray, OJ, FJ Tambajang. Lets not be fooled by anyone of them preaching patriotism. Their number one priority is self preservation. We should scrutinize them all equally.
Well Buba, I think we are all entitled to our views about politicians. I don’t subscribe to the view that all politicians are selfish. I will definitely not shy away from saying it as it is, if I see that Halifa is being selfish and pursuing either his interest or that of his party’s.
You have made two observations which I want to respond to.
First, you observed that Halifa shouldn’t call a press conference every time someone disagrees with him. I have to ask if you seriously believe that this is what he does ? The way to find out is to look at the reaction of the other members of the coalition, when Halifa convenes a press conference. Has anyone alluded to such being the case ? I can’t remember any.
I hope you will agree that the desire of Gambians is to see a new era of openness in government and to me, this means that whenever matters of governance become public interest, the authorities must come out and update the nation.
National Assembly Elections date and date of nominations has already been announced by the IEC. Many interested individuals and parties, except coalition members, were preparing themselves, and yet the coalition’s position was unclear. It was a matter immense public interest and this can be verified by the sheer number of newspaper articles, editorials and views on different social media fora. Don’t you think that it was right that the coalition update the nation? Wasn’t that what Halifa did as the spokesperson ?
In fact, Halifa made it clear that there was disagreements on how to contest the elections, but that dialogue was still ongoing. And when quizzed by who disagreed with what, he revealed what the contentions were and who supported what. I don’t see how that is convening a press conference because someone disagrees with him.
The problem and cinfusion, as far as I can see, is caused by the other faction convening a press conference soon after, to reveal the formation of a tactical party alliance, even before the dialogue was complete. They should have waited for the completion of the dialogue before they announce their “breakaway” alliance. Halifa never announced what has been finally agreed. I think that was mistake on their part.
On the issue of Halifa out maneuvering alliance partners if he becomes speaker, I think we should look at the Constitution carefully.
The Speaker is elected by members, from amongst the nominated (not elected) members. If Halifa contests as an NAM and wins, he will be barred from becoming the Speaker, unless the law is amended.
I don’t believe that a Speaker has a higher and more noticeable profile than a Government Minister, in The Gambia. No way. You will be surprised how many people don’t even know who the current Speaker is, and he’s been on the Chair for ages. But ask who the ministers are and a lot of people will give you, even if they don’t know their portfolios, and they’ve only been there for months.
No, Government Minister in The Gambia, carries a higher profile than Speaker of the House.
Bax, Sidi is just plucking names from thin air which is not the same as historical fact. There is no anomaly to rectify. He has said it himself. There was “No Jola was among the then Political Personalities” therefore asking him to write a book on the issue will be an invitation for him to distort history which will be an insult to the memory of all those who worked hard for Gambia’s independence. The mere fact that he didn’t think the Chiefs in Foni are political personalities shows that he can’t be trusted. The number of Jola votes at the time of independence though significant, would not have made any difference to the outcome of that election so Sidi’s attempt at portraying it as huge can’t stand scrutiny. Bax, Sidi is not an intellectual, he is phony. His commentaries are 1% fact and 99% “HIS-STORY”