 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 01:46:46
|
I lifted this piece by Bax from the Kibarro archives. I have deleted some parts of the piece and only leave the part below. I think the part below can stand on its own.
Bax says:
November 19, 2013 at 23:36
Secondly,I think the PDOIS is just been scapegoated for the opposition’s inability to form a single union or coalition…This is because the UDP and PDOIS have the clearest positions on the opposition unity…Correct me if I am wrong but we all know that the UDP proposed the following…
(1) Party led coalition where the UDP feels that their size entitles them to lead any coalition of opposition parties…;
(2) It’s proposal is that all parties rally behind its presidential candidate;
(3) If elected,the UDP would form a coalition government that would undertake reforms along the way,during its term of office;
(4) Such reforms would include free and equal access to state media,as well as,presidential term limits;
(5) At the end of the first term,the coalition government would dissolve,each party would then contest the next round of elections by itself,but with the UDP as the governing party;(not clear whether it’s president would step aside or continue for another term);
Regardless,under current realities,UDP would be returned to office,whether their presidential candidate steps down or not…
The PDOIS,on the other hand,proposed a….
(1) Transitional Arrangement of one term,where a common agenda to address the governance and related issues,is pursued within this period;
(2) At the end of this period,the transition leader supervises elections,without supporting any party or individual and then hands over to the winner;
(3) They favour the holding of primaries to select a leader,but are open to other ideas;
(4) They will not be party to any arrangement that seeks to replace one self perpetuating regime with another;
(5) They are of the view that if the UDP feels that their size alone entitled them to lead,then they might as well go ahead and “sell” their party leader’s candidature to the electorate…They don’t need a coalition…
What is difficult for Mai Fatty and his likes to understand from PDOIS’ position…? How could they be an obstacle,being a party branded the 1% party…?
Those who agreed with the UDP proposal should go ahead and form their coalition…Why are they waiting on PDOIS…? It’s not like the PDOIS has got such a following that their absence would have massive impact on the coalition of like minds…
2016 is almost upon us and since 2011,all we’ve been hearing is that PDOIS is the obstacle…Please form your coalition now and leave the PDOIS alone….Can’t you do that…?
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 02:20:51
|
Thanks for sharing Sankalanka... Now those of us who have been working on bringing change to Gambia are well aware of the two positions. Most of us believe that the current political predicament in Gambia far supersedes the position of both the UDP and the PDOIS... If any of these parties put the interest of the Gambia beyond partisan divide then, they can move from their positions and compromise...
Here are my few comments about each position and to be honest I think the UDP's position is more democratically reasonable since the notion is purely base on electoral advantage which is the basic principle of democracy under a fair and open system.
PDOIS's position makes sense only if you want to ignore every electoral gain and partisan advantage each party has as a result of years of mobilizing the people.
What I see is that UDP is not willing to loose its electoral gains no matter how small and PDOIS is on the other hand trying to gain the partisan cloud they have not been able to gain in 20+ years of being in existence...
Here is a breakdown of each parties position... in my opinion
(1) Party led coalition where the UDP feels that their size entitles them to lead any coalition of opposition parties…; (this is reasonable and if PDOIS were in their position they will ask for he same)
(2) It’s proposal is that all parties rally behind its presidential candidate; (if you can rally behind Amat why not Darboe)
(3) If elected,the UDP would form a coalition government that would undertake reforms along the way,during its term of office; (Coalition government includes PDOIS right? What is not reasonable here)
(4) Such reforms would include free and equal access to state media,as well as,presidential term limits; (Reform will give all a chance to compete on an equal footing.. Is it guaranteed No. No guarantee in politics period)
(5) At the end of the first term,the coalition government would dissolve,each party would then contest the next round of elections by itself,but with the UDP as the governing party;(not clear whether it’s president would step aside or continue for another term); (this is reasonable and if PDOIS has electoral advantage they can win? What are they afraid of?
Regardless,under current realities,UDP would be returned to office,whether their presidential candidate steps down or not… (So if UDP is returned to Office is that not better than the APRC if reform has been adopted)?
---------------------------------------------------
PDOIS position
(1) Transitional Arrangement of one term,where a common agenda to address the governance and related issues,is pursued within this period; (this disregards any political merits on parties and seems unfair and unattainable)
(2) At the end of this period,the transition leader supervises elections,without supporting any party or individual and then hands over to the winner; (It makes sense but sounds like it tailored towards a NADD coordinator position's path to the presidency even if it is one time)
(3) They favour the holding of primaries to select a leader,but are open to other ideas; (Unrealistic - no interparty primaries anywhere in the world.. It is an excuse not to participate in a coalition. Besides it is too expensive to conduct primary elections and general elections. Opposition are financially disadvantaged to engage on this exercise. This is simply an academic exercise)
(4) They will not be party to any arrangement that seeks to replace one self perpetuating regime with another; (so they don't believe electoral reform, constitutional reform no matter what will make any difference? If they believe this then that should be good enough to take us to the next level)
(5) They are of the view that if the UDP feels that their size alone entitled them to lead,then they might as well go ahead and “sell” their party leader’s candidature to the electorate…They don’t need a coalition… (this is a partisan syndrome and disregards the current and future democratic success of the Gambia. It is an excuse for not participating in bringing change to Gambia)
The fact remains that PDOIS is trying to position itself electorally after all these arrangements something they have not been able to earn for the last 30 years. I say Gambia's future takes precedence over any political party or ideology...
You either accept an arrangement or go down in history as an obstructionist to change. As far as am concern, it doesn't matter when UDP, PDOIS or PPP comes to power. I want Jammeh out and I will be standing tall to fight any party or leader who wants to perpetuate themselves into power. |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 19:16:16
|
I have looked at what this Bax presented as PDOIS's position on opposition unity and as far as my eye can see, there is only one substantive difference between the two positions; while the UDP is of the view that there majority status already gave them the legitimacy to lead any coalition they are part of as this status was repeatedly conferred on them by the people through elections, PDOIS simply don't want to accept this incontrovertible fact, and this explains why they are arguing for a coalition based on the socialist/communist concept of equality. Hence, their primary election/ convention proposal.
PDOIS also find it very hard to publicly admit the very fact that the UDP proposal of 2011 was premised on one 5yr term limit and the presidential candidate was not going to seek re-election. This was a concession to PDOIS as it was taken from Halifa's Agenda 2011 which was formally endorsed by PDOIS at a party conference. The concession was not reciprocated and this was what obliterated all chances of a possible compromise solution.
We simply cannot have a coalition that is entirely based on the whims and caprices of Halifa Sallah and his PDOIS flunkies or indeed the socialist model of equality. In politics, you are either in the majority or the minority. Both have their place in the game and they are not equal places.
Now that PDOIS does not want to be seen as the party that gave nothing but wants everything in return when in fact, that was exactly how they behaved during talks and prior, their leadership is now making sure that all the party's communications on opposition unity are either silent or equivocal on the UDP's overture that they (PDOIS) refused to reciprocate. The truth though is; only their indoctrinated and insulate disciples like Bai Mass Kah don't know about this now.
Nobody is following PDOIS. On the contrary, it is PDOIS that is following the rest of the population through their endless posturing in the media.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 03 Dec 2013 23:35:43 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 20:51:51
|
UDP Press Conference on Coalition Talks-17th October 2011
The United Democratic Party (UDP) on Monday 17th October 2011 held a press conference at the Party’s Political bureau in Banjul, the capital city of the Gambia. The Secretary General and party leader, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe indicated that the issue of a United Front is not strange to Gambians. He said in early 2000, Gambians in the Diaspora have championed the course for a united front for the Opposition. He told the press in the midst of party supporters and sympathizers that the laudable initiative on the part of the UDP has led to the holding of a Conference which ultimately gave birth to NADD.
Mr. Darboe stated that NADD didn’t work and as the November election is fast approaching, there have been a lot of talk in the media among individuals that it is time that the opposition parties get together and try to form a united front. He said people have advanced decision on the issue of a united front, but no initiative was taken formally to convene a meeting for talks on the issue. He said the Executive of the United Democratic Party gave him directive to invite opposition parties to get together and discuss the issue of a united front.
He said a letter was issued to all the opposition parties and signed by the Administrative Secretary of the party on the 11th of August 2011 at a time when he was not in town, but that when he came back, he made a follow up by issuing a letter dated 23rd August 2011 to all the opposition parties inviting them to come together to form a united front and also to discuss the modality of selecting a flag bearer. Darboe asserted that the meeting started on the 3rd of September 2011: adding that he had hoped that they could have done it so that by Koriteh time, they would have concluded.
He said that they did not agree on a common candidate and that they have agreed that consultation can still continue and that they must continue to respect each other; that they must continue to be very circumspect with statements that they made; statements that will have effect in creating difficulty for some parties in getting together.
Concession
But it is quite obvious, he said, that their position was one of a party led and they have argued and will continue to argue that the accepted norm throughout the world is that when parties are coming together to form an alliance, it is the party with the majority that takes up the leadership and lead the other parties in the alliance and contest the election.
Mr. Darboe noted that the UDP has accommodated in their proposal, the 5yr transition and all the attendant conditions that PDOIS articulated in their Agenda 2011. Notwithstanding this, those calling for a convention to select a flagbearer were still not inclined to accommodate any element of UDP’s proposal, he added. He also indicated that he respects other views but that they did not see anything wrong with their view.
Addressing Concerns
Darboe asserted that some have said that a party led alliance can or would lead to the withering away of the constituent parties and they have responded to say that what they have agreed upon is that when they (UDP) win election, the media will be opened to every party and that even when an alliance Government is in office, all the other parties will have access to the media to sell their programmes and convince the people on the viability of their policies. He said it is not as if one is leaving everything until at the end of the five years and then one opens the media. “So where is the withering away of the constituent parties?”, he asked. And again he said during National Assembly Elections, parties will field candidates in constituencies where they have more supporters than others and in this way, he said, even during the transition, parties will make their presence felt.
Darboe asserted that probably those calling for a convention will arrange a convention among themselves- those allegedly agreeing to a convention and he said he is using the word allegedly very adversely notwithstanding the signing of the press release by all parties because he is not sure if NRP is supporting a convention- so that the consultation will be between the convention candidate and the UDP.
Darboe asserted that it is not time for the opposition to engage in a debate because the Gambia has a problem that is solvable by what they have put forward and that they do not say that it is the only solution, but it is a solution that is reasonable and universally accepted.
In conclusion, Darboe said he is appealing to PDOIS, GPDP and NRP to reconsider their position and that come 24th November, Jammeh will be out because the very people who are saying 99 percent are the ones who will not vote for him. In fact, you will see a group of APRC women cross-carpeting to the UDP soon, he concluded.
Source:http://www.udpgambia.com/homepage.php?leftId=51
Join the Vote Lawyer Darboe 2011 Campaign on facebook;http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/163686343716685/
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 06:00:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
I have looked at what this Bax presented as PDOIS's position on opposition unity and as far as my eye can see, there is only one substantive difference between the two positions; while the UDP is of the view that there majority status already gave them the legitimacy to lead any coalition they are part of as this status was repeatedly conferred on them by the people through elections, PDOIS simply don't want to accept this incontrovertible fact, and this explains why they are arguing for a coalition based on the socialist/communist concept of equality. Hence, their primary election/ convention proposal.
We simply cannot have a coalition that is entirely based on the whims and caprices of Halifa Sallah and his PDOIS flunkies or indeed the socialist model of equality. In politics, you are either in the majority or the minority. Both have their place in the game and they are not equal places.
Nobody is following PDOIS. On the contrary, it is PDOIS that is following the rest of the population through their endless posturing in the media.
Thanks
1. LEADERSHIP is secondary issue and PDOIS maintained that it does not have any problem with who leads as flag bearer if all opposition front agree on common ground, UNITE and sign a UNITED NATIONAL FRONT pact together. There can only be one person as flag bearer (LEADER) and Presidential candidate of THE UNITED FRONT (AND "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES" UNDER ONE UMBRELLA)! A typical situation is existence of N.A.D.D and I will substantiate more on this point later.
2. In what CONTEXT can help explain or make your statements/comments/opinion quoted valid and were applicable in these two countries;
- UK Elections and David Cameron becoming the Prime Minister
- Senegal Elections and Macky Sallah becoming the President
3. Based on points 1 & 2 above, please explain further to confirm validity of UDP "majority" "Party-led" position; being UDP "position (that) one of a party led; ..argued and will continue to argue that the accepted norm throughout the world is that when parties are coming together to form an alliance, it is the party with the majority that takes up the leadership and lead the other parties in the alliance and contest the election."   |
Edited by - kobo on 04 Dec 2013 08:46:01 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2013 : 04:31:57
|
"Thanks for sharing Sankalanka... Now those of us who have been working on bringing change to Gambia are well aware of the two positions."
Dbaldeh, it is good that those of you who have been working to bring change in the Gambia are aware of these two fundamental positions. It is at the core of what is possible and what is not possible, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, as the political process evolves and Gambians yearn for a united and concerted effort that can bring meaningful change.
"Most of us believe that the current political predicament in Gambia far supersedes the position of both the UDP and the PDOIS... If any of these parties put the interest of the Gambia beyond partisan divide then, they can move from their positions and compromise..."
We will see what happens. Starting these debates and discussions early, gives a lot of opportunity to reassess and reevaluate these two fundamental positions. We will then come to the realization of what truly serves the interests of the country.
"Here are my few comments about each position and to be honest I think the UDP's position is more democratically reasonable since the notion is purely base on electoral advantage which is the basic principle of democracy under a fair and open system."
I disagree. The first thing I would have considered before making that assumption is interest. Political interest. What is UDP's political interest in maintaining their position; and what is PDOIS's political interest in not supporting that position.
Secondly, principles of democracy are always reasonably justifiable. It accommodates dissent and consent and creates a favorable atmosphere for compromise.
Take for example the United States, arguably, the most democratic country in the world. If we go by your assumption of electoral advantage, which in this case is attributed to UDP's percentage share of the opposition vote which is higher, then the person who wins the popular vote in American elections should be elected the president.
But we know that this is not the case. They have an electoral college that accommodates the political interest of smaller states, and it serves as a basic principle of democracy under their fair and open system.
Throughout its centuries old history this has been accepted as reasonable and justifiable under their democratic system. Not only that it is also constitutionally sanctioned.
"PDOIS's position makes sense only if you want to ignore every electoral gain and partisan advantage each party has as a result of years of mobilizing the people."
What is the desire for these two political parties to join a coalition? It is to serve their different political interest. They both want to take the reigns of power but under the present political climate and circumstances none of them can do so on their own.
Therefore each will have to sacrifice something, that which it will never give up under a normal political dispensation, for them to be able to forge a coalition. What is that something?
"What I see is that UDP is not willing to loose its electoral gains no matter how small and PDOIS is on the other hand trying to gain the partisan cloud they have not been able to gain in 20+ years of being in existence... "
I don't believe it is a question of electoral gains on behalf of UDP, and I don't believe it is a question of "trying to gain (a) the partisan cloud" on behalf of PDOIS.
Here is a breakdown of each parties position... in my opinion
(1) Party led coalition where the UDP feels that their size entitles them to lead any coalition of opposition parties…;
(this is reasonable and if PDOIS were in their position they will ask for he same)
This is not reasonable. Remember principles of democracy are always justifiable. Is it justifiable for a political party that has equal interest to take over the reigns of political power, to just surrender itself to another political party without making any demands that will recognize their different but equal political interest?
(2) It’s proposal is that all parties rally behind its presidential candidate;
(if you can rally behind Amat why not Darboe)
How did PDOIS rally behind Amat? They have a process, and they have a memorandum of understanding of how the process will work, and that its outcome would be acceptable to all.
PDOIS was supporting an independent candidate elected through a process whose outcome they have all agreed to accept.
(3) If elected,the UDP would form a coalition government that would undertake reforms along the way,during its term of office;
(Coalition government includes PDOIS right? What is not reasonable here)
The point you are missing is that if the coalition candidate is elected under a UDP ticket UDP forms the government.
The UDP will decide who is and who is not going to be in their government. They decide which reform programs are acceptable to them and which reform programs are not; in essence they will be dictating every policy and reform agenda and they have the mandate to do so.
If their coalition partners in the government don't like what they are doing all what they can do is resign.
(4) Such reforms would include free and equal access to state media,as well as,presidential term limits;
(Reform will give all a chance to compete on an equal footing.. Is it guaranteed No. No guarantee in politics period)
Are the reforms guaranteed? I will accept your contention that they will not be guaranteed.
(5) At the end of the first term,the coalition government would dissolve,each party would then contest the next round of elections by itself,but with the UDP as the governing party;(not clear whether it’s president would step aside or continue for another term);
(this is reasonable and if PDOIS has electoral advantage they can win? What are they afraid of?
Again the point you are missing is that the UDP will be the governing party after the end of the coalition. The coalition partners will contest the elections under their watch. It is just like the present government which is the governing party and every elections is supervise under their watch.
Regardless,under current realities,UDP would be returned to office,whether their presidential candidate steps down or not…
(So if UDP is returned to Office is that not better than the APRC if reform has been adopted)?
You are again missing the point. Notwithstanding the reforms that are adopted, if the political realities are the same as the first and second republics, there is no way UDP will lose an election. Whether it is the president if he seeks a second term or another UDP candidate. That is the point that is being made. It would just be like what obtains in the first republic and what obtains now.
---------------------------------------------------
PDOIS position
(1) Transitional Arrangement of one term,where a common agenda to address the governance and related issues,is pursued within this period;
(this disregards any political merits on parties and seems unfair and unattainable)
I don't understand what you are saying. Compared with the scenario that describes the UDP position, this arrangement will empower the coalition partners to determine, formulate and dictate every policy and reform agenda together. None will have a mandate exclusively to make these determinations.
(2) At the end of this period,the transition leader supervises elections,without supporting any party or individual and then hands over to the winner;
(It makes sense but sounds like it tailored towards a NADD coordinator position's path to the presidency even if it is one time)
The point you are missing is that the elections will not be conducted under a governing party, but under a transitional leadership that does not have any stake in the process. Everybody would contest on an equal footing.
(3) They favour the holding of primaries to select a leader,but are open to other ideas;
(Unrealistic - no interparty primaries anywhere in the world.. It is an excuse not to participate in a coalition. Besides it is too expensive to conduct primary elections and general elections. Opposition are financially disadvantaged to engage on this exercise. This is simply an academic exercise)
If there is a framework that is acceptable to all parties it is feasible. The point is to find a candidate and a process that will be acceptable to all. That is why PDOIS is saying that they are open to other ideas. May be someone should study how the electoral college works and formulate an arrangement that works on that principle.
(4) They will not be party to any arrangement that seeks to replace one self perpetuating regime with another;
(so they don't believe electoral reform, constitutional reform no matter what will make any difference? If they believe this then that should be good enough to take us to the next level)
You are missing the point. If there is a coalition government under a governing party that has a mandate to do things on its own, why would you discount the possibility of things being just as it is presently.
(5) They are of the view that if the UDP feels that their size alone entitled them to lead,then they might as well go ahead and “sell” their party leader’s candidature to the electorate…They don’t need a coalition…
(this is a partisan syndrome and disregards the current and future democratic success of the Gambia. It is an excuse for not participating in bringing change to Gambia)
You know that this is an unfair and inaccurate statement. Every political party has the right to determine the manner in which it aligns with others and on what basis. And we all have our different ideas of change anyway.
"The fact remains that PDOIS is trying to position itself electorally after all these arrangements something they have not been able to earn for the last 30 years. I say Gambia's future takes precedence over any political party or ideology..."
They just make their position clear. It is not different from what it was since in the beginning.
"You either accept an arrangement or go down in history as an obstructionist to change."
What arrangement should they accept? There is none yet.
As far as am concern, it doesn't matter when UDP, PDOIS or PPP comes to power. I want Jammeh out and I will be standing tall to fight any party or leader who wants to perpetuate themselves into power.
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2013 : 12:43:03
|
Just to clarify; there is nothing in the UDP proposal that states that the all inclusive unity government will be dissolved before election takes place. In fact and as a matter of constitutional dictate, presidential elections are normally held before the end of the existing term of the incumbent president. That is why there is always a gap between the declaration of results and the swearing in of the elected president. Thus, there is no issue of UDP remaining in office while all the other parties are out as a result of the dissolution of the unity government. It follows therefore and logically so, that all the parties would be in government at the time of the subsequent presidential election unless they choose to resign.
The unity government can only be dissolved at the very end of the 5yr term, and a presidential election would have been held before that as a matter of constitutional requirement. The UDP proposal already stated that the incumbent president would not seek re-election.
These PDOIS rascals only like to create controversy out of nothing.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 05 Dec 2013 18:59:16 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2013 : 16:40:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
.....
The PDOIS rascals only like to create controversy out of nothing.
Thanks
With due respect, please try to be civil and stop being offensive? We (ALL CITIZENS) are in this together and discussing national issues; way forward!
UDP cannot highjack a national cause to form a government without winning elections. Our main task is NATIONAL STRATEGIC INTERESTS and not PARTISAN INTERESTS because we are struggling how to liberate the nation from tyranny; through NATIONAL UNITY & SOLIDARITY but not BULLYING TACTICS!
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
I have looked at what this Bax presented as PDOIS's position on opposition unity and as far as my eye can see, there is only one substantive difference between the two positions; while the UDP is of the view that there majority status already gave them the legitimacy to lead any coalition they are part of as this status was repeatedly conferred on them by the people through elections, PDOIS simply don't want to accept this incontrovertible fact, and this explains why they are arguing for a coalition based on the socialist/communist concept of equality. Hence, their primary election/ convention proposal.
We simply cannot have a coalition that is entirely based on the whims and caprices of Halifa Sallah and his PDOIS flunkies or indeed the socialist model of equality. In politics, you are either in the majority or the minority. Both have their place in the game and they are not equal places.
Nobody is following PDOIS. On the contrary, it is PDOIS that is following the rest of the population through their endless posturing in the media.
Thanks
Awaiting response on the following posted earlier before we proceed on other ISSUES;
1. LEADERSHIP is secondary issue and PDOIS maintained that it does not have any problem with who leads as flag bearer if all opposition front agree on common ground, UNITE and sign a UNITED NATIONAL FRONT pact together. There can only be one person as flag bearer (LEADER) and Presidential candidate of THE UNITED FRONT (AND "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES" UNDER ONE UMBRELLA)! A typical situation is existence of N.A.D.D and I will substantiate more on this point later.
2. In what CONTEXT can help explain or make your statements/comments/opinion quoted valid and were applicable in these two countries;
- UK Elections and David Cameron becoming the Prime Minister
- Senegal Elections and Macky Sallah becoming the President
3. Based on points 1 & 2 above, please explain further to confirm validity of UDP "majority" "Party-led" position; being UDP "position (that) one of a party led; ..argued and will continue to argue that the accepted norm throughout the world is that when parties are coming together to form an alliance, it is the party with the majority that takes up the leadership and lead the other parties in the alliance and contest the election." |
Edited by - kobo on 05 Dec 2013 19:07:04 |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 06 Dec 2013 : 10:32:09
|
Sankalanka, there is only one evidence in your evasive responses to my comments AND that is! PDOIS prefers the Status quo under Jammeh than say a UDP government. This is the position majority Gambian activists are saying and the more you guys explain your positions the more you expose your preference of the status quo...
My contention is that a UDP lead coalition government will be more accommodating to electoral reform, judicial reform and more respect for democracy. The same thing we believe if PDOIS of NRP were to lead a coalition government.
To open state that a UDP led Coalition government will not be different from the status quo is to ask your partners to trust you and you don't trust them. A Coalition government will have the very agreements you are demanding to institute reform. So what are you afraid of. Gambians will take this position very seriously and history will be the judge.
I would like to extend an invitation through this medium to Halifa Sallah, or anyone else from PDOIS to discuss this very subject matter. If you guys are so confident in standing your ground then come and defend your position on the airwaves. We promise the utmost respect and professionalism on this platform. We are open to a neutral zone as well.
Nelson Mandela did not fear that when he forgives and agree to work with the Oppressive white regime in South Africa they will win elections, or regain apartheid... He looked to the future of South Africa not the ANC... RIP Madiba |
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 - 06 Dec 2013 : 18:51:57
|
"Sankalanka, there is only one evidence in your evasive responses to my comments AND that is! PDOIS prefers the Status quo under Jammeh than say a UDP government."
PDOIS is a political party that has been deliberately formed and it has its aims and objectives. It also has a vision and a mission.
It has developed its policy objectives; it has developed its economic and political blueprints; it has created its governance structure and is only waiting for the people to elect it into office so that it can put its political agenda in place.
However, it has always and still acts as an opposition party that is a government in waiting. This is the reason why PDOIS not only criticize the government when they do not agree with their policy positions, but they also give their alternative policy positions to show how they can do it better when the assume the reigns of power.
It is therefore baffling for you to accuse PDOIS, who has constantly and consistently repudiates the excesses and shortcomings in the status quo, and argued their alternative approach to the issue of governance of supporting the status quo. This is far from the truth, and you know it.
You have to wait until the UDP forms a government to make a comparison. That makes more sense.
"This is the position majority Gambian activists are saying and the more you guys explain your positions the more you expose your preference of the status quo..."
This is baseless. And the long and short of the story is that it is not true.
"My contention is that a UDP lead coalition government will be more accommodating to electoral reform, judicial reform and more respect for democracy."
I have no problem with your contention. We made the point that a coalition candidate under a UDP ticket allows the UDP party to form a government. The UDP will be calling the shots.
How they will respond to the policy and reform agendas is anyone's guess, and by your own admission there are no guarantees. You said there are no guarantees in politics; nothing is predictable. I tend to have a different perspective.
"The same thing we believe if PDOIS of NRP were to lead a coalition government."
I don't know of NRP but about PDOIS that is not true.
"To open state that a UDP led Coalition government will not be different from the status quo is to ask your partners to trust you and you don't trust them."
Your understanding of the whole issue is misconstrued. This is not about trust. Our political structures and culture has been consolidated and entrenched through two successive governments, and has been inherited and passed from one to the other.
It therefore makes logical sense that any government that comes to power with the same political structures and culture intact, would assume and inherit the same thereby maintaining the status quo and bringing in no meaningful change. If anything it would perpetuate it.
This is the fundamental basis of the argument made about not supporting or participating in a cause that has the tendency to perpetuate power.
"A Coalition government will have the very agreements you are demanding to institute reform. So what are you afraid of. Gambians will take this position very seriously and history will be the judge."
Dbaldeh, we are agreeing about the need for a coalition government. Where we disagree is the nature of that government and how to bring about that government.
I don't understand what I should be afraid of in clearly examining the two political alternatives that are diametrically opposed to each other. Let history be the judge.
"I would like to extend an invitation through this medium to Halifa Sallah, or anyone else from PDOIS to discuss this very subject matter."
As Kobo stated extend an official invitation to Halifa to come to your radio.
"If you guys are so confident in standing your ground then come and defend your position on the airwaves. We promise the utmost respect and professionalism on this platform. We are open to a neutral zone as well."
Make you request officially to PDOIS.
I am in a haste. I would return back to this post to expand it.
Nelson Mandela did not fear that when he forgives and agree to work with the Oppressive white regime in South Africa they will win elections, or regain apartheid... He looked to the future of South Africa not the ANC... RIP Madiba
Baldeh, |
Edited by - sankalanka on 06 Dec 2013 19:19:26 |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 02:13:35
|
Sankalanka, good try but still absolutely evasive responses. This is what caught my eyes and cements by believe that PDOIS will be waiting for eternity to become a government if this is how they think..
"It has developed its policy objectives; it has developed its economic and political blueprints; it has created its governance structure and is only waiting for the people to elect it into office so that it can put its political agenda in place."
Political parties must not only go to the people but be able to convince them that they should support their ideas and policies. Apparently with all the policy development & objectives, including its master blueprint, governance structure etc PDOIS is not able to convince more than 3% of the Gambian electorate to vote for it. If political parties are to wait for the people to elect them - be rest assure you will never see daylight in office...
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing personal against the members of PDOIS or the party, but I disagree with the hard hardheadedness of the party leadership (no disrespect intended). Your party structure and programs does not allow expansion or at least has not been able to expand.
I want to put this on the record, I am neither a supporter nor a sympathizer of the UDP when though I have a right to support any side I want. I think the UDP is equally defective and ineffective in their leadership structures and party programs. I am an independent citizen and a non partisan period. I call it the way I see it and I wouldn't care how people see it...
By the way I have reached out to Halifa and invited him and I was doing the same he does challenge people to debates through third party. I don't have to formerly write to the party to seek for an interview. An email in this modern generation should be enough for leaders to respond to citizen challenge. Our challenge is open even though we know we are not "big enough" to speak to them as one PDOIS supporter puts it...
Thanks
Demba |
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 - 10 Dec 2013 : 20:22:00
|
"Sankalanka, good try but still absolutely evasive responses."
Dbaldeh, what was evasive in my responses? And where was I evasive? If you just make blanket statements it wouldn't help to advance our conversation any further. You should tell me where I was evasive so that I can make the effort to clarify or expound further so that there is much clarity.
"This is what caught my eyes and cements by believe that PDOIS will be waiting for eternity to become a government if this is how they think.."
Before I get to the quote below, let me make these observations. Do you understand what I am trying to impart in the quotation? What informs your judgment to form the opinion that PDOIS will be waiting for eternity to become a government? And what do you mean by "if this is how they think? How do they think?
Opinions are derivative of facts and you should establish the facts from which your opinions are formed.
"It has developed its policy objectives; it has developed its economic and political blueprints; it has created its governance structure and is only waiting for the people to elect it into office so that it can put its political agenda in place."
Now, I am struggling to understand what in this quote makes you to believe that PDOIS will wait for eternity to form a government.
I told you earlier that PDOIS is not an accident; it is formed by people who took the time to deliberately and painstaking study the historical and political realities of the country, formulate their principles, their aims and objectives, their tactics and strategies to impact the political process and bring about meaningful changes.
PDOIS understand the dynamics of the political challenges that they face, and even contended that this may take a long time. They are however comforted by the fact that the resourceful and intellectual contributions that they make, will help to advance the cause of a genuine struggle to bring about meaningful change and real democracy in our country.
Since its inception, PDOIS has vigorously campaigned to win the hearts and minds of the people, to persuade the people that they have the best alternative to the problems of governance that we face.
I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that PDOIS will just sit and wait for the people to hand over the government to them.
PDOIS constantly and consistently have been working to earn the trust, support and help of the people; and they will continue to do so.
"Political parties must not only go to the people but be able to convince them that they should support their ideas and policies."
Political parties go to the people to convince them to support their programs and what they will do if they are elected into office. This is exactly what PDOIS has been doing in their political campaigns, their rallies and numerous other forums.
"Apparently with all the policy development & objectives, including its master blueprint, governance structure etc PDOIS is not able to convince more than 3% of the Gambian electorate to vote for it. If political parties are to wait for the people to elect them - be rest assure you will never see daylight in office..."
Getting 3% of the vote should not excused PDOIS from having a well structured political organization. It should not excused PDOIS from formulating its development and policy objectives, and it should not excused it either from actively participating in the social and political dynamics that shape and guide the life of our nation.
And they are doing all these things with the same degree of commitment, sincerity and persistence regardless of whether they have 3% of the vote or note. And those that have more than 3% of the vote could not do it any better either.
PDOIS has never waited complacently for the people to elect them into office. They are working constantly and consistently everyday to earn their trust and support so that they will be elected into office.
"Don't get me wrong, I have nothing personal against the members of PDOIS or the party, but I disagree with the hard hardheadedness of the party leadership (no disrespect intended)."
What is the "hardheadedness" of the party leadership? And what do you disagree with? This is the same complain I am making about your blank statements. They have no factual basis.
"Your party structure and programs does not allow expansion or at least has not been able to expand."
I am not a member of PDOIS but a supporter. And I am incline to ask you what party structure are you talking about? And what programs are you talking about that does not allow the party to expand?
I cannot be a mind reader to know what you are talking about. Get your facts together and coherently bring them up in your arguments and they will be given the rebuttals that they deserve.
"I want to put this on the record, I am neither a supporter nor a sympathizer of the UDP when though I have a right to support any side I want."
Your eagerness to support their party-led coalition position without looking into the facts thoroughly questions your impartiality on that issue.
However, you have the right to your opinion and can support or not support whoever you want. This has never been an issue.
"I think the UDP is equally defective and ineffective in their leadership structures and party programs."
I leave the UDP to take up this challenge with you.
"I am an independent citizen and a non partisan period. I call it the way I see it and I wouldn't care how people see it..."
Good for you Dbaldeh. Nothing stands in the way for you to be whatever you want to be or say whatever you want to say.
"By the way I have reached out to Halifa and invited him and I was doing the same he does challenge people to debates through third party."
Are you inviting Halifa to debate with him or are you inviting him to have an interview? And why do you have to go through a third party to do that?
The people that Halifa has been challenging to have a debate with are the politicians that he has disagreements with. And this is the result of statements that has been attributed to them in the online and print media.
"I don't have to formerly write to the party to seek for an interview. An email in this modern generation should be enough for leaders to respond to citizen challenge."
That is fine. Then send an email to Halifa inviting him for an interview. Writing formerly can only be in the form of an email anyway.
"Our challenge is open even though we know we are not "big enough" to speak to them as one PDOIS supporter puts it..."
It will be considered for we will use your medium to reach the wider diaspora audience that listen to your radio.
Thanks
Demba |
Edited by - sankalanka on 10 Dec 2013 23:37:01 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
