 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 24 May 2008 : 20:40:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by dbaldeh
The MOU "What it postulates is that the candidate will serve for one term of five years after which he/she would not seek re-election and will not support another candidate. That doesn’t mean that the person cannot participate forever. It only meant that he/she cannot participate in the first election that his presidency preceded since that would be the point when NADD will be duly dissolved to allow everybody to revert to their original parties and to contest on the basis of their individual party programmes. What this provision seeks to do at this point is to prevent any party from unduly benefiting from the incumbency factor that would be associated with the out-going president. That is all what was envisaged"
Wow!! this is the closest we have ever come to opponents of NADD confessing that the policies of NADD stipulated in the MOU makes extremely good political sense and sound solutions to a dictatorial regime in the Gambia. Certainly the aboved quoted statement doesn't only make sense be it address the whole problem of leaders perpetuating themselves into power. Anyone who first read that statement would not have believed that it was written under the political climate that exist through out Africa.
"It is now generally accepted that NADD disintegrated at the point of the flagbearer selection. The MOU was adopted and signed by the signatories including Mr. Darboe in 2003. That is 3yrs before the flagbearer selection took place, and the year five term limit clause and all that comes with it were still part and parcel of the MOU. No controversy arose during this entire 3yr period regarding the one term limit issue and has never been connected to the stalemate that characterized the flagberear selection, and there was none whatsoever". Nyarikang.
Truth and the absolute truth shall ultimately prevail. Only with time and lessons learned can humans come to realize the significants of facts surrouding politicy decision making.
It is widely admitted above that IT WASN'T about TRUST that lead to the departure of the UDP but the LEADERSHIP ISSUE. Who wanted it without be4 going through the entire fair process of selecting a leader - Primaries?
"Up till now and until eternity, they will never refer to anything done or said by Mr. Darboe or the UDP, either during the flagbearer selection or immediately after the MOU was signed, that could be construed, by any reasonable creature, as meaning that Mr. Darboe would have stayed beyond the stipulated term limit if given the throne under NADD’s ticket. This charge is simply a baseless and malicious one that could only come from hopeless politicians who have heavily implored a Kitchen and Sink strategy in order to prevail at all cost but who then failed awfully. The heartache became intolerable thereby forcing them to do or say anything close to their mouths. I think we need to understand this because it is exactly what happened in the immediate aftermath of UDP/NRP pull-out". Nyarikang.
Political spinning will never take the truth away forever from the spotlight. It is easy to pick and choose a topic that favors ones point and beat it to death. Yes, we do understand what happened why NADD disintegrated and that is why facts are begining to emerge. Read on to some of our contributions on this topic and see if we have never mentioned what Darboe did or said.
WOW, this is getting exciting and more to come....
The above posting exhibited a deliberate attempt to distort my words by cherry-picking them. I have therefore decided to reproduce the quotations in full and then leave the pettiness to the bloke since that is what he got left with. But before that, I would like to clarify that I did not, in anyway, suggest that NADD broke because of the flagbearer selection. I said it disintegrated at the point of the flagbearer selection. This is an important distinction. There were a lot of things boiling up prior to this event. They only just exploded at the point of the flagbearer selection. Mr. Darboe could not have wasted his time talking about them all. Those events and/issues have already been ovetaken by events. Mr Darboe had already made his decision and was looking forward to moving on to the bigger fight against the incumbent. That is why he put everything in a nutshell and summed it up in three words; 'Lack of trust'. If you trust somebody, why conspire against him? See below the full quotations.
Thanks
1.The MOU did not do require anybody’s retirement from politics after five years service as president. What it postulates is that the candidate will serve for one term of five years after which he/she would not seek re-election and will not support another candidate. That doesn’t mean that the person cannot participate forever. It only meant that he/she cannot participate in the first election that his presidency preceded since that would be the point when NADD will be duly dissolved to allow everybody to revert to their original parties and to contest on the basis of their individual party programmes. What this provision seeks to do at this point is to prevent any party from unduly benefiting from the incumbency factor that would be associated with the out-going president. That is all what was envisaged, not a perpetual exclusion of any citizen from the politics of the nation. I think it is inconceivable to even think that any civilize politician or political organization would consider making or agreeing to such an obnoxious and appalling undertaken. The right to political freedom is inalienable.
2.It is now generally accepted that NADD disintegrated at the point of the flagbearer selection. The MOU was adopted and signed by the signatories including Mr. Darboe in 2003. That is 3yrs before the flagbearer selection took place, and the year five term limit clause and all that comes with it were still part and parcel of the MOU. No controversy arose during this entire 3yr period regarding the one term limit issue and has never been connected to the stalemate that characterized the flagberear selection, and there was none whatsoever. Therefore, to suggest that Mr. Darboe was the one not to honor the one five year term limit requirement is not only ludicrous but also delusional. It is like nonsense upon silt. This charge is simply a replica or an extension of the smear campaign that partly necessitated Mr. Darboe resignation from NADD. It is simply not borne by facts or underpinned by any tangible evidence of any sort. Not even a circumstantial one. This is something Ayatollah Sallah surrogates, Yero Jallow [Dalton] and Co., have maliciously manufactured and stuffed their cyber arsenal with it to fuel their deceitful campaign of against Mr. Darboe’s candidacy. That is all it is. Up till now and until eternity, they will never refer to anything done or said by Mr. Darboe or the UDP, either during the flagbearer selection or immediately after the MOU was signed, that could be construed, by any reasonable creature, as meaning that Mr. Darboe would have stayed beyond the stipulated term limit if given the throne under NADD’s ticket. This charge is simply a baseless and malicious one that could only come from hopeless politicians who have heavily implored a Kitchen and Sink strategy in order to prevail at all cost but who then failed awfully. The heartache became intolerable thereby forcing them to do or say anything close to their mouths. I think we need to understand this because it is exactly what happened in the immediate aftermath of UDP/NRP pull-out. |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 May 2008 21:04:32 |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2008 : 21:02:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
...any political union must take cognisance of it.(Nyari)
I thought you oppose a damn union? Oh you mean you oppose a union without Ousainou Darbo at the head of it.
I mean a union that does not take cognisance of the sacred rule that in politics, those with the majority are conferred legitimacy to lead. This is an entrench democratic principle.
Please be informed that UDP is not short of leaders and that I do not see Darboe as indispensible.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 May 2008 21:56:18 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2008 : 21:26:45
|
| There was such a union Nyari, it was called UDP/NRP/GDP. In numbers theory it was the union of second, third and er..last. Forget about the "2% no hopers". They still got trounced and absolutely hammered. Why? If numbers is the game how can fourth make any difference to this logic if they could not even make 40% of the numbers put together? |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2008 : 21:37:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
There was such a union Nyari, it was called UDP/NRP/GDP. In numbers theory it was the union of second, third and er..last. Forget about the "2% no hopers". They still got trounced and absolutely hammered. Why? If numbers is the game how can fourth make any difference to this logic if they could not even make 40% of the numbers put together?
Well may be we should stop talking about unity then,if this is your position, because even if you add NADD'S votes, which is pretty decimal anyway, APRC still has the upper hand.How about that?
You know, we can all go petty but there is no point. Let's deal with the substance. OK!
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 May 2008 21:47:44 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2008 : 22:18:58
|
| I am not against unity, i am just trying to lay out your numbers philosophy in pieces so that you can better understand the union you are calling for and why it is not working and even if it succeed will only lead to further disaster more complex than what we currently have. I am not being petty at all. So once again why have the unity you asposed(UDP/NRP/GDP) failed so badly against the APRC and why would adding NADD to your union make any difference in you opinion? |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2008 : 23:24:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
I am not against unity, i am just trying to lay out your numbers philosophy in pieces so that you can better understand the union you are calling for and why it is not working and even if it succeed will only lead to further disaster more complex than what we currently have. I am not being petty at all. So once again why have the unity you asposed(UDP/NRP/GDP) failed so badly against the APRC and why would adding NADD to your union make any difference in you opinion?
It does not lie in the mouth of NADD or PDOIS and all those who support them to say party-led alliance does not work since they do not and have never embraced it. Your Ayatollah said it amounts to helping somebody to become an elite. In fact, they have implored all strategies to discredit it.
When we talk about statistics, we are aware that there is always a margin of error since no one can predict the future. So, it is not like we are saying this number is definitely already there. We just got to add that number on to it to give us victory, no! We are talking about ‘on a balance of probabilities’. Even professional pollsters don't always get it right but they are always close. That is why no serious politician ignores their predictions because if you do, it will always be at your peril. What statistical forecast does is to point at what is most likely to happen, all things being equal. You should remember that the search is about which form of alliance is more likely to win against the incumbent. The answer to that is the form of alliance I have talked about since that is the type that gathered far more votes than any other allaince. That is a statistical fact. As things stands now, anything that goes bad for UDP can only go worst for NADD. No doubt about that. So, I do not see any point in NADD supporters calling for unity if they do not want to respect the rules of conventional politics and play by it. It is no good saying party-led allaince does not work in the last election since NADD chose not to be part of that allaince despite an invitation been extended to them, and their own form of allaince performed far worst than all the contenders in the 2006/2007 presidential and parliamentary elections. If they still want to maintain this position, I think they should stop calling for unity then.
UDP/NRP have attributed their failure in the 2006 election to low voter turn-out, not the disintegration of NADD.
Anyway, you have not stated why ignoring the rules of conventional politics could be a better option. They tried it in NADD and never worked. Why shouldn’t we then try to play according to the rules of conventional politics this time around then, by bringing all the opposition parties behind the main one? We never had that before, have we? It is always few behind UDP while saboteurs like PDOIS and others are on the other side endeavoring to undermine them.
To sum things up for you, UDP has the political legitimacy to lead if there is to be an all opposition coalition. That is what the statistics shows and that is what the rules of conventional politics called for. If you don’t like that then [this is not personal] you might as well not put them in the equation.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 24 May 2008 23:50:29 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2008 : 03:55:03
|
Nyari you never cease to astound me. You said when you deal with statistic there is always room for a margin of error. That is very true indeed!! Now any statistician will tell you that a margin of error of more than 9 points is bad statistic. A margin of error of over 14 points is catastrophic. So your statistics and politic of numbers was headed for doom all along because you had bad statisticians coming up with theory that second highest number+third highest number+the least number=victory. Guess what, you got battered. So you now have an easy job of sacking all your statisticians because they terribly bad and that include your own very self. The game was not all about numbers then. The other side of the coin which you had arrogantly discounted, was experience and what i would call political psychology which overwhelmingly favored the personnel in the NADD camp. That is; over 20 years of PDOIS political experience and civic education. Over 20 years OJ's political experience and influence and over 20 years of Waa Juwara's political experience and king making. When these political heavy weights speak Gambians listen. They got the political oomph and character as opposed to the UDP numbers. Their influence transcend beyond the opposition but at the heart of Jammeh's power base as well. So when for the first time these heavy weights were pulling strings in the same direction as the UDP,NRP and GDP for the first time in Gambia's political history the ground shook and the APRC trembled. The game was never all about numbers.
Now we move to the union you espoused to. I totally disagree with the theory of having a union of all opposition parties with different political ideologies and motivations rallying behind the biggest political party to effect regime change. This amounts to political coup d'etat and it is undemocratic in my book because democracy is about choices. Like military coup d'etats, they tend to disintegrate into factions of dog-eat-dog within the first few months of achieving power, with each faction looting and plundering our limited resources until the dominant group finally take control after ejecting all its allies in the initial coalition. This is dangerous to national security especially with an indisciplined military. We have seen the Kenyan Rainbow Coalition and the Sopi coalition in Senegal among others fail miserably.
This then leaves us with the unique five year plan of changing the wretched system of government that has seen power concentrated into the hands of a dictator with the aid of rubber stamp parliament. This will be achieved with a coalition of opposition parties with equal vote and equal representation, guided by a Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by all parties. A five year government of rectification and reconcilliation. There is more optimism in system because it give room for reconciliation not witch hunting , guarantee job security to the present civil service, discipline the Military, give the Judiciary back its independence, weed out abnoxious laws that stifle press freedom and freedom of expression and encourage the participation of the Gambia diaspora in national development. This was the coalition that Gambians anticipated for. This was the coalition that made the APRC shiver and shake with panic, so that it resorted to arresting and imprisoning those political heavyweights on dubious allegations out of paranoia. This is the coalition i want brought back together. At the end of the five years of rectification then you can talk about your politics of numbers because only then would there be a level political playing field. Right now the politics of number won't uproot the APRC government. |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2008 : 04:08:10
|
"There were a lot of things boiling up prior to this event. They only just exploded at the point of the flagbearer selection. Mr. Darboe could not have wasted his time talking about them all. Those events and/issues have already been ovetaken by events. Mr Darboe had already made his decision and was looking forward to moving on to the bigger fight against the incumbent. That is why he put everything in a nutshell and summed it up in three words; 'Lack of trust'. If you trust somebody, why conspire against him? See below the full quotations"
This statement is yet another evidence that all those things that were boiling up in NADD like in any coalition were accepted to the UDP leadership except the Flagbear issue. When that one came up and Darboe was not automatically selected, that was what they were waiting for. This validates the points many contributors made here that Darboe only wanted the leadership and nothing else.
It was also mentioned here that UDP was not negotiating in good faith thus this statement "Mr Darboe had already made his decision and was looking forward to moving on to the bigger fight against the incumbent". Apparently this decision was made while the leadership issue was still under discussion. So critics have been vindicated that the ABD myth was in fact an irony that UDP beleives instead as far as leadership.
Everything will come to light as time permits. I wish we have more UDP supporters who were more involved in this process contributing here. Then we will see the disconnect I have been writing about. Lets see if more people who don't speak for themselves but know more about what happened rejoin here.
Finally, I have said here before that the numbers/statistics this dude has been parading here are corrupted. Conventional political wisdom does not work with a suppressed electorate. There is no free political will in the Gambia. So to talk about conventional political scenarios are only a wishful thinking. This is simply why the NADD formulae was different from any other political formular we have seen in history. This is what many failed to understand.
Besides, the issue of voter apathy as a consequence of the low turn our was first put forward by NADD. The UDP scenario in the begining was unfair election and voter suppression.
The implication of low voter turn was as a result of the break up. When all hopes of a united opposition was dashed by UDP, the only option for voters was to stay home because they saw the selfishness in the political figures. This reason alone could have made a concious political party to think about breaking away from the rest. But nop! all the vision was for the State house forgeting what needs to happen to get there.
Coalition breakup = voter apathy = Collective loss. What statistics is more clear that this?
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2008 : 21:14:35
|
Nyari you never cease to astound me. You said when you deal with statistic there is always room for a margin of error. That is very true indeed!! Now any statistician will tell you that a margin of error of more than 9 points is bad statistic. A margin of error of over 14 points is catastrophic. So your statistics and politic of numbers was headed for doom all along because you had bad statisticians coming up with theory that second highest number+third highest number+the least number=victory. Guess what, you got battered. So you now have an easy job of sacking all your statisticians because they terribly bad and that include your own very self. The game was not all about numbers then. The other side of the coin which you had arrogantly discounted, was experience and what i would call political psychology which overwhelmingly favored the personnel in the NADD camp. That is; over 20 years of PDOIS political experience and civic education. Over 20 years OJ's political experience and influence and over 20 years of Waa Juwara's political experience and king making. When these political heavy weights speak Gambians listen. They got the political oomph and character as opposed to the UDP numbers. Their influence transcend beyond the opposition but at the heart of Jammeh's power base as well. So when for the first time these heavy weights were pulling strings in the same direction as the UDP,NRP and GDP for the first time in Gambia's political history the ground shook and the APRC trembled. The game was never all about numbers.- Shaka
If this is so, how comes they scored the worst results in the 2006/7 presidential and parliamentary elections? What happened to their experience, philosophies and political weights? Are you suggesting that they are now a bunch of spent force? If you think UDP was battered despite their numbers, then I think it is only fair to say that NADD had been annihilated. Your logic is despicably crude and out of place. Nobody ever denies that APRC has a statistical advantage even if all the opposition parties are grouped together. My position is that if we believe that APRC’s lead is surmountable then we got to adopt a coalition that is most likely to get us there and this has to be based on statistical evidence, not the opinions of the so-called Kingmakers or the political philosophies of a disingenuous Ayatollah. We all have a right to our opinions and philosophies but for God sake, we should not seek to impose them onto others. Let’s get our heads around something that is evidence led and incontrovertible, a universal litmus test. That is what I would go for. Until you get that, you will always miss the point of my argument. Remember, I did not suggest that UDP has the numbers to beat the APRC. I know very well that that does not subsist in official facts. The equation only therefore covers the UDP/NRP alliance and NADD as per their individual chances Of defeating the incumbent APRC on a balance of probabilities. In that respect, my case is that if we genuinely belief that APRC is defeatable, then on a balance of probabilities and as showed by statistical evidence, a UDP led alliance is more likely to do it than NADD. This is a simple statistical fact that needs to be acknowledged. Your logic above can only hold water if there is no such belief that APRC can be defeated, in which case, we might as well stop contemplating the idea of opposition unity because it would be a pointless waste of time and energy.
Anyway given that I have simplified things above for you, what is the basis of your suggestion that my statement that ‘on a balance of probabilities a UDP led coalition is more likely to win than NADD’ has a margin of error of 14%? I am looking for substance, not pettiness and crude logics.
[i]This then leaves us with the unique five year plan of changing the wretched system of government that has seen power concentrated into the hands of a dictator with the aid of rubber stamp parliament. This will be achieved with a coalition of opposition parties with equal vote and equal representation, guided by a Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by all parties. A five year government of rectification and reconcilliation. There is more optimism in system because it give room for reconciliation not witch hunting , guarantee job security to the present civil service, discipline the Military, give the Judiciary back its independence, weed out abnoxious laws that stifle press freedom and freedom of expression and encourage the participation of the Gambia diaspora in national development. This was the coalition that Gambians anticipated for. This was the coalition that made the APRC shiver and shake with panic, so that it resorted to arresting and imprisoning those political heavyweights on dubious allegations out of paranoia. This is the coalition i want brought back together. At the end of the five years of rectification then you can talk about your politics of numbers because only then would there be a level political playing field. Right now the politics of number won't uproot the APRC government. -Shaka
APRC have being arresting and imprisoning since 1996 and they haven’t done anything different in 2005/2006. As for the type of coalition you have highlighted above, I would like to remind you that that type has been around and is still around. You can stick to it if you want to. That wouldn’t change the fact that they have proven, in the 2006/7 presidential and parliamentary elections, to be the worst electoral performer of all types.
I have to admit, I have struggled trying to pick substance from your rambling piece. That only tells me that you have no coherent message to convey. You are just indulging in an unmeritorious fishing exhibition. In any case, I will continue to scout for substance and respond to them as and when necessary. You shall remain astound.
"Mr Darboe had already made his decision and was looking forward to moving on to the bigger fight against the incumbent". Apparently this decision was made while the leadership issue was still under discussion. So critics have been vindicated that the ABD myth was in fact an irony that UDP beleives instead as far as leadership[/i]. -DBaldeh
It looks like while some of us are endeavoring to exhibit commonsense here the grotesque distortionist is also busy having his bite. What I suggested/implied in my previous clarification is that by the time Mr. Darboe advanced his reasons for quitting NADD, he had already made his decision and was looking forward to moving on to the bigger fight with the incumbent hence, in my belief, his reasons for limiting himself to three words to sum up his reason for leaving NADD, ‘Lack of trust’. That is all what I said and it's being said in plain English. If you know what that means. This comment was necessitated by Kayjatta's comment that the electibility issue I mentioned earlier on was not one of the reasons advance by Darboe for leaving NADD and I was just explaining why that wasn't necessary. As for the ABD project, even the president of STGDP, Musa Jeng, has confessed to that. He is more close to the NADD executive than this hopeless and grotesque distortionist shouting here.
Another thing I would like to state is that it is neither the belief of the UDP nor the NRP that the low voter turn-out that marred the 2001 election was as a result of NADD's disintegration. Their official position is that this was due to the oppressive tactics implored by the regime. I suppose we don't have to agree on this since neither party's position does any harm to the other. They all have a right to an independent judgment of their own.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 25 May 2008 23:18:39 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2008 : 23:22:23
|
I am beginning to believe that there is something definitely wrong with you. Don't go hormonal on me, i am only expressing my opinion. It is mine and only mine.
"If this is so, how comes they scored the worst results in the 2006/7 presidential and parliamentary elections? What happened to their experience, philosophies and political weights? Are you suggesting that they are now a bunch of spent force? If you think UDP was battered despite their numbers, then I think it is only fair to say that NADD had been annihilated"(Nyari) You are right, they were annihilated, just like the UDP coalition. That was down to voter apathy. Voters were simply turned off the failure of the opposition to present NADD on the ballot box as union of all the opposition political parties in the Gambia. They manifested their grievance by not bothering to vote. There is even a probability that some of those who would have voted for NADD went on to vote APRC.
"My position is that if we believe that APRC’s lead is surmountable then we got to adopt a coalition that is most likely to get us there and this has to be based on statistical evidence,..." I have already told you that the coalition you mentioned was on the ballot boxes in the last general elections and they got trounced. Unless you are saying that the vote of the "2% no hopers" was significant enough to guarantee victory. If numbers and statistic is the only determinant factor then it is bollocks to suggest that bringing NADD to the UDP led coaliton would have guarantee victory and that is statistics.
"Remember, I did not suggest that UDP has the numbers to beat the APRC".(Nyari) That was the UDP led coalition's mantra in the last election. That is if you add the number of the UDP to that of the NRP then it equal to victory. Guess what?
I will not support a UDP led coalition because it is undemocratic and is a political coup d'etat in my opinion, for the reasons mentioned in my earlier posting. I also believe that the APRC can be defeated but not based on your theory of number politics only.
"Anyway given that I have simplified things above for you, what is the basis of your suggestion that my statement that ‘on a balance of probabilities a UDP led coalition is more likely to win than NADD’ has a margin of error of 14%? I am looking for substance, not pettiness and crude logics"(Nyari) You have not simplified anything, only confusing yourself. I have never said that, on a balance of probabilities, a UDP led coalition is more likely to win than NADD, has a margin of error of 14%. My statistic was based on the fact it take over 50% of electoral ballot count to clinch victory. The UDP claimed that they were going to win the elections based on their numbers theory. If it takes 51% to claim victory and the UDP only managed 34%, the margin of error was well over 14 percentage points. Comprende? |
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2008 : 04:26:28
|
Dbaldeh, Sorry for not replying sooner ,I was caught up with other things but first and foremost i will try to answer your question based on my opinion of things.
I really don't think Jammeh has any explaination owed to anyone. May be all he has to explain is why he took over the PPP regime which am pretty sure he answered already. The frequent arrest and detention without the due process of the law I will try to tell you who to blame for that. Start with the incompetent NIA officials and the police departments for not functioning as expected. Remember Jammeh cannot run every institution in the Gambia which he is being forced to do anyways.
If anyone is dis-satisfied with the way the law is being handled well you as an educated man should know exactly what the process would be and should be to ensure that the due process of law prevails if you know what i mean.
For the frequent hiring and firing, rehiring and refiring of public officials i think i started off explaining why Gambians are so full of crap and that they will try to destroy anything they feel is a threat to their personal growth. A lot of people are loosing their jobs mainly due to incompetence and failing to deliver as expected or due to the modern day snitches who are hell bound on making sure no one's life is stable. Every one is trying to grow faster than the system can afford and that leads to people trying to eliminate each other pointing out every little mistake, hopefully you are not caught with your pants down taking a crap for they will tell Jammeh what you ate for Dinner and breakfast. Gambians have started evolving into something that i really can't understand.
Most of the highly publicized firings mainly has to do with incompetence, yet in some instances the very people you trusted turned their backs on you hoping to get recognition.I seriously doubt if the civil service is unstable for the simple fact that the firings only pertains to top executives and officials who have a role to play and goals to achieve remember the success of any institution is dependent on them. So are you telling if they show signs of incompetence you should just let them stay bro.
Well how can you prove Dbaldeh that Jammeh has been diverting Government funds to build Kanilai and whats your evidence based on .How much money did he take from where and how much was diverted? I would like to know.
If Darboe can make over 200,000 Dalasis a Month according to reports from the state and that Hamat Bah is also co owner of a Hotel. HMMMMM how can they afford it and who is sponsoring them?. These are the questions interested parties should be asking. A lot of people support and love Jammeh and provide him with all the resources he needs to be successsful Yes or NO bro?.
How about all the arrest and detention without trial of all these folks some of whom disappeared from their families for months and years? Well Mr Baldeh i really don't know what they did to be arrested and what they said . Remember freedom of speech stops at a certain point and some of these fools like our ignorant brother you see in cyberspace swore on the holy quran or bible whatever their faith may be that they will keep the affairs of the nation in secret and only neccesary parties need to know especially if it pertains to state security.
Yet we have parrots like Mr Ambassador Bokarr sey who forgot what they swore to uphold and should be a shining example for the next generation of Gambians to learn from, but really all he is showing and trying to teach is that snitching is okay as long as you are fired. The fact is he just can't be trusted and Jammeh has more problems than he realizes. This is what Gambians are capable of doing bro...................................................................Peace
I wil get back to you on the AIDS cure for it deserves its own thread bro.
quote:
Originally posted by dbaldeh
Moe, I commend you for standing firm beside your man Jammeh. I don't think there is anything wrong with supporting one side or the other in a democracy. Without opposing sides we don't have a true democracy, so speak loud and clear bro for what you believe.
However, with all the enthusiasm you Jammeh supporters have, you have to admit in private that President Jammeh has some explanation to do on his policies and behaviors in office. Let me just mention a few items and hope that would be suffice.
As a strong supporter of Jammeh how do you explain the frequent hiring and firing and rehiring and refiring of public officials? How could any government be effective without any stability of the work force?
How do you explain to the whole country that Jammeh is diverting our resources to develop beyond any reasonable measure his own village of origin which has no strategic importance to the Gambia?
How about all the arrest and detention without trial of all these folks some of whom disappeared from their families for months and years?
How would your man Jammeh explain the issue of him being able to cure HIV/Aids, falsely treat all those vulnerable people and let them mingle back into society spreading the diseases to others?
Moe, with all due respect, I think Jammeh has some learning and growing up to do to become an effective President. He is no longer in the military and therefore should do away with threats to the Gambian people.
What say you Moe?
Thanks keep it coming!!!!
|
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 ..... |
|
|
|
ebou4th
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2008 : 16:54:50
|
"Now we move to the union you espoused to. I totally disagree with the theory of having a union of all opposition parties with different political ideologies and motivations rallying behind the biggest political party to effect regime change. This amounts to political coup d'etat and it is undemocratic in my book because democracy is about choices. Like military coup d'etats, they tend to disintegrate into factions of dog-eat-dog within the first few months of achieving power, with each faction looting and plundering our limited resources until the dominant group finally take control after ejecting all its allies in the initial coalition. This is dangerous to national security especially with an indisciplined military. We have seen the Kenyan Rainbow Coalition and the Sopi coalition in Senegal among others fail miserably.
This then leaves us with the unique five year plan of changing the wretched system of government that has seen power concentrated into the hands of a dictator with the aid of rubber stamp parliament. This will be achieved with a coalition of opposition parties with equal vote and equal representation, guided by a Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by all parties. A five year government of rectification and reconcilliation. There is more optimism in system because it give room for reconciliation not witch hunting , guarantee job security to the present civil service, discipline the Military, give the Judiciary back its independence, weed out abnoxious laws that stifle press freedom and freedom of expression and encourage the participation of the Gambia diaspora in national development. This was the coalition that Gambians anticipated for. This was the coalition that made the APRC shiver and shake with panic, so that it resorted to arresting and imprisoning those political heavyweights on dubious allegations out of paranoia. This is the coalition i want brought back together. At the end of the five years of rectification then you can talk about your politics of numbers because only then would there be a level political playing field. Right now the politics of number won't uproot the APRC government." Shaka
Shaka, these are noble ideas that all progressive minded Gambians should embrace, the plan can work with the support of the Diaspora. The big question is: knowing how power hungry we Africans tend to be; who gets to lead this coalition?
Given that UDP is the dominant party, do you think it is fair to ask its leader to step aside for someone out side the current political circle or someone in the minor party? Is this reasonable? You have stated that it is political coup de tata to rally around the UDP; why are we against Darboe leading/ It seems to me the whole issue revolves around the leadership issue.
What will be your solution to the leadership issue?
I think by now we have heard what will not work, i think it is about time we put forward solutions.
What will it take to put together a coalition that will be accepted by all parties. These questions are for only Shaka anyone can jump in.
I am not a member of any of the parties just an average citizen who wants a common sense approach to our problem. I am very interest in getting a sound answer from you. My email address is ebrima114@hotmail.com and my number is 706-593-5625 (ebrima)
|
“Revolutions are brought about by men, by men who think as men of action and act as men of thought.”
Kwame Nkrumah
|
Edited by - ebou4th on 27 May 2008 19:03:56 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2008 : 21:56:15
|
| Thanks Ebou!! Interesting point you have raised there, i am sure i will get back to you as soon as my head is a bit clear. Right now i have some *****s trying to squeeze my balls. You see my whole point was to get around this debate without attacking and insulting political personalities, while leaving room for dialogue towards an amicable solution. But it seems like Nyari had his nukes already aimed at the Ayatollah and the personalities in the NADD camp. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2008 : 23:12:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
Thanks Ebou!! Interesting point you have raised there, i am sure i will get back to you as soon as my head is a bit clear. Right now i have some *****s trying to squeeze my balls. You see my whole point was to get around this debate without attacking and insulting political personalities, while leaving room for dialogue towards an amicable solution. But it seems like Nyari had his nukes already aimed at the Ayatollah and the personalities in the NADD camp.
Shaka, I was not going to reply because I think I have made my point loud and clear and people have phoned me and congragulated me on that. However, I did not accept your accusation that I insulted some personalities. All what I have done was to state the facts in no uncertain terms. I understand some people are not comfortable with this because the facts are not on their side of the argument and I have no apologies for that but I do not insult anybody. So let's get that clear.
Another thing you people need to understand is this; a NADD comprising of all opposition parties as existed before was a fluke that is never to be repeated. That is why it is necessary that you guys shift your point of argument in this debate if you expect any credibility to be given to your call for unity. You can't ask for it and then expect it to be done on your terms. That is just a fairytale. It won't happen. Anybody can take that to the bank.
We know the gist of the argument you guys are trying to sell here and I can tell you this, it is not only a destitute of common sense, but also a hypocrtical one. We heard from Suwaibou Touray [recently writing in the Gambiaecho.com] that When the idea of a grand coalition first surfaced, the PDOIS Quartet met and decided that they will never support any party or candidate except if he/she is one of them. The kind of allaince they are now talking about is only aimed at achieving that goal. That is all this is about. Their Ayatollah [Halifa Sallah] feels too good of himself that he has become delusional. He described the act of rallying behind a candidate of another party as 'helping somebody to become elite'. He has done the same thing and frustrated Dr. Bojang's efforts in building a coalition against Jawara during the PPP era and he is at it again. The question people need to ask themselves now is this, 'why advocate for unity if you have already taken such an entrenched position'.
I am resting my case now. Thank you all for your thoughts and readership. I mean no offence please.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 27 May 2008 23:22:46 |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2008 : 02:10:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
"I am beginning to believe that there is something definitely wrong with you. Don't go hormonal on me, i am only expressing my opinion. It is mine and only mine". Shaka
Shaka, don't mind Nyarikang. He does have some mood swings and once the debate gets more substantive he resorts to name calling and confusion.
As I mentioned earlier it is difficult to reason with the guy when he always attaches himself to the issues and take them person. Whenever people try to put sense in this guys head he goes south and in alien space.
Honestly the guy has a problem. I don't mean to celebrate or talk about someone's mental incapacity because I think it is a sad situation and could happen to anybody.
His dilusional behavior is one of the reasons why folks appeal to I and him not to hijack the debate into personality conflict. I had promise not to go that route but I don't know how to avoid this kind of attitude.
I had previously promise myself that I will have to explore whether in fact he has a problem or is just being egoistic. I wanted to change his behavior in any forum or anywhere until he subdues or stop his errational behavior. I think am gonna have to lay down my arms since no one can put sense in his brain.
What a human tragedy.... |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
