 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 16:04:16
|
Sometime ago, in December 2010, Mr. Musa Jeng of the U.S-based Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP] presented in the media a proposal he dubbed ‘‘The Compromise’’ in which he articulated how an agreement could be reached to break the stalemate that has taken grip of the coalition negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party [UDP] and a purported representative of PDOIS , with the former joining NADD, a political entity he described as belonging to all opposition parties, and assume leadership of it.
He posited this as the only realistic option to break the stalemate and went on to justify his call on the basis that due to their experience in 2006 and the aftermath, PDOIS will never be willing to go along with what the conventional wisdom dictates and become part of a UDP led coalition. He, however, did not state what this experience was and why UDP should be held responsible for it.
As a result of two recent online radio talk shows in which its chairman, Mr. Banka Manneh, participated, we now understand Mr. Jeng’s proposal to be in total convergence with the position of the Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP].
First of all, the STGDP should be reminded that this process like all coalition negotiations requires an honest approach that puts national interest above all others including ideologies, personal egos and differences. This can only be done if all stakeholders including PDOIS accept the universally practiced conventions and standards of coalition building to be the unfettered guiding principles of negotiations. This requires that the biggest party be adopted as a vanguard and for all other parties and political entities to throw their weight behind.
In 2006, both NADD and UDP presented themselves before the Gambian electorates as independent sovereign political parties and tested their individual electoral strengths. The UDP had almost five times more votes than NADD and currently has more representation in parliament than any other opposition party in The Gambia. It also has a bigger and more robust grass root support base than any other opposition party. To put it in a nutshell; UDP is by far the biggest opposition party in The Gambia. This is irrefutable and beyond questioning. Therefore, I do not see any wisdom whatsoever, in STGDP’s call for the UDP to join a smaller party, NADD, in the guise of compromise. If abandoning one’s party for another is the only solution to this stalemate, then the common sense approach would be for the smaller parties including NADD, to join UDP since the latter is the biggest.
As a matter of fact, what this process requires is not for parties to abandon their ship to join another but for the smaller parties to rally behind the biggest in line with internationally recognised and acceptable standards and norms of coalition building and as a matter of political legitimacy and necessity.
Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006, I find it utterly incomprehensible that the SGTDP would like to think that the resurrection of the same old squabble that causes serious damage to inter-opposition party relations can engender a realistic compromise solution to this impasse. If they had done a careful and balanced assessment of the situation and the facts on the ground, I have no doubt that the STGDP would have realised that this idea has no potential but for the opening of the Pandora’s Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise to be engendered let alone realised in that kind of environment.
By virtue of their usage of an unexplained grievance that the PDOIS party apparently holds against the UDP as a sole rational behind their proposal, the STGDP has also failed to take into account the grievances of the UDP in the same respect particularly on the question of registration that altered NADD’s status from that of an alliance to a political party in contravention of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established it [NADD] and which cost the leader of the NRP, Mr. Hamat N.K Bah, his parliamentary seat. Therefore, both the UDP and the NRP can and quite legitimately, equally use their experience of 2006 and prior as a justification for their withdrawal and reason for refusing to return to NADD. The premise of STGDP’s compromise proposal is therefore fundamentally flawed in its lack of objectivity and appreciation of the facts on the ground.
Their claim that NADD belongs to all opposition parties is not borne by facts. Although the UDP participated in the creation of NADD the alliance, they did actually pull out from the organisation in 2006 after careful consideration. Therefore, if there was any UDP claim to NADD, that claim has been entirely relinquished in 2006 when the party pulled out.
Suffice it to say; the NADD that the UDP participated in creating was intended to be an alliance, not a political party, and this is clearly stipulated in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established the alliance. However, that creation was completely and utterly obliterated when NADD was clandestinely registered with the Independent Electoral Commission, despite opposition from the UDP, as a political party and thereby changing its nature and status. Therefore, it is completely and utterly erroneous to state that NADD as it currently stands was created by all the opposition parties.
A genuine pursuit of national interest and goals must always be guided by principles and values that are universally recognised and cherished. Otherwise it is bound to fail before it even starts. Thus, the idea that the universal principles and standards that underpin coalition building everywhere in this world should be forgone in our case for national interest is utterly simplistic at best; and disingenuous at worst.
STGDP should also explain why it continues to be their position that it is the UDP that must do everything inconceivable and unheard of to break this coalition stalemate when the PDOIS/NADD party, on the other hand, is ever determined to remain firm in their trenches of unreasonableness and intransigence, not to mention their persistent refusal to reciprocate UDP’s overtures.
If the STGDP wants UDP to return to NADD, then it would be advisable for them to consider actively lobbying for a complete de-registration of NADD so that it can re-claim its original and intended status, an alliance, with a flag bearer chosen from within the UDP and sponsored under a UDP ticket. This must be so as the UDP would still be the largest constituent party in the alliance anyway.
Talking about compromise; the onus is obviously on the smaller parties including PDOIS and NADD to first recognise and accept the political legitimacy of a UDP led alliance, at least in principle, and then state whatever condition[s] they would like to see 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 compromise more realistic and feasible. This is how a compromise solution can be engendered. However, PDOIS and NADD mustn’t think they can have it both ways; they would have to either indicate their willingness to become part of the proposed UDP led alliance with conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to talk about conditionality in that respect.
In my view, the NADD issue is an antiquated one that has not only been rendered obsolete but also lacking taste.
PDOIS’s Subterfuge
The pronouncement by PDOIS that a party led alliance is only prudent where there is a second round electoral system is the most ridiculous statement ever made in this 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 Brazil and yet it is the biggest party that led the coalition which brought that country’s new president, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff, to power. - The list can go on- In all these cases, the idea of a primary to select a leader/candidate had been unthinkable and none-existent. PDOIS’s pronouncement is therefore not only baseless but also and very clearly, a preposterous subterfuge that they are now clinging on, regrettably, to hide their intransigence and refusal to heed to the popular call for the opposition to forge an all inclusive coalition to challenge the incumbent APRC in the forthcoming elections.
SS Daffeh
Secretary-General
UDP UK
www.udpgambia.com
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 03 Apr 2011 16:21:08 |
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 17:09:29
|
quote:
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 Brazil and yet it is the biggest party that led the coalition which brought that country’s new president, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff, to power.
LIE, LIE, Lie. Ahem...BS..Cow Droppings...I mean this daffe dude is complete 1diot. I tell you several times UDP has no political knowledge, skills. No wonder Jammeh will have a land slide victory in November 2011. Why would anyone vote for UDP who has no clue about 'politics'.
In Brazil... There were two rounds. The last election, Dilma Rousseff was elected in the second round October 31. First, October 3, she got 46 %, the second most voter getter got 32 % and third got 19. The second round, only two candidates participated and the current president get 56 percent.
In South Africa, the election system is completely different. Yes there is no second round, but system is completely different from Gambia. First, there are national assembly where pre-election coalition possible and smaller parties can get into national assembly. President is not elected by people in direct vote where the clueless UDP official making silly comparison. The national assembly can vote for the president indirectly where smaller parties can support the president even from being different party after the election. This happens in the parliement.
India is a parliamentary system. There could be coalition of power but after the election, the executive power prime minister form the government, it could be via coalition and via post-election. The president of India is NOT selected directly by people, it is elected indirectly by various different national assemblies.
Dear SS Daffeh, Secretary-General, UDP UK... Can you please make some comment on your lack of knowledge about politic yet you still in the public asking voters to vote for UDP. Why would voters vote for a party which does not know about other countries' political system and LIE.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 03 Apr 2011 17:29:55 |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 17:19:27
|
When a ****** call you an *****, the best thing is not to respond. Wait for sober people to come with their criticisms and then reply in a mature and constructive manner. I await such criticisms.
Cheers
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 03 Apr 2011 17:28:41 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12309 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 17:19:34
|
Turk and Nyarikangbanna,see if this comment has any effect on your thoughts:
It is self evident that politics in the Gambia is totally about personalities and nothing at all to do with a system of politics that exist elsewhere in the world,where policies and promises are made,consequently the AVERAGE Gambian has no interest at all in voting for anybody UNLESS he is given something,then he will vote not for any political idea ,promise ,or policy ,but for someone. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 03 Apr 2011 17:22:00 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 17:21:45
|
quote:
is the most ridiculous statement ever made in this coalition debate.
lol... I think this one is the most ridiculous statement ever in the history of Gambian politics. With this, you will be placed in the special place in the history of World Politics for comparing oranges to spinach.
quote:
....As far as facts are concern,
Facts?
quote:
The list can go on-
What list, the list of irrelevant examples?
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 17:23:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
When a ****** call you an *****, the best thing is not to respond. Wait for sober people to come with their criticisms and then reply in a mature and constructive manner. I await such criticisms.
Cheers
You can't respond. The only respond I am expecting, sober people, to offer apology for misleading public. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 17:26:02
|
Touby
This is not about politics. It is about 'facts'. The comparison made is not based on facts. Based on lies. I had to highlight. To compare Gambian election process to India, Brazil and South Africa was plain ignorance. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12309 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 17:39:36
|
OK, I leave you two to have a "discussion" maybe that will be heated. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 03 Apr 2011 17:40:22 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 18:01:56
|
No! not me, toubab. I have noted your concern and shall accomdate it in my most likely comprehensive reply to sober and informed criticisms.
Thanks, mate. |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 03 Apr 2011 18:03:11 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 18:18:24
|
I will be waiting...go ahead, do some search, study and come back. Looking forward to hearing more....
Comprehensive, constructive, informed, sober.... lol
I thought you are more like type of guy below....No?
quote:
You are just being a bigot..... that the UDP HAS NO ROOM TO ENTERTAIN for it is palpably pervasive and damn stupid.....To think that you know better what is good for the UDP than the UDP itself is at best naive and at worst a clear stupidity.
You do not have the capacity or the intelligence to be able to decide for the UDP......By the way, I have no time for this silly bigotry.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 03 Apr 2011 18:58:26 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 00:27:59
|
A CHALLENGE TO ALL SUNDRY AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN!
LETS PLAY ORDERLY CIVILITY RULES, MATURITY, BRAINSTORM AS INTELLECTUALS, DESISTING FROM POLITICS OF PETTINESS, ARROGANCE, INSOLENCE AND CONFRONTATIONS 
AS THIS TOPIC IS BEING RE-CYCLED AND CHALLENGING STGDP AMONGST OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN COALITION BUILDING; I WOULD REFER BACK TO FEW TOPICS THAT CAN HELP ADDRESS THE ISSUES, SET THE RECORDS STRAIGHT AND FOR OUR NATIONAL CAUSE
1. FROM WHERE IT ALL STARTED? REFER RELATED BANTABA GAMBIAN POLITICS TOPICS;
i. ON SIDIA JATTA /OUSAINOU DARBOE MEETING UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=2.6&TOPIC_ID=10044#66842
ii. NADD -A Realistic Compromise... UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10111&whichpage=2&SearchTerms=NADD%2CMOU
2. THEN OTHER SELECTION OF BANTABA GAMBIAN POLITICS TOPICS TO FOLLOW FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A CLEAR VIEW OF;
A. WHAT NADD REPRESENTED
B. ROLE OF STGDP AND WHAT THEY ADVOCATE
ON A. ABOVE;
i. Sweet Days of NADD: Can we get back to it? UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10581
ii. HOME OF MANDINMORIES N.A.D.D'S Memorandum of Understanding; RELATED DEVELOPMENTS AMONGST OTHER CORRESPONDENCES UNDER http://gambian.blogspot.com/2005/01/memorandum-of-understanding.html
ON B. ABOVE - STGDP Press Release UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9998&SearchTerms=STGDP
READ PRESS RELEASE UNDER B. AS FOLLOWS;
STGDP: In Pursuance of a coalition of opposition parties in 2011
In our last communication to the various opposition parties in the Gambia STGDP had indicated to you that October 30th was to be a critical bench mark for all opposition parties to meet in order to find a resolution for a coalition that will enable all to start a timely campaign against Jammeh and the APRC party. We did indicate to our Opposition partners that at the end of October 30 if no signs of talks were underway, STGDP would remove itself as a facilitator to bring about a coalition of all parties. Clearly October 30th has come and gone, and unfortunately we are yet to find a way to start the talks for the possibility of a coalition of all opposition parties which, we continue to believe, is the best chance to put up a credible fight for election 2011.
After an in depth brainstorming in regards to the October 30th bench mark expiration, STGDP has revisited the election time table to see what other bench marks can be shared with our partners that will still give us the opportunity to launch a serious campaign against Jammeh. It is also during these discussions between STGDP members and their activists partners, that we have come to the conclusion that the stakes are too high, and whatever role we have been playing in our pursuit of trying to find solutions, it is nowhere close to our partners sacrifice and fight for the rights of the people in the Gambia notwithstanding their closeness to the jaws of tyranny.
Therefore, it is prudent for STGDP TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS OF FINDING SOLUTIONS TO LIBERATE OUR COUNTRY, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE KEY TO THIS STRATEGY IS TO COMPROMISE.
Today we would like to inform you that during our deliberations, STGDP has adopted new benchmarks that we still believe are critical if we are to wage an effective campaign against Jammeh in 2011. First, STGDP would like to see all the parties sit down and discuss the possible coalition frame work that all parties will adopt. This is to be completed by the end of the year which, is on or before December 31, 2010. Second, STGDP would like to see the party's executives finalize the frame work of a campaign strategy with a unified message that will begin in earnest January 31st, 2011. Finally, the coalition is to come up with a white paper that will address the kind of government desired during the third republic, which will focus on the building of the institutions of democracy and a government of national unity. This white paper is to be adopted by all the opposition parties, and is to be publicly shared with the Gambian people as part of the campaign strategy. This type of message will clearly spell out the new Gambia that voters can identify with and can also refuel hope and provide citizens a reason to use their leverage as decision makers to put an end to the Jammeh tyranny. This task is to be completed by February 18, 2011.
Fellow Gambians in the Diaspora, at home and all stakeholders in this process, STGDP is firm in their belief that having and meeting these critical bench marks are important if we are to put together a serious campaign against Jammeh and the APRC government. We cannot over emphasize the importance of 2011 and our collective endeavor to find a political solution to the pending catastrophe awaiting our country. The recent calling of a monarchy government, crowning of a new King and a suspension of a constitutional government should be taken very seriously from a regime that has flouted and violated every letter of the constitution. We request a compromise to confront Jammeh and the APRC government in the General election in 2011.
Time is of essence, if we are to send a clear message to all Gambians to come out and vote to bring an end to the calamity that has befallen our peaceful Gambia. We are urging the opposition parties to immediately sit down without any preconditions, and together come up with a compromise for a coalition with a clear cut message of which we can immediately take to the Gambian people and focus our energies on providing the alternative to the present day dictatorship. We are looking forward to your cooperation in this effort.
Thank you
Yours Sincerely
Bank Manneh
Chairman, STGDP
|
Edited by - kobo on 04 Apr 2011 13:52:56 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12309 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 00:37:27
|
And now gentlemen, we have three contestants in this recycled debate, with much information obtained by our master dredger and indexing expert Kobo.
Go to it boys, it's a three way tussle now,remember, I want a good clean fight no hitting below the belt,the first on on the ground and out of the circle is the loser 
(sorry, Momodou I know that you are in charge,but I couldn't resist it  ) |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 04 Apr 2011 00:39:50 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 00:58:07
|
Touby
I already hit the knocked-out punch on UDP Executive. The game is already over. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 01:10:06
|
Kobo
Give it up! UDP will never accept the idea of NADD. After all these humiliating loss, they still think soon-to-be-retired-in-senegal-as-refugee-second-pilot-darboe-behind-femi-peter can win the election. I think they have better chance to win with Femi Peters. So question is, would you think unit with NADD would be possible under the leadership of Femi Peters or someone else who is more qualified than; what was his name again? |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 08:13:37
|
Hey guys,
I thought by now Bantaba members and all who pays attention to Gambian politics should have learned something....
Don't you all realize that without coalition or NADD debate this Daffeh dude is out of ideas and business...
Do you guys notice how mute and uncomfortable this guy is without talking about these long foregone debate of a coalition?
I honestly think he is better served focusing on helping the UDP strategize on how to win more votes.
Am glad the rest of the cool heads of the UDP are focus on helping their party and not bringing negative and unnecessary attention to their party!!!
Darboe and the UDP party needs ideas on how to beat Jammeh and not people who brings distractions with the same old losing ideas!!!! Move on brother!!! No one is listening to you anymore, not even your own camp!!! |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 08:43:38
|
| Am afraid not DBaldeh, and I will tell you why Nyari is absolutely RIGHT as time permits.... there is only one political impasse and the culprit is not being blamed.Nyari has a point despite the degenerated and old fashioned methods utilized by the UDP party.......................................Peace |
I am Jebel Musa better yet rock of Gibraltar,either or,still a stronghold and a Pillar commanding direction
The GPU wants Me Hunted Down for what I don't know ..... |
Edited by - Moe on 04 Apr 2011 08:44:48 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
