 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 06 May 2010 : 16:41:21
|
HALIFA SALLAH'S AGENDA 2011 FOR OPPOSITION PARTIES, POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS & STRATEGIES UNDER SCRUTINY
IS THE GAMBIA POLITICAL CLIMATE, MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM & DEMOCRACY UNDER THREATH
Some very important background information can be gathered from related Bantaba Gambian politics topics;
1. Halifa: THE WAY FORWARD FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8158
2. Halifa Sallah on GRTS International under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9054
FOR HEALTHY PROPER POLITICAL DEBATE, PLEASE FOCUS ATTENTION & ADDRESS HALIFA ON GRTS AUDIO TRANSLATION
GRTS"Welcome to GRTS International Broadcasting from Sylvaston Maryland in United States Of America. This is the Gambian experience and thanks for joining us. In this week's programme we will be talking to Mr. Halifa Sallah a Sociologist and former flag bearer of the opposition NADD Party. On the line from Banjul Mr Sallah welcome to GRTS International. Welcome to the Gambian experience."
Mr. Halifa Sallah "Thank you very much."
GRTS "Last year you came up with a proposal on how the Gambian political opposition is to participate in the coming 2011 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. Under normal circumstances political parties come together on the BASIS OF SHARED BELIEFS IN PRINCIPLES, POLICIES & PROGRAMMES. And under not so normal circumstances they can AGREE TO COOPERATE BASED ON THEIR OPINION(S) ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS; for instance on ISSUES LIKE THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS, VOTER REGISTRATION EXECISE, COMPOSITION, MANDATE & AUTONOMY OF THE ELECTORAL OVERSIGHT BODY LIKE THE I.E.C WE HAVE IN THE GAMBIA. Apart from this SHARED OPPOSITION TO PRESIDENT JAMMEH'S STYLE OF RULE & IN-ADEQUACIES IN THE DEMOCRATIC DISPENSATION IN THE GAMBIA. WHAT POLICIES DO THE VARIOUS OPPOSITION PARTIES SHARED OR ON WHAT ISSUES DO THEY DIFFER? This question to my mind Mr. Salllah are/has become somehow irrelevant in your proposal, because what you are proposing is not a coalition of political parties but an alliance of individuals? Can you dis-suade me from this assertion"
Mr. Halifa Sallah "He he he he Thank you very much. Well the fact that if you read all your on-line papers at the moment, the opposition parties are considered to be literally dead. And some people are infact calling on the Arm forces in this country to salvage the country. Thats an opinion there!"
To make it more interesting on coups, refer on related Bantaba Gambian politics topic Is Military Culture Good for Gambia? under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9071
Halifa Sallah continue further "And we all know that when a group of people take over the country. They do not come in the name of party. They call for NATIONAL SALVATION & then initiate a PROCESS of involving people to participate in the process of NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION. I THINK the mere fact that GAMBIANS feel that; there is VACUM. A POLITICAL VACUMM and many people believed that vacum should be fill by a FORCE WHICH WILL NOT COME UNDER THE MANDATE OF THE PEOPLE; TO LEGITIMIZE WHAT AM TALKING ABOUT Because what am talking about is FOR ANOTHER TRANSISTION. A TRANSISTION WHICH WILL NOT BE IMPOSED BY THE BARREL OF THE GUN BUT A TRANSISTION THAT WILL BE IMPOSED BY THE SOVERIGN PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY. And that is called for by precisely the vacum which exist. Under normal circumstances as I have said, countries have mult-parties; many parties which contest on the BASIS OF THEIR IDEOLOGY, THEIR PRINCIPLES, THEIR PROGRAMMES, THEIR PRACTISES, THEIR POLICIES; WHICH THEY SELL TO THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDE TO SELECT ONE AMONG THE NUMBER TO LEAD THEM
What has happen in the Gambia in 1994 was a coup de'tat & those who took over power decided to established a PROVISIONAL RULING COUNCIL WHICH HAD ABSOLUTE POWER, UN-CHECKED POWER, CONTROL BOTH EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE & JUDICIAL POWER; BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY CAN ISSUE DECREES & THE DECREES HELD SUPREMACY OVER CONSTITUTION; and therefore the hands of the Judiciary could be bound. Under such circumstances we've seen that ultimately, eh, we push for the country to return to democratic constitutional rule. But in the process that very group which took over decided to also establish a political party. And in the establishment of that political party decided to usurp all the political structures in the country and utilise every arm of the state to consolidate itself. So it means that it is overthrowing & taking over & legitimising a/by the meaning that we consider to be constitutional & through an electoral process; which do not create any level ground for multi-party country
What has become very clear to every Gambian is that we do not based.. People continue to blame the political parties have been everywhere; you know, the political parties/ opposition parties being condemn. But the reality & that is already affirmed by the facts on the ground; is that we do not have a multi-party system. That is what is not existing in the Gambia And that's what everybody should recognise that we do not have a functioning..You said "We do not have a functioning opposition party?" No I don't think that is correct. The thing is that we do not have a functioning multi-party system; because wherever you have people who oppose a government you have the basis for an opposition And there is a basis for an opposition in this country. And it is reivigorated by the facts of 2006 elections."
GRTS"In your 2011 Agenda you seems to be saying that; instead of wasting time on different political leaders & their respective parties for consultation on coalition building for 2011 Presidential elections (eh) one must go directly to the people (you know); ????? ..........bearing in mind their respective needs & aspirations"
To continue later!
|
Edited by - kobo on 07 May 2010 16:51:24 |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 07 May 2010 : 15:43:29
|
GRTS"In your 2011 Agenda you seems to be saying that; instead of wasting time on different political leaders & their respective parties for consultation on coalition building for 2011 Presidential elections (eh) one must go directly to the people (you know); and to convince/discuss/canvass from with the voters bearing in mind their respective needs, interests & aspirations"
Halfa Sallah"Yes. O.K here I think that let me still answer your question."
GRTS"Yes please."
Halifa Sallah "There is still the question to be answered. Now if you look at what I have said, that the basis for an opposition exist in the country. And that is revealed by the results of the 2006 elections. That over 670,000 registered voters existed in this country. And its is very clear that over 405,000 voters did not vote for President Jammeh; either by not voting at all through voter political aparthy; over 270 something thousand or they voted against Jammeh. And that is 405,000 people. I also look at the situation and saw that over 405,000 did not vote for the opposition. So here we have a situation in the Gambia; where the vast majority of people in the country were not only oppose to the government but were also alienated from the old political process. The question. The fundamental question therefore we need to address as a people is; how are we doing to get those people involve in the political life of the country? So that's no longer an issue of political leaders meeting. The issue is getting down to those people & being able to inspire them to take charge of their destiny. That is the essence of AGENDA 2011.It is recognising a fact. This is not fiction. The facts are on the ground.
Now the ISSUE OF OPPOSITION UNITY & FAILURE OF N.A.D.D; that's an entirely a different matter. May be you'll ask about that question." But clearly...
GRTS "Absolutely, absolutely."
Halifa Sallah " But clearly what is on the ground; is that not a single; not a single political party at the moment has shown any capacity to be able to motivate all those people who became politically aparthetic to become politically involve before 2011.
Now the question of CONSULTATION come. N.A.D.D arose as a result of consultation. Consultation which did not start with the political parties. Consultation started with people who had interests in the Gambia. People living at the moment outside of the Gambia; inviting all political parties not to talk about the unification but for each of them to introduce A PROGRAMME to a group of Gambians who are in Atlanta. And thereafter some people raise the concern of UNITY. That broke/brought the agenda; just to cut matters short; the agenda of political parties sitting & discussing & cosidering the ISSUE OF WHAT FORM OF ALLIANCE INODER TO BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE THE EXISTING RULING PARTY THAT CONSOLIDATED ITSELF
To continue later! |
Edited by - kobo on 07 May 2010 17:29:09 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2010 : 17:06:08
|
Halifa Sallah continue with GRTS "Now the question of CONSULTATION come. N.A.D.D arose as a result of consultation. Consultation which did not start with the political parties. Consultation started with people who had interests in the Gambia. People living at the moment outside of the Gambia; inviting all political parties not to talk about the unification but for each of them to introduce A PROGRAMME to a group of Gambians who are in Atlanta. And thereafter some people raise the concern of UNITY. That broke the agenda; just to cut matters short; the agenda of political parties sitting & discussing & cosidering the ISSUE OF WHAT FORM OF ALLIANCE INODER TO BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE THE EXISTING RULING PARTY WHICH HAS CONSOLIDATED ITSELF. This is when we came up with two issues. Two issues that were put before the leaders ; one was to allow a party to lead & other parties will follow or to form an umbrella party and all will be under that party. I want every Gambian; every single Gambian to understand what the political climate was when we met as opposition parties. ONLY PDOIS HAD TWO SEATS IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY; NRP HAD TWO SEATS IN 1997 BUT LOST ONE & HAD ONLY ONE SEAT; UDP HAD BOYCOTTED AN ELECTION; & PPP HAD NOT EVEN HELD A CONGRESS; NDAM WAS JUST FORMED IT HAS NOT EVEN ESTABLISHED PROPERLY. These were people who met at that material time. AND WHICH PARTY WILL YOU HAVE PUT AHEAD NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM! So the issue here was; how do we proceed? Were we to DISSOLVE & THEN PROCEED ON OUR INDIVIDUAL PARTIES & CONVERGE LATER TO ABLE TO FORM AN ALLIANCE Or should we continue to see what was possible? And clearly, I have to commend all the political leaders. They saw what was on the ground that; in fact whilst we were negotiating the Constitution was changed. Instead of having a second round of voting. It became first that past the post. It became the majority takes it all. The Constitution was changed; it means that even if we lost by one vote the regime will continue to exists. It became very clear that we had to start working right away rather than going in our separate ways. To start working right away could only be made possible by forming AN UMBRELLA PARTY. Because it was not possible at that time; because most of these parties; & I believed all; for us to break-way & go until later on to converge & select one leader & its party/his party to lead the alliance. For I made that proposal. Some people have been raising question about that it wasn't made? That proposal was made & in fact it was fought for very hard by the coordinator. And ultimately it was seen that NO rather than separating & going our separate ways & then converge later; the facts on the ground revealed that it was necessary to start right away to BUILT THE ALLIANCE. THIS IS HOW WE ULTIMATELY ACCEPTED TO BUILD AN UMBRELLA PARTY WHICH WAS A STRATEGIC & TACTICAL ALLIANCE!"
"WHAT WAS THE TACTIC The TACTIC was that if each party come here. All the supporters will begin to see that all the parties were in something together which all of them controlled & owned. Therefore it was easy for all the supporters to come together; irrespective of the differences. It was STRATEGIC in the sense that (we said) the person who is going to lead will just be A TRANSITIONAL PRESIDENT; who will be there just for 5years; who will run a cabinet that will be a collective enterprise & ultimately the person will not stand in the next following election & will not also support another candidate. So it means that every party would be able to live under such a government at-least for 5years; because the convert is to live under Jammeh for another 5years. So it was strategically viable that no one (sane person) would oppose such an agenda; because we are all coming together, no matter who is selected? We are just coming together & then 5years if you believe that you can go and win an election; it means that you have a very level ground to be able to campaign under a government which will be promoting a very viable electoral system. And you have to win an election and that was the agreement & that's how N.A.D.D came into being. So to answer your question; N.A.D.D dis-integrated Now where do we go from here That is your question"
GRTS "But..Mr Sallah!
Halifa Sallah "The reason why AGENDA 2011 came into being.."
Then interrupted by GRTS "N.A.D.D dis-integrated because all the opposition parties could not agreed on one single individual Presidential candidate?"
Halifa Sallah "You see that's what people perpetuate? I don't know why? Why? Why? If Gambians are interested in truth, why is it that? Let me come it? If people are interested in the truth, why do they continue to perpetuate what is clearly fiction? THERE WAS NO LEADERSHIP STRUGGLE IN N.A.D.D! THERE WERE INTERESTS ! And that's what politics is all about? All these political leaders that were brought together, we do not expect that they will sacrifice their political interests? But the issue of struggle was eradicated by the very provisions themselves. It says that " EVERY DECISION IN N.A.D.D SHOULD ONLY COME INTO FORCE THROUGH UNANIMITY!" Listen to me very carefully & I hope every Gambian will note this? "WE INTRODUCE NOT SIMPLY CONTENTIOUS BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF UNANIMITY; SO THAT NO SINGLE DECISION CAN BE TAKEN WITHOUT THE COLLECTIVE SUPPORT OF EVERYONE!" That is the principle in N.A.D.D. So you can see ALL THE AGREEMENTS WE REACHED WAS UNANIMOUS! In terms of LEADERSHIP also that was the situation. We said; "IF WE COULD NOT REACH AN AGREEMENT THROUGH UNANIMITY THEN WE CAN GO TO A PRIMARY; WHERE THE PARTY CHAIRPERSON, CHAIRMAN, CHAIRWOMAN & YOUTH LEADER IN EACH WARD WOULD ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN THAT ELECTION. AND WHOEVER IS SELECTED WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE." That's what was agreed upon. So how could there be any struggle under such a system? It means that when we meet to make a decision; if we cannot agree, any decision maker can just simply make a proposal that; "lets go to a Primary"; and that will be mandatory to go to a Primary because that's what we have agreed upon; that is in the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (M.O.U)."
GRTS "You are reminded that you are listening to GRTS international broadcasting from Sylvaston Maryland. This is the Gambian Experience. We will be back right after this announcement.
To continue later!
|
Edited by - kobo on 11 May 2010 16:41:31 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2010 : 13:45:03
|
quote:
"...in fact whilst we were negotiating the Constitution was changed. Instead of having a second round of voting. It became first that past the post. It became the majority takes it all. The Constitution was changed; it means that even if we lost by one vote the regime will continue to exists. It became very clear that we had to start working right away rather than going in our separate ways. To start working right away could only be made possible by forming AN UMBRELLA PARTY..."
The "fist that past the post"(FPTP) is the same system in England, but a party has to win 326 (almost 51%)of the 649 seats to form the government on its own. This is what led to the present coalition government because no single party got the required majority seats.
In Gambia there are 43seats and 5 seats nominated by the president so the total number of seats is 48.
In 1951 (Tory) and in February 1974 (Labour), the nation voted in governments that had less people vote for them but won more seats than their opponents. Neither government could claim to truly represent "the people".
In the 1997 election, the victorious Labour Party gained 43.2% of the total votes cast and won 63.6% of seats at Westminster. The combined number of votes for the Tory and Liberal Democrats represented 47.5% of the total votes (nearly 4% more than Labour) yet between them they got 32.1% of the seats available at Westminster.
In the 2001 election, Labour got 43% of the total popular vote whereas all the other parties got 57% - yet Labour maintained its very powerful position in Parliament with 413 MP's out of 659. The same trend was seen with the 2005 election result.
It can be claimed that such a percentage of votes should not have given Labour such large Parliamentary majorities – but the workings of the FPTP system allows for just such an occurrence. In fact, no government since 1935 has had a majority of public support as expressed through votes cast at a national election.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
Edited by - Janko on 17 May 2010 13:57:43 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
