 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Oct 2006 : 12:23:50
|
NADD FLAG BEARER ON THE ELECTION
Let me reiterate again that fundamental to the outcome of the election were three factors, that is the power of ideas, the power of human and material resources and the power of mass support.
Any objective analyst would agree with me that NADD had overwhelmingly edge to both the APRC and UDP regarding content and delivery of convincing messages. This is the first point.
Needless to say, the UDP and APRC had edge over NADD regarding material and human resources. In comparison to the two, the APRC had overwhelmingly edge in terms of material and human resources In short one could not see the distinction between state and party. Governors of divisions, chiefs of districts heads of villages, heads of institutions, prominent members of the business community, the army, police, NIA were all associated with the President's campaign. Vehicles with numberless plates were distributed all over the country.
Incumbency was exploited by the APRC to its optimum degree in mobilizing human and material resources of the state to its advantages.
Suffice it to say that, having an edge in ideas or material and human resources is not sufficient to determine the outcome of elections unless such advantages could be transformed into mass support.
The voters who could give mass support could be divided into three categories. There were the legitimate voters who acquired their voters' cards in the proper manner and were ready to cast their votes without inducement or intimidation.
Secondly, there may have been those underaged Gambians who had acquired their cards illegally by any false information to the registering officers to get registered. Thirdly, there may have been those non-Gambians who had acquired their voters cards illegally by posing as Gambian citizens.
How many of those in these three categories of the voters cast or did not cast their votes? Who did they vote for? Why did they vote or fail to vote? These are questions that all analysts should be interested in. For our purpose, the analysis must not be an academic exercise. It must not be a refuge for the people to escape the consequences of their actions.
It is only by facing soberly the inadequacies in thinking, actions and institutional process that the people will be enabled to make a fresh start in thinking and thus be empowered to take charge of their destiny.
Outstripped by the APRC in terms of material and human resources NADD tried to compensate its inadequacies by giving convincing arguments of the demonstrated incapacities of the government and the type of leadership that is in store if the people were to maintain it in office.
The deficits in liberty and prosperity that were prevalent in the country were put into sharp focus. NADD would not have had much to criticise about the electoral system except the abuse of incumbency and the need for the IEC to become more vigilant to prevent the underaged and the non Gambians from interfering with the electoral process if an unheard of fiasco did not have dramatic effect in undermining the comparative advantages acquired by the NADD Presidential candidate in the use of the media. NADD's fundamental blunder was to have faith in the impartiality of the director of GRTS. Our cassettes were recorded and handed over to GRTS. There was no mechanism in place for joint editing by the IEC, representatives of the candidate and a representative of GRTS. In the future, we must insist on such a tripartite arrangement.
Our first experience was the continuous featuring of a cassette of our No Kunda meeting for a period of three days. We received reports that the speeches of the flag bearer which exposed the regime were always featured at the tail end.
The weight of the fact and figures were frequently impeached on by giving lengthy focus on other speakers who dwelled on the weakness of the other opposition candidate. The attitude of the GRTS management went from censorship to minimize the impact of the powers of our arguments to unbridled hostility and defamation when they waited until a day before the end of the campaign period to broadcast, on the TV a recording of Buba Sanyang in NIA custody indicating that he impersonated an IEC official to fill some nomination forms. The deception of the broadcast was without parallel. They broadcast a confession without approaching me for opinion. The IEC was not also informed before my nomination to at least discredit my nomination. The objective was therefore not to challenge my nomination since I had 6000 people supporting my nomination. The attempt was to mislead the voters.
The deceptive tricks of the GRTS management reached repugnant and malicious proportion when they deliberately suppressed my last ten minutes broadcast where I dealt with their broadcast which the Observer Newspaper chose to publish under the heading "NADD's Buba Sanyang spills the Beans" with my picture on the front cover. GRTS refused to cover my press conference. The Observer published it in an inside page. I called the IEC for them to intervene to ensure that my message is transmitted as a matter of right. I quoted section 93 subsection (1) of the Election Decree for their observation to no avail. Section 93 subsection (1) states that "The Commission shall, during an election campaign period, ensure that equal air time is given to each candidate and national party on the public radio and television." I emphasised that depriving me of my last ten minutes before the end of the campaign period constituted a gross violation of my right as a presidential candidate. The IEC appeared totally helpless in protecting my integrity against a deliberate attempt to defame me. To add insult to injury, the GRTS management made news out of the television broadcast and transmitted it by radio so that it would reach the whole country, on the day before elections which was supposed to be a resting period. The news item gave the impression that as a presidential candidate I asked a 7th grade child to fill my nomination form by impersonating an IEC official. I called the IEC to intervene to stop the erroneous and malicious broadcast but to no avail. The GRTS management did therefore make history in displaying a conduct that did not remotely resemble impartiality in the presidential election. They brought my whole campaign, whose content had been irreconcilable to any falsehood, into disrepute, without availing me y opportunity to clear any doubts.
The deficit in liberty which is criticized during my campaign became nakedly evident because of the absence of any private radio station to disseminate my opinion as a Presidential candidate after the state media deliberately refused to broadcast my last message to the nation. It was evident to the GRTS management that reputable journalistic practice requires the publication or broadcasting of two sides of a story. They preferred to negate my own opinion so as to make fiction to pass as facts. Where then was my freedom to be heard? Where lies the fairness in suppressing my last broadcast? How can I commend the IEC for presiding over a free and fair election when they were impotent in directing the director of GRTS to broadcast my last statement as required by law and stop their fabrications against my integrity on the day before an election?
In fact, many people who had an axe to grind with NADD began to spread the rumour that my nomination papers were fraudulently filled even though I had about 6000 people supporting my nomination.
Before taking leave of the subject allow me to prove how ridiculous it is to even hint that Halifa Sallah could ask anyone to impersonate an official to enable him to acquire electoral advantage. First and foremost, I have never canvassed a relative or a neighbour to vote for me so as not to violate their free will to choose. I have written countless letters to the IEC to expose corrupt registration practices so that we can have free and fair elections.
Although, I am a National Assembly member my earnings go mostly to render services to others instead of wining and dining at state expense. I have tried to make my wife to get the highest level of education so that she would be completely independent in getting what she wants in life rather than depend on loot from a state to live in prosperity. What temptation is there that Halifa Sallah could be subjected to, to the point of motivating a young man who is an extremely famous football player in his area, who is known to both young and old, to go to an area where he is well known to impersonate an IEC official, just to fill my nomination forms. This notion is absurd to say the least.
Notwithstanding, the broadcast is the chief event which had a devastating impact on the electorate. I cannot say how many people were convinced by the broadcast that NADD could not win and either decided to vote for another party or abstained entirely from voting. I cannot tell how many youths in Kombo East were intimidated. What is evident to me is that when I visited Buba Sanyang's family many of his friends had been seen by people in the community or their families and advised to stay clear of politics.
The television and radio broadcast on Buba did not reduce the climate of uncertainty, if anything one should expect the situation to have been worsened.
The truth however is that before the people went to fill my nomination forms, I was invited by Mrs. Amie Sillah who was in charge of the operation to inspire them. As a civic educator I gave them an inspiring speech and asked each of them to be given a cassette to play for the people to listen before being asked to nominate me.
I therefore wish to call on all youths not to support me unless they are ready to defend their principles at all times. Anybody who makes the mistake to tarnish my image no matter under what pressure would be disowned and pressure be put for ones prosecution. We will not allow again such simplistic disinformation tactics to affect our progress. After lessons are drawn from Buba's experience any NADD militant who abandoned the message and proceeded to claim to do a criminal act under NADD's auspices could only be a common criminal implanted to do something else other than to serve NADD. When Amie Sillah was put into contact with Buba while he was in detention he had confessed that he mentioned her name because of fear.
Suffice it to say that when Mrs. Sillah finished her discussion with the NIA I was informed. I did not take the matter lightly. I decided to wage a battle of integrity by requesting the IEC chairman to post all the names of the people registered under Kombo East and request for scrutiny of the list. I volunteered that if any person's name is found to be featured under false pretence I would be willing to subtract it from the 6000 or so names I had submitted and would withdraw my candidature if the number fell short of the 5000 persons required to be qualified to stand as a presidential candidate. The chairman of the IEC indicated that this was unnecessary. I further made the proposal that he should give me photocopies of the names from Kombo East so that I would proceed to do my independent investigation and subtract any name found to have been acquired through dubious means. The chairman of the IEC indicated that it was not necessary. This was proposed few days after nomination. It is therefore amazing that nothing was done until the end of the campaign period to try to attack my integrity.
I therefore saw the move by the GRTS management as a deliberate tactic to erode the confidence of the voters in me. Taking the margin of victory, I cannot sincerely claim that this unprofessional conduct of the GRTS management barred me from being elected. However, it stands to reason that I cannot have respect for an electoral system which could not protect any integrity at the most relevant period of an electoral process.
In this respect, I can only observe that when it came to the battle for mass support NADD was disadvantaged at a time when people had little time to make a decision on to what to do with their votes.
I cannot honestly say what the number of votes would have been if the GRTS did not broadcast a farcical picture that NADD was in complicity with corrupt electoral practices which was orchestrated by the Daily Observer newspaper. History will therefore record the tragic-comical scene which should earn GRTS an award in outdoing all broadcasting stations in the world in misrepresenting a Presidential candidate.
Notwithstanding my inability to combat the scheme of the GRTS management at the right time, the GRTS team that covered our meeting in the country have enough evidence that NADD is in the heart and minds of the Gambian people irrespective of the attempt to tarnish its image.
Let me now focus on the results and the lessons to be derived from them. We are informed by the IEC that Gambia has 670, 336 registered voters. Out of this 392, 685 voted in the 2006 presidential elections. This amounts to 58% of the registered voters. I have 23, 473 votes or 6%, President Jammeh had 264, 404 votes or 67% and Ousainou Darboe has 104, 808 votes or 27%.
Interestingly enough in the 2001 presidential elections there were 504, 301 registered voters. 457, 484 voters voted comprising 89.83% of the votes. President Jammeh had 242,304 votes, Ousainou Darboe had 149, 448 votes.
Compared to 2001, there is an increase of 166,035 registered voters in 2006. However the number of voters who voted in 2006 as compared to 2001 fell by 64, 799 votes.
It is also evident that the number of votes received by President Jammeh increased by 22, 104 votes as compared to 2001 even though there is a rise in number of voters by 166, 000 votes. In the same vein, Ousainou Darboe's vote decreased from 149, 448 in 2001 to 104,808 in 2006. This is a decline of 44,640 votes. Needless to say, the UDP/NRP/GPDP alliance was based on the premise that if the UDP served as the vanguard of the opposition parties it will accumulate the votes of the NRP leader of 35, 671 in 2001 as well as the votes of other parties to win the election.
However, instead of Ousainou Darboe adding 35, 671 votes to his 149,448 he had in 2001 there is a decrease of 80,000 votes from the coalition votes. What is responsible for this? What is responsible for a voter turn out of 392, 685 out of a 670, 336 registered voters. Are the figures realistic or does this mean that all parties in the Gambia are rejected, that the Gambia is a failed democracy? Should all parties resign and allow for a new breed of representatives to emerge or is the country demanding new institutions and approaches to politics that can earn the confidence and trust of the voters in the system? Is the result a strategic victory or a tactical error for the opposition?
TO BE CONTINUED
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No.87/2006, 9-10 October, 2006
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2006 : 02:42:39
|
NADD FLAG BEARER ON ELECTION
(PART 3)
Once the facts are put on their feet it stands to reason that the results of the election were more a by product of a tactical error on the side of the opposition than a land slide victory by the ruling party.
The statistics reveal that out of the 670, 336 registered voters only 264, 404 voters voted for President Jammeh. This means that 405, 932 voters did not vote for him. In the same vein, the voters’ registered increased by 166, 035 voters since the 2001 elections but President Jammeh’s votes in 2006 increased by 22, 104 votes as compared to 2001.
On the other hand, 542, 055voters out of 670 336 voters did not vote for the opposition.
Even though the registered voters had increased between 2001 and 2006 the votes of the major opposition contender in 2001 decreased by 44, 640 votes.
The picture of The Gambia’s democracy becomes bleak when one confronts the fact that the people who did not vote were more than the people who voted for President Jammeh.
Some claim that the total number of registered voters may have been exaggerated. This however, does not help us to rescue Gambian democracy from a state of slumber. In short, the statistics reveal that, currently, there are 1.24 million Gambians out of 1.36 million persons living in the Gambia, 661, 399 Gambians are below 18 while 699, 280 Gambians are above 18 years. In actual fact, all these Gambians should be registered or others would register in their places. This would make the determination of the undiluted choice of the people more precarious. Now one is justified to ask how we got to this state? It is the duty of both ruling party and opposition to address these fundamental questions: How did we get to where we are at this moment? Where do we go from here?
In my view, the two opposition alliances which contested the elections relied on two fundamentally different tactics to do so.
The National Alliance for Democracy and Development stood for a monolithic alliance where all parties will accept to coexist under an umbrella party that would serve as a united front and contest the elections in the name and platform of such an umbrella party instead of allowing one party and its leader to serve as the vanguard of the rest. It stood for collective leadership to change a system and then put in place a level ground for genuine pluralism or multiparty contest based on the ideologies , policies , programmes and practices of the respective parties.
The UDP led alliance stood for the elevation of one party and its leader to become vanguard for the others to follow. It stood for regime change where the UDP leader retains the same powers as president Jammeh.
It goes without saying that even though all the opposition parties excluding the NCP which had allied with the APRC formed the National Alliance for Democracy and development, the UDP/NRP decided to withdraw from the alliance because of their conviction that their tactics will work.
What then was the basis of their tactics?
The UDP/NRP alliance was based on the notion that since Darboe had 149, 448 votes in 2001 and Hamat had 35, 671 votes an alliance between the two will yield a total vote of 185, 119 votes. It was assumed that if other parties like the GPDP agreed to contest the election under the vanguard of the UDP the APRC will be easily defeated. The results of the election have confirmed that the tactics of the UDP led alliance has not achieved the results anticipated. In short, instead of getting 185, 119 votes plus the votes from GPDP the alliance had 104, 808 votes. Needless to say, if the NRP and GPDP votes are subtracted from the 104, 808 votes one would discover that Mr. Darboe had lost a substantial part of the number of votes he gained as the UDP candidate in 2001.
The NADD alliance was aimed at system change and not just mere regime change because of our realization that in a country where no separation existed between party and state, where Divisional Commissioners/Governors, District Chiefs, Village Heads were duly bound to show allegiance to a party and where state resources are put in the service of the party, one could not speak of a level ground to conduct a multi party contest on the basis of the strength of individual parties. It was argued that where such a gross imbalance or disparities in political weight exist between ruling party and opposition parties it is necessary to create a democratic united front that will draw all forces together to undo the imbalance, separate state and party, create democratic structures, institutions and standards of best practice, eradicate the advantages of incumbency and set the country on the road of free and fair elections that would foster the election of the undiluted choice of the people .
In order to achieve these strategic objectives, the Democratic united front had to have a provisional or transitional mandate aimed at building a democratic foundation through constitutional, legal, institutional and administrative reforms that culminates n building checks and balances to humble the executive ,strengthen parliamentary oversight, introduce independent commissions to safeguard rights ,conduct civic education to enhance and safeguard freedom of expression, introduce financial discipline to curb unauthorized and extravagant spending ,and create a state that will stand the test of international and continental scrutiny by acceding to the Africa Peer Review Mechanism. It is these objective which informed the NADD programme to restrict the mandate of the flag bearer of the untied front to five years after which he/she will neither be a candidate nor support any candidate in the next following election and shall agree to hand over to the person elected who would be subjected to a two term mandate of five years per term.
Suffice it to say, in order to ensure the widest possible support the united front was given a new name, emblem and colour. In this way it would not be associated with the shortcomings of any of the parties or personalities in the alliance. On the contrary, the positive attribute of each personality or party would serve as the collective attribute of the united front.
The NADD had a concrete agenda which was acceptable and praised by many Gambians at home and abroad. In terms of human and material resources it was very easy to combine the activities of the different parties and many were ready to provide resources. In terms of mass support, NADD participated in 6 by elections and won 4 out of the six. The UDP/NRP analysts failed to rely on Dembo Bojang’s report of chronic voter apathy after the results of the by election in old jeshwang was revealed. In brief, the UDP insisted in putting up a candidate instead of hastening the process of founding NADD. The results were devastating. Out of 4650 registered voters the APRC had 718 votes while the UDP had 418 votes. This voter apathy is what motivated most of us to hasten the founding of NADD. Needless to say, the first two by election NADD participated in were in Nianija and Njau. Nianija was an APRC seat but it won the election by a majority of 365 votes. NADD won the Njau seat. The only other seat lost to APRC is Hamat’s seat which was being contested in court There is absolutely no doubt that if NADD remained intact, with hundreds of thousands of people supporting the NADD campaign trail governors/ Chiefs, village heads, members of the security forces and all state operatives would have either been neutralised or rendered incapable of influencing the politics of the country in favour of the ruling party. One can say without any fear of exaggeration that it is the splitting of NADD that led us to where we are today. It is therefore necessary to put into proper perspective the impact of the split on the campaign and the results before mapping out a way forward.
To be continued
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 89/2006, 16-17 October, 2006 |
 |
|
|
mbay
Germany
1007 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2006 : 17:57:22
|
OH OH OH PLEASE PLEASE NOT ANOTHERE HEADACH AGIAN THE ELECTION IS OVER AND NADD HAS GONE WITH THE VERY EARLYER MONING WINDS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO NOW IS TO TRACK THE LINE AND UNITED WITH VERY STRONG OF A HAND IN HAND AND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER FOR THE INTEREST OF OUR SMILING COAST RIGHT?
P E A C E: |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
