 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
 Posted - 12 May 2011 : 23:39:17
|
quote:
"what I do not like to see is the chance of winning take back seat to the NADD concept. In the mean time is it possible to go with the most winnable concept?" Terangba.
Terangba, this is a very interesting proposition, "the most winnable concept." Can you please elaborate.
All the stakeholders who are interested in a genuine, credible and strong coalition should be interested to know about this "most winnable concept."
|
 |
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 13 May 2011 : 02:16:03
|
I will take that from Tee-Baby, Sankalanka I guess he is meaning the candidate with the most potential of winning. Look you can sit there and argue about the NADD stategy but it is absolutely ridiculous and far fetched. You mean to tell me this is about Processes and procedures yet who came up with this flawed concept, hopefully not the weakest link. I know you are trying as much as possible not to insinuate anything but rest assured in 2006 Darboe should have been considered to lead the coalition and this is just common sense.
What the NADD coalition hoped to achieve if am getting this right was not only bogus but a hopeless venture which was gonna prove futile simply because it is based on presumptions and lack of planning for their intended change venture, let me explain. You are telling me that overnight NADD as a political party was going to change the country's culture, the fact that voting in Gambia prior to the Jammeh regime was entirely based on ethnicity, brilliant suggestion but the only problem with that is the man they could not vote out came from a 13% ethnic background. Secondly the ground work including the necessary objectives were not put in place. If your arguement is valid am assuming then Jammeh has fulfilled that impossibility and the issue is no longer about Tribal association. Right!!
Are you telling me that NADD's plan was to initiate a change in the social fabric of the Gambian society, something that was formed over years of interaction between the citizenry. Trying to change the accepted culture will be like rolling rocks up hill or building a pyramid with no tools. Did the process and procedure generator consult Darboe and all stakeholders in reference to what their goal was, or did they just assume everyone knew?
Let me explain something to you Jawara did not start the PPP he was chosen and WHY? PS Njie had all the legitimacy to be President right!!, The Gambian culture matched the style and comfort zone of the founding fathers and the majority, that was the reality then. If you take a good look at the socalled menacing culture they so despise, it echo's the prevailing reality of our nation. You are telling me that Gambians can easily change when nothing shocking or significant occured to instigate change, right in their faces 70% percent to possibly 90% of participant voters will be voting GREEN for a man that is not from the majority in 2011. I cannot and will refuse to buy that arguement at anytime of the day nowadays, its no longer valid.
I see opportunism everywhere I look in reference to what the architects of NADD drew out and I will elaborate on this further. What was PPP, PDOIS and any other individual so scared of to allow Darboe to Lead. He was an Attorney and if you are talking about drafting a constitution that would have easily passed a referendum with atleast 90% percent, it would have been generated by Darboe, He is the First person to mention a Presidential term limit being included in the constitution unlike the complacent architects of the 1997 Constitution leaving it wide open for prostitution.
How does removing Jammeh have any association with Darboe or the Culture of the Nation. If this is what NADD was all about am glad it disintergrated ........................................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 13 May 2011 02:46:35 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 13 May 2011 : 15:44:36
|
quote:
"I will take that from Tee-Baby, Sankalanka I guess he is meaning the candidate with the most potential of winning. Look you can sit there and argue about the NADD stategy but it is absolutely ridiculous and far fetched. You mean to tell me this is about Processes and procedures yet who came up with this flawed concept, hopefully not the weakest link. I know you are trying as much as possible not to insinuate anything but rest assured in 2006 Darboe should have been considered to lead the coalition and this is just common sense."
Moe, first of all I was not a party to those who designed and accepted the NADD concept. I am just an ordinary citizen. And if my understanding is correct, the document was subjected to scrutiny by the parties involved and accepted.
There was a technical committee comprising members from each party, some of whom were lawyers. If they had a problem with the document, why would they have signed the agreements? This is the first point to note.
Secondly, and fundamentally the NADD document was a novel idea. It sought to break from the past. It instituted mechanisms and structures as the framework that would guide the evolution and realization of its aims and objectives.
One such mechanism was the principle of unanimity, whereby all the stakeholders would have to agree before a decision was accepted. If there was no unanimous agreement, and in the case of the coalition leadership, they had to go to a primary to select the leader. This is what the document stated. And all the party leaders agreed with this stipulation.
How then can your argument be justified that they should have randomly selected someone among them with "the most potential" of winning? There were processes and procedures; it should have been followed. This is the second point.
quote:
"What the NADD coalition hoped to achieve if am getting this right was not only bogus but a hopeless venture which was gonna prove futile simply because it is based on presumptions and lack of planning for their intended change venture, let me explain. You are telling me that overnight NADD as a political party was going to change the country's culture, the fact that voting in Gambia prior to the Jammeh regime was entirely based on ethnicity, brilliant suggestion but the only problem with that is the man they could not vote out came from a 13% ethnic background. Secondly the ground work including the necessary objectives were not put in place. If your arguement is valid am assuming then Jammeh has fulfilled that impossibility and the issue is no longer about Tribal association. Right!!"
Moe, one thing you have to understand is that what you are considering as culture is very fluid. It is dictated upon by certain factors not the least are power, patronage and inducement.
The dynamics of our politics from Jawara to the present has eroded that sense of tribal affinity, and it now has more to do with political goodwill and acceptance, that has been inherited from one leader to the other.
All the support structures of the first regime, has been transferred to the second regime, irrespective of the tribe one belongs. People are supporting the government, not based on tribe but on political goodwill and acceptance. They same would have been true if Nadd came to power. The only difference is that NADD would have put in place the institutions and structures that would guide the transition.
Therefore, support for the current political dispensation has no basis as a tribal inclination; it is just raw politics. More like the adage, "if you cannot beat them, join them."
quote:
"Are you telling me that NADD's plan was to initiate a change in the social fabric of the Gambian society, something that was formed over years of interaction between the citizenry. Trying to change the accepted culture will be like rolling rocks up hill or building a pyramid with no tools."
The institutions and structures put in place would have done the job. Remember that society is dynamic and can respond to any change, especially if that change is positive.
quote:
"Did the process and procedure generator consult Darboe and all stakeholders in reference to what their goal was, or did they just assume everyone knew?"
I have no idea what you are talking about. If it is the NADD document there was a technical committee comprising members from each of the parties that reviewed the document. There were even lawyers and PHD holders among them, as I understand. So, who was fooling, who?
quote:
"Let me explain something to you Jawara did not start the PPP he was chosen and WHY? PS Njie had all the legitimacy to be President right!!, The Gambian culture matched the style and comfort zone of the founding fathers and the majority, that was the reality then."
Moe, I disagree. What you are describing is not Gambian culture. Yes, Jawara did not start the P.P.P. and he was chosen. But you also have to understand how the P.P.P. came into being, and why he was chosen.
The politics of that era was mostly confined within the colony, and the people of the protectorate who were mainly of the mandinka ethnic group were disenfranchised. The People's Protectorate Party emerged to represent the interest of this group and to give them a franchise.
If there was any tribal basis for the emergence of the Protectorate People's Party, it was purely accidental. It had the noble intention of representing the interest and concerns of this disenfranchised group. That was all to it. Had they used the power of their numbers to their advantage. You bet.
Moreover, the politics within the colony had its own dynamics too, which was not favorable to PS Njie. You had the Muslim Congress of Garba Jahumpha which had a sectarian appeal; not to talk about the cross-carpeting that was happening, left, right and center.
There was a lot going on, and it had nothing to do with tribe or its politics. We therefore tend to exaggerate the tribal appeal at this time. It had mostly to do with power, and the power structure of the time.
quote:
"If you take a good look at the socalled menacing culture they so despise, it echo's the prevailing reality of our nation. You are telling me that Gambians can easily change when nothing shocking or significant occured to instigate change, right in their faces 70% percent to possibly 90% of participant voters will be voting GREEN for a man that is not from the majority in 2011. I cannot and will refuse to buy that arguement at anytime of the day nowadays, its no longer valid."
Moe, again you are getting it wrong. This is not about tribes, although I will not discount the fact that there were, and are still people who appeal to a tribal sentiment to win votes and gain support.
No one can deny the fact that we all belong to an ethnic group. It is to such belongings, either by accidents of history because we are born into it, or through some shared linkage to some common attribute, that we identify with each other.
We will always have such tribal affiliations. We will always have strong affinities, and develop strong loyalties to our tribes. Hence our societies will always be govern by our diverse interest. Hence our societies will always be in a state of conflict.
What is also true, is that there are class distinctions in our society based on education, wealth and other material accumulations whose only relevance indicate an upward social mobility on an individual or family basis. It does not necessarily create an upward social mobility to the ethnic groups in which such individuals or families belong.
People are still poor, irrespective of the ethnic groups they belong to. What has changed, however, is that with the benefit of education and the monopolization of the state bureaucratic organs of government, a new class has emerged that is elevated socially and economically. This class is completely divorced from the pathetic social and economic realties to which the majority of the people are consigned.
quote:
"I see opportunism everywhere I look in reference to what the architects of NADD drew out and I will elaborate on this further. What was PPP, PDOIS and any other individual so scared of to allow Darboe to Lead."
Moe, truthfully this argument has no merit. You can find your answer in some of the statements I have made before.
quote:
"He was an Attorney and if you are talking about drafting a constitution that would have easily passed a referendum with atleast 90% percent, it would have been generated by Darboe, He is the First person to mention a Presidential term limit being included in the constitution unlike the complacent architects of the 1997 Constitution leaving it wide open for prostitution."
This is why I mentioned that you have some people who are lawyers who were among members of the technical committee that reviewed the NADD document. So what happened? You tell me. The rest of the statement is neither here or there, as they say.
quote:
"How does removing Jammeh have any association with Darboe or the Culture of the Nation. If this is what NADD was all about am glad it disintergrated ........................................Peace"
Moe, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I will have to pass on this one.
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 13 May 2011 : 15:51:55
|
1996 Presidential Elections
Yahya Jammeh - 53%(round figure) of total vote cast
Ousainou Darboe - 33% of total vote cast.
Opposition votes combined - 47% of the total votes cast
2001 Presidential Elections.
Yahya Jammeh - 53% of total votes cast
Ousainou Darboe - 33% of total votes cast
Opposition combined - 47% of total votes cast
2006 Presidential Elections
Yahya Jammeh - 67% of total votes cast
Ousainou Darboe - 29% of total votes cast
Opposition combined -33% of total votes count.
Potential does not win you elections. It is the ability to win. Ousainou's record shows that he does not have whatt it takes to win the Presidency. Even if there was a second round of voting in the Gambia he would never have came close to winning a sizable vote percentage margin to trigger a run-off. Not even the opposition combined can achieve that feat.
We are where we are today, discusssing about a pre-election coalition of all the opposition parties in the Gambia because the paranoid dictator had shifted the goal post, by retracting the second round of voting from the Gambian constitution out of sheer idiocy - with the aid of of a 'rubber stamp' legislature. Otherwise a coalition borne out of a unification of all opposition parties to contest an election against the incumbent in the preliminary round is not only immoral, but a downright constitutional coup d'etat which should never be allowed to be precedented by any genuine democrat. If there was space for a run-off in the Gambia electoral system we would not be having this discussion. An all-inclusive opposition coalition in a preliminary is a perfect recipe for anarchy in any electoral system; in that our leaders will not be elected by a Gambian majority, but by a bunch of opportunistic syndicate of kingmakers imposing their will on the majority of the Gambian people. Nobody can impose Ousainou Darboe or any other person on the Gambian people willy nilly. Over our dead bodies!! We have already got Yahya Jammeh imposed on us by a military with the most mediocre political education on the planet in July 1994 and we strive never to repeat that mistake ever, ever, ever again. The will of the sovereign Gambian majority is superior to all syndicates of kingmakers, millitary rebels and bloody what-not!! And this ain't about TRUST. It is about moral political intergrity, formulated on the premise that generations to come will be spared anarchy - the consequence of our suicidal fatalism.
I support the NADD idea only because of an absence of a second round of voting in the event of a stalemate or any party unable to clinch the majority votes cast in the preliminaries.
There are thousands of eligible and qualified Gambians who can fit the criteria for flag-bearer of an all-inclusive opposition agreed by all parties. Why is Ousainou Darboe the most eligible Gambian? Daf nu genna saye ndey? Nothing will be handed on a platter to anybody. You have to earn it by exhausting the process in place to choose a flagbearer. There are plenty of potential winnable candidates in the Gambia and outside to lead us to a unified opposition glory in 2011 toward a transitional goverment of five years or less. The success of NADD was not because of the personalities in NADD but because of its astute formula and design. The personalities in NADD were contesting politics since 1996 and none of them came close to testing Jammeh. Did not those who believe that it was about personality walk away from NADD with their numbers believing that 1+1=majority? How did they fare? Let's talk mature politics. Recycling the same simple and medioce arguments from months and years ago in this forum will not yield us any good Moe. Where were you when the debate was on? Tapping palm wine in Kanilai? Don't swallow the garbage that the UDP is passing for conventional coalition. It does not exist anywhere on this planet. The UDP is a leaderless empty barrel with just one soundbite. WE DEMAND OUR BIRTHRIGHT TO THE PRESIDENCY ANY WHICH WAY. Like i told them before, "go and get it, nobody is stopping you."
Maye len nyu jamma waye!!! |
Edited by - shaka on 13 May 2011 16:02:12 |
|
|
|
terangba
Egypt
225 Posts |
Posted - 13 May 2011 : 16:18:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by kobo
Moe Save your lectures as NOTHING STOPPED LAWYER DARBOE LEADING NADD OR BLOCKING HIM FROM LEADING ANY COALITION OR UNITED FRONT 
By refusing to meet with Darbor ( if Nayri is right) PDOIS is blocking progress. The only sensible thingto do this late in the game is to stop all the nonsense and rally behind UDP. Like DBaldeh once said history will not look kindly our PDOIS' leadership.
Though PDOIS is a small party its support in the urban area and the power of a unified front cannot be underrated.
I think we have argued enough, the biggest opposition party gave us their candidate and they will not agree to a primary so in the interest of the country everone should call out PDOIS to stop blocking progress. |
God gave men dominion over the beasts and not over his fellow men unless they submit of their own free will. - Napoleon |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 13 May 2011 : 16:49:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by terangba
By refusing to meet with Darbor ( if Nayri is right) PDOIS is blocking progress. The only sensible thingto do this late in the game is to stop all the nonsense and rally behind UDP. Like DBaldeh once said history will not look kindly our PDOIS' leadership.
WHY NOT RALLY BEHIND PPP
quote:
Though PDOIS is a small party its support in the urban area and the power of a unified front cannot be underrated.
IF UDP DON'T WANT TO CONSIDER "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES" OR A "NATIONAL ALLIANCE" FOR A NATIONAL CAUSE; HOW CAN A UNITED FRONT BE CREATED
quote:
I think we have argued enough, the biggest opposition party gave us their candidate and they will not agree to a primary so in the interest of the country everone should call out PDOIS to stop blocking progress.
"Darboe hopeful of opposition alliance LIKEWISE PDOIS WELCOME ANY PARTY TO ENGAGE THEM ON COALITION AND UNITED FRONT. ALL STAKEHOLDERS MUST BE COALITION PARTNERS ON A COMMON GROUND BUT NO PARTY WOULD BE LEAD BY THE OTHER
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 13 May 2011 : 17:00:39
|
| When did PDOIS refuse to talk to Darboe? They ask to speak to the only person they claim to respect from PDOIS (Sidia Jatta) and he aswered their call despite numerous communications to UDP from both NADD and PDOIS that were ignored. Now they don't want Sedia anymore, they want somebody else who is "insincere" and whom they have no respect for. They talk to PDOIS only on their terms but and ignore any correspondence from PDOIS. Blocking progress? Are you serious? Don't listen to Nyari. He is nuts. Sedia Jatta is the disignated negotiator for NADD. Contact him. They actually believe they could corrupt an incoruptible Jatta by offering the invisible hand. Chei Yalla!! |
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 14 May 2011 : 00:41:08
|
Sanka, so if the NADD document was not authored by PDOIS who designed and tried to implement such a flawed venture. I think Shaka is absolutely right when he said Unification of all Political parties and choosing a Leader to dislodge the APRC tantamounts to a coup d'etat. I totally agree with that assertion. All am saying is Who was in this so called technical commitee that drafted the NADD document since each party memeber was only allowed to view it and agree. That is total foolishness in my opinion. Darboe backed out of it from my understanding that he was ill adviced and several of the mistakes were not his own doing but a choice by the UDP as a whole and their technical advicers in respect to boycotting the elections. Backing out of NASDD on the other hand was a MUST.
quote:
"with a coalition at this point There was a technical committee comprising members from each party, some of whom were lawyers. If they had a problem with the document, why would they have signed the agreements? This is the first point to note."
Who were the authors of the NADD document? thats what I really wanna know simply because the strategy was flawed and what ever their intentions were was False.I think its in regards to the content why they decided to all break off aint it. Its an unrealistic proposal and totally unacceptable. If Jammehs/APRC was such an evil regime, organizing would have been easy but that is not the case, the real monsters are amongst us and hiding.
quote:
"Secondly, and fundamentally the NADD document was a novel idea. It sought to break from the past. It instituted mechanisms and structures as the framework that would guide the evolution and realization of its aims and objectives. One such mechanism was the principle of unanimity, whereby all the stakeholders would have to agree before a decision was accepted. If there was no unanimous agreement, and in the case of the coalition leadership, they had to go to a primary to select the leader. This is what the document stated. And all the party leaders agreed with this stipulation."
Why the long process when it is evident that the chosen candidate carried less votes than the leading candidate, if its about personality 35.8 speaks volumes versus 5% as viable candidates go. RIGHT?
quote:
"How then can your argument be justified that they should have randomly selected someone among them with "the most potential" of winning? There were processes and procedures; it should have been followed. This is the second point. "
They tried to sell a flawed agenda and had no customers and I do not blame UDP or NRP for walking away from the NADD nuissance. It was a flawed process and least to say unfair and calculated.
quote:
"All the support structures of the first regime, has been transferred to the second regime, irrespective of the tribe one belongs. People are supporting the government, not based on tribe but on political goodwill and acceptance. They same would have been true if Nadd came to power. The only difference is that NADD would have put in place the institutions and structures that would guide the transition. "
Transition to what? Look guys after 1996 the APRC government was legitimized by the people who cared anyways so it is what it is, I dont feel there is any more transition, its all about winners and losers NOW.
The people have no reason to Change and the change that you are insinuating cannot be implemented simply because the people themselves were not consulted , it was being initiated by an undercover group. Thats not the right method to bring about change. What have they done to enlighten the citizenry about the planned change and who did they consult.
quote:
"I have no idea what you are talking about. If it is the NADD document there was a technical committee comprising members from each of the parties that reviewed the document. There were even lawyers and PHD holders among them, as I understand. So, who was fooling, who? "
Who authored the NADD document the procedure and Process I wanna dwell on that first.
quote:
"Moe, I disagree. What you are describing is not Gambian culture. Yes, Jawara did not start the P.P.P. and he was chosen. But you also have to understand how the P.P.P. came into being, and why he was chosen.
"The politics of that era was mostly confined within the colony, and the people of the protectorate who were mainly of the mandinka ethnic group were disenfranchised. The People's Protectorate Party emerged to represent the interest of this group and to give them a franchise."
I know that and thats why I stated the reasoning behind making it an all inclusive party and changing the name to PPP. Sanjally Bojang started the PPP and his partners Yahya Ceesay.
quote:
"If there was any tribal basis for the emergence of the Protectorate People's Party, it was purely accidental. It had the noble intention of representing the interest and concerns of this disenfranchised group. That was all to it. Had they used the power of their numbers to their advantage. You bet."
I never once insinuated that it was based on tribal grounds what I stated was that they represented the educated marginalized guys from the protectorate but due to attacks and accusations the name changed.
quote:
"Moreover, the politics within the colony had its own dynamics too, which was not favorable to PS Njie. You had the Muslim Congress of Garba Jahumpha which had a sectarian appeal; not to talk about the cross-carpeting that was happening, left, right and center."
Why should anyone attack the likes of Rambo and Waa for either crossing carpet or working with the regime meanwhile maintaining their individual parties. The APRC comprises of average Gamnbians supported by the PEOPLE.
quote:
"Moe, again you are getting it wrong. This is not about tribes, although I will not discount the fact that there were, and are still people who appeal to a tribal sentiment to win votes and gain support.
We will always have such tribal affiliations. We will always have strong affinities, and develop strong loyalties to our tribes. Hence our societies will always be govern by our diverse interest. Hence our societies will always be in a state of conflict."
I totally disagree unless you wanna explain further.
quote:
"People are still poor, irrespective of the ethnic groups they belong to. What has changed, however, is that with the benefit of education and the monopolization of the state bureaucratic organs of government, a new class has emerged that is elevated socially and economically. This class is completely divorced from the pathetic social and economic realties to which the majority of the people are consigned."
Unless we decide to transform into a socialist state such will be the situation due to the monopoly over resources and low literacy rate and inputMoe, truthfully this argument has no merit. You can find your answer in some of the statements I have made before.
quote:
"This is why I mentioned that you have some people who are lawyers who were among members of the technical committee that reviewed the NADD document. So what happened? You tell me. The rest of the statement is neither here or there, as they say."
Technical Committee= Who?
quote:
"How does removing Jammeh have any association with Darboe or the Culture of the Nation. If this is what NADD was all about am glad it disintergrated "
You keep mentioning transition and change from the past which was based on tribal association and you don't understand what I mean by what does removing Jammeh have any association with Darboe or the culture of the Nation. Darboe for some reason being from the majority group is already considered to be playing the tribal divide and the change that NADD promised to usher in has no basis or legitimacy if its based on a dream to change how the people operate..............................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 14 May 2011 02:27:25 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 14 May 2011 : 00:43:59
|
"Know yourselves, know your country, and the world. Then you shall be the architect of your own destiny."FOROYAA
1. BEFORE APRC, NRP AND UDP WERE BORN AND LAWYER DARBOE INVITED INTO POLITICS FOR REDEMPTION; LAST ELECTION RESULTS (GENERAL ELECTIONS 1992) BEFORE PPP BANNED ; ARE PART OF THE DYNAMICS OF 1ST ELECTION RESULTS OF 2ND REPUBLIC FOR 1996/1997; WHICH CAN BE REVIEWED UNDER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambian_general_election,_1992
2. ALSO RELATED BANTABA GAMBIAN POLITICS TOPIC UDP LEGACY ALREADY WRITTEN! UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10421
quote:
Originally posted by Moe
Darboes Polling record Prior to and after the Coalition formation.
UDP 1996 - 35.8%
The slight drop in 2006 was due to his subsequent arrest and murder charge stemming from the killing of an APRC supporter.
UDP 2001 - 32.6
UDP 2006 - 26.7%
After the Nadd alliance his support base dropped to 26.7 percent after they all decided to slaughter each other.
All am saying is with the right support and a little shoving the UDP party could have easily defeated the APRC, thats for certain. IF PDOIS added their 6% or 5 % to Darboes already 35% margin plus Hamats 12%. The APRC party would have had an opposition force to reckon with....................................Peace
|
Edited by - kobo on 14 May 2011 13:53:25 |
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 14 May 2011 : 00:48:04
|
| There is not going to be a comeback for the PPP regime this is a reassurance KOBO. The rightful ruler of the NADD coalition was non other than darboe and he was deprived of it by some clandestine figures. PDOIS has not only proven to be a stumbling block throughout the process but it has managed to isolate itself from real talks and still maintains the same stance, whats the reasoning behind this, and this is because ONLY Darboe is HOPEFUL for an all INCLUSIVE ALLIANCE, who else is saying anything in that regard. Since last elections PDOIS and the DREAM Team architects still can't find a candidate to replace Darboe if what you stated had any value to it, what is the PROBLEM?..........................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 14 May 2011 00:49:42 |
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 14 May 2011 : 00:55:13
|
Kobo my word is BOND , I try to make sure everything I say can be validated....................................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 ..... |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 14 May 2011 : 01:05:25
|
MOE DON'T PLAY DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE YOU SCARED HEARING "DARBOE HOPEFUL OF OPPOSITION ALLIANCE" AGAINST YOUR IDOL JAMMEH/APRC
ALL YOUR BOGUS ARGUMENTS ARE BEING SHATTERED PPP IS THE LIFE BLOOD AND DNA OF APRC, NRP AND UDP MY FAMILY WERE VOTING FOR PPP AND LATER WE THOUGHT DARBOE AND UDP IS OUR REDEEMER; FOR I HAVE BEEN CASTING FOR THEM WITHOUT PPP. I NEVER VOTED FOR HALIFA SALLAH OR SIDIA JATTA; EXCEPT ONCE FOR SAM SARR AND DARBOE FOR MY PRESIDENTIAL VOTE! SO MY VOTE AND FAMILY ARE PART OF THE STATISTICS IN UDP ELECTION RESULTS! O.K
YOU SHOULD EXCUSE US (AS OPPONENTS OF JAMMEH/APRC) TO PUT OUR HOUSE IN ORDER; BECAUSE WE ARE COURTING EACH OTHER, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED RELATIONSHIP, FIX ANY DIVOURCE FOR A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE |
Edited by - kobo on 15 May 2011 03:08:19 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2011 : 05:50:18
|
"Sanka, so if the NADD document was not authored by PDOIS who designed and tried to implement such a flawed venture."
Moe, one thing you have to understand is that the idea to write the NADD document doesn't just drop from the sky. It started somewhere. People did not just wake up one day and decided that they were going to write a document, called the NADD memorandum of understanding, and started selling it to the people. This is just ridiculous.
Now, the question is: How did it all started. My understanding is that the idea originated from a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia by the opposition political leaders convened by the STGDP. Thereupon they selected a coordinator to pursue further the idea, and put together the structural framework that will transform that idea into reality.
To come to your question of who wrote the NADD document and memorandum of understanding, one thing you also have to understand is that to write such a document, two things must have happened:
a) either someone, or a group of people, must have been assigned to write the initial document and then later another body of people, the technical committee, subjected the document to scrutiny and make revisions and additions.
b) all the political parties concern must have been invited to write a concept paper about the idea, and then a body of people will review all the concept papers, and make a SYNTHESIS of the ideas contained therefrom.
What happened in this instance, I definitely do not know.
But the thing to note, is that all great ideas in history emanates from someone. It later becomes embrace by the wider human society and becomes the property of people. This is how societies have been evolved and transformed. An idea that started with one person becomes a transforming agent and changed the lives of peoples and nations. History is replete with examples of such people.
So even if the NADD document was authored by PDOIS, someone must have wrote it. What is important is whether it had been accepted. And all indications are that it was accepted.
You are saying that the document is flawed; but, I haven't read yet anywhere where the material contents of the document or the memorandum of understanding had been challenged. The arguments and disagreements had been over the issue of whether NADD should have been registered as a political party or not; and the arguments and disagreements over the selection of its coalition leader.
You want to be the first person to raise the challenge as to how the document is flawed, you have our ears.
"I think Shaka is absolutely right when he said Unification of all Political parties and choosing a Leader to dislodge the APRC tantamounts to a coup d'etat. I totally agree with that assertion."
Shaka made a very compelling argument, but you have to weigh that argument against what necessitated the unification of all the political parties in choosing a leader to dislodge the ruling party: the absence of a second round of voting.
That is the reason why he qualified that statement by saying: "I supported the NADD idea only because of an absence of a second round of voting, in the event of a stalemate or any party unable to cling the majority votes cast in the preliminaries."
"All am saying is Who was in this so called technical commitee that drafted the NADD document since each party memeber was only allowed to view it and agree. That is total foolishness in my opinion. Darboe backed out of it from my understanding that he was ill adviced and several of the mistakes were not his own doing but a choice by the UDP as a whole and their technical advicers in respect to boycotting the elections. Backing out of NASDD on the other hand was a MUST."
Moe, refer to the above two options that I gave you as to how the Nadd document might have been drafted. It is an educated guess; but for sure, I do not know. My understanding also is that each party was represented in the technical committee.
"Who were the authors of the NADD document? thats what I really wanna know simply because the strategy was flawed and what ever their intentions were was False."
To tell you the truth, I do not know the authors of the NADD document.
What strategy is flawed? And what were their intentions that is flawed also? You have to exposed the strategy and intentions that were/are flawed. You just don't say it, you also have to show it.
"I think its in regards to the content why they decided to all break off aint it. Its an unrealistic proposal and totally unacceptable. If Jammehs/APRC was such an evil regime, organizing would have been easy but that is not the case, the real monsters are amongst us and hiding."
Moe, there was no disagreement over the contents of the NADD document. At least the challenged has not been raised. However, there was disagreement over whether NADD should have been registered as a political party, and disagreement over the selection of a coalition leader. This much I know.
quote:
"Secondly, and fundamentally the NADD document was a novel idea. It sought to break from the past. It instituted mechanisms and structures as the framework that would guide the evolution and realization of its aims and objectives. One such mechanism was the principle of unanimity, whereby all the stakeholders would have to agree before a decision was accepted. If there was no unanimous agreement, and in the case of the coalition leadership, they had to go to a primary to select the leader. This is what the document stated. And all the party leaders agreed with this stipulation."
"Why the long process when it is evident that the chosen candidate carried less votes than the leading candidate, if its about personality 35.8 speaks volumes versus 5% as viable candidates go. RIGHT?"
Moe, you have to put things in context. The "chosen candidate" was chosen after the whole thing fell apart. Well, as to percentages and personalities, you be the judge.
quote:
"How then can your argument be justified that they should have randomly selected someone among them with "the most potential" of winning? There were processes and procedures; it should have been followed. This is the second point. "
"They tried to sell a flawed agenda and had no customers and I do not blame UDP or NRP for walking away from the NADD nuissance. It was a flawed process and least to say unfair and calculated."
You have a right to your opinion. Say it loud.
quote:
"All the support structures of the first regime, has been transferred to the second regime, irrespective of the tribe one belongs. People are supporting the government, not based on tribe but on political goodwill and acceptance. They same would have been true if Nadd came to power. The only difference is that NADD would have put in place the institutions and structures that would guide the transition. "
"Transition to what? Look guys after 1996 the APRC government was legitimized by the people who cared anyways so it is what it is, I dont feel there is any more transition, its all about winners and losers NOW."
Moe, I was just trying to explain a process, whereby you move from from stage to another; hence the use of the word transition.
If you looked at what happened in the first republic politically, and what is happening now politically, there isn't much of a difference. It is the same YAI COMPINS; the same modus operandi, the same people coming to pledge their support and allegiance; the same, same. That is why I said, the support structures of the past have been transferred to the present.
"The people have no reason to Change and the change that you are insinuating cannot be implemented simply because the people themselves were not consulted , it was being initiated by an undercover group. Thats not the right method to bring about change. What have they done to enlighten the citizenry about the planned change and who did they consult."
Interesting observation. All the change agents should take heed.
quote:
"I have no idea what you are talking about. If it is the NADD document there was a technical committee comprising members from each of the parties that reviewed the document. There were even lawyers and PHD holders among them, as I understand. So, who was fooling, who? "
Who authored the NADD document the procedure and Process I wanna dwell on that first.
quote:
"Moe, I disagree. What you are describing is not Gambian culture. Yes, Jawara did not start the P.P.P. and he was chosen. But you also have to understand how the P.P.P. came into being, and why he was chosen.
"The politics of that era was mostly confined within the colony, and the people of the protectorate who were mainly of the mandinka ethnic group were disenfranchised. The People's Protectorate Party emerged to represent the interest of this group and to give them a franchise."
I know that and thats why I stated the reasoning behind making it an all inclusive party and changing the name to PPP. Sanjally Bojang started the PPP and his partners Yahya Ceesay.
quote:
"If there was any tribal basis for the emergence of the Protectorate People's Party, it was purely accidental. It had the noble intention of representing the interest and concerns of this disenfranchised group. That was all to it. Had they used the power of their numbers to their advantage. You bet."
I never once insinuated that it was based on tribal grounds what I stated was that they represented the educated marginalized guys from the protectorate but due to attacks and accusations the name changed.
quote:
"Moreover, the politics within the colony had its own dynamics too, which was not favorable to PS Njie. You had the Muslim Congress of Garba Jahumpha which had a sectarian appeal; not to talk about the cross-carpeting that was happening, left, right and center."
"Why should anyone attack the likes of Rambo and Waa for either crossing carpet or working with the regime meanwhile maintaining their individual parties. The APRC comprises of average Gamnbians supported by the PEOPLE."
Moe, I think your response is out of context. I was referring to the cross-carpeting that occurred during the earlier years of the first republic. Presently, it is never by business who cross-carpeted and to where.
quote:
"Moe, again you are getting it wrong. This is not about tribes, although I will not discount the fact that there were, and are still people who appeal to a tribal sentiment to win votes and gain support.
We will always have such tribal affiliations. We will always have strong affinities, and develop strong loyalties to our tribes. Hence our societies will always be govern by our diverse interest. Hence our societies will always be in a state of conflict."
"I totally disagree unless you wanna explain further.'
Tell me what you disagreed with so far. And I will explain further.
quote:
"People are still poor, irrespective of the ethnic groups they belong to. What has changed, however, is that with the benefit of education and the monopolization of the state bureaucratic organs of government, a new class has emerged that is elevated socially and economically. This class is completely divorced from the pathetic social and economic realties to which the majority of the people are consigned."
"Unless we decide to transform into a socialist state such will be the situation due to the monopoly over resources and low literacy rate and input"
Moe, we don't need to transform into a socialist state. We first need to address the questions; how do we organize what we produce? And how what we produce is distributed. This are the fundamental questions in economics. Once we are able to answer these questions, then we should be able to manage our resources, generate input and increase the literacy rate.
Moe, truthfully this argument has no merit. You can find your answer in some of the statements I have made before.
quote:
"This is why I mentioned that you have some people who are lawyers who were among members of the technical committee that reviewed the NADD document. So what happened? You tell me. The rest of the statement is neither here or there, as they say."
Technical Committee= Who?
quote:
"How does removing Jammeh have any association with Darboe or the Culture of the Nation. If this is what NADD was all about am glad it disintergrated "
"You keep mentioning transition and change from the past which was based on tribal association and you don't understand what I mean by what does removing Jammeh have any association with Darboe or the culture of the Nation. Darboe for some reason being from the majority group is already considered to be playing the tribal divide and the change that NADD promised to usher in has no basis or legitimacy if its based on a dream to change how the people operate..............................peace"
Your opinion, Moe. And you have a right to it.
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 14 May 2011 02:27:25 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2011 : 12:46:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moe
Kobo my word is BOND , I try to make sure everything I say can be validated....................................Peace
You are entitled to your opinions
HOWEVER AS FAR AS YOUR BATTLES AND RECORDS IN THIS FORUM; YOU ARE ONE OF MOST DREADFUL TO BE CHALLENGED IN THIS FORUM; IN DEFENCE OF JAMMEH AND APRC GOVERNMENT WE HAVE HEARD ENOUGH OF BAD LANGUAGE, BULLYING, INSULTS, SWEARING AND MAKING ENEMIES AGAINST ANYONE WHO CRITICISES OR CONDEMN PRESIDENT JAMMEH AND HIS GOVERNMENT |
Edited by - kobo on 15 May 2011 14:09:30 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
