 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11833 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Oct 2006 : 13:03:33
|
NADD FLAG BEARER ON THE ELECTION
The NADD alliance relied on the explanation of the cause of the split and further explained what it intended to do to promote liberty and prosperity. It maintains the position that the country needed change because of the huge defrest in liberty and prosperity.
I made it abundantly clear that the government had two sources of revenue other than grants and loans, that is, tax and non tax revenue. I spared no effort in explaining that the tax revenue mainly comes from import duties, 30% of which depend on the re-export trade. I emphasised that the tax base of the government is very fragile and very vulnerable to trade barriers by neighbouring countries. I argued vehemently that the public corporations which should generate dividends to provide a portion of the non tax revenue are not managed to attain such an objective. I have made it clear that countries are being given debt relief but Gambia is yet to be qualified for debt relief because of unsatisfactory performance in financial management. I intimated that we had to meet the completion point established under the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative programme to get debt relief. That our Poverty Reduction Growth facility programmes had to be suspended and the country put under a staff monitored programme before we could be assessed again to gain benefits. I gave facts to show that since the AFPRC/APRC government came into being, it has experienced budget deficits annually, which had to be partly financed by domestic borrowing. I gave examples of a total budget deficit of 856 million in 2005, which had to be financed by borrowing. I explained that the total debt of the country has risen to 22 billion dalasis leaving us with debt repayment and servicing obligation of 1.5 billon, comprising more than 1/3 of our national budget. I emphasized that the commitment made to give the Gambia 115 million dollars under the Geneva Round in 2002 was not forthcoming. I explained that this year Gambia is conditioned not to borrow more than 200 million dalasis to finance any budget deficit and is required to pay its arrears. I gave a forecast that there will be budgetary cuts in the next financial year as well as increases in taxes, which is likely to lead to growth in poverty. I had made it clear that despite some infrastructural developments in terms of roads, electricity, etc, the loans, which made them possible, will have to be paid and the cost will have to be shouldered by the consumer. This is principally what is responsible for the high cost of electricity and high increase in road tax. I emphasized that government statistics have revealed that 69% of the population are living in abject poverty.
In terms of social development I emphasized that they depend on the development of the productive base to be sustained; that without a corresponding development in the productive base, revenue will not be generated in sufficient quantity to increase salaries, provide drugs and books, expand employment, service roads and so on.
I gave concrete plans of action such as the signing of a performance contract with public corporations so that they pay annual dividends to be reinvested in the corporations or used to finance other priority services. In this way, no public corporation will have any obligation to meet haphazard, unplanned, unbudgeted and unauthorized expenditures. I emphasized that a NADD government would not need IMF conditionalities. It will establish the financial discipline necessary to curb unauthorized expenditure, get dividends from public corporations and mobilize the tax and non tax revenue necessary to meet government expenditure without relying on domestic borrowing from the banking sector. In this way the banks will have no option but to invest in the private sector to promote private sector development. I explained that 15 billion dalasis is exchanged in the foreign exchange market annually. That Gambians abroad brought remittances amounting to 855 million in 2005; that proper management could also bring us aid money like the 115 million dollars promised and debt relief.
In short, public sector resources will provide investment in the productive base of the public sector and private sector resources will provide investment in the productive base of the private sector. I argued that this would provide investment capital for fishing, mining, processing agricultural production, utilities, construction and other services. I pointed out that instead of buying hotels, social security funds could have built low cost housing schemes for its members. It could have also provided short term funding for coop financing through the Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives, which could further maintain a managed fund for agricultural input financing at subsidized rates. I gave concrete examples that the 345 million used to purchase and refurbish Ocean Bay Hotel could have been utilized for crop financing which could have enabled social security to recover the investment at a rapid rate. I even mentioned that the hotel complex at the Independence Stadium could have been transformed into university dormitories and support mobilized to improve the complex to serve as a university campus. Taiwan or the People's Republic of China who built the stadium could easily provide such funding if we maintain an open door and principled policy in international relations.
On the other hand, I emphasized that good governance impacts on investment and international solidarity. I exposed the deficits in liberty in the country. The incarceration of Duta Kamaso and Malick Mboob for months without charge in gross violation of the 72 hours limit established for detention without trial under the constitution was focused on. I referred to the closure of Citizen FM, Sud FM and the dispersing of the staff of The Independent Newspaper. I argued that a NADD administration would give full respect to fundamental rights and freedoms and would establish human rights, women, children, disabled and other commissions to safeguard such rights; that we will give completely different orientation to the Police, NIA, Army and any security force so that they will perform all their functions in accordance with the law; that there will be complete separation between party and state and that we will be a signatory to the Africa Peer Review Mechanism to ensure that all institutions shall operate in accordance with the standards of best practice.
I emphasized that we would create a department of state for African integration, eradicate alien ID cards and ensure that the nationals of different African countries would build democratic communities elect their leaders who would be equally empowered to be their inter-locators with state authorities to address their problems.
I indicated our commitment to apply the two states one people concept in diplomacy with all African countries starting with Senegal by encouraging harmonious relations between the members of our executive, legislature, judiciary, public corporations, civil societies and people in general. I emphasized that with such policies, Gambia will be part of the heart of the African people and the people of the world.
In short, NADD advanced a very concrete and comprehensive programme that was heard, understood and appreciated all over the country.
These ideas increased the popularity of NADD and the massive support was translated into popular welcome of the NADD Flag-bearer wherever we went. The message reached everyone.
Even though, because of the split and some operational shortcomings NADD could not consolidate its structures in the communities as originally planned, one must admit that NADD's message was heard by everyone.
The original plan was to divide the country into operational zones with each executive member controlling a zone. Each zone should have been divided into five sectors to be controlled by sectoral organisers and mobilisers. They were to go about to sensitize and mobilize people to form NADD militant fora or committees everywhere. This should have been done before the date of her election is set.
However, the split deprived NADD of the human and material resources needed to carry out these tasks at the rapid rate required because of the scheduling of the elections to a closer date than expected.
Negotiations to overcome the split which should have enabled us to overcome the disadvantages of time and resources did not materialize.
Hence once the flag-bearer started his countrywide tour he became so overstretched that many places, even Western Division and KMC where the bulk of the votes reside were relatively untouched by the flag-bearer.
Hence NADD relied mainly on its convincing message for the outcome of the elections. It is best for me not to get into the campaign issues of the UDP and APRC. They are in a better position to do that for themselves in their own analysis.
What is of profound significance is the impact of the split on the UDP led alliance.
The first impact is that it deprived them of the NADD agenda. Secondly they were asked continuously why they left NADD. The failure to give satisfactory answers undoubtedly added to the voter apathy or the protest vote against the opposition.
It goes without saying that they also had to give arguments why the people should not vote for NADD. The UDP leader made the remarks that voting for the NADD is as good as voting for the APRC.
The campaign messages became devastating when tribe began to feature as an instrument of their supporters. Many of them focused on the result of the 2001 elections and tried to utilize it as a confidence building mechanism to convince voters that Mr. Darboe would win. They argued that Hamat joined Darboe because he had the majority; that all the Fulas are supporting Darboe; that the Manjagos are supporting Henry and that only the Mandinkas can spoil it for Darboe; that voting for NADD is to spoil Darboe's chance to be President.
Even if the objective, of such remarks were not to promote tribalism in the country it had that effect.
Contrary to the expectations of the members of the UDP camp reference to tribal alliance did not increase their support in the country, the old slogan of the APRC were brought to life. The youth in KMC, Western Division, Niamina, Fulladu, Nuimi began to perpetuate the APRC slogan that UDP was the party of the disgruntled politicians and tribalists. That they were only out for revenge and not for development.
The APRC leadership capitalized on these prejudices against UDP to tell the youths that if they vote for NADD they will be wasting their votes; that UDP will take over the country. On the other hand, many who were bitterly against Yahya also maintained that if they vote for NADD Yahya will win. When GRTS broadcast the Buba Sanyang story, the APRC cashed on it to sow the seed of doubt regarding the legitimacy of my candidature. Hence the swing of the youth vote to Yahya and the apathy or protest displayed by others for not voting can easily be explained.
This swing of Gambian voters into apathy and tribal sentiments makes it difficult to explain the outcome of the results on the basis of intimidation or corrupt registration practices.
At the final phase of my campaign I received reports of Mandinka speaking youths and Jola speaking youths being insulted by their parents in the foulest of languages for not joining tribal band wagons. Whenever I met UDP or APRC convoys the youths will rush to greet me with the usual statement “we love you”. However, the sentiments of their parents and tribal peers took control of them.
This is why at the time of my campaign I continued to emphasise that Gambians can either be dictated by tribal or other sentiments or by truth. If we are dictated by truth it would set us free. If we are dictated by sentiments we will remain captives of our own deeds.
Being a part of the living political history of the Gambia at its moment of happening compels me to rethink about the true nature of the people we call Gambians and my role as a servant aimed at promoting their liberty and prosperity. Unlike Senegal where political leadership no longer hinges on manipulating tribal notions to be in political office in the Gambia the canker worm called tribalism is alive and obstinate to the missiles of clarity and civic education. It concedes only to state power and selfish interest.
Although, I have always subscribe to the view that it is the duty of every good citizen to be ready to die for his country and people I am no longer sure whether I have a people that are fully convinced that they are first and foremost a Gambian people. I am no longer sure whether I should join the group of representatives or the group of civic educators and help to shape a new social consciousness that can shape the sovereign Gambian social being. A purposeful life is a battle to be relevant. Is one relevant by pursuing a field of national duty where one is loved and disowned at the same time? How is one to overcome such absurdity? It was common to hear the slogan in my constituency Darboe for President, Yahya for President and Halifa for National Assembly. The president executes to solve problems. The national assembly merely points out the problems and the solutions but have no executive power to solve them. Is it not an irony to want Halifa in the National Assembly and not to exercise executive power to solve the problems?
What type of son and daughter does this nation want? What type of service do they want from them? What is the demand of the current political situation?
Is NADD relevant? Should it continue to exist? Should it perish? Should opposition parties revisit their strategies and tactics? Should they remain apart or should they negotiate a rapprochement what is the way forward for me? What is the way forward for NADD? What is the way forward for Gambia? These are questions I posed to NADD Executive. They are questions I have posed to myself? They are questions I am posing to every Gambian? They require honesty and objectivity to be answered.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 90/2006, 18-22 October, 2006
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11833 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2006 : 21:28:28
|
NADD FLAG-BEARER ON THE ELECTION - continued
Why is it necessary for me to ask Gambians what type of sons and daughters they want at this very juncture of our political history, that is, 46 years after the introduction of universal suffrage, 41 years after the formal declaration of independence and 36 years after the proclamation of the Republican status of The Gambia?
The reason for this is very simple. The result of the 2006 Presidential elections reveals a mixture of crying contradictions. First and foremost, the election itself is one of the pillars of our Republican existence.
In short it signifies that each Gambian voter is a sovereign person who has the absolute authority to play an equal part in determining who governs the sovereign Republic of The Gambia.
Chapter 1 section 1 subsection (2) of the Constitution of The Gambia captures this power of the Gambian voters in the following words “The sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from whom all organs of govern derive their authority and in whose name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of the government are to be exercised……….”
Each sovereign Gambian is therefore a building block of the Sovereign People of The Gambia. He or she should have a national consciousness determined by his/her realization of being a Gambian social being.
In short, nationhood presupposes a national identity. This national identity emerges from national consciousness. Universal suffrage emerged to give each Gambian a vote to enable the collective will of Gambians to be expressed periodically in order to guide the collective destiny of the Gambian people. It means that each Gambian is empowered to vote not because one is a member of a family, tribe, ethnic group or religion but because one is a citizen of the nation. In a word, one is entitled to represent or be represented because one is a citizen of the nation.
Hence one should not ask to represent or be represented on the basis of family, tribal ethnic or religious ties. Hence the type of son and daughter that the sovereign Gambian people should want is one with a national identity and national consciousness, one who is free from nepotism, tribalism, religious bigotry or prejudices and has developed virtues, values and attitudes that enable all to take pride in having him or her as the prime decision maker capable of steering our state towards the shores of liberty and prosperity.
In my view during the 2006 Presidential election, each sovereign Gambian has listen to the words and are fully aware of the deeds of the Presidential candidates. 277, 651 voters decided to abstain from voting. Does this mean that none of the candidates conveyed messages that could promote the liberty and prosperity of the people or had the credibility to be worthy of trust. Does this means that all the candidates were disliked by the people? Why did they abstain?
Secondly, I received the least votes. Does this mean that the message I delivered was inferior to that of the rest or that I was rated the least credible among the candidates or that I was the least loved?
I kept on asking people these three fundamental questions and I kept on receiving answers that are diametrically opposed to the conclusions that the results permit one to draw. People keep on telling me that my messages were superb and that I stand unassailable in credibility; that many people have affection for my type of politics. Do you now see why I assert that the results of the 2006 election reveals crying contradictions that needs to be unraveled if one is to separate the grain from the chaff and map out a realistic way forward.
Let me take Serrekunda Central which I represent in the National Assembly as seating MP, as a case study to unravel the contradictions in Gambian politics.
The history of parliamentary elections since the birth of AFPRC/APRC regime reveals the following facts that I can draw lessons from.
In short, in 1997 Serrekunda Central was part of Serrekunda East. I stood as a candidate for the Serrekunda East Constituency seat and had 8,528 votes, UDP had 8, 067 votes and APRC had 9, 575 votes.
In 2002 Serrekunda Central Constituency did feature as a seat in the National Assembly seat. I stood against the APRC. The UDP boycotted the election. I came up with 5,583 votes. The APRC candidate had 5, 143 votes. I occupied the seat.
In 2005, the seat was declared vacant. I contested under NADD in a by election held in September 2005. All parties were then part of NADD. I had 5,911 votes. The APRC had 3,984 votes. I occupied the seat again. In 2006 I stood as a Presidential candidate. As far as Serrekunda Central is concerned I had 2,142. Ousainou Darboe had 4,908 and Yahya Jammeh had 11,395. How are these results to be interpreted? Does it mean that the messages of the two other candidates were considered by the people in Serrekunda Central to be more convincing than my own message? Are they more credible than me? Do they appreciate the other two candidates more than me?
I have posed these questions to many voters in my constituency and their answer to all these question is in the negative. Am I speaking to the wrong people? Can those who have affirmative answers write in the press or send word to me somehow. If reasonable people are of the view that my message was not the least convincing; that I was not the least credible and that I was not the least loved then common sense must beg the question: What grounds did the people rely on to vote or boycott the election.
A clear explanation is necessary to enable people to assist me to determine my present political weight and future political fate.
A close study of the history of Presidential and parliamentary elections in Wuli provided me with the indication of what may have actually happened in Serrekunda Central.
In 1996, the results of the Presidential election in Wuli Sidia Jatta, my colleague behind Jammeh for the APRC and Darboe for the UDP.
However, when it came to the parliamentary elections, UDP’s Alhamdu Conteh had 1,098 votes, APRC had 4,641 and Sidia Jatta had 5,499 votes.
In short, the voters of Wuli rejected Sidia’s candidature as a Presidential candidate in 1996 and fovoured his candidature as a National Member over the APRC and UDP candidate in 1997.
This repeated itself in 2001/2002. In 2001 Sidia again stood as our Presidential candidate. In Wuli West he had the following votes: Sidia had 1,790, Darboe had 2,553 and Jammeh had 2,174 respectively.
However when it came to the parliamentary election Sidia stood in Wuli West. The UDP boycotted the elections. Sidia had 3,405. The APRC candidate had 3,056 votes. During the September 2005 by election Sidia had 3,430 while APRC had 2,659 votes.
Two fundamental lessons can be drawn from the Wuli experience.
It confirms that from 1996 to 2002 the voters in Wuli subscribed to the slogan “Darboe for President , Sidia for parliament.” Hence their reason for not voting for Sidia during the Presidential election cannot be attributed to lack of credibility either of his person or message but because of the circumstantial preferences of the voter at the time.
Could we say that what is true for Wuli is also true for Serrekunda Central? I will come to this later.
The second fundamental lesson is that Wuli, the farthest territory from the coast on the North Bank of the Gambia has always proven to be a pace setter in Gambian politics, thanks to its vigorous grass root political organisations and their vibrant civic education culture.
In short, the trend for supporting Darboe and UDP in Presidential elections and Sidia in National Assembly elections has changed.
In both the by election of September 2005 and the Presidential election in 2006 Wuli has accepted NADD as its major opposition party. NADD had more votes than UDP in both Wuli West and East.
Hence Wuli has now distinguished itself as the bridge head for the political transformation of The Gambia.
The question however arises: What is my political weight and fate in Serrekunda Central? I certainly will not dismiss the incalculable loss in political weight in the Presidential election and simply prophesy victory in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. I want to be sure of my political relevance in present day Gambian political climate. There is no doubt that both Darboe and my very self need to interrogate the facts and come up with irrefutable answers.
In short, how can one explain the difference between 5,911 votes I had during the by election in 2005 and the 2182 I had in the 2006Presidential election in Serrekunda Central? In the same vein, how can one explain the drop in Darboe’s votes as a Presidential candidate from 7,764 in the 2001 election to 4,908 votes in 2006.
In my case, the revelations are becoming pervasive. Take the example of a young boy who lives in the neighbourhood where I have my office. Most of these families draw water from our office tap. Their children study IT free of charge from the centre. Their little children benefit from our recreational services. They benefit from our counseling. When he came to our office with an APRC T-shirt he was asked jokingly whether he had abandoned NADD for the APRC. He explained in an innocent manner that his father and mother have promised that they will vote for APRC for the Presidency and for me for the National Assembly. He added that his parents think that I will make a good President in the future. The mentality of pushing my votes to the future is ironically corroborated by a NADD polling agent in Banjul who came to me after the election to say that before he was approached to be a polling agent he had given his word to Marie Dalia, an APRC councillor and mobiliser that he will vote for Yahya in this election for the last time but will become committed to NADD from henceforth. I mention the name to give authenticity to the story. Amazing honesty and political innocence, isn’t it?
The third scenario is the case of a visually impaired young man in Serrekunda Central who told me that he could not understand some of his peers who tried to convince him that he should vote for Darboe for the presidential election and for Halifa for national Assembly. He indicated that when he argued that they should vote on the basis of the messages they have heard and the credibility of the candidates they scolded him of being a NADD fanatic. He lamented that some people in the constituency were fanatically being motivated to vote on the basis of tribe. He said he has warned his peers that they were making a terrible mistake in allowing some people to mobilize them on the basis of tribe.
Another case study is that of a supporter of NADD who came to the headquarters to explain that some people who wanted to vote for NADD told him that they will vote for the UDP after they saw their convoy from Brikama. Unlike the UDP who stayed in Brikama to organize a big convoy to enter the KMC area NADD was met by a big crowd in Brikama but did not see the merit of staying in Brikama because of the rain and mobilised a huge force from KMC and Western division to enter the KMC the following day.
Hence NADD’s political weight could not be seen in the Western Division and KMC area. What is evident from the results of the election in Serrekunda Central is that crowds during rallies are not automatically translated into votes.
In short, the UDP had one of its biggest meetings in Serrekunda Central but Darboe’s vote went down by more than 2800 votes in 2006 when compared to the 2001 Presidential elections. In spite of this fact, the lesson is however clear that the size of crowds are ways and means of convincing some voters that a particular party or candidate is going to win. The desire to be on the winning side can lead them to shift loyalty.
What then are the lessons to be drawn from the studies and from the focus group discussions I held with people to explain why NADD had the votes it had. What is my decision? What is the decision of the NADD? What is the way forward for the opposition in The Gambia?
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No.92/2006, 27-29 October, 2006 |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11833 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 16:22:36
|
NADD FLAG BEARER ON THE ELECTION - continued
The lessons are clear. The destiny of the Gambian Republic lies in the sovereign hands of her sovereign people. In the same vein, my political weight and fate lie in their hands.
Of course, it is rational to conclude that people just decided to vote for either candidate for the presidency because of their assumption that NADD cannot win and then proceed to prophecy that voters in Serrekunda Central will vote for me in the National Assembly election. I will not allow my mind to harbour such a fanciful logic.
Hence if I were to be asked whether I will be a candidate in the forthcoming National Assembly elections my answer will be simple. My political fate now hangs on the balance of probabilities. It is for the people to decide. It is not for me to decide. To me representation is not a career but a duty that one is called upon to perform. Whenever the people want me to rest I will gladly do so. I have gained nothing from politics.
The fact that Wuli East and Wuli West gave me second place in the election while Serrekunda Central gave me in 2006 almost 1/3 of the votes they gave me in the by elections of 2005 must not be taken lightly. I need to know how the people in Serrekunda Central rank me in terms of message, credibility, popularity or charisma and trustworthiness. I want the voters in Serrekunda Central to answer these four fundamental questions for me.
During the Presidential campaign, did they find my message to be inferior to those of the other two candidates? Did they find me to be less credible than the other two candidates? Was I less charismatic or popular than them? Did I inspire less trust and confidence than them? If their answers are in the positive then I have no reason to contest National Assembly elections not to talk about future presidential elections. If their answers are in the negative then I would want to know what motivated them to vote the way they did. In short, if the good Jola is one who votes for Yahya Jammeh, the good Mandinka is one who votes for Darboe, the good Fula is one who is under the dictate of Hamat and good Manjago is one who follows Henry, then where is the place of Halifa Sallah, a detribalized human being who has long committed tribal suicide and belong to no tribe in Gambian politics. If this is how people intend to conduct politics in this country then let me be excused to build my centre for Social Science Research and civic awareness and leave the task of liberating The Gambia to the future generation.
In order to interact with the electorate, I will conduct a constituency tour to listen to what people have to say regarding my role as their representative these past four years. I will start the tour on Tuesday, 31st October and continue up to Sunday. I will send people to visit voters and get their opinions. I will conduct the widest possible consultation to determine my political weight and fate as the Member of Parliament for Serrekunda Central Constituency.
I hope the people in Serrekunda Central are fully aware that it is the executive, the Office of President which has mandate to make policies, prepare a budget to be approved and monitored by the National Assembly to solve the problems of the nation. It is the role of the KMC to raise funds from the rates, licences and taxes to provide good roads, public taps, street lights, proper waste collection facilities, recreational facilities, markets, community centres and so on. The duty of a National Assembly Member is to serve as a watch dog to tell the executive what it should do and inform the people whether it is being done or not. This is how they can put pressure on the executive just as I have put pressure on them regarding the terrible conditions, which existed near Sandika in Serrekunda. National Assembly members should combat bad laws and promote good laws. They should conduct civic education to educate their electorate. It is now left to them to determine the type of MP they want in January 2007. I have done the best I can. I have exposed how women still draw water from wells and queue for hours to get water from taps 500 to 1000 metres away. I have exposed the poor road conditions. I have exposed the unemployment situation and the high cost of education. I have done what is not even the role of an MP, that is, to deposit half of my National Assembly income in to a fund that some borrow from to run small scale businesses or sponsor disadvantaged students. We have launched sponsorship schemes for poor students sponsored by interested persons; provide vocational training to members of the community, provide football gears to children, established a counseling service to settle land disputes, marital problems, juvenile delinquency cases, psychological problems, labour disputes. We have a library where students conduct research and seek advice to write their thesis and dissertations. There is not a week that we are not invited to present papers or give lectures to societies and schools. Most of the monies received from workshops go to finance the fees of students including the education trust fund for girls.
We are consulted by NGOs, CBOs and other societies in writing their constitutions. We are also invited internationally to give lectures on the problems of the African continent. Not being an MP will not make me to stop these services. I used to provide them before being an MP and I will continue to provide them even if I cease to be an MP. Being asked to quit will provide me with more time to do research.
In my view, people in developing countries often confuse the period of National liberation and the period of the Democratic Revolution. People like Marty, Castro, Nkrumah, Nasser, and Ghadaffi have played major roles in creating a sense of Nationhood, a sense of Common destiny among their people just as George Washington of the US did but was opposed to multi party system. Without people liberating and taking ownership of their countries one could not talk about building democratic societies or government for the people. Herein lies the merit of the nationalist leaders What many liberated countries have failed to do under the pretext of ideology or pragmatism is to carryout the democratic revolution to the fullest point of empowering the people to be totally in charge of their countries. Once the people of each country are in charge everywhere and governments exist only to serve them there will be national peace and world peace. The most important of all battles to be won in the 21st century is the battle of democracy. All progressive forces should strive to win this battle for the fullest empowerment of the people to push world history forward to guarantee greater liberty, dignity and prosperity for the people. This is the direction NADD wants to take the Gambia.
I maintain an active political life because of my subscription to the philosophy that even though it is good to understand the world it is better to contribute towards changing it. Knowledge for its sake is sterile unless it can be translated into action to make the world a better place than we found it.
Infact, my centre for social science research and civic awareness is stagnant because of the duties I had to perform as an MP and for NADD. If the people do decide that it is best for me to give way to others I would then proceed to prepare my long awaited dissertation for sociology under the title "The Language and Culture of Custom, Tradition, Religion and Rights in the Gambia." This will be very important to the way the future generation is brought up. There is a lot of conflict in society today because of lack of understanding of how socialization should take place in the 21st century. That will provide a new insight.
It will show that religion is a depository of moral values and culture that should not be a source of conflict. It will shatter the myth of the clash of civilizations between the west and the east. It will give credence to certain universal values and culture that could transform the world into a universal home of people living in liberty, dignity and prosperity.
In the area of International Relations I would work on the title "The Doctrine of Collective Sovereignty." This will be very relevant to solving the problems in the Middle East, Darfur and emerging conflicts on the continent. Instead of a polarized world and the creation of spheres of influence. This will show the importance of creating zones were clusters of states like Israel, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Palestine will agree on standards of how to contain each other on the basis of strategic balance of power and establish a compact monitored by the international community to maintain good neighbourliness. The doctrine of collective sovereignty could have enabled Sudan, Chad, Libya, Central African Republic, Niger to all serve as a cluster of states adhering to a common standard monitored by the African Union. Instead of seeking military solution in Darfur civic education will start in the refugee camps and elections done to select a leader as a starting point to empower the people. Men, women and youth representatives could be selected. In the same vein negotiation for cease fire should go hand in hand with negotiation on a comprehensive plan for the sharing of wealth and power. In my view the future of world peace does not lie in the unilateralism of George Bush of the US or Neo anti imperialism of Chavez of Venezuela. It lies in the promotion of collective sovereignty where all states are required to adhere to standards of governance that are acceptable to the people of the world. In this way developing countries can develop better standards than the developed countries and push them to create a new international economic political. Military and diplomatic order instead of justifying their own misgovernance by pointing out the inadequacies of the developed countries. Anyway, this is just mentioned in passing. Let me get back to the point.
Now one may ask: What is the future of NADD and the NADD flag bearer?
It should be understood that my mandate as a NADD flag bearer did not go beyond the acceptance to serve for one term as President with the sole objective of putting in place a democratic constitution, laws and institutions, policies and practices that would protect fundamental rights and freedoms, build a transparent and accountable financial system, eradicate the excesses of incumbency and set the country on the road of a genuine multi party system that can guarantee free and fair elections. Since we did not win the elections I had to ask the NADD executive to come to a determination and decision on the political fate of NADD and its current flag bearer.
In short, should NADD disintegrate or should it be retained? Should the post of flag bearer be void or should it be retained? The members of the NADD Executive have resolved that as far as they are concerned NADD has been enthusiastically received and accepted by the people.
According to them, the objectives NADD to separate state from party, conduct civic education, curb the advantages of incumbency by restricting the term of the NADD Presidential candidate to one term of five years, open up the media to divergent views and build a foundation for a genuine multiparty system to emerge, respect and protect fundamental rights and freedoms and consolidate a democratic foundation for the country, are still valid. They resolved that NADD should be maintained and that it should contest the forthcoming National Assembly election. According to them, NADD's flag-bearer was shown to the people after many felt that the opposition will present only one candidate; that time was needed to explain to the voters what led to the split for them to be able to make up their minds where to cast their votes. "That finally many abstained and others who traditionally use to cast their votes for the UDP did so in anticipation tat it could win. They argued that now that it is clear to such people that UDP cannot lead the opposition to victory, many saw the need for the type of alliance NADD sought to build based on the equality of all opposition parties just to achieve the aim of building a democratic foundation for the country.
The Executive partly attribute NADD's results to the overwhelming resources of the APRC which enabled it to go back where NADD displayed strength such as Fass Saho, Fulladu etc, to erode its support. The short time exposure of the NADD candidate, the inadequate resources which prevents NADD to give T-Shirts and flags to its supporters to retain their identification with NADD. The Executive lamented that STGDP could not provide the resources anticipated because of the split in NADD. They noted that the movement for Democracy in New York and the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy in the UK were completely absent in giving support to NADD in the campaign. They asked me to make enquiries why that was the case. They resolved that we should thank all those who supported NADD in kind cash, votes, prayers and spirit especially the voters of Wuli. They resolved that the flag-bearer should continue and that the structures created in Wuli, which enabled the voters to develop a strong resistance against inducement and intimidation should be emulated everywhere. They mandated me to issue a press release to this effect. They called for a tactical alliance between NADD and the other opposition parties or independent candidates so that the strength of the opposition in the National Assembly will increase. They resolved that all those who are opposed to such a political alliance should be seen to be working so that there will be no opposition in the National Assembly thus making the Gambia a one party state. They concluded that such people should be exposed. What is my respond to the resolution of the Executive Committee for me to continue to be flag-bearer?
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 93/2006, 30-31 October, 2006 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
