 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11821 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Sep 2009 : 15:19:51
|
THE WAY FORWARD FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE
By Halifa Sallah
In this write-up, Halifa Sallah discusses his proposal “Agenda 2011” and invites readers to join the debate to promote consensus building on how to arrive at the selection of one candidate for those who stand for change whose candidature is easier to promote among the overwhelming majority of voters in the Gambia whether or not he/she is a party leader
Third Anniversary Essay on Gambian Politics
The Way Forward For Democratic Change
As adopted by you, and conveyed to me you would like me to look at the issue of unity among the opposition for the 2011 elections. This requires both realism and foresight.
One may now ask: What type of unity can actually lead to change?
First and foremost, it should be borne in mind that we live in a Gambia where 59 percent of the population is living in abject poverty. It is evident that every year thousands of high income families drop into middle income status and thousands of middle income families drop into low income status and join the ranks of those who live from hand to mouth. The rural area where 60 percent of the populations live also provides 80 percent of the labour force. This labour force is engaged in agriculture and contributes between 23 to 29 percent of GDP.This shows how low the productivity of farming is and why poverty in the rural areas is entrenched.
The urban area where 40 percent of the population lives is extremely congested and unplanned. Industry contributes just 10 percent of GDP. Employment generation is negligible in this sector. Hence the vast majority of urban youths are unemployed. High rent and cost of living have given rise to urban congestion and poverty. Many families now depend on remittances to survive which have escalated to 1800 Million dalasis per annum. There is clear evidence that the country is crying for better economic policies which can lead to the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty.
It goes without saying that many people also are desirous of change because of the governance environment. The detentions without trial, Delay in the conclusion of cases while the accused persons remain under detention, the increase in the number of detentions under the pretext that certain offences are unbailable, the disappearance of persons, the maintenance of prisons as detention centres rather than correctional institutions, the removal of National Assembly members and judges by the executive, the insecurity of tenure in public service do create an atmosphere which makes it virtually impossible for the executive to be scrutinized and restrained by state institutions like the National Assembly or the Judiciary, Civil Society like the Media, trade unions, human rights associations, etc. The amassing of wealth by the executive and its disbursement in accordance with its whims and caprices is entrenching politics of patronage which is inherited from the past. It is abundantly clear that no opposition party that intends to rely on patronage can muster adequate resources to compete with the incumbent. The volume of charities emanating from the camp of the executive is sufficient testimony that the old brand of politics of patronage has reached its apex and only politics of awareness can bring about change in the country. We can no longer return to the past. The future has caught up with us. We have no choice but to move forward in thought and practice. One may now ask: What is the way forward?
The answer lies in the concrete realities of Gambian society and nowhere else. It is a fundamental principle of social science that the internal conditions are the basis of change. The external conditions are just influential factors. A review of the internal factors would reveal that the country has many social constituencies to consider when we talk about change. There are the beneficiaries of the present and former governments, there is the army and other security or disciplined forces; there are the other opposition parties and those who cling to some of them in anticipation of benefits when they become successful, There are the investors who have something to lose or gain in the outcome of elections; There are the public servants who are looking for job security. There are Gambians abroad who are in exile and would like to come back to live in peace and prosperity; there are the non Gambians who could either play a part or remain neutral in elections and finally we have the silent majority that have mainly been apathetic during recent electoral contests. The Agenda which could bring about change must be able to win over or neutralize the vast majority in each of these camps.
First and foremost, Change can only come if the vast majority who are regarded as the silent majority moves away from their apathy and develop enthusiasm to be involved in the process of change. Most of them are farmers. They constitute 60 to 80 percent of the labour force. It is this labour force which provides 60 percent of house hold income in the Gambia. In my view, this sector of the population has not prospered during the past 15 years.
People generally talk about roads being built and other infrastructure being developed but the cost of traveling from Basse to Banjul has increased to 550 dalasis. Few farmers have the means to travel on those roads.
Furthermore, hundreds of Millions have been spent on agriculture during the past 15 years. Those acquainted with the Agricultural sector would recall the Farmer managed rice irrigation project, Peri-urban horticulture, Peri-urban Livestock, participatory integrated watershed management project, nerica rice dissemination project and so on and so forth. However poverty is still the order of the day in the farming community. In my view, a new administration will have to free all farmers from indebtedness who take fertilizer, seed nuts and farming inputs on credit, Lower the price of fertilizer and seed nuts by half and bring the primary cooperative societies back to life in each village and link them to a National Farmers Cooperative Union which will receive money to ensure a timely purchase of farmers’ produce without any relapse to credit buying. All the facts and statistics have been worked out to give adequate proof that this is feasible. It is also important to show how individual farm income would be enhanced and how cooperative farm income could also be a supplement to individual farm income by establishing farms like those of the president which would be owned by groups which participate in production. Agenda 2011 will state concrete statistics and details to give farmers the justification to support the agenda for a transitional Government of between 2 to five years after the APRC is voted out of office.
We must be able to convince the young people who constitute 60 percent of the population that they have a future; That even though almost 300,000 of them are thrown into the labour market every 12 years the productive base of the economy has not grown to provide them with employment. Africell, for example, claims that it has 600,000 subscribers. Many of these companies are providing incentives to customers to attract more customers. If each customer purchases 100 dalasis worth of credit per week, the sum accruing to the company would amount to 60 Million dalasis per week or D240 Million per month. The state also has its own companies. It means that there are both private and public companies in the country which are generating billions in investment potential every year which could be encouraged to diversify and build up productive sectors that would generate employment for the youths. Agenda 2011 will seek to convince the youths of the huge investment potential which could be set in motion during a transitional period of 2 and 5 years to generate employment. This will enable them to vote in free and fair elections after the transition so as to put in place a government which could expand the productive base of the economy and provide them with employment.
In short, the Gambia has a large service sector which accounts for 59 percent of GDP. The aggregate sales and purchase of foreign exchange which amount to 25 billion – to 30 billion annually confirms a high level of dependency on the travel trade especially tourism, remittances and foreign direct investments. There is a big gap between the accumulation of foreign exchange and its investment in the productive base to expand the economy and employment. The narrow tax base and huge expenditures on fanfare have culminated in the intensification of taxation on small scale enterprises which need protection to grow and help government to provide employment and self employment. The transitional agenda, Agenda 2011 will highlight the need to safeguard small enterprises from taxation and the productive enterprises in general from excessive taxation so that investments can expand to enable government to derive more taxes from the broadening of the tax base as well as to derive sovereign wealth from mining and the holding of shares in public /private enterprise partnerships as well as well managed public enterprises. The Private sector will be encouraged to invest their profits to generate employment rather than patronize the dinner tables of the APRC or its associates.
Furthermore, General amnesties, the Pardoning of prisoners like the Fultons and other prisoner exchanges with countries under whose statutes certain prisoners would not have been convicted would humanize our criminal justice system, promote respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and thus make the country attractive to visitors. This will enhance the productivity of our tourism sector. In my view, there is no investor, local or foreign, who could be opposed to agenda 2011 as summarized.
The others who are interested in the implications of a changed government after an election are members of the disciplined forces. One fortunate development in the Gambia is the involvement of many members of the disciplined forces in peace keeping. It means that a transitional government would not have to engage in training from scratch for most members of the disciplined forces. A transitional Government which comes into office through the consent of the electorate and further makes human rights a cornerstone of its governance agenda will make the disciplined forces of the Gambia very attractive for peace keeping duties. This will help the country to maintain a small and professional disciplined force which will be well remunerated and well prepared to move into and handle civilian duties or retire into civilian life.
Civil servants are also very much interested in the outcome of elections and any change it brings. The salaries are currently too low to enable them to build houses and maintain their families at a middle income level. Despite the low incomes, many public servants try to survive through tapping other sources of income which may not be necessarily proper. This however indicates that the resources which are received through loopholes could be identified and transformed into legitimate remuneration. Agenda 2011 will provide the basis for a professional public service. Public servants will not be required to identify with any political party or leader. They will not be allowed to work for any public trustee without just remuneration regardless of the post of the individual. There will be complete separation of party, political leader and the state.
The Gambian Diaspora is responsible for contributing 1800 Million dalasis in remittances annually. Hence it is an important constituency which has a say on the future of the country. There are many Gambians in the Diaspora who would want to come back and live in the Gambia. Some are near pensionable age or have actually earned pension pay. Agenda 2011 calls for the creation of a Diaspora Investment and Settlement Agency. The Agency will assist Gambians in the Diaspora to invest in the productive base and facilitate the allocation of plots of land for people to build houses. The monies paid to the state for such plots should be reasonable and should also be utilized for infrastructural development and proper planning to ensure that adequate drainage facilities and so on are provided before buildings are erected to avoid the type of waterlogged roads which obtain in many housing estates existing today. The agency will be in a position to assist pensioners to relocate to the Gambia and live on their pension entitlements at home.
Finally, the members of the former government and their supporters as well as the members of the APRC would be interested in what change would bring. The issue of corruption features prominently in present day discourse when one talks about past governments and existing ones. Those who are groomed in the field of political-economy are fully aware of the fact that corruption is the moral appellation for primitive accumulation. Lip service is often paid by new government to the fight against corruption only to usurp the wealth of their adversaries only to establish new conditions of corruption. Agenda 2011 will put an end to this legacy of self-righteousness in governance and will be practical and innovative in establishing structures which will enable those who have accumulated illicit gains to make declarations of them and be offered immunity from prosecution as well as an opportunity to be a share holder in a public private enterprise which will manage what is returned so that they will have enough resources to be able to run their families. Community service will also be substituted for term of imprisonment for those who have capacity to contribute to the development of the society. Only those with degraded or degenerated conscience will be given custodial sentence to rehabilitate them to live according to the dictates of conscience.
Suffice it to say, the Assets Management and Recovery Corporation have taken over many assets but have not utilized them to build up the capital base of the company to exceed the 300 Million dalasis in cash or kind it is expected to recover.
Agenda 2011 will bring about Complaints’ Commissions and the broadening of the mandate of the Office of Ombudsman to receive and look into all grievances, past and present, of those who have been deprived of properties without any visible action being taken for benefits to be accrued to the public, so that Justice can be done. Victimization will be a matter for the past. Mob and arbitrary justice will be ruled out. The supremacy of constitutional instruments and the independence and impartiality of institutions in regulating the fair protection of entitlements and dispensation of justice will also be affirmed. In this way even those who would have opposed agenda 2011 will come to accept its necessity and desirability. It will create a cornerstone for ensuring the dispensation of justice to all and the perpetration of injustice against none. This is the way to build a society, laws and institutions thriving on best practice to manage National and international affairs, in order to promote liberty, justice, dignity and prosperity. It should be borne in mind that this is not a recipe for any body to simply learn and put into practice. Leadership is not about imitation. It goes with the capacity to comprehend the science which is borne out of the interrogation of facts that must be relied on continuously to shape relevant policies and programmes.
Over the years, we have been giving concrete recommendations on how to shape national and international politics and economics. Now the whole world is coming to what we have always maintained; that governments are legitimately derived from popular consent and have no other mandate but to promote the liberty, dignity and prosperity of a sovereign people. The public sector and the public interest are what leaders are elected to manage and develop. The whole debate as to whether a government should be devoted to a private sector led growth or public sector led growth is a diversion and distraction which have enabled elected representatives to neglect the creation of sovereign National wealth through public enterprises or public private partnership in order to promote the general welfare of their people. Public trustees are elected to serve the public. In the recent financial crisis in the US, it is the public sector which bailed out the private sector in order to serve the long term public interest. In the process of governing, one must acknowledge the existence of competing private interests in the public space.
Science is the tool which enables leaders to comprehend the nature and characteristics of such interests and further shape policies and programmes to answer to the dictates of times and circumstances.
Agenda 2011 therefore aims to produce a new breed of public trustees in the Gambia who will be able to create standards of best practice at home in order to be able to play an influential and modeling role in Continental and International politics.
Take the political economy of the so-called developing countries as an example. It is very common for leaders and academics from developing countries to refer to China and India as their development model. They do not evaluate these countries from their civil, political, economic, social and cultural angles in order to come up with a holistic view. Most analysts do not examine how the economies of such countries are interwoven with those of other countries. This is why the cold war between China and the US has come to an end.
Now there is competition for markets. Today China has invested trillions in the US bond market and cannot afford for the US to collapse financially. This is why countries like Iran and Venezuela must be alert that we do not have a West –East geo-political contest as it is often presented. The East now has financial interest in the West. Hence military confrontation is no longer in the interest of both. Hence the way to give nations power in international politics is to be an example of best practice in the manner of existence of their people in the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural domains. Nuclear and military might is no longer the basis to secure National sovereignty. It is the unity of a sovereign people around a government which has derived its legitimacy from their consent and which utilizes such authority to promote their general welfare that is the cornerstone of the invincibility of a Country. Hence instead of spending billions on arms and nuclear capability by relying on revenue from oil, Iran and Venezuela should focus on building their economies to improve the living conditions of their people. Heavy reliance on oil money could be detrimental when Nations shift from fossil fuel and rely on more environmentally friendly sources of energy to reduce further depletion of the ozone layer. In fact the sustained drop or stagnation of oil prices is an early warning signal that no economy can be sustained by relying on one commodity for its military expenditures and still hope to bring about sustained development and welfare.
Agenda 2011 will promote international peace and security founded on the unity of sovereign peoples around sovereign governments whose authority and conduct are connected with dependent on and determined by the authority and interest of the people.
Now one may ask: What type of unity is feasible for the 2011 presidential and 2012 National Assembly elections?
It is necessary to digress to give a historical perspective to the answer. In 2003, I was given the responsibility to bring the opposition together. I made two proposals. One option was for opposition parties to continue their campaign to increase their support base from 2003 to 2006 and then sit down to determine which party or political leader would be supported to lead a coalition during the Presidential elections and which seats would be contested by each given party during the National Assembly elections. I proposed that one option was to allow one party and its leader to be the flag bearer. I indicated that if this option is adopted all parties should go ahead and promote their own agendas and come to the negotiation table six months before an election to decide which party and its leader would be allowed to lead.
The second option entailed the establishment of an Umbrella Party right away which would select a Presidential Candidate either through unanimity or the holding of a primary at which the party chairpersons, male and female of each ward as well as the youth leaders would select the candidate through a voting process. The candidate would belong to all the parties and would only serve one term and would not take sides in subsequent elections.
The leaders accepted to form an umbrella party instead of waiting to select the Presidential candidate of one of the political parties six months prior to the presidential elections. A memorandum of Understanding came into force on the 17 of January 2005. In order to ensure the integrity of the office of coordinator and Chairperson, Part II of the memorandum indicated that both positions are advisory and that “neither the Chairperson nor the coordinator or the deputy coordinator shall have voting powers.” Furthermore, Article 17 of the memorandum put an end to my mandate as coordinator upon the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The executive members who were the two representatives of the parties had to elect a new coordinator.
On 17 January 2005, the mandate given to the coordinator at the Atlanta meeting in 2003 came to an end. Interestingly enough, I was elected again to be coordinator. NADD came into being and was launched. It could not put up candidates in its name until it was registered. There was no law providing for the registration of an alliance. The Constitution however made room for a merger of parties. The IEC also has power to make decisions on electoral matters where laws were absent.
The IEC was approached to register NADD while the Coordinator was attending a meeting of the Pan African Parliament in South Africa. Upon his return, the Coordinator inquired whether it was clear to the IEC that NADD was a by-product of the coalition of parties. No clear answer could be given. The Executive committee had failed to be conclusive regarding the issue of merger before the registration of NADD even though the Memorandum has left no one in doubt that a merger had occurred. When the IEC was consulted they did indicate that they saw NADD as a merger of parties and even proceeded to draft rules to guide the formation of Alliances and Mergers. The draft rules were forwarded to the parties for discussion. The membership of NADD by some members of the National Assembly eventually led to court action. The counsel of the IEC argued that NADD was a merger but the Counsels for NADD held a different opinion. The issue of whether NADD is a merger or not was left hanging by the court since it was not used as a defence to retain the seats of the National Assembly Members who had become members of NADD. Despite the declaration of the seats of the National Assembly members vacant, NADD weathered the storm and won by- elections and led the APRC of Jammeh in the popular vote.
The arrest of NADD leaders by the end of 2005 gave rise to international focus on the Gambia. The coming of Obasanjo led to negotiation between The APRC and NADD. This gave rise to a memorandum of understanding which aimed to facilitate a peaceful coexistence of political parties and peaceful acknowledgement of victory of any party in elections. An inter-party committee was created with General Abdousalam Aboubakar serving as Guarantor of the agreement. NADD however did not benefit much from the agreement. Soon after the visit of Obasanjo, the UDP leader resigned from NADD and was later joined by the NRP leader. The NRP leader accepted a party led Alliance which was later joined by the leader of GPDP whose nomination papers were rejected by the IEC. What was left of NADD met and formed a selection committee. The selection committee registered a unanimous vote and prevented a primary which would have been necessitated by a single dissenting vote. All the members of the selection committee recruited from the different parties concurred and selected the Coordinator as the presidential candidate. The split confirmed that a party led Alliance or a divided alliance is not the way to bring about change in the Gambia.
A divided NADD became extremely weak. The UDP party led Alliance also showed its weakness. Instead of adding votes from the NRP and GPDP, the UDP led alliance lost approximately 80,000 votes. In short, while UDP had approximately, 145,000 votes in 2001 Presidential elections, in 2006 it ended up with approximately, 104,000 votes. NRP had approximately 35,000 votes in 2001.This did not feature in the votes of the UDP led Alliance in 2006. Hence putting the three parties together did not lead to more votes; on the contrary it led to a lower number of votes. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that the same tactic will yield a different outcome. This is the first lesson to draw.
Proposals were made for the opposition to form a tactical alliance so that they will not put more than one candidate in each constituency during the National Assembly elections. No agreement was reached on this proposal. Consequently, UDP ended up with four seats in the National Assembly and NADD with one seat. This is why draconian laws could be passed without any capacity by the opposition to block them. Some of the laws were so bad that the executive brought new bills to the national Assembly to repeal them.
After The Presidential and National Assembly elections more desertions from NADD occurred when the NDAM leader also forwarded his resignation and was later nominated to be a councilor by the APRC administration. The GPDP leader also distanced himself from the UDP led coalition. Political apathy gripped the electorate as the executive displayed its omnipotence in cabinet, the National Assembly, on TV, in business, in Agriculture, in medicine, in religion and other aspects of National Life. It was also able to draw religious leaders, traditional leaders, business tycoons and other opinion leaders to give solidarity to the programmes of the executive. Opposition parties became an endangered species whose existence was hardly felt in the scene. Few leading members of the opposition remain visible in their personal capacities and by their personal initiatives. The results of the Local Government elections became an indictment of Gambian democracy. It discredited politics and politicians on all sides of the political spectrum. Even the Independent Electoral Commission has lamented over the serious manifestation of voter apathy. For example, in the mayoral election in Kanifing, the number of eligible voters stood at 128,451. Only 27,485 voters voted in a two way contest between the UDP and APRC. The UDP had approximately 8000 votes while the APRC had approximately 19,000 votes.
In Banjul, out of 19,441 eligible electors approximately1000 voted for the UDP and 4000 for the APRC. UDP participated in the election for councilors for many wards but had only 3 seats. The Independent candidates won 8 seats. The results of the election confirm that both the ruling and opposition parties in the country are minority parties which lack the overwhelming support of the people. The APRC leaders must have got a shock of their lives when they welcomed the Thank you Mr. President campaign, which aimed to promote a life presidency. The campaign failed. Any careful observer could detect that the country is crying for a new democratic dispensation and political leadership which could inspire the people to take charge of their destiny. The victory of the Independent candidates confirms that a non partisan agenda is a way forward for political change at the executive, national Assembly and council levels. Where then do we go from here?
There are three options before us. Two of the options have already been tried. The UDP, NRP and GPDP have already tried the Party led Alliance. Instead of the votes of the alliance increasing the opposite was the order of the day. Secondly, the creation of an umbrella party by taking the initiative to merge all opposition parties into one political force, has also failed. The only option is the third one which calls for the formation of a broad coalition of the people who will demand to have only one presidential candidate to contest the seat and demand for all parties to sit and work out an agenda to make that possible and to isolate any party which refuses to accept the Agenda. An electoral Alliance under which one presidential, National Assembly and council candidate will be put to contest against the APRC candidates in the 2011 Presidential, 2012 National Assembly and 2013 council elections must be demanded by the people and imposed on opposition parties or punish them for non compliance with their dictates. The candidates do not necessarily have to come from political parties. They could be distinguished members of civil society. We SIMPLY need honest, mature and dedicated PERSONS who would preside over a transition lasting between 2 to 5years to give the country a new start. This is the way forward.
The starting point of building such a coalition is to build a sovereign consensus around a National Agenda for change. If one agrees with the content of this summary of Agenda 2011 one could begin to have an input in its content by joining the network for those who want to contribute towards its refinement, enrichment and promotion. Any body who takes the initiative to mail this summary to ten persons could contact me to register to be a part of the network. The network would eventually decentralize into autonomous networks to expand their own membership to promote debate and sharing on the agenda.
I am convinced that, once most people contribute to and accept the Agenda as the programme of the transitional government which will be in office for a period of 2 to 5 years, national unity for change will become inevitable. The Gambian people know what it means to be governed by an executive, which cannot be criticized, scrutinized and restrained by constitutional instruments, institutions, civil society segments and an enlightened and empowered citizenry. They want precisely such a government which could be consolidated in a period of 2 to 5 years. It is my view that only such a leadership can give Gambia a new start in putting an end to self perpetuating rule and put in place an executive which is a by product of, controlled by and accountable to the will of the people.
The candidate for 2011 should be a person who could be embraced by all sides of the political spectrum who are interested in change. If we are to move forward no political leader should insist to be the Presidential candidate. We should bow down to the dictate of reason and conscience. We should recognize that leadership is a duty and not a right. It should not be assumed or perpetuated against the will or consent of the people. This is of course a time for debate. If others have other viable agendas they should put it in the public domain and seek consensual legitimacy so that we agree on a way forward before the end of 2009.
To conclude I must admit that I have been taught fundamental lessons by my detention in connection with my attempt to put an end to the abduction of people by so-called witch doctors and the recent incarceration of the six journalists. I am convinced that there can be no sovereign Republic unless the individual sovereignty of each citizen is linked to the collective sovereignty of the Gambian people. This collective sovereignty should extend to Africa and humanity at large. In that way injustice done to anyone becomes the common concern of everyone. This is the way to safeguard the sovereignty of peoples and nations. No one is a patriot who is not concerned with the welfare of his or her fellow citizens. Those who recognize their duty to serve humanity must also be willing to march into prisons and graves in order for their people, their children and their children’s children to live and be free. This is the verdict of history and it is incontrovertible.
Finally, I personally want to practice what I preach. Those of us who have been commenting on what President Jammeh says and does should also be scrutinized and judged for what we say and do.
Gambians want an executive that can be scrutinized, criticized and restrained by Constitutional Instruments, Oversight Institutions like the Judiciary and parliament and civil society organizations like the media, unions and other interest groups and the individual sovereign citizens through their petitions. We must equally safeguard our words and deeds so that they would not fall foul of public interest and public morality. The words and deeds of those who wish to replace president Jammeh should be bound by the dictates of conscience, morality, humility, decency and the National interest. This is the way to enable the public to take the agents of change seriously. The public should distance themselves from all those who claim to be change agents but cannot express themselves in an intelligent and refined manner. All those who display rudeness, crudities and insolence in their public discourse on national issues should be sent to the dustbin of party politics. Such people would only succeed in retarding the process of change.
To conclude, let me reiterate that President Jammeh has a mandate to be in office up to 2011 which will be his seventeenth year in office. I believe Rawlings was in office for 20 years. He made many mistakes but Ghana is on track. It has gone through a cycle of multi party change. Gambia has never gone through a democratic cycle of change through the ballot box. What president Jammeh should do is to engage the opposition parties in a dialogue. A prominent member of the international community could be engaged to preside over this mediation so that we can ensure that freedom of expression is guaranteed, that the members of the Independent Electoral Commission will be guaranteed security of tenure, a proper registration of voters is conducted which all parties will endorse, Free atmosphere created for the promotion of party programmes and policies, genuine electoral campaign and genuine Presidential and National Assembly Elections. He could buttress this by restoring the second round of voting, the repealing of all laws impeding freedom of expression and the setting up of a commission of enquiry to receive and look into all queries on human rights. This will augur well for peaceful transfer of political office and the peaceful co-existence of political parties. Gambia is going through the most decisive period in its political history. 2011 marks the end of the old period marked by the politics of patronage and its monarchical encumbrances and the beginning of the new period of the sovereignty of the people. President Jammeh is consolidating a culture of the coup.
Agenda 2011 will be consolidating a culture of the sovereignty of the people. In 2011 these two forces will be locked in the most intense electoral combat that this country has ever known. We will carry out our own in a sophisticated, refined, enlightened and decent manner. I challenge him to turn his eyes away from all other forces and focus on this rejuvenated force which he is to confront in 2011.Let him try to march our sophistication, enlightenment, and decency and leave the people to be the final judge. History has started to put its pen on paper. The clock for the 2011 race has already started to tick. All those who have interest in the race should begin to take their position whether they are going to support the culture of the coup or the culture of the sovereignty of the people. They should all be ready to put their energy, money and mind where their hearts lay. The side which will triumph will depend on the side the overwhelming majority of the people decide to support. The people of a country will teach the world who they are by the type of agenda they support.
History will finally say what type of people the Gambian people are. We hope each of us will be absolved by History. The future will certainly tell.
The END
Source: Foroyaa Online
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
sss
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2009 : 15:52:37
|
| Mr. halifa sallah, i thought you knew, that only conscientious people care about history.most people dont care what is written after they left. |
THE MESSENGER OF GOD(peace and blessing be always upon him)SAID,"WHOEVER WALKS WITH A TYRANT IN SUPPORT OF HIM,WHILE AWARE OF HIS TYRANNY,HAS ABANDONED ISLAM."At-Tabarani
|
 |
|
|
Dalton1
3485 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2009 : 19:25:48
|
Good folks,
Well, well…if you are like me, you read and pause. You pause to digest and understand all that is coming the way. It is too much (Al hamdoullillah) to read and digest, and the kudos goes to all the contributing intellectuals for preparing us for a life beyond Jammeh. I honestly like Sallah’s write up. It is definitely a challenge for all Gambians. The master piece will go a long way shaping our own struggle and that of Gambia’s own future history that is yet to be written.
With a clear look of what is at stake, Gambians must be careful not to increase the damage of our wounds. Our hearts has been deeply wounded; our body skins shivering furiously; and our hopes shattered and threatened by political and ideological differences.
Rather than hoping for Holy heaven to come down and rescue us, we must deeply with honesty and fairness to our country, ponder with reflective thoughts how to actualize the submission by Halifa. It is really cheaper for us to unite and act as catalyst to confront this matter heads on. Failure to do so, we risk shaping a negative future for our children. With flying time hardly unnoticeable, we must act in one as in the poem “Flap! Flap!” 2011 is truly nigh.
In the end, I encourage you all not to lay too much blame on the muzzled press, the wounded opposition or the organizations that has been trying hard for unity. We must champion their causes and rally behind them sincerely and whole-heartedly. What has been achieved thus far is great. We must move from step 1, that is action movement and beyond. Knowing fully well what comes with Coup d’états, I bet to differ on coups even though I am a Malcolmarian. Gambians should unite and that is what is capable of removing Jammeh and the predicament we are trapped in. Coups are creepers. We’ve seen, had and heard enough. We cannot afford to groom another Jammeh. Whether we live to witness the next era or not, we hope for a system that will be democratic. It looks like we are getting closer to it with the kind of intellectuals we have in our armory. We can now smell the brewing coffee and its good odor couldn’t be confined to close doors. We must empower them greatly and task them to liberate us with their knowledge endowments. Of course, God first.
http://www.gainako.com/news/news/2009/09/27/the-way-forward-for-democratic-change-in-gambia---part-two.html
I wish you all well. If others need time to complete Halifa’s piece before we open the bigger debate, please let me know. Otherwise, I am in for a bigger fish. I want to see Gambians united and in charge of their destiny. This is possible and we are the ones who can make it happen.
Are you ready??
"Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we...." like echoed by America's President, B. Obama.
Note: On behalf of Gainako, please join us to thank participants to the chosen topics. It looks like we have few more pieces and we will close the celebration, but the empowerment of our intellectuals will continue.
For the struggle,
yj |
"There is no god but Allah (SWT); and Muhammad (SAW)is His last messenger." shahadah. Fear & Worship Allah (SWT) Alone! (:
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2009 : 18:11:07
|
‘The UDP party led Alliance also showed its weakness. Instead of adding votes from the NRP and GPDP, the UDP led alliance lost approximately 80,000 votes. In short, while UDP had approximately, 145,000 votes in 2001 Presidential elections, in 2006 it ended up with approximately, 104,000 votes. NRP had approximately 35,000 votes in 2001.This did not feature in the votes of the UDP led Alliance in 2006. Hence putting the three parties together did not lead to more votes; on the contrary it led to a lower number of votes. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that the same tactic will yield a different outcome. This is the first lesson to draw.’ - Halifa Sallah
This statement is absurd and disingenuously embellished. The UDP alliance did not lost approximately 80,000 votes in the 2006 presidential election neither did it had approximately 145,000 votes in the 2001 presidential election. The total number of votes casted for the UDP in 2001 was 133,590 and 104,808 in 2006. This indicates a drop of only 28,782 votes, not the outlandish 80,000 figure Halifa claimed in his statement. This statement is clearly a preposterous hyperbole and should be treated as such.
It is also disingenuous to attribute the drop in UDP votes to the type of alliance they adopted with the NRP in 2006. This has to be put into its right perspective if one is not to distort the facts. In 2001 the voter turn-out was almost 90% [89.71%]. This has dropped down to 58.58% in 2006. This amounts to a registered drop of 31.1%, and that is notwithstanding the fact that the national voter register had been updated with 219,630 new voters by 2006. This also means the 2006 election was not contested in the same footing as the 2001 election. The 31.1% drop in voter turn-out is very significant and have clearly and undoubtedly affected [this is the conventional wisdom by the way] the general performance of the opposition at the polls, and this explains why UDP registered a drop in 2006. It wasn’t like if they lost these votes to another party[s] as it is seemly portrayed by Halifa; these are votes which were not in the pond for any party to fish. They did not participate in the electoral process. So clearly, this cannot be seen in anyway as an empirical evidence to the suggestion that UDP’s drop in votes in 2006 is due to the type of alliance they adopted with the NRP, and if that is what Halifa is saying, then he is dead wrong.
The level of voter turn-out in 2006 had not been in anyway influenced by the nature of alliance adopted by either the UDP or indeed NADD. That is a concrete fact. In fact Halifa himself blamed it on the spilt of the original NADD, not the type of alliance adopted by any party. Therefore, and instead of yelling about a so-called UDP lost and blaming it on the nature of the alliance they adopted, I think it would have been better if Halifa had talked about how best to bring those disenchanted and/involuntary absentee voters who haven't voted in 2006 back into the electoral process so as to enable the opposition to court their votes once again in 2011.
I do not wish to elaborate on Halifa’s attribution of the unprecedented low voter turn-out seen in 2006 to the spilt of the original NADD. I view this as his legitimate opinion, and that needs to be respected. However, this is not an opinion shared by the UDP. They attribute it to the illicit campaign tactics of the ruling APRC; the tactics of intimidation and harassment. I hope Halifa too will respect that opinion. That way, we will be able to avoid the kind of polarisation that kept many none and/passive partisan voters away from the electoral process. This is another way of preventing the kind of voter apathy Halifa illustrated in his statement.
Rather than hyping on the setbacks of the UDP alone, Halifa should have been kind and honest enough to elaborate on his own failings in the interest of objectivity and balanced factual reporting. It is not enough to merely state that NADD alliance did not work. Its diabolical electoral performance in the 2006 presidential election is also worth mentioning if we are to have a broader perspective of the issues before us. Not to do this is crude and cheap, and Halifa should have risen above that.
In the 2006 presidential election, Halifa scored less than thousand [1000] votes in 43 constituencies out of a total of 48. In 10 of them, he scored less than hundred [100] votes namely; Foni Brefet [67 votes], Nianija [65 votes], Foni Jarrol [62 votes], Jarra central [55 votes], Kiang Central [51 votes], Kiang East [51 votes], Foni Bintang [45 votes], Foni Bondali [23votes], Janjanbury [16 votes] and Foni Kansala [13 votes]. In his own constituency of Serrekunda Central where he was a sitting member of parliament, Halifa’s votes were more than doubled by the UDP candidate [2,182 votes for Halifa and 4,908 for the UDP candidate]. His national score was only 23,473 votes representing less than 6% [5.98%] of the total votes cast. This raises very serious questions about the viability of both NADD as an alliance/party and Halifa as a presidential contender. It would therefore be very helpful to the unification efforts if Halifa and his allies take it upon themselves to dissolve NADD immediately and without preconditions. This would provide an opportunity of a fresh start,and would also help in a much profound way, in closing the chapter of political bickering and slender that has being the hallmark of the row that arose from the original NADD stalmate and the later fall-out.
During the 2006 presidential election nomination, Halifa in his address to the press asked Gambians to decide between him and the UDP candidate. The people then decided at the polls in a ratio of 5:1 in favour of the UDP candidate. Halifa should now accept this utter rejection in good faith and assure Gambians that he will not put up himself as a spoiler candidate in 2011. This is imperative and will go a long way in assuring the many sceptical but opposition leaning voters who saw no point in voting in 2006 that a coalition of all opposition parties is achievable in 2011.
Halifa’s totalitarian grip on NADD is also a major if not the sole obstacle to unity, and it is about time a way around him is being carved. I believe more effort and time should be invested in bringing moderate NADD figures like OJ into the fold and if necessary alienate the insulate PDOIS quartet from the process should they choose the path of crude idealism and belligerence particularly towards the UDP, rather than a level headed commonsense approach, an approach that effectively accommodates all the dynamics of our local politics. This is the way forward.
If we can’t have all of it, then we must strive to have most of it.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 11 Oct 2009 19:08:54 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 16 Oct 2009 : 02:18:07
|
Nyarikangbanna please get some of your answers here under Bantaba Gambia politics topic Gambian Opposition in a state of Coma' says OJ http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8238
On statistics of voters Admin and Gainako news can help with results of previous elections for analysis of the facts
The rest is your personal problem being a hater or tribalist |
Edited by - kobo on 16 Oct 2009 02:19:35 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
