| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Momodou
Denmark
11700 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Dec 2010 : 14:49:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by kobo
quote:
Originally posted by terangba
I propose Sidia as the next united opposition candidate. What say you!
MY NOMINEE IS MAI FATTY GMC? WHAT YOU SAY?
Kobo, you cannot be serious with this one. How can you choose Mai Fatty above Sidia? |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2010 : 15:05:19
|
1. IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE FOR ANYONE TO BE INTERIM FLAG BEARER 2011 AGAINST JAMMEH.
2. I HAVE CALCULATED THAT MAI FATTY IMPRESSED ME AS A GENUINE DEMOCRAT, VISIONARY LEADER & FRESH BLOOD IN THE FRONT-LINE OF GAMBIAN POLITICAL LEADERS.
3. AM SERIOUS FOR SEDIA JATTA & HALIFA ARE HUMBLE TO ACCEPT MY NOMINATION & EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO VOTE & CHOICE. AM NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF PDOIS, NADD OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY PARTY! AM A GOOD LISTENER FOR PDOIS AND A BIG FAN OF THEM!
4. IT DIFFUSES TENSION, MALICIOUSNESS, HATRED & RESENTMENT OF SEDIA JATTA/HALIFA OR UDP Vs. PDOIS/NADD - "CAT & MOUSE GAME" = A BIG FAT CAT & A TINY LITTLE MOUSE POLICY IS INTERNATIONAL NORM
5. I HAD VOTED LAWYER OUSAINOU DARBOE & UDP IN GAMBIA PRESIDENTIAL/GENERAL ELECTIONS; THEREFORE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST HIM. ITS JUST THAT I HAD SOME DISAPPOINTMENTS WITH HIM AND SOME UDP PARTY MILITANTS ARE DOING MORE HARM TO THE PARTY THAN GOOD; DAMAGING PUBLIC RELATIONS & GOODWILL!
6. MY NOMINATION FOR MAI FATTY IS IRREVOCABLE! |
Edited by - kobo on 12 Dec 2010 15:25:40 |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11700 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2010 : 15:25:43
|
I see, thanks for your honest opinion. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
terangba
Egypt
225 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2010 : 17:37:22
|
| Kobo, I am no fan of the UDP Party but the international norm they are calling for makes sense. There are so many obstacles to a primary I do not even know where to begin. |
God gave men dominion over the beasts and not over his fellow men unless they submit of their own free will. - Napoleon |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2010 : 18:01:35
|
TERANGBA WHICH INTERNATIONAL NORM? FOR EXAMPLE IN UK A COALITION GOVERNMENT IS IN POWER BUT;
1. IS THE UK CONSTITUTION SAME AS THE GAMBIA CONSTITUTION?
2. WHEN WAS UK COALITION FORM; BEFORE OR AFTER ELECTION?
3. BASED ON POLITICAL REALITIES FOR ON THE GROUND, DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW FOR THE GAMBIA OUR HOMELAND; PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT MAKES SENSE?
4. HOW IS PARTY-LED COALITION MORE;
I. FEASIBLE,
II.WORKABLE (UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GAMBIA) &
III) VIABLE THAN ALL OPPONENTS FORMING A FORMIDABLE UNITED FRONT UNDER ONE UMBRELLA; IN COMPLIANCE WITH "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES"?
5. ARE YOU AWARE ABOUT LAWYER DARBOE/UDP CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES IN PULLING OUT OF NADD; IF THEY WANT TO MOBILISE ALL SIGNATORIES OR A NEW MIX OF OPPOSITION PARTIES TO RALLY BEHIND A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WITH THAT ARRANGEMENT TO NADD; REJECTED BY UDP BECAUSE THEY JUSTIFY THEIR RESIGNATION THAT IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REGISTERED AS A POLITICAL PARTY?
6. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW UDP PARTY-LED COALITION IS GOING TO OPERATE? PLEASE WEIGH YOUR POINTS REFERRING TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF "SELF-PERPETUATING RULE", "CROSS-CARPET" & POLITICAL "MERGER"?
7. IF A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION MAKES SENSE TO YOU, UNDER WHAT BANNER ARE THEY GOING TO CONTEST ELECTIONS?
8. IF A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION IS FORM; CAN PDOIS AND OTHER OPPOSITION CONTEST THE ELECTION UNDER THEIR OWN BANNER?
9. ARE YOU AWARE THAT UDP TACTICS ON INSISTENCE OF PARTY-LED COALITION MAY BE SEEN BY CERTAIN STAKEHOLDERS; AS DICTATORIAL TENDENCY TO IMPOSE ON OPPONENTS OF JAMMEH/APRC A STRATEGY THAT SERVE ONLY UDP PARTY INTERESTS, ITS ELITE & CRONIES BEING GROOM? WHAT MAKES IT SENSE AS NOT BEING "SELF-PERPETUATION" RULE OR MANDATE TO LED OTHER OPPONENTS/OPPOSITION PARTIES; IMPOSED BY UDP?
10. CONVINCE ME HOW A PARTY-LED COALITION WILL CANNOT SANCTION DOMINATION, PROMOTE DIVIDE & RULE POLICIES AND HOW FAIRNESS IS GUARANTEED FOR OTHER PARTIES TO EMBRACE IT?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOVE AND I WILL HELP; TELL YOU HOW PRIMARIES PROPOSED UNDER AGENDA 2011 ARE WORKING OR WILL WORK? |
Edited by - kobo on 12 Dec 2010 19:48:05 |
|
|
|
terangba
Egypt
225 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2010 : 21:04:15
|
1. IS THE UK CONSTITUTION SAME AS THE GAMBIA CONSTITUTION?
Answer: No
2. WHEN WAS UK COALITION FORM; BEFORE OR AFTER ELECTION?
Answer: After elections
3. BASED ON POLITICAL REALITIES FOR ON THE GROUND, DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW FOR THE GAMBIA OUR HOMELAND; PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT MAKES SENSE?
I think if the main party says no to a primary it will more sense to rally behind it and ensure change. The Gambia has never dealt with a primary, who will fund the primary, who will count the votes.
4. HOW IS PARTY-LED COALITION MORE;
I. FEASIBLE,
II.WORKABLE (UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GAMBIA) &
III) VIABLE THAN ALL OPPONENTS FORMING A FORMIDABLE UNITED FRONT UNDER ONE UMBRELLA; IN COMPLIANCE WITH "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES"?
5. ARE YOU AWARE ABOUT LAWYER DARBOE/UDP CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES IN PULLING OUT OF NADD; IF THEY WANT TO MOBILISE ALL SIGNATORIES OR A NEW MIX OF OPPOSITION PARTIES TO RALLY BEHIND A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WITH THAT ARRANGEMENT TO NADD; REJECTED BY UDP BECAUSE THEY JUSTIFY THEIR RESIGNATION THAT IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REGISTERED AS A POLITICAL PARTY?
The NADD arrangement did not address the leadership issue, every pre election cialition that I know of rallied behind the biggest party.
6. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW UDP PARTY-LED COALITION IS GOING TO OPERATE? PLEASE WEIGH YOUR POINTS REFERRING TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF "SELF-PERPETUATING RULE", "CROSS-CARPET" & POLITICAL "MERGER"?
I think the best method will be a merger of all the parties after winning the elections. There is hardly any difference between the parties anyway.
7. IF A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION MAKES SENSE TO YOU, UNDER WHAT BANNER ARE THEY GOING TO CONTEST ELECTIONS?
The banner will be the UDP banner and a merger after winning
8. IF A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION IS FORM; CAN PDOIS AND OTHER OPPOSITION CONTEST THE ELECTION UNDER THEIR OWN BANNER?
9. ARE YOU AWARE THAT UDP TACTICS ON INSISTENCE OF PARTY-LED COALITION MAY BE SEEN BY CERTAIN STAKEHOLDERS; AS DICTATORIAL TENDENCY TO IMPOSE ON OPPONENTS OF JAMMEH/APRC A STRATEGY THAT SERVE ONLY UDP PARTY INTERESTS, ITS ELITE & CRONIES BEING GROOM? WHAT MAKES IT SENSE AS NOT BEING "SELF-PERPETUATION" RULE OR MANDATE TO LED OTHER OPPONENTS/OPPOSITION PARTIES; IMPOSED BY UDP?
The same can be said about a leader that is selected through a primary. Any one can consolidate power and marginilize others.
10. CONVINCE ME HOW A PARTY-LED COALITION WILL CANNOT SANCTION DOMINATION, PROMOTE DIVIDE & RULE POLICIES AND HOW FAIRNESS IS GUARANTEED FOR OTHER PARTIES TO EMBRACE IT?
|
God gave men dominion over the beasts and not over his fellow men unless they submit of their own free will. - Napoleon |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 21:42:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by terangba
1. IS THE UK CONSTITUTION SAME AS THE GAMBIA CONSTITUTION?
Answer: No
2. WHEN WAS UK COALITION FORM; BEFORE OR AFTER ELECTION?
Answer: After elections
3. BASED ON POLITICAL REALITIES FOR ON THE GROUND, DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW FOR THE GAMBIA OUR HOMELAND; PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT MAKES SENSE?
I think if the main party says no to a primary it will more sense to rally behind it and ensure change. The Gambia has never dealt with a primary, who will fund the primary, who will count the votes.
4. HOW IS PARTY-LED COALITION MORE;
I. FEASIBLE,
II.WORKABLE (UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GAMBIA) &
III) VIABLE THAN ALL OPPONENTS FORMING A FORMIDABLE UNITED FRONT UNDER ONE UMBRELLA; IN COMPLIANCE WITH "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES"?
5. ARE YOU AWARE ABOUT LAWYER DARBOE/UDP CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES IN PULLING OUT OF NADD; IF THEY WANT TO MOBILISE ALL SIGNATORIES OR A NEW MIX OF OPPOSITION PARTIES TO RALLY BEHIND A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WITH THAT ARRANGEMENT TO NADD; REJECTED BY UDP BECAUSE THEY JUSTIFY THEIR RESIGNATION THAT IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REGISTERED AS A POLITICAL PARTY?
The NADD arrangement did not address the leadership issue, every pre election cialition that I know of rallied behind the biggest party.
6. PLEASE CLARIFY HOW UDP PARTY-LED COALITION IS GOING TO OPERATE? PLEASE WEIGH YOUR POINTS REFERRING TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF "SELF-PERPETUATING RULE", "CROSS-CARPET" & POLITICAL "MERGER"?
I think the best method will be a merger of all the parties after winning the elections. There is hardly any difference between the parties anyway.
7. IF A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION MAKES SENSE TO YOU, UNDER WHAT BANNER ARE THEY GOING TO CONTEST ELECTIONS?
The banner will be the UDP banner and a merger after winning
8. IF A UDP PARTY-LED COALITION IS FORM; CAN PDOIS AND OTHER OPPOSITION CONTEST THE ELECTION UNDER THEIR OWN BANNER?
9. ARE YOU AWARE THAT UDP TACTICS ON INSISTENCE OF PARTY-LED COALITION MAY BE SEEN BY CERTAIN STAKEHOLDERS; AS DICTATORIAL TENDENCY TO IMPOSE ON OPPONENTS OF JAMMEH/APRC A STRATEGY THAT SERVE ONLY UDP PARTY INTERESTS, ITS ELITE & CRONIES BEING GROOM? WHAT MAKES IT SENSE AS NOT BEING "SELF-PERPETUATION" RULE OR MANDATE TO LED OTHER OPPONENTS/OPPOSITION PARTIES; IMPOSED BY UDP?
The same can be said about a leader that is selected through a primary. Any one can consolidate power and marginilize others.
10. CONVINCE ME HOW A PARTY-LED COALITION CANNOT SANCTION UDP DOMINATION & DICTATORSHIP, PROMOTE DIVIDE & RULE POLICIES AND HOW FAIRNESS IS GUARANTEED FOR OTHER PARTIES TO EMBRACE IT?
Tearangba Nice brief try but not satisfactory to me!
Let me review the answers to questions above; before coming to address making sense of "PRIMARIES" for selection of flag bearer (opposition Presidential candidate) as incorporated in PDOIS Agenda 2011; amongst others?
Please note that I would cover them in piecemeal as time permits me? Therefore refer back to questions above; starting with QUESTIONS 1, 2 & 3 respectively?
Now let us counter irrational arguments of UDP to defend the legitimate right of imposing "UDP Party-led alliance" as international norm? As we go along we would refer to comments and points highlighted by the two parties (Daboe & Sidia); "ON SIDIA JATTA/OUSAINOU DARBOE"?
ALL YOUR ANSWERS SHOWS THAT THERE ARE BIG CONTRAST BETWEEN; UK & GAMBIAN POLITICS, DEMOCRACY, ELECTORAL SYSTEMS & CONSTITUTION!
REMINDING YOU THAT MEETING IS WARRANTED BY THE NEED TO FORM A STRATEGIC UNITED FRONT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THEY LEAD; PDOIS/NADD & UDP.
SO YOUR ANSWERS FOR QUESTIONS 1, 2 & 3 GOES IN FAVOUR OF SIDIA
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2010 : 21:52:33
|
PDOIS' Administrative Secretary Responds to The Democrat
What Greater Ingenuity and Flexibility can anyone expect from a Political Party, Mr Democrat?
Dear Editor
I have read the article sent by someone who still prefers to write anonymously instead of participating in this historic debate to shape the future of our dear motherland which requires change for the better.
First and foremost I would like to put Sidia’s Statement in a proper context so that the reader would be in a better position to weigh the allegation of ingeniousness against PDOIS by the Democrat.
Mr. Darboe had said that he has met Sidia since 7 November 2010; Sidia had communicated Darboe’s position to the Central Committee of PDOIS that he stands for the UDP to be supported by all opposition parties without any conditionality. This was noted. He also indicated that he has clarified issues regarding AGENDA 2011 and had further discussed with Darboe on the issue of joint monitoring of the registration exercise by political parties and that Darboe promised to discuss with his executive and come back to him. This is how matters stood until 25 November 2010 when we read Mr. Mai Fatty’s Press Release which reads among other things that;
“Pursuant to extensive consultations, the Leader of GMC, Hon. Mai Ahmad Fatty is pleased to announce a strategic alliance between GMC with UDP and its allies for purposes of election 2011.”
This was immediately followed by the following statement on Agenda 2011 by Mr. Mai Fatty
.. “This is why GMC is committed to a consensus dialogue without preconditions, for a political alliance on Elections 2011. The Framework for such an alliance can be moulded once you are a part of the dialogue, and all stakeholders are free to put ideas on the table. This is the process that GMC has subjected itself to, with UDP and allies on Election 2011. It is not a support to any individual political party within the Alliance , but a support to the Alliance itself as a structured political arrangement. We have voluntarily resolved to subordinate our separate Party interests to a single cause of regime change in the most effective practical manner.
We believe that all opposition parties should commit themselves to the consensus principle, without resorting to preconditions as to settling the Framework of a possible alliance or so. We believe that AGENDA 2011 can be and should be put on the table for serious consideration in determining the final Framework of the Consensus Principles. Our proposal is that to reach that level, it is suggested that PDOIS commits itself in principle to a dialogue for consensus without any preconditions, and then take visible practical steps towards this. I have faith in PDOIS leadership. It has publicly stated its flexibility to accommodate other views, and often engaged readers of "Foroyaa" as to who may have a better idea than AGENDA 2011 for adoption.
By joining UDP, PPP, GMC & NRP to a Consensus Dialogue, and then presenting AGENDA 2011 formally to the Dialogue, I am inclined to believe that it would be positively received as part of a Framework Document. This, to my mind is a good way of putting it on the Agenda for collective deliberations. To achieve this, we propose that PDOIS should be a part of the consensus team first and foremost, and then try to influence the path with superior argument. It should also be willing to accept and be bound by any modifications on Agenda 2011 Document pursuant to consensus consultations or otherwise as may be agreed by majority decision. This way, PDOIS would help shape or guide the character and content of a Consensus Agreement.” A Central Committee meeting was convened to review Mr. Mai Fatty’s statement which gave the impression that it was PDOIS that had stayed out of an Alliance which it could join and shape as an equal and even convince to accept Agenda 2011.As far as Sidia’s report was concerned the UDP leader did call for an Alliance which PDOIS could join and promote Agenda 2011.It was clear from Sidia’s report that he was promoting an alliance where the partners endorse the UDP Candidate for the Presidency without any conditionality. Hence we felt that either Mr. Fatty was not fully informed of Sidia’s meeting with Darboe and the UDP leader’s position that he stood for a UDP supported Alliance without any conditionality or that the UDP had discussed agenda 2011 and had informed him that it could be discussed under the Alliance we were being invited to join by Mr. Fatty. This is why Sidia was called to clarify the situation. He made it clear that he is not aware of any change in the UDP position and since the 7 November he has not heard from Darboe.
He then indicated that he would issue a statement to clear the air. This is why the Statement was issued.
The Democrat wrote
“This is what Sidia had in fact stated at the beginning of his press release:
“After my discussion with the PDOIS Central Committee, I have seen the need to make my discussion with the UDP leader public so that all speculations would come to an end. Gambians should bear in mind what has happened in Guinea Conakry and what is happening in Cote D’Ivoire at this very moment. Some leaders are not interested in historical legacies. They are only interested in having their way whether for the better or for the worse. Finally, it is the ordinary people who pay for the follies of their leaders. I do not want any body to link me to any dragging of feet regarding the creation of a united front by the opposition.”
It’s quite interesting how Sidia who has assured Darboe about no character assassination is in fact the first to start that character assassination of Darboe. Even though the primaries have not yet started. If not what does Sidia meant by “some leaders are not interested in historical legacies? They are only interested in having their way whether for the better or for the worse.”
The obvious sarcasm in that diatribe is Ousainou Darboe. And the only reason he warranted that venom from Sidia was that he had not got back to Sidia and that there had been much speculation. If Sidia cannot handle speculations at this stage; imagine how he would react in the primaries campaign. Therefore, the assurance that he had given to Darboe that there would be no character assassination in any heated primaries is a facade.” Sidia mentioned Guinea and Cote D’Ivoire and drew an irrefutable conclusion that some leaders are not interested in historical legacies. They are only interested in having their way whether for the better or for the worse. Is this not a statement of fact? Why did the Democrat attribute this to be a reference to Darboe?” Who is resorting to speculation? “Who is disingenuous?”
Go back to Mai Fatty’s statement. Is he not implying that PDOIS is the party that is out and should come in and shape things from within? Has he not been misled to believe that he is a part of an Alliance which each party could shape? Has Darboe not clarified that he wants the presidential candidate of his party to be endorsed without any conditionality? How could agenda 2011 be accommodated in such a rigid position and who could he accuse Sidia of naivety for studying the real nature of an Alliance before deciding to be a part of it or not? This is the first point.
Secondly the Democrat wrote:
“Sidia further failed to explain his reasons for making reference to the Guinea Conakry and Cote D’Ivoire elections. This is because in those elections there were no primaries held to choose the leaders for their alliances; but there were political alliances which assisted both Alpha Conde and Alassanne Ouattara in winning their respective elections. “
It is elementary Knowledge that in countries where there is second round of voting one does not need a multi party primary. All one needs is for each party to select its candidate and the first round serves as a primary which shortlists the candidate to two.
In Guinea , Jallow won the first round and Conde was in distant second. Jallow’s supporters appealed too much to ethno linguistic loyalties and thus alienated the rest who decide to ally around Conde to get him to win. In Cote D’Ivoire Bargbo won in the first round by relying on ethno linguistic sentiments. However in the second round Bedie’s supporters gave their support to Ouattarra for him to win.
It is therefore obvious that a Candidate who could win the support of most of the supporters of other parties stand a better chance of leading a united front for change. This is why in the absence of second round of voting, a multi-partisan primary stands the best instrument for determining a winnable candidate.
On the option of NADD; Sidia stated that:
“NADD is still legally registered and all political parties could embrace it and then come together to select a single candidate. As far as I know PDOIS still subscribes to the NADD idea but PPP under OJ has also not pulled out of NADD”.
To understand Sidia’s insincerity in his discussions with Darboe is to reflect one’s mind back to what Halifa had stated; as his reasons for proposing the agenda 2011, published in his article of 25 September 2009; which Sidia was selling to Darboe. In that article Halifa stated the following:
“There are three options before us. Two of the options have already been tried. The UDP, NRP and GPDP have already tried the Party led Alliance . Instead of the votes of the alliance increasing the opposite was the order of the day. Secondly, the creation of an umbrella party by taking the initiative to merge all opposition parties into one political force, has also failed. The only option is the third one which calls for the formation of a broad coalition of the people who will demand to have only one presidential candidate to contest the seat and demand for all parties to sit and work out an agenda to make that possible and to isolate any party which refuses to accept the Agenda. An electoral Alliance under which one presidential, National Assembly and council candidate will be put to contest against the APRC candidates in the 2011 Presidential, 2012 National Assembly and 2013 council elections must be demanded by the people and imposed on opposition parties or punish them for non compliance with their dictates. The candidates do not necessarily have to come from political parties. They could be distinguished members of civil society. We simply need honest, mature and dedicated PERSONS who would preside over a transition lasting between 2 to 5 years to give the country a new start. This is the way forward”.We will excuse Democrat for not having the advantage of considering what Mr. Fatty had said which informed the Press Release. Mr. Fatty invited us to join a new alliance where all parties would be equal in shaping things. NADD failed not because of its nature. It failed because it broke to pieces. If all parties want to form an Alliance involving every one, why sign a new memorandum of understanding? The best is for all parties to rejoin NADD.
Sidia is simply saying that PDOIS is the most flexible of all the parties. While the UDP has always been and is still rigid in mobilizing parties to endorse its party candidate without conditionality, PDOIS has agreed to surrender decision making to NADD executive members on the basis of a consensus or the people at a primary under NADD. Now PDOIS is also propagating a multiparty primary to select a single candidate for the opposition in the absence of a second round of voting. What greater ingenuity and flexibility can anyone expect from a political party, Mr. Democrat?
I hope things are clear, I now rest my case.
Suwaibou Touray
Administrative Secretary
PDOIS
SOURCE: http://www.jollofnews.com/pdois-administrative-secretary-responds-to-the-democrat.html |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2010 : 14:18:28
|
I don't think one should waist time pondering over this issue. UDP/PDOIS alliance may never become a reality as both camps have their different agendas and none would be willing to burge over their demands.
Am ofcause sure with critically analises of the situation, Any genuine lover of our homeland Gambia would buy UDP's idea because come think of it going for a primary is not only imposible but an unwise thought or unheard of.
My fellow countrymen/women
Who would finance such a primary and where would the funds come from even if it is a posibility?
Why is PDOIS insisting on a primary knowing fully well if we go by the statistics UDP have more support than it.
What are they hiding or do they expect some APRC supporters to vote for them in an event of a primary?
Under which banner/ Platform would the candidates campaign on?
If there are funds for such why not divert such funds into methanisms for a unifying force with capital to remove a biger threat to us all? Jammeh
Infact how can a primary work for parties of different dimention?
Or is PDOIS still callin UDP to join NADD?
I think that would be unwise giving the fact that the failure to have all parties under a NADD banner was due to misunderstandings between parties and those issues are still not resolved. Infact they are still escalating further between PDOIS and UDP in perticular.
Much more how many parties are today in NADD?
I have never heard in my whole life that different parties go for primary to choose a single candidate. Let someone from the PDOIS camp come up with any example world wide.
Then I would rethink my decision.otherwise I think the whole idea is to make it difficult for any opposition alliance and make some fools belief it is the UDP that is dargging its feet. So that Darboe skeptics would jump up like fools and say you see he is at it again.
Can't we Gambians be politically mature for once and see a biger Gambia that is above Darboe, Halifa, Sedia, Jammeh or anyone for that matter.
What the UDP is saying is simple the party with the large following leads a coalition for a transition period and when the common enemy is booted out, Gambians can go to the pools again to chose any party for a fresh mandate.
What is more clear than this? |
Edited by - Janyanfara on 25 Dec 2010 14:32:54 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
