 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Dec 2010 : 16:43:30
|
PDOIS is being Disingenuous
I have stumbled on an article written by the gibberish talking Administrative Secretary of PDOIS in which he described the position of the UDP, in respect of the coalition talks, as ‘support for a UDP led alliance without any conditionality’. This is clearly a misrepresentation. UDP’s position has been widely disseminated and understood as calling for a party led alliance in which all parties throw their weight behind the biggest. Anything further than this is nothing but a blatant embellishment that does not represent UDP’s position in anyway. This is how the UDP leader articulated his party’s position in his statement of 8th December 2010;
‘‘I then made the point that the well known norm for the creation of an opposition alliance is for the majority party to lead and others throw behind that party''.
Neither Hon. Sidia Jatta, who was purportedly representing NADD and PDOIS, nor Mr. Ousainou Darboe, who represented UDP, made any mention of conditionality in their separate and conflicting statements regarding their discussion.
It is not for UDP to attach conditions to their own proposal- that is simply an unreasonable expectation- but for those who would like to see conditions attached to first accept the proposal at least in principle and then demand, as a bargaining chip, that conditions be 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 final resolution to the impasse more realistic and feasible.
If PDOIS wants to see conditions attached to UDP’s proposal, the sensible and more practicable approach would be for them to accept it in principle and then state what kind of conditions they would like to see attached. However, they mustn't think they can have it both ways; they would have to either indicate their willingness to be part of a UDP led coalition with conditions attached or accept the fact that it isn’t for them to talk about conditionality.
The statement by Hon. Sidia Jatta to the effect that the international standard of coalition building posited by the UDP cannot be adopted in The Gambia in the light of the absence of a second round voting system is the most ridiculous statement I have come across in this whole 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 the United Kingdom and yet it is the Conservative party of Prime Minister Cameroun that is leading the coalition government here despite having not won an outright majority in the last general election- the list can go on-, and in all these examples, it is the biggest parties which assume leadership without any resort to primaries. Hon. Jatta’s statement is therefore not only absurd but simply lacking basis. It is nothing but a glib.
It is really sad to see a man [Hon. Sidia Jatta] who is widely acclaimed to be a man of impeccable integrity falling for the temptation of misinforming Gambians just to score cheap political points against perceived opponents. His Guinea Conakry-Ivory Coast comment is totally irresponsible and without a place in this all important debate.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2010 : 18:22:04
|
MY LEARNED FRIEND, EXCUSE ME? FOR I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOUR BARGAINING IS CHEAP AND BASICALLY THERE ARE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT OR ANY FORM OF AGREEMENT IS CONSTITUTED BY "OFFER" & "ACCEPTANCE"!
HOW CAN YOU MAKE SENSE THAT BEFORE ANY AGREEMENT; UDP CAN MAINTAIN ITS DEMAND THAT; A UDP LED COALITION IS LEGITIMATE & MUST BE ACCEPTED BEFORE ANY AGREEMENT 
"UDP PARTY LED COALITION" IS AN ALTERNATIVE BUT UDP IS DICTATING HOW TO UNITE WITH OTHER PARTIES; THEREFORE ITS ABSOLUTELY RUBBISH; IF YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS PRE-CONDITIONAL ARRANGEMENT TO FORMULATE AN AGREEMENT.
WHY CAN'T UDP KEEP ITS AGENDA THAT REPRESENTS THEIR INTERESTS UNTIL A FORMAL MEETING & CONFERENCE GEARED TOWARDS RESOLUTIONS FOR A STRATEGIC/TACTICAL UNITED FRONT IS SCHEDULED FOR ALL OPPOSITION PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT SO-CALLED NATIONAL CONFERENCE ENVISAGED BY ME OR THROUGH STGDP FORUM, PDOIS/NADD WILL TENDER ITS AGENDA 2011 FOR CONSIDERATION; UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS FINALLY REACHED TOGETHER (BY BOTH PARTIES)! THAT'S WHERE EQUITY LIES & BASED ON FRANCHISED FOR EACH CITIZEN TO ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY & EQUALLY DECIDE ITS DESTINY! IF ALL OPPOSITION PARTIES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN UNITING; THEY WILL FINALLY ADOPT THE BEST RESOLUTIONS BASED ON CERTAIN FACTORS! THEREFORE SET THE PLATFORM FOR A MEETING TO FACILITATE OPEN DISCUSSIONS, CONSIDER CONSENSUS, FEASIBILITY, VIABILITY, EFFECTIVENESS BEST OPTIONS & RESOLUTIONS TO TACKLE JAMMEH/APRC FOR 2011 & GOOD GOVERNANCE POST JAMMEH/APRC. THIS VENTURE IS NORTURED BASED ON PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY, PARTNERSHIP IN DEVELOPMENT, SOLIDARITY & FOR A NATIONAL CAUSE; WHICH CANNOT BE HIGH-JACKED BY ANY PARTY BY DICTATING HOW TO CONDUCT THE POLITICAL BUSINESS; WHEREBY EVERY ONE ARE STAKEHOLDERS
PLEASE REVISE YOUR BASIC LAW OF CONTRACT AND COME BACK TO TABLE A BETTER PROPOSAL; ON WAY FORWARD & BETTER THAN NADD LEGALLY
1. What is a 'condition' in a contract? ""Terms and Conditions" is a common phrase associated with contracts or agreements. They provide specifics on what things need to be done by both parties. The T&C's on a contract can be one or two paragraphs, or even run to hundreds of pages."
2. What is a "pre-condition"? "A condition that must exist or be established before something can occur or be considered; a prerequisite." = "UDP PARTY LED" POSITION; ISN'T IT WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT IMPLY?
‘‘I then made the point that the well known norm for the creation of an opposition alliance is for the majority party to lead and others throw behind that party''.
"I want to make it clear to every Gambian that the views I express on the issue of an apposition united front are views of the UDP. I do not advocate for such and an alliance because I want to position myself to lead." Lawyer Ousainou Darboe
YOU ALSO STATED THAT; "If PDOIS wants to see conditions attached to UDP’s proposal, the sensible and more practicable approach would be for them to accept it in principle and then state what kind of conditions they would like to see attached.
However, they mustn't think they can have it both ways; they would have to either indicate their willingness to be part of a UDP led coalition with conditions attached or accept the fact that it isn’t for them to talk about conditionality. "
THE OTHER PART WAS ADDRESED BY SIDIA JATTA PROPOSED NADD & THE NEED TO CATER FOR " MERGER" AS SUBSTANTIATED BY DARBOE THAT HE SAID Mr. Jatta said a merger of political parties could have been registered but I pointed out to him that there was no clause at that time in the constitution of any of the parties that allows for a merger. !
A USEFUL LINK ON CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS CAN HELP US HERE http://law.jrank.org/pages/5694/Contracts-Conditions-Promises-Performance.html
I WILL COME BACK TO DIS-CREDIT YOUR INTERNATIONAL NORM ON THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS HIGHLIGHTED; IN THE CONTEXT OF GAMBIAN POLITICAL SITUATION & THE GAMBIA CONSTITUTION! |
Edited by - kobo on 27 Dec 2010 21:27:31 |
 |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
