 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
shaka
996 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 08:12:53
|
| Bronx if you try attempting a postmortem of the NADD MOU at this point in time, i swear am going to frigging scream. Are you speaking for yourself when you said you saw the flaws of the MOU yet chose to sit on the truth while crossing your fingers in anticipation of a miracle? This is bloody criminal!! Is it that you chickened out for fear of persecution? If that is your excuse then why should you then judge the brave politician on the ground who lay their lives for the cause by tackling the devil himself right in his backyard. Are they immune to persecution? If this was the general attitude of oppsition sympatisers then we deserved everything damn thing that befall us. You lot must have thought this whole unification attempt of the opposition is a wait-and-see game where you can just thrust all the burden and responsibility of unification on the poor backs of politicians and quick to spit on them when they went for their own selfish agenda. What happened to the support and guidiance these poor and fallible human beings needed from you while they were at their wits end. To turn around now and tell us you knew all along where the problem lay but for whatever reason choose not to share it, is absolutely despicable. If this is not a case of "i knew it" then only hell knows what it is. May be we need to stop point fingers at the oppossition and start examining ourselves, our actions or to put it better our inactions for the failure of the opposition. Are we ever going to get anywhere with this wait-and-see attitude and at the end of it, jump in with "i knew it". Don't even start about Ebou Jallow, for if you expect any different from him then you must be the biggest fool. |
 |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 08:12:53
|
| Bronx if you try attempting a postmortem of the NADD MOU at this point in time, i swear am going to frigging scream. Are you speaking for yourself when you said you saw the flaws of the MOU yet chose to sit on the truth while crossing your fingers in anticipation of a miracle? This is bloody criminal!! Is it that you chickened out for fear of persecution? If that is your excuse then why should you then judge the brave politician on the ground who lay their lives for the cause by tackling the devil himself right in his backyard. Are they immune to persecution? If this was the general attitude of oppsition sympatisers then we deserved everything damn thing that befall us. You lot must have thought this whole unification attempt of the opposition is a wait-and-see game where you can just thrust all the burden and responsibility of unification on the poor backs of politicians and quick to spit on them when they went for their own selfish agenda. What happened to the support and guidiance these poor and fallible human beings needed from you while they were at their wits end. To turn around now and tell us you knew all along where the problem lay but for whatever reason choose not to share it, is absolutely despicable. If this is not a case of "i knew it" then only hell knows what it is. May be we need to stop point fingers at the oppossition and start examining ourselves, our actions or to put it better our inactions for the failure of the opposition. Are we ever going to get anywhere with this wait-and-see attitude and at the end of it, jump in with "i knew it". Don't even start about Ebou Jallow, for if you expect any different from him then you must be the biggest fool. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 10:59:09
|
Was NADD a solution or alternative to other political parties?
Am busy and can't do much now with Bantaba! However thanks for your contributions and wishing everybody well.
For The Gambia Our Homeland! |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 10:59:09
|
Was NADD a solution or alternative to other political parties?
Am busy and can't do much now with Bantaba! However thanks for your contributions and wishing everybody well.
For The Gambia Our Homeland! |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 13:17:37
|
quote:
Some people continues to echo the issue of party lead coalition as the only option which I don't necessarily subscribe to in the format Nyarikang and others want it to be. We can have a party lead coalition, but the leading party must be more inclusive, reformative and be prepared for a fundamental system change rather than personnel change.
Which other party in the opposition is more inclusive than UDP? The UDP is a national party comprising of all tribes,religions and with strong regional representations. That is what makes them the biggest opposition party.
Their doors are still open to every Gambian except Lamin Waa Juwara.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 Feb 2007 13:44:48 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 13:17:37
|
quote:
Some people continues to echo the issue of party lead coalition as the only option which I don't necessarily subscribe to in the format Nyarikang and others want it to be. We can have a party lead coalition, but the leading party must be more inclusive, reformative and be prepared for a fundamental system change rather than personnel change.
Which other party in the opposition is more inclusive than UDP? The UDP is a national party comprising of all tribes,religions and with strong regional representations. That is what makes them the biggest opposition party.
Their doors are still open to every Gambian except Lamin Waa Juwara.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 Feb 2007 13:44:48 |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 14:07:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by sidibeh
................
My interest has been particularly captured by Janyanfara's posting, which seemed to have taken us all back to school reminding us of how Gambian politics really works on the ground: the constant migration of local chiefs from one allegiance to the next, and in that process, altering at will voter sentiments.
I also agree with Baldeh and many others that while a rigorous exchange is important, we should eventually focus on how to bring about genuine reconciliation. What we all want is a better Gambia.
Once again many thanks for the tremendous interest you all have shown.
Sincerely,
Momodou S Sidibeh
i aggree too with janyanfara's analysis .aprc just continue the old style of using local voice owners if i may say so .so any credible oppossition most look into this kind vioceful individuals .sedia adopt the same tactic in wulli whereby the jouths are his mobilisers and some elders do the backgound job for him .he is frequently in contact with this body of youths .politically this youths have become mature and willing to sacrifice all of aprc's money wasting triks. there are lot of avenues for improvemnent. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 14:07:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by sidibeh
................
My interest has been particularly captured by Janyanfara's posting, which seemed to have taken us all back to school reminding us of how Gambian politics really works on the ground: the constant migration of local chiefs from one allegiance to the next, and in that process, altering at will voter sentiments.
I also agree with Baldeh and many others that while a rigorous exchange is important, we should eventually focus on how to bring about genuine reconciliation. What we all want is a better Gambia.
Once again many thanks for the tremendous interest you all have shown.
Sincerely,
Momodou S Sidibeh
i aggree too with janyanfara's analysis .aprc just continue the old style of using local voice owners if i may say so .so any credible oppossition most look into this kind vioceful individuals .sedia adopt the same tactic in wulli whereby the jouths are his mobilisers and some elders do the backgound job for him .he is frequently in contact with this body of youths .politically this youths have become mature and willing to sacrifice all of aprc's money wasting triks. there are lot of avenues for improvemnent. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 14:19:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by BambaLaye
Here's another telling piece that had a tremendous effect on the failure of NADD's leadership selection. This goes to show how other stakeholders (outside of the NADD executive) affected the process that ultimately spilt the milk.....read on:(Gambia-L archive)
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind0601&L=GAMBIA-L&P=R34128&I=-3
Bambalaye, that disingeneous article have been knocked-off long since and Dr Saine's grotesque behaviour well exposed. See below; [Culled from allgambian.net Archives]
13/02/2006
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 of 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  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 your 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 a primary 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, you 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 being 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 honorable of him to resign. That is his judgment, and that is his decision. We got to respect that. It is absolute rubbish and maliciously absurd for you, 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 presence of the OJs and the Juwaras. If Mr Darboe is a selfish ‘Mansaya seeker’, as you tried 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 government amid controversy but the business of governance still goes on at No.10, Whitehall and Westminster. This shows that no one is indispensable. So 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 subject 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 and eratic 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.
Caution
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 [Nyarikangbanna] |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 Feb 2007 14:57:35 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 14:19:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by BambaLaye
Here's another telling piece that had a tremendous effect on the failure of NADD's leadership selection. This goes to show how other stakeholders (outside of the NADD executive) affected the process that ultimately spilt the milk.....read on:(Gambia-L archive)
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind0601&L=GAMBIA-L&P=R34128&I=-3
Bambalaye, that disingeneous article have been knocked-off long since and Dr Saine's grotesque behaviour well exposed. See below; [Culled from allgambian.net Archives]
13/02/2006
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 of 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 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 your 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 a primary 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, you 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 being 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 honorable of him to resign. That is his judgment, and that is his decision. We got to respect that. It is absolute rubbish and maliciously absurd for you, 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 presence of the OJs and the Juwaras. If Mr Darboe is a selfish ‘Mansaya seeker’, as you tried 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 government amid controversy but the business of governance still goes on at No.10, Whitehall and Westminster. This shows that no one is indispensable. So 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 subject 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 and eratic 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.
Caution
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 [Nyarikangbanna] |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 Feb 2007 14:57:35 |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11840 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 19:46:54
|
| The original article has now been updated with corrections and the pdf version can be downloaded at: Pdf version |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11840 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 19:46:54
|
| The original article has now been updated with corrections and the pdf version can be downloaded at: Pdf version |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 22:14:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Some people continues to echo the issue of party lead coalition as the only option which I don't necessarily subscribe to in the format Nyarikang and others want it to be. We can have a party lead coalition, but the leading party must be more inclusive, reformative and be prepared for a fundamental system change rather than personnel change.
Which other party in the opposition is more inclusive than UDP? The UDP is a national party comprising of all tribes,religions and with strong regional representations. That is what makes them the biggest opposition party.
Their doors are still open to every Gambian except Lamin Waa Juwara.
Thanks
The inclusiveness I mentioned above is not about tribal, gender or origin. What I was referring to is the governing agenda. When a serious and well founded political party which is supposedly the largest wants to lead the rest, they must look into other party's agendas in governing and share their concerns and interest.
There was no clear agenda that the UDP presented which manifested that they were ready to lead a coalition of opposition parties which have clear differences in administrative style. How the hell do you expect these other parties to rally behind you blindly without a clear cut agreement of principles to joining together? What did the UDP party stipulated to prevent a sidelining of other parties once they got to power? Who in their right mind in this day and age will collaborate with another entity without clearly spelling out roles and limitations?
This is what am talking about when I discuss inclusiveness. All the rangling about party lead coalition was base on a single party's agenda that does not even guarantee rights or embrace the interest of other party supporters. It was like join us and when we get there we will see what to do. It does not make sense and shows the usual patronizing, nepotism Gambian politics.
Those of you who were clearly in support of this party lead coalition never stepped up to the plate and help your party craft a decent comprehensive alternative to what was on the table which was NADD. If you disagree with this assertion please post on the Bantaba your party's governing platform and programs that addresses issues like Term Limit, Limited Presidential powers, a clear agenda to address our socioeconomic and educational disasters. Honor this request and we can continue the debate on party lead coalition... |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 22:14:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Some people continues to echo the issue of party lead coalition as the only option which I don't necessarily subscribe to in the format Nyarikang and others want it to be. We can have a party lead coalition, but the leading party must be more inclusive, reformative and be prepared for a fundamental system change rather than personnel change.
Which other party in the opposition is more inclusive than UDP? The UDP is a national party comprising of all tribes,religions and with strong regional representations. That is what makes them the biggest opposition party.
Their doors are still open to every Gambian except Lamin Waa Juwara.
Thanks
The inclusiveness I mentioned above is not about tribal, gender or origin. What I was referring to is the governing agenda. When a serious and well founded political party which is supposedly the largest wants to lead the rest, they must look into other party's agendas in governing and share their concerns and interest.
There was no clear agenda that the UDP presented which manifested that they were ready to lead a coalition of opposition parties which have clear differences in administrative style. How the hell do you expect these other parties to rally behind you blindly without a clear cut agreement of principles to joining together? What did the UDP party stipulated to prevent a sidelining of other parties once they got to power? Who in their right mind in this day and age will collaborate with another entity without clearly spelling out roles and limitations?
This is what am talking about when I discuss inclusiveness. All the rangling about party lead coalition was base on a single party's agenda that does not even guarantee rights or embrace the interest of other party supporters. It was like join us and when we get there we will see what to do. It does not make sense and shows the usual patronizing, nepotism Gambian politics.
Those of you who were clearly in support of this party lead coalition never stepped up to the plate and help your party craft a decent comprehensive alternative to what was on the table which was NADD. If you disagree with this assertion please post on the Bantaba your party's governing platform and programs that addresses issues like Term Limit, Limited Presidential powers, a clear agenda to address our socioeconomic and educational disasters. Honor this request and we can continue the debate on party lead coalition... |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2007 : 22:39:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
Bronx if you try attempting a postmortem of the NADD MOU at this point in time, i swear am going to frigging scream. Are you speaking for yourself when you said you saw the flaws of the MOU yet chose to sit on the truth while crossing your fingers in anticipation of a miracle? This is bloody criminal!! Is it that you chickened out for fear of persecution? If that is your excuse then why should you then judge the brave politician on the ground who lay their lives for the cause by tackling the devil himself right in his backyard. Are they immune to persecution? If this was the general attitude of oppsition sympatisers then we deserved everything damn thing that befall us. You lot must have thought this whole unification attempt of the opposition is a wait-and-see game where you can just thrust all the burden and responsibility of unification on the poor backs of politicians and quick to spit on them when they went for their own selfish agenda. What happened to the support and guidiance these poor and fallible human beings needed from you while they were at their wits end. To turn around now and tell us you knew all along where the problem lay but for whatever reason choose not to share it, is absolutely despicable. If this is not a case of "i knew it" then only hell knows what it is. May be we need to stop point fingers at the oppossition and start examining ourselves, our actions or to put it better our inactions for the failure of the opposition. Are we ever going to get anywhere with this wait-and-see attitude and at the end of it, jump in with "i knew it". Don't even start about Ebou Jallow, for if you expect any different from him then you must be the biggest fool.
Shaka, am in complete agreement with you. Many of these so called born again critics were busy discrediting anything good about the MOU in favor of their hidden political agendas. No one had ever said the MOU was a perfect document. All those who signed it had the opportunity to amend anything on that but as you said they choose to play the wait and see game.
It was obvious that many of them were there one foot in and another out. It is where the dishonesty and betrayal come from. I absolutely have no respect for those people who criticise STGDP and the NADD MOU WITHOUT offering any alternative to what was on the table.
STGDP and its founding members remained to be the most practical and result oriented citizens we had during the last election circle. These people came up with what was the best possible idea of removing a dictatorial government from power which is ready to do anything to stay in power. So far in the history of the Government I have not seen or withness such a brilliant move by these group of individuals to remedy the political situation in the Gambia. They played their part and Gambians should have joined them to find an alternative.
I wanted to give my collegue Bronx some credit as he is on record as a rare one of those who were objective in their critizism of the MOU and or the coalition. However, there were others who could not see anything beyond a Darboe President. While he had the greatest opportunity to lead, many of his supporters instead of helping him find a solution they were hell bend on tearing apart the coalition with a false hope of making their life time dream a reality. They are blinded by power greed and could not be objective.
So all the excuses and finger pointing to the MOU is just being used as a last resort to hold on to their disasterous pull out. This wait and see game with an agenda to have it your way or the highway is shameful and regretable by many of them. Now they don't have a choice but say "Hamon Na ko" (I knew it)"Hamun won daaraa, Tay Dunch Koo Musaa hamm" (they did not know anything and would never know until it is too late)
We need people who can criticise and offer alternatives. If you think my way is not right come up with an alternative so we can reach a common destiny... |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
