 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
blackerberry2004
69 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Feb 2006 : 23:15:08
|
The learned Dr. Saine said it well again!
Darboe's Resignation From NADD Comes as no Surprise
Abdoulaye Saine
Hamilton, OH, USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 3, 2006
The political situation in The Gambia remains fluid. All indications appear to suggest that the alleged behind-the scene talks between Darboe and the rest of NADD have not led to a resolution of their impasse. Also, that Hamat Bah may join Darboe could, in the end, aid Jammeh immensely in his re-election bid.
For many political observers, however, Darboe's resignation from NADD comes as no surprise. The signs were there all along. After all, did he not fail to join opposition leaders in 2003 in Atlanta? Was Darboe not absent during NADD's launching in the USA in 2005? Did he not change his tune, under pressure, several times to reluctantly support NADD? Did Darboe not delay the process of choosing a NADD flag-bearer for as long as he could? I only wish Darboe had resigned sooner rather than now.
If Darboe wanted to be the flag-bearer, why did he not make the case to the NADD Executive and the Gambian people? Why did he not make the case for concessions from NADD based on the fact that of all the constituent parties the UDP polled the largest vote in 2001? Only he and the UDP could have made these demands. Ultimately, politics is about deal-making, negotiations and compromise. Resigning at this point in the game is a cop-out, an easy way out of a difficult process. What was the use of signing the MoU? Was the MoU so blatantly biased against the UDP that it could not be salvaged through negotiations? A more forthright and principled stance would have been for Darboe to refuse appending his signature to the MoU and to declare his objections based on principle and walk away.
In sum, Darboe's decision to go it alone without NADD is a bold risk. If he wins, the risk would have been worth it; but if he fails, history could judge him harshly. Because in breaking away from NADD he may have unwittingly supplanted The Gambia's collective/ national interest of ousting Jammeh with his short-term presidential aspirations. The latter may turn out to be a bigger tragedy than loosing to Jammeh in this year's presidential elections.
For NADD and its supporters, Darboe's resignation is a bitter, albeit a fruitful lesson. NADD must now contain the potential political damage that could result from Darboe's resignation and set itself on a course to effectively contest the impending elections. Finally, NADD must regroup and name a flag-bearer now! Further delay could lead to NADD's political irrelevance. |
 |
|
|
Rainbow
Gambia
114 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2006 : 10:45:41
|
Thank you very much!!! this is the editorial from Independent .....
Political Blunder!
The Independent (Banjul)
EDITORIAL
February 13, 2006
Posted to the web February 13, 2006
Banjul
The last minute resignation of the United Democratic Party (UDP) leader, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe could be described as a major blunder in our country's political history.
Indeed, we respect Mr. Darboe's constitutional right to association but his decision to pull out of an alliance that is poised to effect a change of not only the government but the system of governance in The Gambia, is wrong in every sense to say the least.
If we go by the establishment of the National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD), the public will know the gist of our editorial. NADD came as a result of the popular demand of Gambian electorate who pressurized the opposition to come under a united front if they wanted to dislodge the APRC government from power. The electorate held the belief that it is only through such an initiative that our country would salvage Gambians from dictatorial and self-perpetuating leadership from running the affairs of our state.
A brawl or fracas within the opposition circles simply guarantees the chances of the ruling party to sweep the polls in the forthcoming presidential elections. Life without problems is not worth living. So we see no reason why the man that held the flag of the country's biggest opposition party should call it a quit, without opting for reconciliation instead. A keen scrutiny into NADD leadership indicated that clash would brew up one day or the other. Frankly speaking, most people expect that through dialogue, sanity would prevail among a group of intellectuals of diverse fields. Since politics bind them, so we don't expect any NADD member to breakaway, especially after trekking a long and tedious journey.
Some people smelt the rat that NADD would soon split, as the UDP had demonstrated lack of commitment to the ideals of the alliance. It was also reported that some NADD executive members have done internal campaigns to become the flag bearer. The UDP leader used his US tour to dispel rumours.
Who actually is deceiving Gambians: UDP or Lawyer Darboe? While he resigned from NADD, two prominent members of his party, Kemeseng Jammeh and Yaya Jallow are still members of the alliance.
We have been privy to information that the split within the NADD ranks was caused by sideline commentators. Generally, the split has dashed the hopes of Gambian electorate who keep questioning the sincerity of the opposition.
In one of our editorials, we questioned the democratic nature of the new opposition alliance that fizzle over the leadership issue without involving the grassroots, as is the case in other democratic nations in the world.
What should be made clear to Gambian politicians is to understand that the whole world is laughing at them. The split might be treated a laughing matter by supporters of the ruling party but it had caused hopelessness, disbelief and mockery among the opposition. But the truth is that whoever chooses selfishness instead of collective interest would be judged by posterity.
|
|
|
|
Galo Sowe
Sweden
116 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2006 : 18:45:38
|
DISCLAIMER: THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY SS DAFFEH AND AM FORWARDING IT FOR THE INTEREST OF MANY PEOPLE WHO EXPRESSED INTEREST IN READING MR DAFFEH´S INTELLECTUAL WRITINGS.
---------------------------
IN RESPONSE TO Dr SAINE
Mr Editor,
Please allow me space in your well-established medium to respond to Dr Abdoulaye Saine’s article of 3rd February 2006.
Dr Saine, in your article, you asked why Lawyer Ousainu Darboe did not make the case for concession from NADD based on the fact that of all the constituent parties the UDP polled the largest vote in 2001. Well, I am not in a position to answer that question because I am neither a Lawyer Darboe spokesperson nor a UDP insider, but I must say I am very surprised you asked the question in the first place. On the 25th of January 2006, you wrote:
‘Darboe tried in 1996 and 2001 and could not dislodge Jammeh. It is time for another candidate to give it a try. This is partly because the political landscape of 2001 and 20006 are very different and the later may require a different strategy and candidate.’
If you can say the above, why do you now consider it vital that the UDP should have made a case on the basis of their previous electoral record? Is this not a complete sheer hypocrisy? By saying that 2006 requires a different candidate, you have openly excluded Lawyer Darboe from the race. The only reason you said this was because it reflects the position of your associates within NADD. More so, you said this to promote the vicious conspiracy theory of the Walter Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara. This statement is an open manifestation of your utter contempt for Mr Darboe and the UDP. You have a hidden agenda Doc, and it is to help Juwara to propel Mr Darboe to the back seat of the political spectrum. Now that you awfully failed, you are trying to save your face by being conciliatory. How many times did Presidents Abdoulaye Wade and Moi Kebake of Senegal and Kenya respectively, tried before they finally succeed? Give us a break Doc. You and the STGDP have used your positions both pecuniary and as facilitators to blackmail Mr Darboe and the UDP. Unfortunately for you, they did not succumb. The only thing you achieved as a result was the creation of hatred and suspicion among individual members of NADD Executive, the by-product of which is the present chaos. It is people like you who are responsible for NADD’s disintegration, not Mr Darboe’s resignation. After all, he is not indispensable, for no one is. How dear you try to pass the bug, Doc. We have seen the successes of the Sopii and the Rainbow Coalitions of Senegal and Kenya respectively. Behind their successes was the appreciation of the existing political realities including the strength of their component parties. This was what was lacking in NADD, and you [Dr Abdoulaye Saine] and your cohorts are the ones responsible. You tried to down play the electoral strength of the UDP and yet you don’t want them to pullout. Do you think they lack conscience? May you remain a wishful thinker in perpetuity.
You also asked whether the Memorandum of Understanding was so blatantly biased against the UDP that it could not be salvaged through negotiation. What a conciliatory tone. Have you got any regrets Doc? With hindsight, I think you should because you are one the people who created the mess. The UDP never cried any foul in relation to the content of the MOU. It was you and your associates in NADD Executive, Lamin Waa Juwara in particular, who were manipulatively misinterpreting the MOU, with intent, in order to promote your vicious and flirty conspiracy against Mr Darboe and the UDP. Again on the 25th of January 2006, you wrote:
‘The ongoing political furor over OJ selection as the presidential candidate for the 2006 presidential election and not Ousainu Darboe by NADD Executive cannot be contested on grounds of OJ’s electability.
This is a flawed argument that undermines the very democratic process that sought to engender and agreed to by all parties. Flawed as the MOU is, Darboe and all the presidential aspirants accepted the ground
rules heading into the meeting that selected OJ.’
This was a deceitful and manipulative interpretation with intent, of the MOU. PART 111 [8 ] of the MOU states: ‘The selection of a candidate of the alliance for the presidential, National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus; provided that in the event of impasse selection shall be done by holding a primary election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader
of each party from each village/ward in a constituency.’ PART 1V [12] further states: ‘All agreements and decisions shall be authenticated by appending the signatures of all the representatives associated with a given committee of the alliance. All pages of any agreement of the Alliance shall contain the initials of the signatories to be deemed as authentic.’
It is abundantly clear from the above that the constituent parties, contrary to Dr saine’s postulation, never intent to base the selection process of a flag bearer on majority vote, but on unanimity. It is only when this failed that primaries can be held. That is the democracy the MOU sought to engender. It must be remembered that this was only a procedure designed to produce an electable candidate, not just any candidate. Although OJ had two nominations as opposed to Mr Darboe’s single nomination, it would have been a travesty and utter disregard for the spirit of the MOU for OJ to be deemed selected by NADD executive. This is why the Coordinator in a press release stated [among others]:
‘The first method utilized to try to arrive at a consensus was to request for nomination. Some people were nominated by members of their original parties, others by members not belonging to their original parties. Some nominations were not seconded. This was followed by withdrawal of nominations. In short, this method gave rise to an impasse which could have left the Executive with no option but to hold primaries.’
The above was a clear acknowledgement of the fact that no one, including OJ, was selected to lead NADD. If it is was not for your malicious intent, Doc, how on earth can somebody of your intellectual standing conclude:
1. that OJ was selected as the presidential candidate of NADD
2. that some people are contesting or trying to change the rules enshrined in the MOU because Mr Darboe was not favoured
3. that attacks on OJ’s electability are seeking to undermine the democratic process the MOU seek to engender
Is it not because, despite the naivety and the ridiculous nature of your statements, something you very well know, they only seek to promote your vicious hidden agenda? If at all your claim is genuine, why don’t you produce a document that is signed by all the constituent parties in pursuant to Part 1V [12] of the MOU, attesting to the fact that OJ was selected by NADD Executive. I am sorry Doc, but I think you are simply a grotesque person. More so, I think you are deceitful, and a dishonest intellectual.
I am personally very sad that NADD had to disintegrate in this ugly fashion, but I can perfectly understand why Mr Darboe had to resign. As a man of integrity, principles and conscience, I do not expect him to put up with the level of subjugation, disrespect sheer hypocrisy and naked character assassination that is levelled against him within NADD and its affiliated groups. It doesn’t provide him with any participatory role at all. That been the case, I think it was honourable of him to resign. That is his judgement, and that is his decision. We got to respect that. It is absolute rubbish and maliciously absurd for the likes of Dr Saine or indeed anybody to accuse Mr Darboe of unwittingly supplanting the collective national interest for a personal ambition. In fact, we all know that Mr Darboe have had two ‘Mansaya’ offers on a silver plate before but he declined them all.
First he was given the candidature for Sami constituency, which he could have easily won owing to the fact that, that seat had always been a safe one for the PPP. He was then offered a cabinet post, which he declined too. We know these because MC Cham said it at a Latrikunda Rally in 2001 in the present of the Ojs the Juwaras. If Mr Darboe is a selfish ‘Mansaya seeker’, as some people try to portray him, why didn’t he accept those offers? You know what? it is about time for you people to stop throwing slurs on the man’s integrity. He left NADD with no stain of impropriety on his name. He is a selfless, principled and respectful gentleman.
It is not uncommon for people to resign from political parties or governments that they helped to create. In the UK for example, principal architects of New Labour like Peter Mandelson, Steven Byers, the Late Robin cook, Clare Short and David Blunket. have all resigned from the government amid controversy but the business of governance still goes on at No.10, Whitehall and Westminster. This shows that no one is indispensable but institutions are. If Labour party resigns from the Commons for example, there would be no labour
government. So Dr, don’t personalise the issue. Mr Darboe’s resignation is not the problem here. It is the UDP/NRP pullout. Is anyone right to call this betrayal/jamfa? Certainly not. The MOU that establishes NADD provides that any party can pullout from the Alliance if it chooses to do so. This shows that although all parties had a common vision at the time of the signing, they were cognizant of the fact that there may arise, in the future, a situation[s]
when either of them may deem it fit to pullout. This is what we are faced with today. As sad as it is, it is still in conformity with the spirit of the MOU, and was foreseen by all the constituent parties.
Therefore, it will be a silly over reaction for anyone to call it ‘Jamfa’
NADD as was previously constituted is now non-existent. We got to accept that. However, this sad situation, and indeed it is a very sad situation, does not render the common ambition of dislodging APRC
obsolete. Why can’t the opposition learn the great lesson this stalemate thought them and perhaps try to regroup again under a different umbrella for the sake of their common goal? If the present NADD can call Mr Darboe and UDP ‘power hungry’, why can’t they turn
around and say ok Mr Darboe, ok UDP, ok NRP, we are joining your coalition because we are not power hungry. All what we want is ‘Yaya Jammeh Jeepo’, come October. If they cannot do this, then their sincerity in calling others ‘power hungry’ should be subjected
to the ruthless wrath of questioning. I am sure the UDP and NRP are still committed to the ramification agenda. UDP and NRP together pulled 41% of the votes in 2001. That makes them a very formidable alliance statistically, albeit not that enough [arguably] for a first past the poll electoral system. However, if the widely established professional pollster view is anything to go by, which is: ‘any party that constantly scores 25% in national elections, is capable of winning an election’, this is an electable coalition. With due respect, I don’t think any one with a sane mind can describe a grouping of 3% PDOIS, Structureless and spent force PPP, and flip-flopping Juwara gang, as electable. These people will do the nation a great favour if they join the UDP/NRP led coalition. If this is not possible, then it vital that they conduct their separate politicking in a civilised and respectful manner. Any attempt to return to the nasty game that disintegrated NADD would only be doing a splendid job for the APRC and Ajaratou Yankuba Touray Mu Yai Compin.
My message for the opposition politicians and their supporters is: if you are regrouping, good luck. If you are not, you must remember that so long as the APRC continues to be given a mandate, they have a
right to govern because they too are Gambians, and that is not withstanding anybody’s opinion or belief.
Everyman for himself, God for us all, including APRC.
SS Daffeh
Chelmsford, Essex [UK] |
"Soldiers are experts at camouflage but that is on the battle field not the political one, were transparency is the watch word" Kaaniba |
|
|
|
gambiabev
United Kingdom
3091 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2006 : 19:11:28
|
Yes in Uk people do regularly resign over a matter of principle or person life. BUT the party and its message still continues. It takes maturity to not be personal AND to look for the greater good instead of self interest. I HOPE that the opposition in Gambia will manage this difficult task and WIN. |
|
|
|
blackerberry2004
69 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2006 : 23:28:39
|
I am not a political pundit and nor do I profess to speak for Dr. Saine. I do not see the hypocrisy in Dr. Saine’s point that the UDP should have argued that they pulled the most electoral votes and therefore deserve to have the lead candidate instead of pulling out of the opposition (I need not repeat my opinion on this UDP/Darboe popularity). To reiterate Dr. Saine’s point, politics is about bargaining and compromise. At all cost, Darboe should not have pulled out of the opposition coalition. I agree with Daffeh that the fact that Darboe has tried twice to unseat Jammeh unsuccessfully should not in itself disqualify him; however, this should warrant a more thorough re-examination of Darboe’s appeal to the people.
For Daffeh to say that the NADD folks should join UDP/NRP coalition if they are not selfish does not hold water and would only show NADD’s weaknesses by being succumbed to the apparent bullying tactics of Darboe. Although Darboe may have turned down opportunities to be minister, etc. (and so did Halifa and others), this does not necessarily mean he does not have presidential aspirations. Today, I would not take a ministerial role in Jammeh’s government, but I would definitely find it my duty to take the presidential post if he handed it to me. Thus, turning down a ministerial role does not translate into not having presidential aspirations (apples vs. oranges).
In addition, according to my previous knowledge of the word consensus, my Webster’s II Dictionary, and an ad hoc poll here at work, consensus means general agreement or accord and does not necessarily mean unanimous. However, a unanimous action is consensus but not all consensus actions are unanimous. Consensus ranges from the majority to the unanimous. However, I do not know what the intent of the designers of the MOU had in mind. Yet the NADD executives were willing to give it another stab by yielding to Darboe’s numerous unreasonable requests for consultations. Darboe resigned before there was any chance to re-nominate or hold primaries. NADD even went further to identify numerous points for which the contenders for flag bearer should be judged, after their first attempt to name a flag bearer. With Halifa’s withdrawal, OJ pulled three nominations to Darboe’s one. The logical thing for Darboe to do was to yield to OJ. Halifa was the only one that had the numbers to challenge OJ for the leadership.
I do not hate Darboe, and in fact he has done much for Gambia but he had not honored his words or agreements recently and is denying all of us the chance for a better Gambia. As “Gambiabev” puts it (who I suspect is a non-Gambian interested in Gambia and I commend her for that), we should forget about self interest and manage to compromise for the betterment of The Gambia, our beloved country.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
