 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Oct 2012 : 06:19:48
|
Terangba. I will share my thoughts with everyone. In meantime start pondering how opposition parties in Parliamentary elections decided to agree COMMON GROUND and quickly endorse an accord to operate as G6 and SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE AND FOR COMMON PURPOSE  |
 |
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2012 : 08:00:00
|
"Sankalan, let's see what happen after 2016 when Halifa's presidential ambition shall perpetually be put to rest just like Sidia's and Sam would not be qualified either for the same reason,age. If pdois can survive beyond that, I shall give them credit but only in that respect."
Nyari, what makes you think that PDOIS's mission and vision is tied to only Halifa's, Sam's or Sidia's presidential ambitions? If I understand the motivations that drives these people, the presidency will not be an end in itself, but a means to securing greater liberty for the people and expansion of the democratic space; the building of institutions and structures that will promote the greater good, and help consolidate all the democratic values that will make the people free and prosperous. Therefore, Pdois doesn't necessarily need Halifa, Sidia or Sam to secure the gains for the presidency. They can sponsor and support any other candidate to do so.
Also, if PDOIS can survive under very trying circumstances for 26 years, how come you are doubting their ability to survive for another five years? If I understand the intent of its founders, they have created a vehicle of political representation that would be relevant and active even if they are not around. Therefore, don't count them out yet, there will be around for the long run.
"I think pdois is under severe pressure here. That party will be 30yrs old by 2016 and for Halifa and sidia, it is a recognition that 2016 is the last chance. They either make it into government and fulfill their political ambitions or it is a 30yrs of struggle and personal sacrfice gone in vain as none of them would be qualified to run for the president by virtue of the upper age limit constitutional privision. That is why when halifa went to dakar and faced criticism, he knew his political aspiration is slipping away faster than he thought and that's why we are seeing of these hot air press statement that don't an mean anything other than fanciful Cinderralla dreams."
Nyari, you are an incredible mind reader. What difference does it make if the party is 30 years old in 2016, than when the party was 25 years in 2011? It doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
"Halifa in particular has a credibility problem that was so excerbated by his deceitful and intransigent attitude towards the unity project which he had been derailing since 2006. He has reduced Sidia to a 'push mu taaka' and Sam,a remote controlled flunky."
It is not nice to insult people even if you don't have any good thing to say about them.
"Oh! And by the way, apart from lamin waa juwara's ndam, which never existed in practice, it is only the first republic parties that withered away or died a natural death. Pdois is much older than all the other parties who are currently operating in gambia."
More so,why you have to respect them, even if they can't get your support and vote.
NB: Terangba, your contribution earlier is well noted. A very good rejoinder.
Thanks |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2012 : 19:50:35
|
| Sankalan, What insult???? I insult nobody. Just saying the plain truth. Nothing more. |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2012 : 21:49:09
|
AN OPINION IS NOT TRUTH
TRUTH AND VILE SLANDER ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT
FINALLY NYARIKANGBANNA'S VIEWS, DIVISIVE TACTICS, PARTISAN STRATEGY DOES NOT REPRESENT UDP POSITION/POLICY/LEADERSHIP AND/OR VIEWS OF PARTY LEADER TO SAVE THEM FROM ANIMOSITY AND DISREPUTE
FOR ANOTHER "TRUTH" & FACTS 2011 P.D.O.I.S SENSITIZED CITIZENS, DELIVERED LEADERSHIP, MOBILISED RALLIES AND EXERCISED CITIZENS RIGHT TO VOTE (FRANCHISED) BUT ALL ITS LEADERS TOOK THE BACK SEAT AND KEPT LOW PROFILE NOT IMPOSING ANYBODY ON PRESIDENCY; AS NONE OF THEM CONTESTED TO BE A PRESIDENT
FOROYAA BURNING ISSUES NEWS;
|
Edited by - kobo on 26 Oct 2012 09:49:51 |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2012 : 00:17:01
|
Eid mubarak Bantaba Family.. May we witness many more Eids in good health and happiness. I missed all of you...
But I can't believe you guys are still fighting the same losing battle.. men, how long can you turn against each other before you realize your are indeed fighting a losing battle...
If anybody talk about UDP and PDOIS anymore I will scream the loudest in your ear... UDP+PDOIS+NRP all equals to ZIP in Gambian politics... We need a new breath of not only political leadership but parties. These ones are done from time memorial...
Thanks
dbaldeh |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2012 : 01:56:13
|
Dbaldeh Eid Mubaarak! Thanks, welcome back and well done on your activism/militancy and journalism
However you are making our political equation more complex by picking on the only three main opposition political parties on the ground under our multi-party system that we have to eliminate in Gambian politics at this critical time; with your sweeping statement highlighted above and I can't understand where you stand When denouncing them? I am convinced that your thoughts would increase predicament of opposition front and make the opposition doom forever in Gambian politics? Don't try to excuse yourself as part problems of opposition front; amongst other reputable detractors derailing our named opposition parties to fail (including setbacks of forming a proper united front) over these years?
What opposition parties are on the ground taking on Jammeh/APRC and representing the marginalised or voiceless that you have in mind and where to start? You can't tell me that G.M.C and Lawyer Mai Fatty ( who may be a potential or favourite Presidential candidate and a special politician in very good terms with you) have a chance or any new political party
On your cheap simple bogus remark "We need a new breath of not only political leadership but parties.";
- WHAT IS STOPPING YOU TAKING LEAD FOR NEW "POLITICAL LEADERSHIP" IF YOU ARE CONVINCE WITH IT?
- WHO FOR "POLITICAL LEADERSHIP"
- WHY CAN'T YOU FORM A NEW PARTY LIKE G.M.C; IF YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT IT STAND A CHANCE OF SUCCESS AND WE NEED IT?
- IF YOU ELIMINATE "UDP+PDOIS+NRP" WHAT ALTERNATIVE CAN YOU OFFER OR PROPOSE AS WAY FORWARD FOR 2016?
- FINALLY WHERE YOU WITH SOUND MIND SEEING POTENTIAL FOR NEW PARTIES TO SUCCEED AGAINST JAMMEH/APRC AND IS IT FEASIBLE?
|
Edited by - kobo on 27 Oct 2012 05:40:36 |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2012 : 09:37:02
|
Kobo, thanks for the welcome. Glad to be back well before crazy political season.
Kobo, the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing and expecting different results"
I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the current leadership and executive of these three political parties cannot and will not form a united front in a million years. They have succeeded in planting enough seeds of distrust that they will never put the interest of Gambia before their own. So unity under them is a non starter for 2016.
I am also convinced beyond any doubt from their decades of records and party leadership even though I supported them all these years, that these group have exhausted political ideas in presenting formidable challenge against President Jammeh. They have all completely lost the trust of the Gambian electorates. They have all lost every constituency they ever won. It is a sign of running out of your useful political life.
Now, I have no interest in forming my own political party or being part of one at this time. I believe that I am in a unique position to contribute my own part towards political awareness and fight for freedom and liberty in the Gambia. I don't have to form or be part of a party to do that. I will however, hold anyone accountable who present themselves as a potential leader for the Gambia - my country!
I also believe that new political parties with dynamic leadership who are willing to give it all is long over due. I encourage our women to take a lead in forming a political party and take the lead. I think Jammeh will have a harder time to crack down on women leadership than his fellow men.
I also believe that GMC (not a supporter) has fresh ideas on how to confront the dictatorship in Gambia. They are also a young political party that should be given the same opportunity that has been accorded to PDOIS, UPD and NRP...
Gambia needs a new kind of leadership... one that is willing to confront the dictator even if it means putting their life on the line. One that does not only believe that there is unlevel playing field in Gambia but that the dictator needs to be confronted with new political ideas and strategies for change.
This is how I got to my logical conclusion that the current group has over lived their useful life... Its my opinion and everyone is entitle to one.
Kind regards always |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2012 : 16:21:52
|
"Gambia needs a new kind of leadership... one that is willing to confront the dictator even if it means putting their life on the line. One that does not only believe that there is unlevel playing field in Gambia but that the dictator needs to be confronted with new political ideas and strategies for change."
Dbaldeh, I am scratching my head trying to understand what you mean by a new kind of leadership, and one that is willing to confront the dictator. You have raised two fundamental questions, one of leadership and the other of confronting a dictator.
Now, let us examine these two factors as it relates to Gambian politics. My understanding of leadership in a political context is to mapped out a vision for a country; and also to influence and shape the political process to dictate an outcome that is favorable to that vision by building strategic objectives and alliances in achieving that goal.
Now asked yourself, since the dawn of the second republic, has there been a leadership element present in either of the political parties we currently have in the country, in mapping out a vision for the country?
Secondly, has there been a leadership element within these parties that tried to shape and influence the political process in order to dictate an outcome that is favorable to that vision?
One thing you need to understand is that the nation-state is predicated upon a constitutional arrangement that does several things. All of the things that it does are highlighted in provisions that are either entrenched or established.
This constitutional arrangement is the fundamental basis that holds the nation-state together; you work outside the parameters of a nation's constitution and risked throwing that nation into turmoil and dis-integration.
This is the reason why those who are genuine in their pursuit for political change always uses the language of a constitution to prosecute their case for change.
This is also the reason why the people are always reminded as the stakeholders of a nation's constitution that they are the only agents of change. Political parties are vehicles through which the people can channel their desire for change.
In a normal political dispensation, the dynamics of change are interrogated through a constitutional process that makes change inevitable and necessary. That makes change frequent and desirable. All the factors that should enable this process to achieve the desired outcome should be present within that process.
The other point that you raised is confronting a dictator. How does one confront a dictator?
I am sure you are not suggesting that Gambian political leaders should lead the people in demonstrations in the streets to demand for political change.
I am also sure that you are not suggesting that these political leaders put their lives on the line to meet the intolerant and abusive response from a dictatorship.
We all understand what a dictatorship means. Using the instruments of state power to bully people into submission to one's whims and caprices.
Using the resources of a state for political aggrandizement, political patronage, waste and fraud.
Using the state apparatus of governance to exclude, alienate, marginalize and frustrate other people's desire to be included and to participate in the political process.
History is fraught with lessons of how people have responded to a political dictatorship. Civil wars. Armed rebellions. Sectarian uprisings. Tribal conflicts and so on and so forth.
However, people have also realized that dictatorship can be fought through the agency of a concerted effort by the people to assert their sovereignty. To take back what belongs to them.
An example. The Gambian opposition parties have refused to participate in what they deemed as a flawed electoral process.
If this approach is pursued to its logical conclusion, it has the potential to necessitate the convening of all sovereign stakeholders to the constitution, a constitutional convention to establish a solution to this problem. Whatever is decided in this convention is sovereign. It belongs to everyone and has the force of law. The government is bound to accept such an outcome.
In a nutshell, people are the only agents for change. And it can start with one individual or it can start with a group of individuals. It can be spontaneous, accidental or deliberate.
The role that a responsible opposition can play when change is initiated by the people, is to give it direction and content so that it will not be destructive. |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2012 : 02:36:46
|
Sankalanka, I will attempt to engage you on the questions you raised below... and hope we can find a common ground or agree to disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by sankalanka
"Now asked yourself, since the dawn of the second republic, has there been a leadership element present in either of the political parties we currently have in the country, in mapping out a vision for the country"
Yes, I will agree with you the leadership element is present but the strategy that is being used is what is ineffective. It is not enough to have the elements present, but those elements should be used to not only map a better future but employ the tactics needed to realize that vision. This is where the leadership is failing and will not explore new ideas but would rather push the same agenda through the same failed strategies.
For example, if you advocate political unity as a means of realizing the vision you laid down but yet you are not willing to put your principles behind in the interest of the nation, then your vision will only be that - a vision. There are so many ways of reaching a vision.. if one fails explore another. This is not happening within our political leadership.
"Secondly, has there been a leadership element within these parties that tried to shape and influence the political process in order to dictate an outcome that is favorable to that vision"
Well, fundamentally that is the problem. The leadership element you alude to is trying "to dictate an outcome that is favorable to that vision". The favorable outcome the leadership desires may be at a far fetch because they are operating in a hostile environment. So common sense dictates that if your current path to that vision is blocked, you should explore a different path even if it means compromising your short term vision to achieving that goal. But no it has been difficult for the leadership to see beyond what they believe to be the only path. It has been my way or the highway for both sides and they are all failing regardless of how good their vision is for the country. Strategy, strategy, strategy...
"One thing you need to understand is that the nation-state is predicated upon a constitutional arrangement that does several things. All of the things that it does are highlighted in provisions that are either entrenched or established".
Absolutely, the nation state is predicated by a constitutional arrangment. But you must admit that constitutional arrangment is not being honored by the party currently in charge of the state. The state keep bending the constitutional provisions to perpetuate themselves in power and there are no challenges to that. So what made you believe that if you continue to operate under the pretext of a so called constitution you will achieve a level playing field.
Dr. Martin Lurther King had to call for the defiance of the constitutional provisions that violated the civil rights of African Americans and women in the United States. Nelson Mandela openly defy the constitution that was in place in South Africa. He did not accept the constitutional provision as they were because they were designed by the state to deny citizens the right to freedom and liberty. The same Gambian constitution has be manipulated or intepreted wrong to deny citizens the right to freedom and access to the state or public resources. So obeying that constitution is simply giving in to what the dictator wants.
So that argument that the opposition operating with the constitution of the country simply does not hold water because they are not accorded the right that is guaranteed by the same constitution. So the only path to that is open defiance of the policies that have been imposed on them which is not guaranteed by the constitution. This is not being done by the leadership period.
This constitutional arrangement is the fundamental basis that holds the nation-state together; you work outside the parameters of a nation's constitution and risked throwing that nation into turmoil and dis-integration.
The nation is being held together under the dictates of one man and one party. While the opposition leadership may think that the nation is held together, the basic fabrics of our society is slowly being destroyed. The liberty and freedom the ordinary citizen should be accorded is being hijacked. And so the longer it takes under such dictator the more the society and its remaining institutions will be destroyed.
Can you justify that Ghaddi's Libya after 30 years of oppression was held together? Can you justify that Egypt was held together after 40 years of Mubarak rule? These people were operating outside the constitutional provisions of their nations. And the people accepted that for so long and now the outcome is that the foundations of a nation and people have been destroyed and they are turning against each other.
Further more, if the State refuses to operate within the fundamentals of the constitution, why and how could the aspiring leadership succeed under these premises?
While am not advocating for throwing our country into Chaos, I in fact admit that due to failure of leadership that may be the only viable option right now regardless of who leads it. When the doors to peaceful change are shut there is only one option citizen uprising to be inspired and led by the aspiring leadership.
This is the reason why those who are genuine in their pursuit for political change always uses the language of a constitution to prosecute their case for change.
Contituting to use the language of a constitution in a state where the constitution is being manipulated against citizens is operating in denial. Regardless of how many provisions you quote it will not yield fruits under the current state. So drop the constitutional gimmick and pursue change that will allow the restoration of the fundamentals of the constitution.
In a normal political dispensation, the dynamics of change are interrogated through a constitutional process that makes change inevitable and necessary. That makes change frequent and desirable. All the factors that should enable this process to achieve the desired outcome should be present within that process.
The political situation in the Gamia is abnormal and therefore using normal constitutional means of achieving change at this point is futile. This is a denial that the opposition must accept that there is no normal constitutional administration is Gambia. To continue to stick to this point only leads to further failures.
The other point that you raised is confronting a dictator. How does one confront a dictator?
I am sure you are not suggesting that Gambian political leaders should lead the people in demonstrations in the streets to demand for political change.
While it would be unfair for me to call for the opposition to lead protest in the streets of Banjul against the dictator, I must add that accepting leadership is part of taking risk. Sometimes it takes bravery and high degree of risk to achieve what leaders want. History has shown that political leaders have taken to the streets and led citizens against dictators. Some paid the ultimate price but that is what comes with taking up leadership roles. To avoid this situation is to want to assume the mantle of leadership without willingness to lay down your life on the line. If I were declare myself a leader of a political group in Banjul today, I would be mobilizing people to get to the streets to protest peacefully against the crimes metted on our citizens.
I am also sure that you are not suggesting that these political leaders put their lives on the line to meet the intolerant and abusive response from a dictatorship.
I am not suggesting that the leadership put their lives on the line against the dictator.. but again that is what you signed up for as a leader. While I have concerns about it, if I were to take up or aspiring the mantle of leadership for a nation I will be willing and ready to put my life on the line. That is what leaders have done around the world. Some lived to witness the change they were fighting for, unfortunately others did not. That is part of being a leader - unless it is do as I say and not as I do. As a political leader if you were to assume power you will be asking innocent citizens to put their lives on the line to fight for the country either through military defense or other services. So if leaders are not prepared to put their lives on the line, then it is time they step aside and protect themselves.
However, people have also realized that dictatorship can be fought through the agency of a concerted effort by the people to assert their sovereignty. To take back what belongs to them.
Well, this is true but the leadership again has to be willing to lead and when you as a leader start seeing your followers running away, then it is time to realize that probably your leadership style or method is not acceptable. You cannot lead from behind and in this case it appears that is what the opposition is willing to do. That will not fly in a nation like Gambia. Lead and people will follow.
An example. The Gambian opposition parties have refused to participate in what they deemed as a flawed electoral process.
Its a mute point. After 20 years of operating under the same system know what they knew decades ago with no changes, now they are coming out and telling the people they don't accept this system. After contesting under the same system for the Presidency, no we won't contest the house under the same policy. Thou get your act together and be consistent. The leadership loses more credibility by doing one thing today and another tomorrow.... It is call leadership failure.
If this approach is pursued to its logical conclusion, it has the potential to necessitate the convening of all sovereign stakeholders to the constitution, a constitutional convention to establish a solution to this problem. Whatever is decided in this convention is sovereign. It belongs to everyone and has the force of law. The government is bound to accept such an outcome.
Absolutely, but again it is not being pursued and will not be pursued without the leadership. Convention what convention? A convention on my terms or no convention? A convention that is more designed for the history books rather than concrete outcome.
Sankalanka.. my contention is that the present leadership has ran out of ideas. The convention you talking about has already been defeated by virtue of the same parties being involved without any new ideas. We need a new direction for Gambia.
The role that a responsible opposition can play when change is initiated by the people, is to give it direction and content so that it will not be destructive.
|
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
terangba
Egypt
225 Posts |
Posted - 28 Oct 2012 : 02:53:19
|
I fully agree with Dbaldeh's point. We cannot afford the lack of unity between NRP UDP and PDOIS to continue with out and end in sight. Progressive Gambian's ought to call for unity within a year or advocate for alternative to these parties that have failed for close to two decades. We have to evolve.
The opposition parties in the Gambia are turning in sports teams. members cheer even when thier teams are loosing. If our current leaders are not getting results it is not unreasonable to call for brand new leaders and progressive ideas. |
God gave men dominion over the beasts and not over his fellow men unless they submit of their own free will. - Napoleon |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2012 : 19:22:35
|
Dbaldeh, I was away from my computer for a while. I have tried to respond to some of the points you raised as much as possible. Thanks for your response though.
"Now asked yourself, since the dawn of the second republic, has there been a leadership element present in either of the political parties we currently have in the country, in mapping out a vision for the country"
{"Yes, I will agree with you the leadership element is present but the strategy that is being used is what is ineffective. It is not enough to have the elements present, but those elements should be used to not only map a better future but employ the tactics needed to realize that vision. This is where the leadership is failing and will not explore new ideas but would rather push the same agenda through the same failed strategies."}
I think we have to distinguished between what the parties have developed as a strategy and tactics to prosecute their individual party agendas and political objectives, and what has been developed as a strategy and tactics to form the basis for a unified effort to contest the past elections.
In this regard, the partisan approach and posturing to the whole elections dynamics was more of a failure than the strategies that were advanced. We all remembered the political arguments about a party-led coalition effort and a non-party led coalition effort. And of course, a new idea of primaries was introduced in the political debate.
{"For example, if you advocate political unity as a means of realizing the vision you laid down but yet you are not willing to put your principles behind in the interest of the nation, then your vision will only be that - a vision. There are so many ways of reaching a vision.. if one fails explore another. This is not happening within our political leadership."}
I believe you are talking in terms of the last elections, in 2006 and 2011. Those are the only times that a unified opposition effort has been attempted. I don't think it would be fair to demagogue one of the parties to that effort as not willing to put their principles behind in the interest of the nation.
It is therefore imperative that we put those political arguments in their proper perspective. The political party that you alluded to, and which I supported, has always argued that the country should be given a new start.
And given that both the first and second republics have failed to create the structural and institutional frameworks that will advance our democratic aspirations, we should center the rights of the people as the cornerstone to build the civil, political, economic and social infrastructure that will promote their welfare and well being.
It is our contention, that a party-led coalition effort cannot and will never meet the challenges of such a democratic and national construct. If there are any other ways of forging a better coalition, share it.
"Secondly, has there been a leadership element within these parties that tried to shape and influence the political process in order to dictate an outcome that is favorable to that vision"
{"Well, fundamentally that is the problem. The leadership element you alude to is trying "to dictate an outcome that is favorable to that vision". The favorable outcome the leadership desires may be at a far fetch because they are operating in a hostile environment. So common sense dictates that if your current path to that vision is blocked, you should explore a different path even if it means compromising your short term vision to achieving that goal. But no it has been difficult for the leadership to see beyond what they believe to be the only path. It has been my way or the highway for both sides and they are all failing regardless of how good their vision is for the country. Strategy, strategy, strategy..."}
It is not clear to me what your argument is here. What is our current path to that vision and how is it blocked? And what is the different path that we should explore.
"One thing you need to understand is that the nation-state is predicated upon a constitutional arrangement that does several things. All of the things that it does are highlighted in provisions that are either entrenched or established".
{"Absolutely, the nation state is predicated by a constitutional arrangment. But you must admit that constitutional arrangment is not being honored by the party currently in charge of the state. The state keep bending the constitutional provisions to perpetuate themselves in power and there are no challenges to that. So what made you believe that if you continue to operate under the pretext of a so called constitution you will achieve a level playing field."
I was trying to established the fact that constitutions are arrangements that form the basis upon which our rights and obligations, our duties and responsibilities are assigned.
Of course, some constitutions are always subjected to political manipulation, where you have amendments upon amendments that diluted the power of the people and give more powers to the party in charge of the state.
But again the challenge is to remove such people from power and have constitutions that embody the letter and spirit of the democratic yearnings of a people to be free. Notwithstanding, the people should always challenge the denial of their rights that are guaranteed and protected by the constitution. We have the courts, and you will argue that the courts are under the dictates of those who are in charge, but one successful attempt against the injustices of the state can create a precedence and open the floodgates.
{"Dr. Martin Lurther King had to call for the defiance of the constitutional provisions that violated the civil rights of African Americans and women in the United States."}
We cannot equate the struggles of the civil rights movement to what is going on in our countries. This was a struggle against the racial policies of the South that segregated blacks and has always been met with a response.
When Emmeth Till, the 14 year Chicago kid was kidnapped, beaten and killed in Mississippi in 1955, and the two white men charged with his murder were acquitted in an all white jury, this incident became a rallying point for the civil rights struggle.
When Rosa Park refused to give her bus seat to a white passenger in 1955 and was arrested, the black community launched a bus boycott for a year until the buses were desegregated.
Martin Luther King was an individual citizen, but when he committed himself to fight the racial injustices of the South he joined two other leaders and they formed The Southern Christian Leadership Conference. This was not a political party. It was a civil rights movement. They organized their movement around the principle of non-violence and civil disobedience.
When in 1957, nine black students were blocked from attending a desegregated Central High school in Little Rock, Ark the civil strife that ensued made President Eisenhower to send federal troops and the national guard to intervene on behalf of the students.
Stokley Carmichael, Kwame Touray, as a student at Shaw University in 1960, became part of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNNC) that contributed their quota in the civil rights struggle. The SNNC became a radical organization under his leadership. He was just an individual. We can go on and on as far as the Civil Rights era was concerned.
The lesson here is that the civil rights struggle was perpetuated by people, ordinary citizens and there was always a response to the racial injustices that were meted to them.
And the question is where are our civic organizations that should respond and challenge the excesses that we have in our governments.
I remember a time when we used to have the Gambia Workers Union, Jallow Jallow, and they can bring the government to its knees through labor strikes; when we used to have the militant political groups that wage a running battle with the Field Force in the streets of Banjul, when President Senghor visited Gambia in one of our Independence anniversaries following an unpalatable comment he made about the Gambia.
The details are sketchy now but I could fully well remember the battles in the streets of Banjul between the Ndongos and the Field Force.
Where is the political militancy now? Where is the political advocacy? It seems everything is now being fought on the internet and outside the country. I believe political parties have a different function and role.
{"Nelson Mandela openly defy the constitution that was in place in South Africa. He did not accept the constitutional provision as they were because they were designed by the state to deny citizens the right to freedom and liberty."}
Again, you cannot equate the struggles in South Africa because they were different. In South Africa it was a liberation struggle against a system of racial discrimination and segregation called Apartheid.
But what is instructive in the South African struggle is that after 27 years in prison, Nelson Mandela emerged as the first elected democratic President of South Africa. How this came about is a lesson that could be instructive in our own struggles.
In 1990, de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid. The purpose of the negotiations was to pave the way for a peaceful transition of power because the apartheid system was no longer sustainable.
In 1991, the Convention For A Democratic South Africa (CODESA) came into being and began negotiations for the formation of a multi-racial transitional government and a new constitution extending political rights to all the groups in South Africa.
In the 1994 elections the ANC won, and in May 10, 1994 Mandela was sworn in as the president of South Africa. A government of national unity was established, and its cabinet made of the ANC, the National Party of de Klerk, and IFP (Inkatha Freedom party) representatives. Thabo Mbeki of the ANC and de Klerk of the National Party became deputy presidents.
{"The same Gambian constitution has be manipulated or intepreted wrong to deny citizens the right to freedom and access to the state or public resources. So obeying that constitution is simply giving in to what the dictator wants."}
In that case challenge whatever provisions are violated through the courts. If you cannot find the remedy there organize the people who have the ultimate power to help you in the struggle for political change.
"So that argument that the opposition operating with the constitution of the country simply does not hold water because they are not accorded the right that is guaranteed by the same constitution. So the only path to that is open defiance of the policies that have been imposed on them which is not guaranteed by the constitution. This is not being done by the leadership period."}
Point noted.
"This constitutional arrangement is the fundamental basis that holds the nation-state together; you work outside the parameters of a nation's constitution and risked throwing that nation into turmoil and dis-integration."
{"The nation is being held together under the dictates of one man and one party. While the opposition leadership may think that the nation is held together, the basic fabrics of our society is slowly being destroyed. The liberty and freedom the ordinary citizen should be accorded is being hijacked. And so the longer it takes under such dictator the more the society and its remaining institutions will be destroyed."}
Again your points are noted.
{"Can you justify that Ghaddi's Libya after 30 years of oppression was held together?"
It was not breaking until the people took it upon themselves to break it. And remember, it was people who started what we now consider as the Arab Spring. It was people who took to the streets that started these revolutions. In Tunisia, it was an individual who burned himself to death in front of a police station that was the catalyst that invoked the democratic revolution in that country. One man's individual response to injustice brings down a whole government.
{"Can you justify that Egypt was held together after 40 years of Mubarak rule?"
Before the people took to the street at Tarik Square, yes. Though the methods and instruments of suppression and coercion that were employed to keep the people subservient may not be constitutional.
{"These people were operating outside the constitutional provisions of their nations. And the people accepted that for so long and now the outcome is that the foundations of a nation and people have been destroyed and they are turning against each other."}
Points noted.
{"Further more, if the State refuses to operate within the fundamentals of the constitution, why and how could the aspiring leadership succeed under these premises?"}
They should continue to challenge the provisions in the constitution that have been violated, while at the same time continuing the struggle for a change of government.
"While am not advocating for throwing our country into Chaos, I in fact admit that due to failure of leadership that may be the only viable option right now regardless of who leads it. When the doors to peaceful change are shut there is only one option citizen uprising to be inspired and led by the aspiring leadership."
I am not clear of your usage of the word "aspiring" leadership, but if it is the political leadership why should they lead a citizen's uprisings. The role and functions of a political party is not to lead uprisings. But as I suggested if there happens to be an uprising they can give it direction and content so that it is not destructive.
"This is the reason why those who are genuine in their pursuit for political change always uses the language of a constitution to prosecute their case for change."
{"Contituting to use the language of a constitution in a state where the constitution is being manipulated against citizens is operating in denial. Regardless of how many provisions you quote it will not yield fruits under the current state. So drop the constitutional gimmick and pursue change that will allow the restoration of the fundamentals of the constitution."}
Points noted.
"In a normal political dispensation, the dynamics of change are interrogated through a constitutional process that makes change inevitable and necessary. That makes change frequent and desirable. All the factors that should enable this process to achieve the desired outcome should be present within that process.
{"The political situation in the Gamia is abnormal and therefore using normal constitutional means of achieving change at this point is futile."}
I do not share your opinion. But if you do not use normal constitutional means to achieve change, what means would you use? Armed rebellion? Armed insurgency? What?
{"This is a denial that the opposition must accept that there is no normal constitutional administration is Gambia. To continue to stick to this point only leads to further failures."}
Points noted.
"The other point that you raised is confronting a dictator. How does one confront a dictator?
I am sure you are not suggesting that Gambian political leaders should lead the people in demonstrations in the streets to demand for political change."
{"While it would be unfair for me to call for the opposition to lead protest in the streets of Banjul against the dictator, I must add that accepting leadership is part of taking risk. Sometimes it takes bravery and high degree of risk to achieve what leaders want. History has shown that political leaders have taken to the streets and led citizens against dictators. Some paid the ultimate price but that is what comes with taking up leadership roles. To avoid this situation is to want to assume the mantle of leadership without willingness to lay down your life on the line. If I were declare myself a leader of a political group in Banjul today, I would be mobilizing people to get to the streets to protest peacefully against the crimes metted on our citizens."}
Noted.
"I am also sure that you are not suggesting that these political leaders put their lives on the line to meet the intolerant and abusive response from a dictatorship."
{"I am not suggesting that the leadership put their lives on the line against the dictator.. but again that is what you signed up for as a leader. While I have concerns about it, if I were to take up or aspiring the mantle of leadership for a nation I will be willing and ready to put my life on the line. That is what leaders have done around the world. Some lived to witness the change they were fighting for, unfortunately others did not. That is part of being a leader - unless it is do as I say and not as I do. As a political leader if you were to assume power you will be asking innocent citizens to put their lives on the line to fight for the country either through military defense or other services. So if leaders are not prepared to put their lives on the line, then it is time they step aside and protect themselves."}
Noted.
"However, people have also realized that dictatorship can be fought through the agency of a concerted effort by the people to assert their sovereignty. To take back what belongs to them."
{"Well, this is true but the leadership again has to be willing to lead and when you as a leader start seeing your followers running away, then it is time to realize that probably your leadership style or method is not acceptable. You cannot lead from behind and in this case it appears that is what the opposition is willing to do. That will not fly in a nation like Gambia. Lead and people will follow."}
Noted.
"An example. The Gambian opposition parties have refused to participate in what they deemed as a flawed electoral process."
{"Its a mute point. After 20 years of operating under the same system know what they knew decades ago with no changes, now they are coming out and telling the people they don't accept this system. After contesting under the same system for the Presidency, no we won't contest the house under the same policy. Thou get your act together and be consistent. The leadership loses more credibility by doing one thing today and another tomorrow.... It is call leadership failure."}
Noted.
"If this approach is pursued to its logical conclusion, it has the potential to necessitate the convening of all sovereign stakeholders to the constitution, a constitutional convention to establish a solution to this problem. Whatever is decided in this convention is sovereign. It belongs to everyone and has the force of law. The government is bound to accept such an outcome."
{"Absolutely, but again it is not being pursued and will not be pursued without the leadership. Convention what convention? A convention on my terms or no convention? A convention that is more designed for the history books rather than concrete outcome."}
Noted.
{"Sankalanka.. my contention is that the present leadership has ran out of ideas. The convention you talking about has already been defeated by virtue of the same parties being involved without any new ideas. We need a new direction for Gambia."}
We are waiting for your leadership. Be assured of our support.
The role that a responsible opposition can play when change is initiated by the people, is to give it direction and content so that it will not be destructive.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2012 : 05:51:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by dbaldeh
I also believe that GMC (not a supporter) has fresh ideas on how to confront the dictatorship in Gambia. They are also a young political party that should be given the same opportunity that has been accorded to PDOIS, UPD and NRP...
Kind regards always
ON LAWYER MAI FATTY GMC LEADER RULING ON-LINE TO WIN YOUR ENDORSEMENT; WE NEED YOU TO POINT OUT WHAT "FRESH IDEAS" FROM GMC YOU ALLUDED TO? REFERRING YOU BELOW TO RECAPITULATED FROM ARCHIVES COURTESY OF GAMBIA-L AS STARTING POINT FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS OR REFER AGAIN BACK TO ANY GMC PRESS RELEASE FOR POLICY, STRATEGY, ADVOCACY, MOBILISATION AND MAKING IMPACT IN CONFRONTING "DICTATORSHIP IN GAMBIA" (IN CONTRAST WITH OPPOSITION OTHER PARTIES) SINCE GMC INCEPTION AND ANY IMPORTANT GMC MILESTONE PRIOR TO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS TO PRESENT
Also does second part of your statement implies GMC within opposition front is not "GIVEN OPPORTUNITY" , not popular, being denied rights, political representation, alienated and/or suppressed? What are they deprived of; in comparison to named opposition parties?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN OR POINTS FOR GMC |
Edited by - kobo on 31 Oct 2012 01:37:08 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2012 : 03:16:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by terangba
I fully agree with Dbaldeh's point. We cannot afford the lack of unity between NRP UDP and PDOIS to continue with out and end in sight. Progressive Gambian's ought to call for unity within a year or advocate for alternative to these parties that have failed for close to two decades. We have to evolve.
The opposition parties in the Gambia are turning in sports teams. members cheer even when their teams are loosing. If our current leaders are not getting results it is not unreasonable to call for brand new leaders and progressive ideas.
Terangba & dBaldeh! WHAT FORM OF UNITY DO YOU ENVISAGED OR IS IN YOUR MIND? DO YOU HAVE ANY STRATEGIC IDEAS AND/OR PROPOSALS FOR THEM UNITE AND/OR FORM A UNITED FRONT |
Edited by - kobo on 31 Oct 2012 05:59:36 |
|
|
|
terangba
Egypt
225 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2012 : 20:20:42
|
Kobo I think the current opposition parties are a spent force. I fervently believe UDP and PDOIS are fighting the old battles from the founding of our country.
Once Gambians are offered alternatives, they will dump Jammeh. My suggestion is to dump the current parties. I think it is time for like mined Gambians to put our resources together and provide alternative independent candidates to Gambian voters. In previous elections voters were threatened with development boycott. All these did not stop the voters of the independent candidates.
It is crystal clear to anyone who is serious about democratic change that the current parties have not and will not unite for the interest of the country so why border? Progressive Gambians should encourage Gambians to follow the precedence set by independent NAMs and vote for more independent NAM candidates.
|
God gave men dominion over the beasts and not over his fellow men unless they submit of their own free will. - Napoleon |
Edited by - terangba on 31 Oct 2012 20:28:33 |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2012 : 02:09:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by kobo
quote:
Originally posted by terangba
I fully agree with Dbaldeh's point. We cannot afford the lack of unity between NRP UDP and PDOIS to continue with out and end in sight. Progressive Gambian's ought to call for unity within a year or advocate for alternative to these parties that have failed for close to two decades. We have to evolve.
The opposition parties in the Gambia are turning in sports teams. members cheer even when their teams are loosing. If our current leaders are not getting results it is not unreasonable to call for brand new leaders and progressive ideas.
Terangba & dBaldeh! WHAT FORM OF UNITY DO YOU ENVISAGED OR IS IN YOUR MIND? DO YOU HAVE ANY STRATEGIC IDEAS AND/OR PROPOSALS FOR THEM UNITE AND/OR FORM A UNITED FRONT
Kobo, I have not responded to Sankalanka because I think he agreed with most of my points. The only disagreement I have with him which explain why the opposition are in the state there are in is the the fact that he does not agree that the situation in Banjul is admormal. Essentially what he is saying is totally contradictory to what they are fighting for - level playing field, democracy and contitutional rule. How can you disagree with the situation in Banjul and yet you deny it is admormal in Banjul?
And Kobo, there are only so many formulas for unity... If they don't agree on party led coalition, they don't agree on selecting a leader to lead the parties and they are not willing to abandon their platform to allow others to lead, then how the hell do we expect them to unite?
They are simply not capable of letting go of their difference in the interest of the country. So no one is asking them to unite any more because we recognize how much they can do in that regard... So what we are asking them to do is allow younger folks in their parties to lead, or focus on other things outside of politics. They are an obstacle to our political progress period.
Thanks |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
