 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Momodou
Denmark
11840 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 23:21:25
|
WHY NADD BROKE DOWN
Introduction
It all began with a euphoric bang. After a rickety start burdened with doubts and hesitations, Gambia's political landscape was to be altered forever. All the opposition parties had finally agreed to build a coalition in order to combine their resources for contesting the 2006 and 2007 Presidential, National Assembly, and Local Government elections. After fractured efforts to create a similar umbrella party to contest the elections of 2001 and 2002, the efforts of a group of Diaspora Gambians largely based in the United States finally succeeded this time, to bring the rival parties together and broker an agreement to create such an umbrella party. These compatriots succeeded in convincing the opposition parties that their combined strengths, properly organised, funded, and equipped with a common political platform, offered our suffering population the best chance of defeating the APRC at the polls. After a period of consultations and dialogue, all five opposition parties accepted the idea and so the National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) umbrella party was founded in January 2005. This was an historic an epochal milestone in post-independence Gambian politics.
But if NADD's founding was greeted with much goodwill and excitement, its collapse was to produce an even greater measure of anguish and disillusionment across the wide spectrum of opposition party members and supporters throughout the country and within the Gambian Diaspora. Hopes to vote the dictatorship from power were dashed and the divided opposition returned to its old acrimonious, inter party rivalries in new realignments. The incumbents not only consolidated their grip on power, but even reinforced their presence in the legislative assembly, depriving the Opposition from returning to the assembly a number of its most respected and representative voices.
The Opposition lost heavily in both ballots. Its division into competing, rival alliances produced in their previously unified supporter base general confusion, anxiety in having to redefine, question, reassess loyalties, and despondency with politics in general; all of these reasons eventually led to widespread apathy. The divisions amongst the leadership having degenerated into personal differences will be difficult to reconcile. But the prospects for another coalition are even more remote than formerly, largely because ordinary opposition supporters, having lost faith after repeated trials, and facing another term of economic and social sanctions under Jammeh, will prove immensely difficult to mobilise for yet another season of a weary process of coalition building.
Well, what forces lay behind the collapse of the original NADD? Who should we hold responsible? Can we learn anything from the mistakes made in order to move towards reconciliation within the Opposition, and eventually even towards brokering a rapprochement before 2011? Can we in the Diaspora, still take the lead in shaking hands, objectively debating what mistakes were made, and resolve to apply corrective measures in our respective parties, and initiate the process of reconciliation?
It is in that spirit of reconciliation through introspection and self-criticism that this contribution is made.
The Background
Shortly after the founding of NADD in January 2005, Dr. Ebrima Ceesay posted an an inspiring article initiating a discussion on the collective search for a NADD flag bearer, among other things. While Ebrima Ceesay thought that an ideal choice would be anyone from amongst the oppositional leaders themselves, he cautioned that should such a choice result to disharmony, “then an Independent candidate living in The Gambia could well be the best choice". He recommended Dr. Isatou Touray whom he argued was not only qualified to lead a five-year interim NADD government, but also possessed the added merit of being a well educated social activist. Nonetheless, other readers on Gambia-L contributed with names of intellectually merited Gambians such as Dr. Ebrima Samba, Dr. Lenrie Peters, and elder statesman Alhaji Assan Musa Camara.
The common qualification of these able Gambians was that none of them was openly affiliated with any of NADD's five constituent parties, and that all of them were believed to have broad national appeal, and able to put up a formidable challenge to the APRC presidential candidate, Dr Yahya Jammeh. Perhaps like many other compatriots, the current author assumed that the reason most people suggested flag bearers for NADD to be "outsiders" was because of impressions conveyed from an article in the NADD Memorandum of Understanding, Article 9, paragraph A, which reads:
"The interim president of the republic under the Alliance shall serve for one five year term of office only. He/She shall vacate his or her seat at the end of his or her term and shall neither seek nor support the candidature of any other person for the ensuing presidential election".
Because of this clause, the author suspects, many readers assumed that it seemed more practical for all stakeholders in NADD to select an acceptably qualified person from the "outside"; a person who is not affiliated to any political party, someone of impeccable character and integrity. It was further assumed that if the flag bearer were to be chosen from any constituent party of the Alliance, the spirit of the above clause from the MoU could risk being compromised. So it was taken for granted that even the members of the NADD Executive were favourably inclined to search for a flag bearer from outside NADD. Furthermore, the selection of Alhaji Assan Musa Camara, former vice president of the republic, as NADD chairman, seemed to have impressed on many that he was interim president in-waiting, in the event of a NADD victory at the 2006 polls. Alhaji Assan Musa Camara, a highly respected elder politician, for whom the position of interim president would grant the opportunity to preside over the implementation of NADD strategic objectives while steering the nation during a period of national reconciliation after a decade of brutality, would be a fitting and graceful exit into retirement.
But soon all these speculations were laid to rest when it became apparent that the flag bearer was to be selected from the opposition leaders in the NADD Executive.
The Split
On January 20, 2006, The Independent reported that information reaching it suggested that NADD was to announce its choice of flag bearer at a major rally to be held in Brikama within a matter of days. But this was never to occur. A few days later Pa Nderry Mbai of the Freedom newspaper reported on what were rumoured to be divisions in the NADD Executive. Following on the heels of that report, the resignation of Mr.Ousainou Darboe from the NADD proved to be a veritable bombshell. From that point onwards, the coalition effort began to unravel with gathering speed. Alhaji Assan Musa Camara, NADD Chairman, some members of the PPP executive, and Hamat Bah all followed Darboe's footsteps and left the Alliance. Official reasons given by Ousianou Darboe for his withdrawal hinged on allegations of "hatred", "mistrust", and "insincerity".
However, there were reports that Darboe's withdrawal had to do with his refusal to support an Omar Jallow (a.k.a O.J) nomination for flag bearer. Impressions were that Pa Nderry Mbai obtained first hand information from NADD EC meetings. Details about differences in the NADD executive emerged especially in the electronic media indicative of attempts by some "lobby" group supporting the candidature of one Executive Committee member as opposed to the others.
After the departure of these gentlemen from NADD, the remaining EC members selected Mr. Halifa Sallah to the position of the NADD flag bearer. Those who left NADD formed a separate alliance between the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the National Reconciliation Party (NRP) and officially labelled it the Alliance for Regime Change, (ARC). Two separate opposition alliances emerged for the run up to the elections. Even though both groups immediately began campaigning for their different platforms to their supporters particularly, and to the voters in general, salvos of accusations and counter-accusations of disloyalty to the agreed upon protocols of the original NADD were also fired at rallies. It was not long before similar differences emerged on Gambia-L and other discussion fora between supporters of one alliance against those of the other. The blame game sometimes degenerated into accusations of tribalism and dishonesty, and some commentators on one side seemingly expressed total incomprehension for the refusal of the others to acknowledge what to them were obvious travesties committed by leaders of the opposite side. These differences are still there and simmering.
Despite the war of words, the leaders of the two alliances continued with consultations to find a possible rapprochement on the divisive issues. The dialogue was encouraged and supported by many Gambians, some publicly and others privately. Notable amongst them were the efforts of Dr. Abdoulaye Saine and Mr. Lamin J Darboe, both of whom offered compromise proposals to the two camps. Other Gambians, believing that a compromise solution was impossible, perhaps because the contentious positions were aggravated by personality conflicts, felt it was impossible to find a solution before the September 22 elections.
ANALYSES
The above was a chronological synopsis of the process that led to the unravelling of the NADD into two separate coalitions that contested the elections on two different tickets. I presented these events as objectively as I could in relation to those factors which I believe to be important and at once reflective of my own interpretations. Obviously others must have perceived and interpreted the process differently.
Excoriating one party or its leader for the collapse of a project as grand and historic as NADD set out to implement, must itself qualify as a dubious venture. While the load of opprobrium might be unevenly distributed, the responsibility for general failure must be placed on the shoulders of all involved, without exception.
NADD committed its first mistake from the very beginning. Within weeks of its formation, the NADD flag bearer, and his/her running mate ought to have been quickly selected and presented to the general public. The coalition could then settle into the administrative calm required for creating and building organisational structures, planning its campaign strategy, and above all, allowing the executive committee members, time to gradually cultivate mutual trust and a cordial and professional working relationship amongst themselves; elements which are necessary if former rivals and adversaries are to convince voters that they not only are part of a strong team, but also that they would succeed in government. Because this most important administrative question remained unresolved, mutual suspicion was allowed to grow unchecked, fomenting unnecessary tension at meetings, and enhancing the growth of a consultation syndrome.
Everyone knew that President Jammeh would not face the NADD coalition lying down. It was only a matter of time before his hatchet men shifted their work into search and destroy missions. Instigated by the clerk of the National Assembly, the APRC challenged the legal bases upon which NADD was founded. That the Supreme Court ruled in its favour produced the first glimpses of fissures inside NADD. Apparently, Ousainou Darboe's caution not to register NADD as a constituted umbrella party was not listened to, a fact the trained lawyer made use of publicly. The ensuing electioneering, depriving NADD of valuable time to concentrate on important organisational work and Hamat Bah's loss of his seat meant not only added tension in the NADD EC but also poor use of meagre resources.
President Jammeh became even more hysterical after the APRC suffered defeat at the by-elections. So he ceased at every straw to discredit NADD: threatening that NADD will never rule and calling the alliance names. His unilateral increase of tariffs for trucks at ferry crossings sparked a dispute with Senegal which responded by closing its borders. Opposition leaders accused him of incompetence and corruption. So NADD suffered another disruption of its work as a result of the arrest and subsequent detention of Halifa Sallah, O.J and Hamat Bah. This was in November 2005. The absence of the three from the scene for some six weeks exposed NADD’s administrative difficulties, further delaying the selection of a flag bearer.
By January 2006, NADD could no longer postpone the naming of its presidential candidate. During the last week of January, Ousainou Darboe left the Alliance. This was a major blow to NADD. Newspaper reports and a write-up by Dr. Abdoulaye Saine indicated that Mr. Darboe's withdrawal had to do with his refusal to support an O.J candidature. At this point NADD began to unravel. Ousainou Darboe's action, more than anything else, seemed to have triggered that collapse. Here a number of questions need to be asked: was his action the spontaneous response to an unacceptable candidature, or was it the final effect of a process that he could no longer be party to? This process, even if flawed, was transparent throughout as Halifa Sallah showed all along. Why then did the good lawyer Darboe choose to withdraw at this point? Why could he not as a respectable man of the law stand on his two feet and argue his case? Should we accept his explanations of mistrust, hatred, and insincerity as solid justifications for his exit? The questions are many and I have no answers. But in a short while I will offer an explanation of Ousainou Darboe's behaviour.
There was general belief that NADD could still be reconfigured if compromises could be found. NADD mandated Halifa Sallah to represent it on all negotiations with the ARC leadership. As mentioned earlier, notable proposals from learned Gambians were those submitted by Lamin J Darboe, barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court, and Dr. Abdoulaye Saine, professor of political science.
In April 2006, Dr.Saine writing on behalf of a Committee of Concerned Gambians, suggested that the two alliances unite and present a single ticket with Darboe/Sallah or Sallah/Darboe as presidential and vice-presidential candidates respectively.
In June 2006, L J Darboe wrote a memo in which he presented a number of proposals including the suggestion that Darboe be chosen as presidential candidate and Sallah as his running mate.
The constant in all these proposals was the recurrence of Darboe as flag bearer or running mate. There seemed to be a realisation that a unified coalition was hardly possible without Darboe chosen as leader, a position I also maintained even before the former’s withdrawal from NADD.
Furthermore, I cannot think of any other reason behind the proposals of Dr. Saine and L J Darboe (a professed Halifa Sallah supporter) other than their tacit recognition that Ousainou Darboe, for all intents and purposes, leads the largest opposition party in the Gambia.
In May 2006, Mr. Ebraima Manneh, senior administrative secretary of the UDP/NRP alliance replied to Dr. Saine's e-mail. He indicated in that reply that the UDP/NRP alliance had already chosen Mr.Darobe as presidential candidate and Hamat Bah as his running mate. Among other things he wrote "...We have studied carefully your ideas and it is apparent that you have not exhausted all the possible options. You have for example, left out Hamat Bah and the NRP which is the second largest opposition party and which came out third in the last presidential elections. We cannot ignore this fact in any arrangement that has to be worked out within the opposition ranks".
Mr. Hamat Bah himself, while in the United States in May, made remarks admitting to the committing of mistakes during the inter-party deliberations that culminated to the signing of the MoU establishing NADD. Mr. Bah said that they - meaning the original five constituent parties of NADD - agreed to and acted on principles of equality when they were not equal. Mr. Bah even held that democracy was about numbers.
It must first be noted that the tone in Mr. Manneh’s e-mail was laying down conditions suggesting the ARC’s inclination to conduct negotiations with NADD from a position of strength. With such a tone deployed from the onset, dialogue could hardly be conducted in good faith. The ARC’s conditions for a unified Opposition can be summarised thus: there must be recognition of the proven electoral strength of the parties (from past elections) in selecting the leader. We should recall as well that Ousainou Darboe left NADD for reasons bordering on personality conflicts (mistrust, hatred, and insincerity). It is therefore fair to conclude that as far as the UDP/NRP alliance is concerned, a reunited coalition with NADD is possible if on the one hand, due consideration is given to the size of the parties; and on the other hand, matters relating to personal chemistries within the coalition leadership are sufficiently addressed. We can also conclude, through inductive reasoning, that since these are the conditions held up for a unified coalition, they must in all likelihood, also be the major reasons behind the split from NADD in the first place, whether or not these were clearly stated!
In his reply to Dr. Abdoulaye Saine’s e-mail of April 2006 posted on Gambia-L on July 13th, Halifa Sallah presented what is perhaps the best document exposing the ideas behind the MoU. There certainly are many other materials one may need to peruse in other to broaden one’s perspective on issues such as sovereign equality, building an umbrella party, the five-year interim term, selection process of flag-bearer, and so on. Mr. Sallah’s own writings, speeches, interviews - representing the NADD position - on these matters are too numerous to name and quote, and certainly impossible at this point in time for me to attempt to research. So I had to discriminate intentionally between materials I will be quoting in reference to what NADD stood for as presented by Halifa Sallah.
That discrimination also must reflect the contentious issues which led to NADD’s breakdown. Let me be clear about this: NADD’s goal as spelled in Article 2 of the MoU is “…to put an end to self-perpetuating rule, ensure the empowerment of the people so that they can participate in sustainable development”. This goal, like most of NADD’s Strategic Objectives, can only be put in place through Constitutional amendments, such as the National Assembly could legislate. [In principle President Jammeh (since he is now considered mad, by most people) could introduce a bill to amend the Constitution granting presidential term limits to two five-year terms only. In which case NADD would have to rewrite its goal]. Only two of NADD’s ten Strategic Objectives could fall into what may be termed as tactical objectives. These are in Article 3, paragraph B, which deals with pulling NADD’s resources for the elections, and Paragraph C, which reads “…launch a five-year transitional programme in order to ensure an open democratic society based on the promotion of national unity, freedom, peace, prosperity and justice for all”. This is the only matter (the five-year transition) from NADD’s objectives that, together with the obvious issue of leadership, came into contention while attempts at reunion were pursued.
Getting to the bottom of NADD’s breakdown, it will therefore be most instructive if we study issues relating to these two questions, the struggle for leadership and the interim transition.
From his reply to Dr. Saine (NADD’S POSITION ON THE CALL FOR UNITY AMONG THE OPPOSITION), Halifa Sallah wrote:
“…suffice it to say that if the task of the first meeting of the leaders was restricted to the selection of a presidential and vice presidential candidate from parties which had this or that percentage in a previous election, we would not have signed a memorandum of understanding in unanimity despite the diversity of interests and idiosyncrasies of the leaders. What the leaders sought to do was to enhance ownership of NADD by all parties by advocating for the principle of sovereign equality of all parties. It gave equal opportunity to all members to seek the mandate of the people on the basis of consensus or through the holding of primaries”.
Halifa Sallah continues:
“…It goes without saying that some of the critics have questioned why NADD was created as an umbrella party. The answer is simple. Since no single party could remove the present regime the combined efforts of the parties were deemed necessary to achieve that aim. Most members of NADD acknowledged that if the combine efforts of all were to promote the candidature of one party, all the other parties will be marginalized during the period of promoting his or her candidature”.
Sovereign equality is a principle of international relations that establishes the equality of countries irrespective of their geographic size, economic or military might, or their level of social development. But the principle does not call for the surrender of individual sovereignty to a higher organ. The UN is the best known organisation founded on sovereign equality.
Well, NADD’s effort here is first and foremost, to establish equality among its constituent members. It follows logically that if it is required to establish this kind of equality at the onset, then there must have been some presumptive element of inequality in the first place? What else would that element be if not the numerical strengths of the parties? So the question of size had to be subdued from the onset so as to give “equal opportunity to all members to seek the mandate of the people on the basis of consensus or through the holding of primaries” and to eventually ensure that other parties are not marginalised if one party sought to promote its own candidature! Otherwise, there would have been no NADD! This must be true even if it is counter argued that sovereign equality was principally desirable in order to prevent posterior claims of organisational and political credit by one party.
True, the combined efforts of the opposition parties were required if the dictator should be gotten rid of through a transparent democratic process. It was therefore inferred desirably that since no one party could dislodge the dictatorship on its own, the credit for doing so must be shared equally by the collective. But should that mean that the parties are equal in size, influence, resources? Elsewhere this piece of fuzzy logic was extended to put under contention even the numerical strengths of the parties in question.
Since all member parties of NADD are registered political parties vying for power through the mandate of the voters any arrangement they subsequently enter into must serve the interest of some or all of them. Obviously the only parties that risked marginalisation are the smaller ones, and so it is no accident that NADD split along those lines: the smaller parties on one side and the two larger ones on the other.
Ladies and gentlemen the first quote of Halifa Sallah above juxtaposed with NADD’s goal gives rise to a key question: If the overriding goal of NADD is to put an end to self-perpetuating rule (a goal that can only be achieved by a NADD government), why should the very EXISTENCE of the alliance be made contingent on the leaders’ compliance with the principle of sovereign equality? Why? Before venturing answers to this question allow me first to read more of Halifa Sallah:
“…At no time did any member put the issue of the percentage earned in previous elections as a bargaining chip to contest elections. At no time did any member call for a primary to determine candidature”.
“…It was envisaged that if each party surrenders its sovereignty to the umbrella party for a transition period of five years all of them will retain their original size and political weight and would be guaranteed a level ground for contesting the next following elections. This is when the size of a political party would matter”.
“…in short, before we agreed on the content of the MOU we set up a technical committee comprising the experts of all the political parties. Your party was represented by people of high intellectual calibre. Within the technical committee were former permanent secretaries and people with PhD”.
The last quotation here is from an article (NADD and UDP/NRP view on Unity) posted on Gambia-L on August 11 in a direct response to Ousainou Darboe.
One plausible and logical answer to the previous key question is that everyone accepted tacitly that leadership of NADD (because sovereign equality defined the process of leadership selection) was more important than everything else. An answer none of the leaders will ever agree with!
Another plausible answer is the fear of marginalisation of smaller parties. Yet still a third plausible answer, linked to the second, is the desire to secure a guarantee that NADD’s Goals and Strategic Objectives will be pursued irrespective of whom is selected as flag-bearer.
Before going any further let me assert that there was indeed a fear of marginalisation, as well as the suspicion that one party may assume a big brother role for its own sake and finally, fear that the Strategic Objectives could be derailed. I believe these were genuine concerns. This was the reason, among others, why theoretical arguments were developed, put in print in the MoU and sealed with the signatures of all the five party leaders. So there must have been some degree of mistrust as Ousainou Darboe claimed?
But let me quickly say that as a matter of principle it was right that these fears were clearly spelled out, freely expressed, and consequently recognised. So Mr. Darboe’s claims of mistrust, unless referring to some factors other than those I mentioned, and unless debate on these matters were conducted surreptitiously, are without merit.
On the other hand, why must the interests of the smaller parties be pushed so hard as to jeopardize the stability of the entire project? The larger parties, surely, also have interests of their own!
So our respectable coterie of intellectuals reasoned this way: place all political parties on an equal footing from the beginning; the parties remain undissolved but they surrender sovereignty to the umbrella party; a leader gets selected from one of them; NADD governs for five years; during that period the individual parties (and their supporters) are all compelled to go underground (!), only to emerge at the end of the five years with their sizes and all, intact and constant like all the matter in the universe! I do not know about you, but I find this quiet baffling, and I doubt if it can indeed pass the laugh test anywhere. But this is serious business; and all this line of reasoning repeatedly churned out, like the proverbial party line, by none other than Halifa Sallah.
That our political leaders and well educated Gambians can sign a coalition document based on these premises seems incredible to me. This is about huge political power; not a UN kind of thing (where we had a fabulously correct Kofi Annan but who was in the main, quiet powerless!). Everyone knows that the majority of Gambians do not cast their votes on account of convictions on concrete issues, and so everyone must know that such a formula will be untenable as soon as a leader is selected from inside NADD. The outcome should be quite predictable. This ladies and gentlemen, is where they all failed us. Brothers Mo Baldeh, Buharry Gassama and others, all saw that happening. Why could Halifa Sallah and others not see it? For those interested, read my short piece from the archives:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind0601&L=gambia-l&H=1&O=D&F=P&X=712F7E5BF4ED613618&Y=sidibeh%40adamomail.se&P=29966
They were all, without exception, beset with the idea of power. That a seasoned lawyer and others broke agreements they signed previously, that Hamat Bah disregarded basic principles of confidentiality in the midst of negotiations, that there were instances of mandinka nationalism here and there, are all largely effects of events; not their causes.
Finally, here is my explanation of Ousainou Darboe’s behaviour:
I think he went into all of this hesitantly, suspicious of the intentions of the others, and possibly even feeling intimidated by Halifa Sallah’s involvement. [BTW NADD members or supporters (like myself) need to recognise that Halifa’s mere presence is intellectually intimidating for political adversaries. The sad and very unfortunate fact that some will campaign against his very person and put up a candidate just to secure his defeat is an instance of intense dislike.This must be gravely considered by those who value him so much]. After all the initial hiccups, and also realizing that the idea of a coalition is the best chance of ridding Gambia of the dictator, he agreed to join the coalition. I think Mr. Darboe saw the dangers inherent in the MoU and its articles on leadership selection and especially the interim five-year term. But he dismissed these as theoretical matters only, hoping to renegotiate the term limit eventually. He persuaded himself confidently that, when the chips are down, everyone else would come to their senses and recognise that he, and no one else, ought to be flag bearer on account of the size of the UDP.
The nomination of O.J must have shocked him, realizing that going into primaries would be a mere formality, since unless there was internal rebellion within some parties, the village or ward representatives will simply vote on instigation from their leaders. With equal representation, he could not possibly win, with PDOIS, PPP, and NDAM votes stacked against his chances. Also, it is possible that Waa Juwara was not particularly kind to him during their numerous EC meetings, given their history of personal discord. He felt badly hoodwinked by the whole process. So he withdrew as gracefully (!) as he possibly could, and time stood still.
As a lawyer of vast experience, what could he say? Having signed the MoU willingly, he could not possibly admit that he was tricked into doing it. It would be exceedingly humiliating. A Mandinka proverb calls it “tying someone’s hands to a tree”. So his followers, all over the place (including Gambia-L) remained speechless despite Joe Sambou and others pummelling them about their lawyer-leader breaking the rules of engagement! They will remain defenceless on that score forever. Should we accept Mr. Darboe’s behaviour even if we understand it? Not at all.
All this has been a liberal interpretation of NADD’s breakdown.
CONCLUSION
A progressive interpretation of what happened needs to be even more rigorous. Reading through most of what Halifa Sallah, i.e NADD wrote on different issues relating both to the founding of the coalition and subsequent attempts at reunification, one cannot escape the impression that there was a clear discrepancy between language and the existing political reality. It is as if the nature of NADD was to be found not in its agenda but in the language it deployed to define itself. Even though some of the democratic questions it resolved to address were perhaps radical in content, NADD itself is far from being a radical organisation. Its basic principles were built on the premises to organise and agitate for reforms within the existing political context. Progressives inside NADD (members of PDOIS and NDAM, to be hopeful) needed to recognise the petit-bourgeois identity of the UDP leadership and engage with them on that basis. Sprouting from the vacuous remnants of the older PPP, GPP, and the NCP, it contained, not only Gambia’s largest waramba community of Friday muslims, but also the party with the broadest mass base in the entire opposition. There was hardly any reason to doubt that the UDP was and still is interested in democratic reforms. The key question is whether it could mobilise at will the organisational capacity to implement those reforms.
There were present in NADD all the ingredients for a democratic revolution (a common minimum program, and an alliance of all forces bent on bringing to an end the excesses of a truly oppressive state) with one exception: a strong and well-structured mass organisation.
What then should progressives do in such a situation?
They needed first to establish a common trench with all democratic forces and concretise the minimum programme. There should have been no issue whatsoever about the UDP providing a flag bearer. On the other hand negotiations needed to be centred on the composition of a NADD government. With progressives in government, the possibilities of bringing about truly democratic reforms would have been immeasurably enhanced. With a theoretically equipped vanguard, student unions could be activated out of social indifference, and the trade unions pulled out of their bureaucratic slumber. Government could look into taking control of the peanut trade to free our peasants from the caprices of unserious businessmen, and quickly enforce mandatory testing of HIV/AIDS. (Recall what Thomas Sankara did in Burkina Faso about polio during his very short time)! As we say, the possibilities would have been almost endless.
Many, many thanks
© Momodou S Sidibeh
February 16, 2007
Download: Pdf version
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 11:13:20
|
Tahnks Momodou for forwarding Momodou S. Sidibeh's article as its of relevance to Ebou's topic where I cahallenged Nyaringkanbanna on flaws of NADD and relevance of 'party led alliance' and 'strategic alliance'.
There are a lot to debate on logically and intellectually on Gambian politics. Lets not be sentimental but rather sober reflections and address issues at stake.
For The Gambia Our Homeland!
We Strive and Work and Pray!
That All May Live In Unity!
Freedom and Peace Each Day!
Let Jusyice Guide Our Actions; Towards The Common Good!
And Join our Diverse peoples To proof Mans' Brotherhood! |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 11:13:20
|
Tahnks Momodou for forwarding Momodou S. Sidibeh's article as its of relevance to Ebou's topic where I cahallenged Nyaringkanbanna on flaws of NADD and relevance of 'party led alliance' and 'strategic alliance'.
There are a lot to debate on logically and intellectually on Gambian politics. Lets not be sentimental but rather sober reflections and address issues at stake.
For The Gambia Our Homeland!
We Strive and Work and Pray!
That All May Live In Unity!
Freedom and Peace Each Day!
Let Jusyice Guide Our Actions; Towards The Common Good!
And Join our Diverse peoples To proof Mans' Brotherhood! |
|
|
|
Dalton1
3485 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 14:18:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by sidibeh
Dear Forum Manager.
The picture you posted beside this article is definitely not Momodou S Sidibeh. SO kindly remove it from there or alter it completely.
Cheers,
Sidibeh
we missed the pic that was posted. it will be nice to see and know who the great author of this piece is. if you have his pic, why not forward it.also, welcome as a new sign-in.
Dalton |
"There is no god but Allah (SWT); and Muhammad (SAW)is His last messenger." shahadah. Fear & Worship Allah (SWT) Alone! (:
|
|
|
|
Dalton1
3485 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 14:18:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by sidibeh
Dear Forum Manager.
The picture you posted beside this article is definitely not Momodou S Sidibeh. SO kindly remove it from there or alter it completely.
Cheers,
Sidibeh
we missed the pic that was posted. it will be nice to see and know who the great author of this piece is. if you have his pic, why not forward it.also, welcome as a new sign-in.
Dalton |
"There is no god but Allah (SWT); and Muhammad (SAW)is His last messenger." shahadah. Fear & Worship Allah (SWT) Alone! (:
|
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11840 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 15:08:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by sidibeh
Dear Forum Manager.
The picture you posted beside this article is definitely not Momodou S Sidibeh. SO kindly remove it from there or alter it completely.
Cheers,
Sidibeh
Tooma the picture is just my avatar. BTW, welcome to Bantaba in Cyberspace. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11840 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 15:08:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by sidibeh
Dear Forum Manager.
The picture you posted beside this article is definitely not Momodou S Sidibeh. SO kindly remove it from there or alter it completely.
Cheers,
Sidibeh
Tooma the picture is just my avatar. BTW, welcome to Bantaba in Cyberspace. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 15:19:08
|
quote:
They were all, without exception, beset with the idea of power. That a seasoned lawyer and others broke agreements they signed previously, that Hamat Bah disregarded basic principles of confidentiality in the midst of negotiations, that there were instances of mandinka nationalism here and there, are all largely effects of events; not their causes.
Mr Sidibeh Sidibeh, which is Shaka's term' [the covert NADD loyalist] can say all the above but the fact that he deliberately failed to mention the clandestine activities of Walter Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara, OJ's 'anybody who leave will be commiting suicide' speech, all in contravention of NADD'S Code of conduct on confidentiality, and Halifa's complicency in all these in terms of his failure to Curtail if not to stop these ugly behaviours, as the cordinator, shows how absurd, malicious and disingeneous Mr sidibeh Sidibeh have potrayed himself in this article.
Those who chose to continue with the smearing game are at liberty to do so but they must also be prepared to face the other side of the story. I wish i have enough time to go through all the materials i electronically recieved regarding this topic but unfortunately that is not the case.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 15:19:08
|
quote:
They were all, without exception, beset with the idea of power. That a seasoned lawyer and others broke agreements they signed previously, that Hamat Bah disregarded basic principles of confidentiality in the midst of negotiations, that there were instances of mandinka nationalism here and there, are all largely effects of events; not their causes.
Mr Sidibeh Sidibeh, which is Shaka's term' [the covert NADD loyalist] can say all the above but the fact that he deliberately failed to mention the clandestine activities of Walter Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara, OJ's 'anybody who leave will be commiting suicide' speech, all in contravention of NADD'S Code of conduct on confidentiality, and Halifa's complicency in all these in terms of his failure to Curtail if not to stop these ugly behaviours, as the cordinator, shows how absurd, malicious and disingeneous Mr sidibeh Sidibeh have potrayed himself in this article.
Those who chose to continue with the smearing game are at liberty to do so but they must also be prepared to face the other side of the story. I wish i have enough time to go through all the materials i electronically recieved regarding this topic but unfortunately that is not the case.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
Galo Sowe
Sweden
116 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 18:20:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
........ he deliberately failed to mention the clandestine activities of Walter Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara.......
We should know what role Waa played during the flag bearer selection in NADD. What do you know Nyarikangbanna? |
"Soldiers are experts at camouflage but that is on the battle field not the political one, were transparency is the watch word" Kaaniba |
|
|
|
Galo Sowe
Sweden
116 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 18:20:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
........ he deliberately failed to mention the clandestine activities of Walter Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara.......
We should know what role Waa played during the flag bearer selection in NADD. What do you know Nyarikangbanna? |
"Soldiers are experts at camouflage but that is on the battle field not the political one, were transparency is the watch word" Kaaniba |
|
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 18:01:17
|
NADD broke down because they got together under false pretences, if i join you to make a good , strong defence against the opposition i am not believing in you, just joining to show unit. but if the opposition wins, why should i still bother with you.   , very basic but that is how i see it. |
|
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 18:01:17
|
| NADD broke down because they got together under false pretences, if i join you to make a good , strong defence against the opposition i am not believing in you, just joining to show unit. but if the opposition wins, why should i still bother with you. , very basic but that is how i see it. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 18:44:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Galo Sowe
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
........ he deliberately failed to mention the clandestine activities of Walter Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara.......
We should know what role Waa played during the flag bearer selection in NADD. What do you know Nyarikangbanna?
Galo, this is why I said I wish I have the time to go through every thing before me here but one thing I can certainly say is this; I have a DVD here in which Juwara was captured telling Gambians in Raleigh, with Halifa Sallah sitting next to him, that the person who is always urging opposition supporters in the Gambia to be law abiding is the enemy within NADD, and that he would not be the king but a king maker. Who do you think these Statements refer to if not Lawyer Darboe? Also, who do you think was leaking re-manufactured confidential information to Pa Nderry in breach of NADD'S Code of conduct?
I think we have had enough of this misinformation charade. The truth is people just want to move on. Those who still want to be stuck in this meaningless squabbling are at liberty to have their day in the mud.
I do not have the energy to go any further with this topic.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 18 Feb 2007 18:49:11 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 18:44:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Galo Sowe
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
........ he deliberately failed to mention the clandestine activities of Walter Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara.......
We should know what role Waa played during the flag bearer selection in NADD. What do you know Nyarikangbanna?
Galo, this is why I said I wish I have the time to go through every thing before me here but one thing I can certainly say is this; I have a DVD here in which Juwara was captured telling Gambians in Raleigh, with Halifa Sallah sitting next to him, that the person who is always urging opposition supporters in the Gambia to be law abiding is the enemy within NADD, and that he would not be the king but a king maker. Who do you think these Statements refer to if not Lawyer Darboe? Also, who do you think was leaking re-manufactured confidential information to Pa Nderry in breach of NADD'S Code of conduct?
I think we have had enough of this misinformation charade. The truth is people just want to move on. Those who still want to be stuck in this meaningless squabbling are at liberty to have their day in the mud.
I do not have the energy to go any further with this topic.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 18 Feb 2007 18:49:11 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 18:59:46
|
Hi boys so you have not "disappeared"!!!! |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
