 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 15 May 2011 : 15:12:30
|
UPON REVIEW AND SCRUTINY OF PRESS REPORT; IN MY OPINION THERE ARE BAFFLING STATEMENTS ON "OPPOSITION ALLIANCE" IN THIS PRESS RELEASE AND I CONSIDER IT ELECTION GIMMICKS FOR PROMOTING UDP PROPAGANDA (95% EXCLUSIVELY IN IT) 
PLEASE READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND TAKE NOTE OF PRESENTATION ESPECIALLY THESE MIXED-MESSAGES AS REPORTED;
1. "As preparations for the scheduled presidential, parliamentary and local government elections gather pace, lawyer Ousainou Darboe, leader of the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP), has told The Point that he would not rule out the possibility of an opposition alliance for the November 24th presidential polls.
"I did not hold it against any party leader for expressing his intention to contest the election under his party ticket, because I believe that they all formed parties in order to contest elections," Darboe said in an interview with our reporter yesterday.
However, he said there exists the possibility of an opposition alliance, adding that it is not only a possibility but a high probability that there is an alliance ahead of the polls."
2. "While urging those spreading the rumour to desist, the UDP leader called on all Gambians irrespective of party affiliation to go out in their large numbers to register, as it is their symbol of authority. He noted that with or without him, the UDP is a formidable force that is here to unseat the ruling APRC from office."
FOR POINTS 1 & 2. ABOVE REPORTER CONCLUDED ON THE GIMMICKS AND "WISHFUL THINKING";
"Despite Darboe's optimism about a possible opposition alliance, analysts believe the opposition has no alternative but to unite if they are to pose a credible challenge in all the polls to the ruling APRC party."
IN SEARCH OF SO SOLUTIONS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS IN SELECTED RELATED BANTABA GAMBIA POLITICS TOPICS;
1. The Opposition Have Lost Credibility - Mbarodi UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10799
2. STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10678
3. CONCEPTS OF AGENDA 2011 & PARTY-LED UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10735 |
Edited by - kobo on 15 May 2011 17:50:07 |
 |
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2011 : 23:17:20
|
"Your opinion, Moe. And you have a right to it."
Thanks a lot for giving me the time of my life Sankalanka, I like to debate heavyweights who know what they are talking about, indeed you are...............Peace
|
I am Jebel Musa better yet rock of Gibraltar,either or,still a stronghold and a Pillar commanding direction
The GPU wants Me Hunted Down for what I don't know ..... |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2011 : 00:56:46
|
It is important to note that Democracy is about a process and as flawed as the process may be, all must accept the ultimate outcome of that process. While the outcome cannot be guaranteed in anyway one must subscribe to that process and accept the results.
As flawed as the NADD process was, all parties fundamentally agreed to the principles without official objection including the registration of NADD.
Ultimately, I strongly believe that Darboe could have been the selected candidate if he had stucked with the process to the end. Off course because of the opportunities presented at the time of equal representation others wanted to explore their chances. Ultimately, primary or no primary Darboe would have been the final selected flagbearer...
There is also a difference between putting your party programs in the public domain and negotiating for a coalition. We all know negotiations takes place behind doors but programs needs to be put in the public domain for the electorates to process. Those who are afraid of freely displaying their programs may not have sophisticated ones...
So yes, NADD had some fundamental errors but it was the best chance we had of confronting the dictator...
Up until today, I don't understand why UDP would not want to go back to the NADD formula if in fact they are guaranteed the flagbearer position.... |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2011 : 02:50:55
|
quote:
"Your opinion, Moe. And you have a right to it."
Thanks a lot for giving me the time of my life Sankalanka.................Moe.
And you are welcome, Moe. I will give the credit to those who spent hours and hours, pouring over books and doing intense researches, so that people like me can use their ideas to argue and make sense. These people do all the hard work; we just borrow their ideas.
Moe, I have learnt that there are principles and laws that govern knowledge. We used these principles and laws that govern knowledge to arrive at objective conclusions. We find such principles and laws in economics, in politics, in mathematics, in science, in Law and in all aspects of knowledge.
However, where we differ is how we interpret these principles and laws. Thus our knowledge has an objective basis; and it also has a subjective basis.
This is why we differ in our opinions; and this is also why we argue and refute each other. This is also why a person can look at the sun, and still argue that it is the moon.
Just imagine President Clinton, in the Monica Lewinsky case, trying to define what Is is. Also try listening to two lawyers arguing a case and both relying on the same law. Better yet, two economists arguing why the third world is still poor. I think you get my drift.
Anyway, the pleasure has been mine too. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
admin
130 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 22:38:54
|
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 17 May 2011 15:41:07
Message:
ISSUES RELATED BANTABA GAMBIAN POLITICS TOPICS;
1. Hamat Bah to contest 2011 presidential election UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10157&whichpage=4
2. Halifa Sallah takes issue with Gov't on Libya UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10870
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 18 May 2011 11:05:15
Message:
RELATED BANTABA WORLD POLITICS TOPIC OPPOSITION CONSENSUS CANDIDATE SENEGAL UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10874
"DEMOCRACY IS WHERE ANYONE FROM ANY BACKGROUND CAN MAKE IT SO YOU DON'T LEAP FROG DEMOCRACY"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 19 May 2011 20:19:36
Message:
GPDP LEADER HENDRY GOMEZ WITH; "“Our successes and achievements, as well as our development and progress as a country depend on the taxes paid, the commitment and hard work of citizens,” Gomez, who has vowed to contest the 2011 polls under his party’s ticket further noted."
MORE FROM THE POINT NEWS Henry Gomez dissatisfied with first round of voter registration UNDER http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/henry-gomez-dissatisfied-with-first-round-of-voter-registration
THIS STATEMENT AS REPORTED COMING FROM LAWYER DARBOE (UDP LEADER) IS DEFINITELY VERY INTERESTING;
"However, he said there exists the possibility of an opposition alliance, adding that it is not only a possibility but a high probability that there is an alliance ahead of the polls."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 21 May 2011 11:57:47
Message:
WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY OPPOSITION PARTY MANIFESTO OR ELECTION GIMMICKS AGAIN BECAUSE WHAT IS STAKE IS THE STRATEGIES, TACTICS AND MOBILISATION OF A UNITED FRONT AGAINST JAMMEH/APRC PLEASE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: sankalanka
Replied on: 21 May 2011 17:59:14
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That happens to be Ousainou Darboe. Demand that all Opposition parties and aficionados rally behind Darboe, this
once and see what happens. Darboe must now take a bold move, take the bull by its horns and make deals with the
other party leaders- promise them the moon and get them on his side. Once in office, establish a union government to
run the country for a one five-year term, while putting the necessary instruments and environment in place for a free
and fair presidential poll.
"This may well be the antidote to the political impasse that currently grips the country. With this strategy, Jammeh can
have all the money, media, IEC and arms on his side and still be flushed out of office.
"Will the PPP, NRP, PDOIS leadership rally behind Darboe or would they rather see Jammeh be handed a fourth five-year term? This is question and the choice is clear to all." Dr Saine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears to me that the political discourse at this time, is heavily influenced by a narrative that seems to project a given attitude towards what is in one's favor or interest.
Nobody tries to explore the difficult questions and issues that are at the core of what supposedly are the impediments, to what some people deem to be the politically expedient and effective way to get rid of an incumbent president.
Thus the argument and the narrative has been tilted to a given perspective, that supports the contention that people should do whatever it takes to get rid of the incumbent, and then deal with the consequences later.
In this regard, numerous propositions have been proffered by leading opposition intellectual figures, that ranges from Dr.Saines idea that the leading contender for the position of President should strive to make deals with other opposition political leaders and "promise them the moon" to get them on his side.
And once in office, "establish a Union Government to run the country for a one five-year term, while putting together the necessary instruments and environment in place for a free and fair presidential poll."
Others have proposed that all opposition political leaders should coalesce behind this leading opposition political contender to get him to the State House, and then gradually negotiate the instruments that will evolve the kind of political system and society we want to build.
The only problem with all these propositions is that the leading opposition political contender, has not made any public declarations in response to these propositions. And this is necessary to build trust, and allay the fears of those who have a different approach and perspective to the whole issue.
Otherwise, it would be politics as usual, and I haven't seen anything yet that can convince me that the kind of political expediency that is being explored, can guarantee any change different from what obtained in both the first and now the second republics. It would be the same.
And the consequences would even be more dire. How is that so?
The first question to ask is: If all the political leaders coalesce around Lawyer Darboe to give him the presidency, what type of government will he agree to form?
Lawyer Darboe or the UDP has not made any public declarations yet to answer this question. Maybe this would be one of the issues they will discuss behind close doors.
The reason why this question is so paramount, is because it speaks to the desire of the people to establish a coalition government, to "run the country for a one five year term, while putting the necessary instruments and environment in place for a free and fair presidential poll."
Again the question is will Lawyer Darboe or the UDP agree to this proposal?
Although there is a constitutional provision in the UDP manifesto to change the terms of the presidency to a limit of two five year terms, but how does these changes affect lawyer Darboe if he were to assume the presidency?
Is he going to serve two five year terms, which means he will be in office for a period of ten years?
Or is he going to serve for a one five year term, in which case the provisions for a constitutional review for a two five year term will begin after he has served a one five year term? Which is which?
We will begin to resolve this issue first. There are many more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: Senegambia
Replied on: 21 May 2011 21:02:11
Message:
Sankalanka,
If the UDP does not answer any of the questions you raised, would you then prefer the incumbent to continue rather than giving Darboe the benefits of your doubt?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: sankalanka
Replied on: 21 May 2011 22:44:28
Message:
"If the UDP does not answer any of the questions you raised, would you then prefer the incumbent to continue rather than giving Darboe the benefits of your doubt?" Senegambia.
The first point to note is that I cannot give Darboe the benefits of my doubt. We are raising these issues, publicly, and he and the UDP should be in a position to respond to them. This will bring clarity to the whole argument, and thus negates any doubt that one may have.
Secondly, this is not a question of preferring that the incumbent continue or not; we are fully informed of what is going on in the country. Rather, the question is what can be different this time around, which in essence would constitute the basic appeal for one to make a choice.
There should be no doubts about anything. This will be a recipe for political rancor, political infightings, instability and everything else that can go wrong when people assume political power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: Senegambia
Replied on: 21 May 2011 23:48:44
Message:
That's where you are getting it wrong because the real issue is whether to maintain the status quo or not. If you were well informed about things happening in the country then you should know that the people in power represent everything that can go when the wrong people assume power. Therefore, maybe, pragmatism is the real way forward here. And everyboby knows that except, unfortunately, a few.
Forget your theories, look around you, and work together. Do what it takes, together, to defeat the dictator, and stop being too hypothetical about what might happen if people or a party you disagree with on some issues assume power......this time around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 22 May 2011 15:17:37
Message:
Senegambia Please don't be ridiculous with your statements above? In short, do you mean its only Lawyer Darboe with UDP who should contest general elections against Jammeh/APRC
1. Before we talk about rallying PDOIS and other mainstream opposition parties; tell me why can't UDP maintain its alliance with NRP OR GMC
2. Why can't UDP maintain its pact with allies (NRP & GMC) and are not working together against Jammeh/APRC for general elections 2011
3. Tell me when and where did PDOIS declare that; they cannot accept Lawyer Darboe to lead as flagbearer of any prospective coalition or opposition alliance
4. Please clarify what do you mean with these statements;
"That's where you are getting it wrong because the real issue is whether to maintain the status quo or not. If you were well informed about things happening in the country then you should know that the people in power represent everything that can go when the wrong people assume power. Therefore, maybe, pragmatism is the real way forward here. And everyboby knows that except, unfortunately, a few. "
5. What is "real way forward" in your views under point 4. above with; "Therefore, maybe, pragmatism is the real way forward here. And everyboby knows that except, unfortunately, a few."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: sankalanka
Replied on: 22 May 2011 16:27:07
Message:
"That's where you are getting it wrong because the real issue is whether to maintain the status quo or not."
Well, to maintain the status quo or not is really the choice of the people. That is why we have elections. It is the people who decide whether to change a status quo or maintain it. That is why it is very important, for our democratic experience to flourish that we have free and fair elections.
The opposition political parties develop alternative programs and policies, and convince the people based on these programs and policies to vote them into power, so that they can change a status quo that is inimical to their interest.
Yes, the people can change the status quo through the political parties that they can elect into office.
However, since it is not one political party but a group of political parties that are being asked to come together to change the status quo, the focus therefore shifted not only on whether to change the status quo, but also how to change the status quo by all the opposition political parties.
And that is the reason why all the questions that are being raised are germane. We just can't gloss over them. They are relevant to the issue whether we want to maintain the status quo or change it.
"If you were well informed about things happening in the country then you should know that the people in power represent everything that can go when the wrong people assume power."
I am not denying that. That is why we have 30 years of the first republic, and well over 16 years of the second republic. We don't want to repeat these realities; that is why we are asking the hard questions, probing and trying to find any issue or issues that might create a potential for things going wrong. That is all to it.
"Therefore, maybe, pragmatism is the real way forward here. And everyboby knows that except, unfortunately, a few."
Nobody is denying that pragmatism is the real way forward. But what is pragmatic?
The most impractical thing is what is being suggested that other opposition political parties do. To follow behind the UDP. This does not make any sense. It betrays the aims and aspirations of what other opposition political parties would also like to contribute.
Tell me, under a UDP coalition government, how can other opposition political leaders be able to influence government policy, if their policy objectives are different from that of the UDP?
Without a clear and cohesive national agenda, there is nothing practical and pragmatic about getting a bunch of opposition political parties, to blindly follow a leading political party just because they want to change a government. And remember, all the opposition parties have their own loyalties and their different interest persuasions.
"Forget your theories, look around you, and work together. Do what it takes, together, to defeat the dictator, and stop being too hypothetical about what might happen if people or a party you disagree with on some issues assume power......this time around."
We are just talking. There is nothing that should stop people from working together, doing what it takes to defeat a dictator.
I am not being hypothetical. The questions I am asking are real; they are germane. People may not want to answer them, but I am just asking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 22 May 2011 16:39:07
Message:
"DEMOCRACY IS WHERE ANYONE FROM ANY BACKGROUND CAN MAKE IT SO YOU DON'T LEAP FROG DEMOCRACY"
"CONSENSUS" IS NOT IMPOSED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 22 May 2011 16:44:08
Message:
"DEMOCRACY IS WHERE ANYONE FROM ANY BACKGROUND CAN MAKE IT SO YOU DON'T LEAP FROG DEMOCRACY"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: dbaldeh
Replied on: 23 May 2011 07:37:04
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sankalanka
"That's where you are getting it wrong because the real issue is whether to maintain the status quo or not."
Well, to maintain the status quo or not is really the choice of the people. That is why we have elections. It is the people who decide whether to change a status quo or maintain it. That is why it is very important, for our democratic experience to flourish that we have free and fair elections.
The opposition political parties develop alternative programs and policies, and convince the people based on these programs and policies to vote them into power, so that they can change a status quo that is inimical to their interest.
Yes, the people can change the status quo through the political parties that they can elect into office.
However, since it is not one political party but a group of political parties that are being asked to come together to change the status quo, the focus therefore shifted not only on whether to change the status quo, but also how to change the status quo by all the opposition political parties.
And that is the reason why all the questions that are being raised are germane. We just can't gloss over them. They are relevant to the issue whether we want to maintain the status quo or change it.
"If you were well informed about things happening in the country then you should know that the people in power represent everything that can go when the wrong people assume power."
I am not denying that. That is why we have 30 years of the first republic, and well over 16 years of the second republic. We don't want to repeat these realities; that is why we are asking the hard questions, probing and trying to find any issue or issues that might create a potential for things going wrong. That is all to it.
"Therefore, maybe, pragmatism is the real way forward here. And everyboby knows that except, unfortunately, a few."
Nobody is denying that pragmatism is the real way forward. But what is pragmatic?
The most impractical thing is what is being suggested that other opposition political parties do. To follow behind the UDP. This does not make any sense. It betrays the aims and aspirations of what other opposition political parties would also like to contribute.
Tell me, under a UDP coalition government, how can other opposition political leaders be able to influence government policy, if their policy objectives are different from that of the UDP?
Without a clear and cohesive national agenda, there is nothing practical and pragmatic about getting a bunch of opposition political parties, to blindly follow a leading political party just because they want to change a government. And remember, all the opposition parties have their own loyalties and their different interest persuasions.
"Forget your theories, look around you, and work together. Do what it takes, together, to defeat the dictator, and stop being too hypothetical about what might happen if people or a party you disagree with on some issues assume power......this time around."
We are just talking. There is nothing that should stop people from working together, doing what it takes to defeat a dictator.
I am not being hypothetical. The questions I am asking are real; they are germane. People may not want to answer them, but I am just asking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sankalanka, you made some great points in responding to Senegambia's questions.
I think though you have missed the point Senegambia is trying to make...
Yes, we all know in an ideal democratic level playing field, political party's should not be rallying behind other parties to unseat the incumbent. After all, political parties are form to individually change the status quo and unseat a seating gov't on their own merits.
However, in our situation where the sitting government is in total control of state machinery including national media, opposition parties have the slightest chance of winning individually. It has been a trend from the first republic to the second republic for the government to monopolize national development and threaten citizens or regions that oppose them. Thus some of these regions have been left ruined because they are oppose to the government.
We also know that the only thing that motivated citizens to vote against the government was a reasonable believe that there were a formidable force that could defeat the government. Thus when the NADD coalition had tactical alliance for the bye-elections after parliamentary seats were vacated, the people came out and were motivated to vote. There was no sign of voter apathy at the time.
However, when NADD fractured we saw the results during the presidential and parliamentary elections. The pundits analysed the results as voter apathy. While voters may not be sophisticated enough to gauge between party policies, they are well aware that coming out and voting against the government has serious consequencies from the community level to livelihoods (jobs)etc. It could mean between being counted as a part of the community or being subject to all sorts of harrassments.
So knowing that no single party can unseat the government, and understanding that the only option is to come together or go with the status quo, opposition leaders are expected to put their differences aside and rally behind the most feasible way to challenge the government.
We know there is nothing guaranteed that rallying behind the UDP will solve our political problems... but at the very least PDOIS and other parties can demand concrete agreements be signed by the UDP leadership upon their support in the national interest and for the necessary reforms to be undertaking upon victory.
It is a fact that when brains like Halifa, Sedia, Hamat, OJ, Mai Fatty and many others seriously sits down with Darboe and demand concrete steps, something will work out. Off course again, there is no guarantee that the UDP will honor these agreements, but at the very least it is reasonable to assume that it would be more practical to deal with a Darboe lead government than Jammeh.
Sankalanka, it is equally true that a government led by Halifa and OJ may not be any different from one that would be led by Darboe. So no single opposition leader can convince people that they know what will happen in a future government. We must take incremental steps and continue to apply pressure for change.
In fact, I thought the biggest mistake that was made by NADD MOU was its attempt to change personalities, systems, the constitution etc all with one shot change. This would be great if it can be achieved but it appears almost unrealistic.
Other questions that opposition leaders and parties must answer especially PDOIS is why they continue to use the same old political tactics of voter education without breaking through the electorates... for over 20 years PDOIS pretty much have not been able to break through the electoral map. Yes, everyone respect their intellect and knowledge, but until they are in a position where they can influence policy I have a doubt that they can make a serious difference in our political landscape.
For the record I have been known here to be a strong supporter of the NADD idea as it was initially presented. I thought it gave us the best chance of winning or at least convincing electorates that there was a reason to vote opposition..
But, I have my skepticism of the PDOIS policies into making electoral difference. For the life of me, I don't understand why they insist on Primaries to select a leader when there has never been any primary in the Gambia and in fact it is not anywhere in our electoral laws. I stand to be corrected...
So when I supported the NADD coalition I expected the process to take its full course and the appropriate leaders selected to lead the coalition. Without any doubt the UDP had the best chance of mobilizing electorates with the support of other parties. In fact the UDP are a combination of all other opposition remnance except off course PDOIS... So they are more of a diverse party because they had former PPP, GPP, NCP members who were more likely to ganner support across the country...
Off course I have my reservations about the steps the UDP leadership have taken to solicit support from the smaller parties. I strongly believe they have not taken the leadership needed to gather everybody... but that is because I think Darboe is surrounded by the wrong political force to get his party to the next level...
I will continue on this subject as time permits.... Thanks for sharing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 23 May 2011 15:18:25
Message:
[quote]Originally posted by dbaldeh
I think though you have missed the point Senegambia is trying to make...
1.What point is missed by Sankalanka?
2.Senegambia is required to substantiate or clarify his opinions, views and comments?
3. I don't think your thoughts and views expressed below are same as Senegambia's?
Yes, we all know in an ideal democratic level playing field, political party's should not be rallying behind other parties to unseat the incumbent. After all, political parties are form to individually change the status quo and unseat a seating gov't on their own merits.
1. No registered political party would dare take any risks of "rallying behind other parties" at its own peril?
2. On point 1. further, instead of "rally behind other parties"; political parties are free to form coalitions, alliances and "mergers"?
3. On point 2. also, its about political parties gaining a common ground, as allies, for teamwork, partnership and solidarity towards the common goal but not "rallying behind the other"?
4. On point 3. That's why they resort to review of policies, making decisive, strategic, tactical decisions, resolutions for change; as dictated by political situation, circumstances and in compliance with The Constitution?
However, in our situation where the sitting government is in total control of state machinery including national media, opposition parties have the slightest chance of winning individually. It has been a trend from the first republic to the second republic for the government to monopolize national development and threaten citizens or regions that oppose them. Thus some of these regions have been left ruined because they are oppose to the government.
1. Opposition parties can form a United National Front, Grand Coalition, an Alliance or sensitized on "peoples alliance for a NATIONAL MISSION" to mobilised mass support?
We also know that the only thing that motivated citizens to vote against the government was a reasonable believe that there were a formidable force that could defeat the government. Thus when the NADD coalition had tactical alliance for the bye-elections after parliamentary seats were vacated, the people came out and were motivated to vote. There was no sign of voter apathy at the time
1. 2011 is same status-quo or worst sagas than 2006?
2. NADD is ever relevant today than 2006?
However, when NADD fractured we saw the results during the presidential and parliamentary elections. The pundits analysed the results as voter apathy. While voters may not be sophisticated enough to gauge between party policies, they are well aware that coming out and voting against the government has serious consequencies from the community level to livelihoods (jobs)etc. It could mean between being counted as a part of the community or being subject to all sorts of harrassments.
1. Let them addressed all SHORT-COMINGS AND REVAMP NADD TO MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE?
So knowing that no single party can unseat the government, and understanding that the only option is to come together or go with the status quo, opposition leaders are expected to put their differences aside and rally behind the most feasible way to challenge the government.
1. What is more feasible than a UNITED NATIONAL FRONT, A "NATIONAL ALLIANCE", A "GRAND COALITION" OR "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES"?
2. EXPLAIN HOW YOU DIGEST THIS DECLARATION BELOW?
"We ask all our citizens to be an integral part of the change they seek by getting involved in whatever capacity suits them. Change is always a difficult task and along the way it is easy to become despondent, fearful, tired, angry, and sometimes be tempted to throw in the towel. But because the cause we have embarked upon is a just one that must be pursued, we must all strive harder to achieve these important goals. We however, can do it only if we come together as one and face the opponent. This cause is bigger than any individual or group of individuals."UDP Leader/Lawyer Ousanou Darboe
We know there is nothing guaranteed that rallying behind the UDP will solve our political problems... but at the very least PDOIS and other parties can demand concrete agreements be signed by the UDP leadership upon their support in the national interest and for the necessary reforms to be undertaking upon victory.
1. NADD'S MOU and framework catered for everything that opposition parties can bank on to serve national interest; in my opinion?
2. Note that for point 1. arguments revolves around; interpretation, leadership, registration amongst other conflicts of interests?
3. If you dis-agree to point 1 & 2 please review NADD MOU and forward your observations, defects, weaknesses,etc?
It is a fact that when brains like Halifa, Sedia, Hamat, OJ, Mai Fatty and many others seriously sits down with Darboe and demand concrete steps, something will work out. Off course again, there is no guarantee that the UDP will honor these agreements, but at the very least it is reasonable to assume that it would be more practical to deal with a Darboe lead government than Jammeh.
1. Why can't they sit together; formally?
2. Who is stopping them from rallying together?
3. What is stopping them from having a round table conference/meeting of mainstream opposition parties to consider together the agenda and strategies for 2011; against Jammeh/APRC or salvaging the country?
4. Please note that am note referring to PDOIS agenda 2011 under point 3. above?
5 If that meeting is scheduled each political party; especially UDP & PDOIS defend its position and resolutions?
Sankalanka, it is equally true that a government led by Halifa and OJ may not be any different from one that would be led by Darboe. So no single opposition leader can convince people that they know what will happen in a future government. We must take incremental steps and continue to apply pressure for change.
1. In my opinion "UNIFYING FACTOR OF THE NATION"; "WITHOUT FEAR & FAVOUR" amongst other leadership qualities are tests or criteria for most outstanding credible leader?
2. Sankalnka's points covered change through a democratic political process? So this applies"DEMOCRACY IS WHERE ANYONE FROM ANY BACKGROUND CAN MAKE IT SO YOU DON'T LEAP FROG DEMOCRACY"
In fact, I thought the biggest mistake that was made by NADD MOU was its attempt to change personalities, systems, the constitution etc all with one shot change. This would be great if it can be achieved but it appears almost unrealistic.
1. I totally disagree with you?
2. Am not convinced that NADD'S MOU; espeially if they are in power cannot be achieved within 5 years?
Other questions that opposition leaders and parties must answer especially PDOIS is why they continue to use the same old political tactics of voter education without breaking through the electorates... for over 20 years PDOIS pretty much have not been able to break through the electoral map. Yes, everyone respect their intellect and knowledge, but until they are in a position where they can influence policy I have a doubt that they can make a serious difference in our political landscape.
1. Again I dis-agree for they are as vibrant as any political party? It was PDOIS that is supporting NADD, which was the only opposition party fighting two by-elections against APRC; boy-cotted by other opposition parties?
2. PDOIS greatly influenced many policies of both old and new order? History is the judge for they are legends in our political development?
3. Remember PPPP' popularity and strong net-works are same life blood feeding A.P.RC, U.D.P & N.R.P?
4. Politics of patronage, opportunism, power and money counts amongst others for electorates?
5. HALIFA SALLAH WITH PDOIS POSITION;"I don't know how the term (a divided opposition) emerged. A multi-party system presupposes the existence of many parties. Political parties are bound to have divergent views. If people want coalitions, they should just advocate for it without castigating the opposition. Coalitions are strategic and tactical instruments. Their nature and characteristics are determined by the realities on the ground. We stand for the creation of a grand alliance for change. Others may wish to stand alone."
"The alliance of all forces that want change is indispensable, if change is to be effected. All those who sincerely want change must work to create a grand Alliance for change."
For the record I have been known here to be a strong supporter of the NADD idea as it was initially presented. I thought it gave us the best chance of winning or at least convincing electorates that there was a reason to vote opposition..
1. That dream is still alive for others?
But, I have my skepticism of the PDOIS policies into making electoral difference. For the life of me, I don't understand why they insist on Primaries to select a leader when there has never been any primary in the Gambia and in fact it is not anywhere in our electoral laws. I stand to be corrected...
1. There are reasons for that proposal because they want to seek a "consensus candidate" from people; as power belong to the people?
2. I will deal with the proposal of "primary" later?
3. Opposition parties don't need resources of government or IEC to conduct proposed "primaries"?
So when I supported the NADD coalition I expected the process to take its full course and the appropriate leaders selected to lead the coalition. Without any doubt the UDP had the best chance of mobilizing electorates with the support of other parties. In fact the UDP are a combination of all other opposition remnance except off course PDOIS... So they are more of a diverse party because they had former PPP, GPP, NCP members who were more likely to ganner support across the country...
1. NADD is effective as a grand coalition, "National Alliance" or "Merger of political parties" owned by coalition partners; big or small?
2. Selection of leader and flag bearer is provided under its MOU?
3. UDP may be considered a senior partner or major opposition party but coalition and alliances became effective or work with other key players?
Off course I have my reservations about the steps the UDP leadership have taken to solicit support from the smaller parties. I strongly believe they have not taken the leadership needed to gather everybody... but that is because I think Darboe is surrounded by the wrong political force to get his party to the next level...
1. They have not done homework properly for 2011?
2. Your thoughts shows poor leadership and UDP weak to govern?
3. On point 2. UDP cannot even motivate NRP or GMC to work with them for 2011?
4. On point 3. (and failures of UDP as major opposition that cannot woo support to salvage country)? Interesting to hear these contradictions and having failed peoples' aspirations under NDADD;
i. "However, he said there exists the possibility of an opposition alliance, adding that it is not only a possibility but a high probability that there is an alliance ahead of the polls." DARBOE UDP LEADER
ii."NRP LEADER Hamat Bah responded: "No, no I don’t want to go into that. And let me tell one thing, NRP would contest all the seats in the coming elections in 2012. But I am not concerned much with the issue of parliament; it is not a consideration for me. I want to be at the State House."
iii. GPDP LEADER "“Our successes and achievements, as well as our development and progress as a country depend on the taxes paid, the commitment and hard work of citizens,” Gomez, who has vowed to contest the 2011 polls under his party’s ticket further noted."
iv. HALIFA SALLAH PDOIS"I don't know how the term (a divided opposition) emerged. A multi-party system presupposes the existence of many parties. Political parties are bound to have divergent views. If people want coalitions, they should just advocate for it without castigating the opposition. Coalitions are strategic and tactical instruments. Their nature and characteristics are determined by the realities on the ground. We stand for the creation of a grand alliance for change. Others may wish to stand alone."
"The alliance of all forces that want change is indispensable, if change is to be effected. All those who sincerely want change must work to create a grand Alliance for change."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 23 May 2011 16:31:36
Message:
Why are you people trying to suffocate us with WHAT CAN BE OR CANNOT BE GUARANTEED in politics as if GUARANTEE is the sole purpose in the exercise of uniting the opposition towards pitching a consensus candidate to contest the next elections. There is no guarantees in politics my friend. What we are working to archieve is formula that engenders THE MOST MINIMAL RISKS posssible against a revert to dictatorship and autocracy. Regime change is subject to the wishes of of the majority of the Gambian masses who voted Jammeh into office for three consecutive terms. You cannot impose regime change on them. Those who believe that they can force a change of regime on the majority are simply delusional. Nobody can take away from the Gambian people, the right to their conscience and free will to vote whom so ever they choose to put in power.
If anybody thinks that imposing Darboe and the UDP is the best solution and method towards toppling the Jammeh regime then, by all means go ahead. Last time we bothered to check, the masses have rejected him as a leader of UDP and a UDP-LED ALLIANCE overwhelmingly in three elections. What exactly have changed since then? Was not a UDP-LED ALLIANCE rejected to near contempt by the Gambian masses in 2006? I for one will not join you in your delusions neither will concientious citizens across the board, in your attempt to impose a constitutional coup d'etat on the Gambian people.
If on the other hand we are looking for a consensus candidate across the political divide with the objective of widening the choice available by inviting candidates from a cross section of the Gambian populace to lead a transitional government of five years or less, around a well defined consensus document or charter then, i believe we have a way forward. This idea is a winner in that not only will it be attractive to regular voters but has the potential to appeal to those who had abstained from voting in the past for one reason or the other. The winning formula to defeat Jammeh will eventually derive from widening the scope of choice available to the people than what currently obtain in the opposition. Limiting the choice to Darboe and Sallah or UDP and PDOIS as the Gambia diaspora is hell-bent on doing will not change nothing. Consensus would have to be derived from a cross section of Gambian society to wield any strong effect in toppling Jammeh. So it is about bloody time we put aside our selfish and nepotistic agendas and work toward embracing the best consensus formula with minimum risk against yielding us anarchy, dictatorship and servitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 23 May 2011 17:05:24
Message:
BTW Sanka, thanks for you brilliant and astute ideas and contributions to this debate as always. They say, if you know where you are going, you are already there. You certainly know where you are going.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 23 May 2011 17:11:19
Message:
THE WINNING FORMULA IS FOR DARBOE AND UDP TO STOP LENDING ITS EARS TO DAFFEH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: sankalanka
Replied on: 23 May 2011 17:14:53
Message:
Dbaldeh,
I am in agreement with most of what you said. Where I have a problem is the manner in which we are attempting to bring about change, without taking any due consideration to some of the problems that will take us right back to where we are now or before.
I strongly believe that a political response to the Gambia's political situation then and now, should be tempered by reason, tolerance and commitment. It should be an opportunity to start building the foundations for a true and viable representative democracy, that will bring the best of our sons and daughters to willingly participate in its process.
We all share a geographic space that we call the Gambia; and we also share a destiny that is mutually binding, to the extend that when we are imperil by political instability everyone stands to loose. We see examples of what is happening in other countries in our subregion, particularly the Ivory Coast.
Therefore, taking into consideration our diversity, it is fundamental that there is a viable mechanism in which power can be instituted; power can be shared and power can be transferred. In this respect, all the structures that enhance the monopoly of power by one person or by one group, should be critically looked into.
Secondly, since all of us belong to different groupings; belong to different interest groups, and may profess different belief systems; and since we are obligated by our shared destiny to live together, to interact with one another, to pursue our different cultures and religions in an atmosphere of peace and tolerance, we should find the best way in which we can all cohabit peacefully.
We are all endowed with the gift of life; therefore nobody should take the life of another. We are all endowed with the gift of freewill; therefore nobody should restrict the ability of another to be free. We are all blessed with the liberty to do what we please, but such a liberty should come with its limitations.
It is within the context of the above, that a constitution is framed to articulate a relationship, that binds everyone as to their rights and obligations, their duties and their responsibilities.
It is this constitution that a nation and its people owe allegiance to. It is this constitution that can promote stability and goodwill; that can hold a nation together, or break a nation apart.
It is against this background, Dbaldeh, that I am on the side of extreme caution to negotiate a coalition that will see us elect a president, who will inherit all the structures that enhance the monopoly of power, and make that person no less different from either the first or second. And this can easily happen under our present system if one is elected president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: turk
Replied on: 23 May 2011 17:26:35
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shaka
Why are you people trying to suffocate us with WHAT CAN BE OR CANNOT BE GUARANTEED in politics as if GUARANTEE is the sole purpose in the exercise of uniting the opposition towards pitching a consensus candidate to contest the next elections. There is no guarantees in politics my friend. What we are working to archieve is formula that engenders THE MOST MINIMAL RISKS posssible against a revert to dictatorship and autocracy. Regime change is subject to the wishes of of the majority of the Gambian masses who voted Jammeh into office for three consecutive terms. You cannot impose regime change on them. Those who believe that they can force a change of regime on the majority are simply delusional. Nobody can take away from the Gambian people, the right to their conscience and free will to vote whom so ever they choose to put in power.
If anybody thinks that imposing Darboe and the UDP is the best solution and method towards toppling the Jammeh regime then, by all means go ahead. Last time we bothered to check, the masses have rejected him as a leader of UDP and a UDP-LED ALLIANCE overwhelmingly in three elections. What exactly have changed since then? Was not a UDP-LED ALLIANCE rejected to near contempt by the Gambian masses in 2006? I for one will not join you in your delusions neither will concientious citizens across the board, in your attempt to impose a constitutional coup d'etat on the Gambian people.
If on the other hand we are looking for a consensus candidate across the political divide with the objective of widening the choice available by inviting candidates from a cross section of the Gambian populace to lead a transitional government of five years or less, around a well defined consensus document or charter then, i believe we have a way forward. This idea is a winner in that not only will it be attractive to regular voters but has the potential to appeal to those who had abstained from voting in the past for one reason or the other. The winning formula to defeat Jammeh will eventually derive from widening the scope of choice available to the people than what currently obtain in the opposition. Limiting the choice to Darboe and Sallah or UDP and PDOIS as the Gambia diaspora is hell-bent on doing will not change nothing. Consensus would have to be derived from a cross section of Gambian society to wield any strong effect in toppling Jammeh. So it is about bloody time we put aside our selfish and nepotistic agendas and work toward embracing the best consensus formula with minimum risk against yielding us anarchy, dictatorship and servitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanka and Shaka. Excellent points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 23 May 2011 17:32:08
Message:
FOR THE GAMBIA OUR HOMELAND!
1. ONE GAMBIA ONE NATION
2. A UNITED NATIONAL FRONT
3. "BENNO SIGIL GAMBIA!"
4.A "NATIONAL ALLIANCE" FOR THE PEOPLE & OWNED BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS POTENTIALLY FOR ALL MAINSTREAM OPPOSITION PARTIES; ESPECIALLY UDP, NRP, GMC, PDOIS, NADD, PPP, NCP & GPDP; SUPPORTED BY ALL OPPONENTS WITH A NATIONAL MISSION; LEAD BY ALL CREDIBLE PARTY LEADERS IS THE DEAL = A GRAND COALITION & "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: Karamba
Replied on: 23 May 2011 21:46:27
Message:
Is Jammeh never tired of misleading or Gambians tired of being misled?
To be sincere and caring, a sensible Yaya Jammeh would be seen dusting off the seat he glued himslef on for too long. Man, you don't wait for trouble. Those who sing and dance for you will kick you, you Yaya Jammeh when things turn sour and bitter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 23 May 2011 23:07:31
Message:
1. MAAFANTA.COM WITH UDP LEADER MR. OUSAINOU DARBOE IS BEING BLACKMAILED ONCE AGAIN by Guess who? - by Seedy Hydara UNDER http://www.maafanta.com/SeedyHydaraUDPOusainuBlackmailedbyYaya.html
2. RELATED BANTABA GAMBIAN POLITICS TOPIC Karamba Touray: Implications Of Divided Opposition UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: dbaldeh
Replied on: 24 May 2011 02:04:51
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sankalanka
Dbaldeh,
I am in agreement with most of what you said. Where I have a problem is the manner in which we are attempting to bring about change, without taking any due consideration to some of the problems that will take us right back to where we are now or before.
I strongly believe that a political response to the Gambia's political situation then and now, should be tempered by reason, tolerance and commitment. It should be an opportunity to start building the foundations for a true and viable representative democracy, that will bring the best of our sons and daughters to willingly participate in its process.
We all share a geographic space that we call the Gambia; and we also share a destiny that is mutually binding, to the extend that when we are imperil by political instability everyone stands to loose. We see examples of what is happening in other countries in our subregion, particularly the Ivory Coast.
Therefore, taking into consideration our diversity, it is fundamental that there is a viable mechanism in which power can be instituted; power can be shared and power can be transferred. In this respect, all the structures that enhance the monopoly of power by one person or by one group, should be critically looked into.
Secondly, since all of us belong to different groupings; belong to different interest groups, and may profess different belief systems; and since we are obligated by our shared destiny to live together, to interact with one another, to pursue our different cultures and religions in an atmosphere of peace and tolerance, we should find the best way in which we can all cohabit peacefully.
We are all endowed with the gift of life; therefore nobody should take the life of another. We are all endowed with the gift of freewill; therefore nobody should restrict the ability of another to be free. We are all blessed with the liberty to do what we please, but such a liberty should come with its limitations.
It is within the context of the above, that a constitution is framed to articulate a relationship, that binds everyone as to their rights and obligations, their duties and their responsibilities.
It is this constitution that a nation and its people owe allegiance to. It is this constitution that can promote stability and goodwill; that can hold a nation together, or break a nation apart.
It is against this background, Dbaldeh, that I am on the side of extreme caution to negotiate a coalition that will see us elect a president, who will inherit all the structures that enhance the monopoly of power, and make that person no less different from either the first or second. And this can easily happen under our present system if one is elected president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sankalanka, thanks again for your contribution and for looking at the bigger picture on what bind us as a people and nation. I am in agreement with most if not all your points...
I am equally concern on how we bring about change to Gambia's present situation which I think is inevitable. Now, we as a people have a choice in shaping that change... we either get actively involved in bringing that change in a peaceful way or we sit by and watch change come to us without our consent.
Off course history has shown us that if the citizens look the other way and failed to take their destiny in their own hands, then the results is a force change like the AFPRC that was imposed upon us by junior officers who have no clue in running a government. Because of all the desperation at the time many embraced the change at the time and few skeptics had their doubts but decided to give change the chance with benefit of the doubt...
Now my questions are kind of similar to your questions... again in a perfect scenario it would be ideal to work to achieve the change we desire, but would we rather have an incremental change where we can improve our systems of governance as time goes or sit by and allow our people to be subjected to human slavery?
Sankalanka, am sure you will agree with me that a future Gambia will never be the same again as it is right now... the Gambian masses and elites will no longer sit by and allow their people to be dominated by mediocres as we have seen in Gambia today. No matter what government comes to power the situation would not be the same again.
So my questions to you is, what is the way forward for Gambia out of this political stalemate? In the absent of a system where citizens have the capacity and means to change their government what is the alternative?
Do we sit by again and wait for some junior arm men to come by and topple our regime or do we choice to go with a NOT SO PERFECT constitutional government where change can be increamentally applied?
Those of us who choose to be in the front for fighting change are well aware that a change of government would NOT be the end to this battle to free our people of mental dominance.
So would we rather go with what is imperfect for now, continue to aspire for a perfect system while allowing this regime to continue to ruin the fundamentals of our society?
If PDOIS or UDP or NRP cannot individually convince the electorate to vote them into power, doesn't it make sense to find a way no matter how imperfect it is to begin a new chapter in our political struggle?
It is fundamental that the current leadership of these parties think about their legacies and how history will judge them when everything seems ripe for the political change we need to begin the actual process of restoring genuine constitutional rule in Gambia. Currently we have a scape goat of a constitution that exists but not being followed...
What say you????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: sankalanka
Replied on: 24 May 2011 11:00:21
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"....Now my questions are kind of similar to your questions... again in a perfect scenario it would be ideal to work to achieve the change we desire, but would we rather have an incremental change where we can improve our systems of governance as time goes or sit by and allow our people to be subjected to human slavery?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dbaldeh, think about it, the very idea of change constitute a process. It cannot happen in a vacuum. People cannot just will change, and it happens. That is why a situation starts by evolving, coming to be; and in the process of evolving, coming to be, all the contradictions that are inherent in that process, of coming to be, creates a break in that process.
When there is a break in that process, of coming to be, then we have an act of revolting. This act of revolting begins a new process, a new coming to be; and that is how change is facilitated. And depending on all the factors that are inherent in its contradictions; a change can be spontaneous or it can reach its boiling point.
So there is nothing like incremental change. There is only change.
You start a process, and then try to resolve all the contradictions within that process; then the process of evolving, the process of coming to be, will continue uninterrupted. It is the contradictions that are inherent in the process of evolving, the process of coming to be, that creates its revolution.
So change can happen as an act of revolution; and change can happen as a result of resolving all the contradictions that are inherent in its process.
This brings me to your other contention. "...An incremental change where we improve our system of governance as time goes on..."
We cannot improve our system of governance as time goes on. If that was the case, it would have been done in the first republic, and better yet in the second republic. Then we would not be sitting here today talking about change, or improving our system of governance.
How many years have elapsed? More than 45 years. How then can it occur to us now, that we can improve our system of governance as time goes on. Time will always go on for ever.
No, Dbaldeh. You want to improve our system of governance, you facilitate a process to do just that.
First, you try to ascertain everything that is wrong with our system of governance. Second, you articulate a vision and a detailed prescription of how you want to improve our system of governance. And lastly, you put in place the mechanism that will help you to achieve that goal. I think this is a more realistic approach. Just wishing that we can improve our system of governance as time goes on, is not going to make it happen anytime soon.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sankalanka, am sure you will agree with me that a future Gambia will never be the same again as it is right now... the Gambian masses and elites will no longer sit by and allow their people to be dominated by mediocres as we have seen in Gambia today. No matter what government comes to power the situation would not be the same again."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure I can share your optimism. I haven't seen anything that has changed yet to lend credence to that argument. I have not been to the Gambia for a very long time until recently; apart from structural and physical changes, I haven't seen any changes in people's attitude to politics, neither has there been any changes in the political culture prevalent since time immemorial. The people are just the same.
Any government that comes to power under the same circumstances, will just be the same. You want to change that situation, you do something different. It is as simple as that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So my questions to you is, what is the way forward for Gambia out of this political stalemate? In the absent of a system where citizens have the capacity and means to change their government what is the alternative?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are starting from a wrong premise. There is a system in which the citizens have the capacity and means to change their government. You may not agree with it. You may argue that it is the wrong system, that it is a bad system, that it is whatever...nonetheless, it is the system that is in place. You want to change that system, you then give the people a choice, for a better alternative.
As to the question, what is the way forward for Gambia out of this political stalemate? To give you my honest answer, I don't think there is a political stalemate.
To infer that means there has been a contest of ideas; a battle of minds and wits to find the way forward for Gambia. None of that has happened. All the arguments are coming from one side.
To advance this debate further, it has to assume a national character, and argued from the standpoint of not one partisan viewpoint, but a bipartisan approach to reach a consensus.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do we sit by again and wait for some junior arm men to come by and topple our regime or do we choice to go with a NOT SO PERFECT constitutional government where change can be increamentally applied?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just don't buy this argument. It is too superficial. It is not as if people don't have a choice. They do. Are we giving them the right choices? Probably not. Who, therefore, to blame?
Your not so perfect constitutional government can be made perfect. There is nothing like incremental changes, as I argued previously. There is only change. You change a government. You change a constitutional provision. All these changes are facilitated by a process. People argue; they debate; they agree; they come to a consensus, and they facilitate change.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those of us who choice to be in the front for fighting change are well aware that a change of government would NOT be the end to this battle to free our people of mental dominance."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I applaud your commitment to be in the front in fighting for change. And also your battle to free our people from mental dominance.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So would we rather go with what is imperfect for now, continue to aspire for a perfect system while allowing this regime to continue to ruin the fundamentals of our society?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is imperfect for now? Is it the system we have in place, and that which you will continue when you succeed in prosecuting change? And what are the fundamentals of our society that the regime continue to ruin? And how are you going to safeguard these fundamentals of our society from ruin?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If PDOIS or UDP or NRP cannot individually convince the electorate to vote them into power, doesn't it make sense to find a way no matter how imperfect it is to begin a new chapter in our political struggle?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that is what some people are trying to do, find a way to begin a new chapter in this political struggle. Why is it not achieving the desired result? May be the approach could be wrong. We all can have our different take on the matter.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is fundamental that the current leadership of these parties think about their legacies and how history will judge them when everything seems ripe for the political change we need to begin the actual process of restoring genuine constitutional rule in Gambia. Currently we have a scape goat of a constitution that exists but not being followed..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting observation. Points noted.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What say you????
Baldeh,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: terangba
Replied on: 25 May 2011 14:34:02
Message:
Shaka
Do you mean to tell me you rather see APRC rule continue rather than see UDP in its present form in power?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 25 May 2011 15:17:59
Message:
Teranga. With due respect; you are out of touch with issues covered by Shaka.
Why coming up with this question? How can we "see UDP in its present form in power?"
Well done Sankalanka for your great lectures!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 25 May 2011 15:37:06
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by terangba
Shaka
Do you mean to tell me you rather see APRC rule continue rather than see UDP in its present form in power?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you define "UDP in its present form" if you know? Because i don't know. Only then can i answer your question. By the way, i have not put nor help put APRC in power. Never have and never will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: Senegambia
Replied on: 25 May 2011 16:24:47
Message:
Terangba,
You raised a simple straightforward question. But it looks like you are getting no answers to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 25 May 2011 16:45:12
Message:
You wouldn't know the meanining of 'straightforward' even if it slaps you ten time on the face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: Senegambia
Replied on: 25 May 2011 17:05:20
Message:
Hahaha! OK.
Now, stick to the issue and stop the cover-ups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 25 May 2011 17:22:38
Message:
You are just intellectually lazy. I am sure Terangba would want to provoke thoughts from me as much as i would from him. So bug off and allow adults deal with issues. Hana naj bi tanguut in your side of town?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: turk
Replied on: 25 May 2011 17:45:58
Message:
'devil you know' vs 'devil you have no clue whatsoever'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: toubab1020
Replied on: 25 May 2011 17:57:38
Message:
What a great place for "Discussion" Bantaba in Cyberspace is "So bug off and allow adults deal with issues." some may well think that this is a comment that a 15year old may make,I could not possibly comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 25 May 2011 18:32:19
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by toubab1020
What a great place for "Discussion" Bantaba in Cyberspace is "So bug off and allow adults deal with issues." some may well think that this is a comment that a 15year old may make,I could not possibly comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toubab ham nga lan la!! Da ma nyaye sen kerr deh!! Yow dang ma buga yap!! Naff off will you!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: terangba
Replied on: 25 May 2011 20:44:53
Message:
What I meant by UDP in its present form is Darboe as the leader/President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 25 May 2011 22:41:26
Message:
Let Darboe impose himself as leader/President. Its easy to be President of Bar Association than President of Republic of The Gambia; under Jammeh,s watch?
TALK ABOUT STRATEGIES, TACTICS, ISSUES AND CHALLENGES RATHER THAN PROLONGING DISCUSSIONS ON CHEAP NOMINATIONS AND PAMPERING?
TOPIC IS ABOUT VALIDATING; "DARBOE HOPEFUL OF OPPOSITION ALLIANCE"
NO ONE IS STOPPING DARBOE WITH HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN TO BE PRESIDENT AS UDP LEADER LIKE HAMAT BAH AND HENDRY GOMEZ FOR GAMBIA IS MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: toubab1020
Replied on: 25 May 2011 22:45:27
Message:
"Toubab ham nga lan la!! Da ma nyaye sen kerr deh!! Yow dang ma buga yap!! Naff off will you!!"
There I WAS right,wasn't I SHAKA ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 25 May 2011 23:36:47
Message:
ONCE MORE PLEASE REVIEW THESE SOUND STATEMENTS FROM ITS TOPIC ALREADY INCORPORATED HERE;
"Karamba Touray Calls on Opposition Leaders to Draw deep into their resevoir of Selflessness and Patriotism to save the Country!
Significant worry has set in the hearts of many of us who support the respective political parties opposed to the regime of Yahya Jammeh.Individually and as civic minded groups, Gambians of all stripes have tried to work towards a cohesive unified front that would offer our people a clear alternative to a regime they instinctively know is not right for them.Here in the US, like minded Gambians began working years ago begining with late night telephone conversations and evolving to enthusiastic gatherings such as the overflow crowd in an Atlanta meeting hall where representatives of opposition political parties met an eager constituency not dissimilar to the ones right there in The Gambia.
The bond between the frontline politicians present in that meeting and the cross section of ordinary Gambians from across the US and Europe was palpable . In the voices of the speakers and the eyes of the audience one sensed a deep yearning for a Gambia that was led by selfless honorable men anchored on democracy and the rule of law.
We had hoped to build on that air of optimism to execute a simple but critical proposition which has at it's heart a grand coalition of all the parties to effect regime change and establish a plural democracy that was functional with the requisite institutions and checks and balances.Despite the best efforts of a lot Gambians and non Gambian friends of our country, we have simply failed to have all the opposition political parties sign on to a straight forward arrangement.
I will not discuss any of the reasons advanced for the lack a united opposition because in the main it really doesn't matter what the reasons are. Considering the existential problems the nation faces at this juncture,no reason is good enough to risk the fate of a people that have already suffered enough under a regime whose failings are not up for debate.A temporary arrangement to persuade a plurality of Gambian voters to change course shouldn't take more than a weekend of meetings among the handful of opposition parties whose prinicipal figures live in the same metro area.
It is disheartening to us ordinary citizens that arranging simple face to face meetings become arduos months long prodding and coaxing exercises with uncertain outcomes. The net result has been costly and has precitipated a significant enthusiacism gap and in some instances a real crisis of confidence.
Each political party can rightly claim confidence in the validity of their policy prescriptions for the nation or that theirs is superior to that of the others and that the practice of democracy requires that those claims be tested in the political arena and they will be right. But what is also true is the fact that only regime change would bring about a competitive testing of ideas since the agents of change themselves would be the contestants in the vastly inproved democratic space they would have created. Therefore investing in regime change by putting aside differences and fears would deliver the democracy dividend that would benefit the Gambain people and by extension the parties and people who seek to lead them.
What is clearly harmful to both the nation opposition political parties is a divided slate of candidates running what would amount to quixotic campaigns with a lot of their potential voters or supporters heartbroken, infuriated or both. To pursue a strategy whose only outcome can be failure is not worthy of great men who we know have and continue to sacrifice for the Gambia and it's people.
I have had the honor of meeting all of our current opposition political leaders and I have been impressed with their dedication to issues larger than themselves. It is in this spirit that I ask each of them to draw deep into their resevoir of selflessness , patriotism and the burden history has placed on them as leaders when our nation acutely needs leadership to enter into and swiftly conclude an all inclusive coalition and mobilise the nation to chart a better future.
The Gambian people will support you and the new direction you lead enthusiastically. What binds you is far greater than whatever divides you and the great democracy you build by unifying would bequeath to the nation a perpetual gift for succeeding generation of Gambians.
Karamba Touray"
1. NOTE THAT ABOVE SUPPORTS A GRAND COALITION PERIOD = PDOIS POSITION
2. CONCLUSION CORRESPONDS WITH SANKALANKA'S LECTURES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: Senegambia
Replied on: 26 May 2011 08:49:51
Message:
Absolutely right, Toubab
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by toubab1020
"Toubab ham nga lan la!! Da ma nyaye sen kerr deh!! Yow dang ma buga yap!! Naff off will you!!"
There I WAS right,wasn't I SHAKA ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: kobo
Replied on: 26 May 2011 10:15:47
Message:
Shifting discussions on petty personal exchanges will not give anyone credibility; in our quest for SCREENING GOOD LEADERSHIP, ACCOUNTABILITY OF FAILED LEADERS/CONCERNED PARTIES, TO SERIOUSLY ADDRESS THE FAILURES AND UNIFYING FACTORS AS CHALLENGED BY KARAMBA TOURAY;
"We had hoped to build on that air of optimism to execute a simple but critical proposition which has at it's heart a grand coalition of all the parties to effect regime change and establish a plural democracy that was functional with the requisite institutions and checks and balances.Despite the best efforts of a lot Gambians and non Gambian friends of our country, we have simply failed to have all the opposition political parties sign on to a straight forward arrangement."
"SIMPLY FAILED TO HAVE ALL THE OPPOSITION POLITICAL PARTIES (FOR ALL OPPONENTS AGAINST JAMMEH/APRC) SIGN ON TO A STRAIGHT FORWARD ARRANGEMENT" = THE FAILURE AND SIGNS OF POOR LEADERSHIP TO GOVERN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 26 May 2011 15:41:01
Message:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by terangba
What I meant by UDP in its present form is Darboe as the leader/President.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case, i can tell you categorically that my preocupation is not about choosing between APRC and UDP. This choice have bee put to the Gambian voters for three consecutive terms and we all knew the outcome. It was a no contest in favour of the APRC all the time. Gambians who seriously want change have long since recognised that this choice must not be put before the people again if we honestly want to dislodge the APRC from power. So if you want genuine change Terangba, we must work towards a serious oppositon alternative to what obtain in the last three election. An alternative that can be embraced by the majority; by bringing together our politicians, academics and a broad representation of civil society to choose a consensus candidate for a transition goverment of no more than five years, to correct executive, legislative and judicial flaws that held our people to near servitude for 15 years. A transition goverment that will eventually herald in a new dawn; a participatory democracy that is seen to be fair, equal and just for all the citizens of the Gambia and not just to a few. If you want to work towards that end, then i am your partner in crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: turk
Replied on: 26 May 2011 17:18:29
Message:
If the objective is to bring down the APRC, to establish a transition government that has a duty of changing Gambian constitution, third republic or whatever you call, the unity must be non-partisan. And that can only happen in another entity, not UDP entity. UDP is a political party.
If that is not the case, it is unfair to ask anyone to choose between UDP and APRC. Because there are other political parties. Besides, why does Shaka has to choose between UDP and APRC. I thought it is obvious that his political party choice is PDOIS. No?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: shaka
Replied on: 26 May 2011 17:50:14
Message:
Indeed Turk. A non-partisan coalition it must be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply author: turk
Replied on: 26 May 2011 20:15:02
Message:
If UDP's intension is to change the Constitution, this requires national consensus. Legally, they have no obligation but politically, such move requires wide consensus. They even require consensus from the APRC supporters. If that is their genuine intension, they should not worry about their 'political ideology reflection in unity entity'. After all, the government replacing APRC should not have UDP's partisan agenda, UDP is claiming that they have an agenda of re-establishing constitution and democratic principles which is non-partisan objective. If they insist that the unity under their party, this is partisan politics, and that is a sign for hidden agenda which is applying their partisan policy when they are elected and this is not a confidence builder for other parties who could join under UDP flag. If that is the case, shake does not have to choose between APRC and UDP. Because, under these circumstances, shaka could choose the party with the best partisan politics based on his (or her) individual principles.
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2011 : 01:01:36
|
What a very big posting you have made admin,takes up a lot of space but the politicos do like to keep on at this and go round and round ,yep,you got it,in a CIRCLE.
This link may help posters :http://www.yteach.co.uk/index.php/resources/playlist_96962.html  |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 27 May 2011 01:02:16 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2011 : 12:36:36
|
| Toubab, this is what the wollofs would call 'bukee amna almet'' |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2011 : 12:39:47
|
I am sure they would,havn't the faintest idea what I would call it
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2011 : 14:17:11
|
Guys,
I think we all agree that the only enemy here is Yahya Jammeh therefore, we all need to look for the real interest of Gambians rather than infightings which directly favours the enemy. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2011 : 18:04:49
|
CAME ACROSS THIS REPORT FROM GAMBIA NOW.COM GAMBIA NEWS OF 10 AUGUST 2009 WITH Gambia News : UDP Vows to Sweep 2011 Polls
LATEST ELECTION GIMMICKS FROM JOLLOF ON-LINE NEWS WITH;
1. Election 2011: Opposition leader says coalition still possible
2. FULL TEXT OF INTERVIEW Election 2011: Opposition leader says coalition still possible
"Thursday, 02 June 2011 14:45
(WADR) - 2011 is an election year in Africa, with many countries heading to the polls to elect their next presidents.
In November, all eyes will be on The Gambia as the tiny nation conducts its presidency, to be followed by the parliamentary race.
Incumbent president, Yahya Jammeh, will seek a fourth presidential term against a divided opposition.
Many Gambians, especially those in the Diaspora are frustrated at the failure of the opposition to join forces to go head-to-head with President Jammeh as one single party.
Jammeh and his supporters, on the other hand, are confident that the ruling party will sweep the polls for the fourth time.
Despite fears and concerns among supporters, main opposition leader and flagbearer of the United Democratic Party, Ousainou Darboe, tells WADR that the opposition alliance is still possible.
Voter registration exercise is taking place in The Gamia ahead of the polls. The turn-out is said to be very low, with many people citing the lack of unity among opposition parties as reason for not registering to vote.
But Darboe slams these people, saying the lack of opposition coalition cannot be a genuine reason for them not to register."
ALSO RELATED BANTABA GAMBIAN POLITICS TOPIC UDP leader still hopeful on coalition UNDER http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10925
|
Edited by - kobo on 04 Jun 2011 12:56:19 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2011 : 12:29:54
|
| "we are UNITED IN PUROPSE BUT NOT UNITED IN ACHIEVING IT.....PRESENTLY WHAT WE ARE NOT UNITED ON CURRENTLY IS MATTERS OF ACHIEVING OUR OBJECTIVES AND AIMS" Lawyer Ousainou Darboe UDP leader with WADR |
Edited by - kobo on 06 Jun 2011 18:21:11 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2011 : 13:38:43
|
OK...............What are you going to do about it then,"Lawyer Ousainou Darboe UDP leader with WADR"
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2011 : 18:10:25
|
"we are UNITED IN PUROPSE BUT NOT UNITED IN ACHIEVING IT.....PRESENTLY WHAT WE ARE NOT UNITED ON CURRENTLY IS MATTERS OF ACHIEVING OUR OBJECTIVES AND AIMS"
I HAVE NEVER LOST HOPE OF HAVING AN OPPOSITION ALLIANCE; AND AM OPTIMISTIC COME NOVEMBER 2011 THERE WILL BE AN OPPOSITION ALLIANCE. AM VERY MUCH OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THAT Lawyer Ousainou Darboe UDP leader with WADR |
Edited by - kobo on 06 Jun 2011 18:22:22 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2011 : 10:40:53
|
I think he means, "I havn't the remotest idea, sorry "
Am I being unfair?,come on politicos where are you all ?
quote:
Originally posted by kobo
"we are UNITED IN PUROPSE BUT NOT UNITED IN ACHIEVING IT.....PRESENTLY WHAT WE ARE NOT UNITED ON CURRENTLY IS MATTERS OF ACHIEVING OUR OBJECTIVES AND AIMS"
I HAVE NEVER LOST HOPE OF HAVING AN OPPOSITION ALLIANCE; AND AM OPTIMISTIC COME NOVEMBER 2011 THERE WILL BE AN OPPOSITION ALLIANCE. AM VERY MUCH OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THAT Lawyer Ousainou Darboe UDP leader with WADR
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
