 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
shaka
996 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 17:08:12
|
| You know i love you, don't you. Despite our difference in opinion, i am comfortable to go to the battle field with you on my side, because you are not a two-faced fcuk or a programmed Taliban. |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11729 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 19:31:48
|
There is no guarantee that UDP will not dishonor agreements as with NAAD. We have many unanswered questions about the UDP and all we see from the so called spokesmen from the UDP/UK is belittling. I am definitely worried about the future UDP in the hands of such people.
It’s good to dream of a united opposition that will defeat the APRC and I am one of those dreamers . However, Turk, Kobo and Shaka have valid points about the party led coalition issue. The NADD formula is the best so far and can even be led by a UDP candidate if only we could overcome the mistrust.
If there is no unity how will the opposition more specifically UDP attract the 542000 plus voters who did not vote for the opposition, who either voted for Jammeh or did not vote at all? We must know how to move these people to vote for change.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 01:34:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Momodou
There is no guarantee that UDP will not dishonor agreements as with NAAD. We have many unanswered questions about the UDP and all we see from the so called spokesmen from the UDP/UK is belittling. I am definitely worried about the future UDP in the hands of such people.
UDP is not in the hands of anybody in the UK. It is in the hands of elected party officials in Banjul, and they certainly do not have official spokesmen over here. The UDP/UK is not an organ of the UDP but a support group. See our mission statement for more info.
Another thing; UDP never dishonour any agreement with any political organisation. They merely and freely exercised their inalienable right of disassociation from NADD just as they freely chose to associate with it.
Trust is a matter of choice and therefore subjective. Just because you choose to distrust UDP does not in anyway make it untrustworthy. All it means is you expressing your disdain for the party and nothing else.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 28 Aug 2010 01:42:45 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 03:07:56
|
Constitutional amendments do not occur under normal circumstance
The obsession with the constitution is not only paralyzing innovativeness but also reinforcing fear and distrust. And implies that constitutional modifications or amendments always occurs under normal conditions, that is an erroneous belief, most constitutional modifications, or changes occur under abnormal conditions, a typical example is Gambia 1994.
It is very interesting that none of the opposition parties has confidence in winning the elections on its own. Why? It can not be because the political atmosphere is hostile, hence the hostility, if true, would not change overnight, because of a united opposition. In that case, what would the united front do that individual parties can’t do.
Yes, without TRUST,we have seen it in NADD, there is no possibility to establish any form of cooperation between people much more political parties. The fear of replacing one authoritarian leader with another is a speculation based on the lack of TRUST. Therefore, trust is crucial for the opposition to reach any meaningful agreement or procedure. Secondly, when we talk about opposition unity, or coalition, or collaboration we tend to forget possible allies outside the parties. To create new allies or reduce voter apathy, parties should consider broadening their scope of alliance or collaboration to include prominent people, religious leaders and other influential personalities and not limit it to political parties and their leaders.
What we need here, in this topic, is a dialogue where Janko learns from others perspectives and not an intense debate where Janko is for or against and nothing in-between. Let’s also acknowledge that politics is negotiation, negotiation and negotiation.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 03:52:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
Another option would have been after winning under NADD they could form a government of National unity with all the parties taking active part in governing(easier said than done off course)
Our constitution does not cater for a power sharing government. We do not have a Prime Minister to effect the function of power sharing. All power is vested on the Executive. Parliarment is useless because the executive have the power to dissolve it anytime he so choose to. Get real. The Vice President is simply a ministerial position.
Another option is that all the opposition parties can unite and contest the paliamentary seats and if they win the majority of seats in the house, then the APRC cannot form a goverment just like what happened in the UK. If they form a government a vote of no confidence can remove the President.
Are you are conversant with the constitution in regards to party politics? The Executive does not need a parliamentary majority to rule. All it needs is 51% of total vote cast. Parliament is not an obstacle to the Executive. The Executive can kick out Parliament any time it feels like it.
So Gambia has a parliamentary system like the UK. The only difference is that our parliament is made up of rubber stamps who dear not stand against the ruling party
Absolute falacy.
Another observation that many are uneasy to speak about is that if the UDP infact commands the majority of followers, why are they afraid to go through primaries in 2006 and even now?
We all know if Darboe goes for primaries with Halifa who would the voters elect?
I think there is a fear and lack of confidence in the leadership of the UDP to go through primaries. If I was in the UDP camp I would have pushed for the primaries because it is certain that Darboe will win in a primary. It is as crystal clear as it can be...
The UDP has the numbers but to be honest they don't have the organization to mobilize those numbers. Even the Gambia Day of action across the globe, UDP supporters turned out the most...
It is a fact, so I would suggest UDP supporters to push for their leadership to agree to an open and fair format of primaries and let them contest. I have no doubt they will win.
Last time i checked there is equal representation in NADD so how could you foolishly come to this conclusion. Know what you are talking about before you engage us next time. AND THEY THINK THEY ARE KNOWLEDGABLE POWER BROKERS TO TELL OPPOSITION WHAT AND WHAT NOT TO DO. How could somebody so lacking of the fact wants to be become a self appointed arbitrar. Delusion galore.
Shaka, if you think you have the knowledge more than anyone else here power to you!!! you so have not demonstrated that here.
If fact, you have been all over the place. So stop cherry picking and distorting facts. People like you are the main problems we have in Gambia. This is what we call intellectual dishonesty!!!
Let me ask you a simple question.
Which body changed the 1997 constitution to eliminate the recommended second round of voting??? Wasn't it not Parliament? Don't they have the power to change the constitution with majority?
Come on be real!!!
Besides, a power sharing government doesn't have to have President and Prime minister...
The opposition could share power in the executive if the President is not a bully and someone who wants absolute power. The very constitution you are referencing can be changed the last time I checked.
You have to get to power to get some of these constitutional falacies changed. You know (oh may be not) many provisions of the constitution favors absolute power... So a genuine citizen who wants to see genuine democracy in Gambia can order the changes to the road blocks..
We are talking about change NOT the status quo should you not have any clue.
Everything is on the table when it comes to negotiating for a coalition... it all depends on the agreements the parties can reach.
If these parties are serious about coalition they would have to put everything on the table for negotiation.
Any pre conditions for negotiation is a sign of dictatorship and cannot be too far from what Jammeh is offering...
The people who only think one way are the tumbling blocks on this issue and Shaka you appear to be one of those old school who sees only one way out!!! your way or the high way... how are you more knowlegeable???
One of the major problems of NADD MOU was the equal party representation... it was not realistic period...
Get real!!! |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
Edited by - dbaldeh on 28 Aug 2010 04:01:41 |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 04:16:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Constitutional amendments do not occur under normal circumstance
The obsession with the constitution is not only paralyzing innovativeness but also reinforcing fear and distrust. And implies that constitutional modifications or amendments always occurs under normal conditions, that is an erroneous belief, most constitutional modifications, or changes occur under abnormal conditions, a typical example is Gambia 1994.
It is very interesting that none of the opposition parties has confidence in winning the elections on its own. Why? It can not be because the political atmosphere is hostile, hence the hostility, if true, would not change overnight, because of a united opposition. In that case, what would the united front do that individual parties can’t do.
Yes, without TRUST,we have seen it in NADD, there is no possibility to establish any form of cooperation between people much more political parties. The fear of replacing one authoritarian leader with another is a speculation based on the lack of TRUST. Therefore, trust is crucial for the opposition to reach any meaningful agreement or procedure. Secondly, when we talk about opposition unity, or coalition, or collaboration we tend to forget possible allies outside the parties. To create new allies or reduce voter apathy, parties should consider broadening their scope of alliance or collaboration to include prominent people, religious leaders and other influential personalities and not limit it to political parties and their leaders.
What we need here, in this topic, is a dialogue where Janko learns from others perspectives and not an intense debate where Janko is for or against and nothing in-between. Let’s also acknowledge that politics is negotiation, negotiation and negotiation.
Uncle Janko right on!!!
"Constitutional amendments do not occur under normal circumstance"
People act as if Gambia is being ruled under a normal democracy with a working constitution. This is simply a disguise by this regime. In many aspects the constititution is neither respected nor honored by those in power.
Any change in the Gambia for a genuine democracy will have to suspend those manipulated parts of the constitution and restore normalcy in the Gambia.
Gambia is being governed under the most abnormal of circumstances... Dictatorship and disregard to rule of law and fairness period.
These are also some of the most fundamental mistakes Darboe and Halifa are making... everything they want to do is according to the very constitution that does not serve the democratic principles they are advocating..
So why keep referencing what the constitution says if in fact it is meaningless? Why go to court if you know what the outcome would be!!!
That is where these people are out of touch with reality in the Gambia. They think everything is normal so they should wait for an inquiry before issuing a press release on student masacres. They should appeal to the high court to overturn a ruling that is deliberate and politically motivated.. they can't be more out of touch thus the reason Jammeh is torturing them mentally.
We sure need education for a better and more representative constitution NOT one that seeks to oppress us!!
Thanks for sharing |
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 05:06:06
|
quote:
So why keep referencing what the constitution says if in fact it is meaningless? Why go to court if you know what the outcome would be!!!
quote:
The obsession with the constitution is not only paralyzing innovativeness but also reinforcing fear and distrust........
quote:
Any change in the Gambia for a genuine democracy will have to suspend those manipulated parts of the constitution and restore normalcy in the Gambia.
Gambia is being governed under the most abnormal of circumstances... Dictatorship and disregard to rule of law and fairness period.
These are also some of the most fundamental mistakes Darboe and Halifa are making... everything they want to do is according to the very constitution that does not serve the democratic principles they are advocating..
So why keep referencing what the constitution says if in fact it is meaningless? Why go to court if you know what the outcome would be!!!
That is where these people are out of touch with reality in the Gambia. They think everything is normal so they should wait for an inquiry before issuing a press release on student masacres. They should appeal to the high court to overturn a ruling that is deliberate and politically motivated.. they can't be more out of touch thus the reason Jammeh is torturing them mentally.
Oh, do you have other ideas? Like unconstitutional regime change? Whether you like it or not you have to work with the existing constitution. Unless you have some innovative ideas -whatever it is. But the THE ARGUMENT HERE is THAT, THE CONSTITUTION, GAMBIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM LIMITS THE OPTIONS FOR UNITY OF OPPOSITION PARTIES, BECAUSE THE FORMAT FOR THE UNITY MUST WORK WITH THE CONSTITUTION and EXISTING SYSTEM IN GAMBIA.
Obsession? I thought you need to work with existing law and what it offers. You called it obsession? I say it is being realistic and it is the rule of law. So Janko, what are you suggesting, something innovative!!!! And considering constitution also is reinforcing fear and distrust? I can't believe what I am hearing!!!!!!!!!!! Those who call for democracy now ignoring the rule of law? And Mr. D is suggesting the leaders of oppositions are always working within constitution is a mistake!!!!!
quote:
The obsession with the constitution is not only paralyzing innovativeness but also reinforcing fear and distrust.
This is very disappointing statement. It is almost suggesting that ‘it is ok to find a solution for regime change which could be unconstitutional.
quote:
And implies that constitutional modifications or amendments always occurs under normal conditions, that is an erroneous belief, most constitutional modifications, or changes occur under abnormal conditions, a typical example is Gambia 1994.
First of all, my reference to the constitution, for example, a small parties do not have leverage in presidential system like the way they have in west minister system, is pointing out the political system in Gambia. Any coalition or unity MUST consider the reality of Gambia. Constitution is REALITY of Gambia. I did not suggest Constitution amendments. But if necessary, constitution change can be an option too. After all constitution is just like another law can be change if it is needed. But until it is changed, Janko must work with the options constitution offers. If Janko wants to find a solution for deadlock for Gambian oppositions unity based on the facts on Sweden, that is another story.
quote:
Besides, a power sharing government doesn't have to have President and Prime minister...
First of all Dbaldeh, you confused the Gambian system with UK, you need to acknowledge that first. They are totally different. In UK, the executive power is determined in the parliament. In Gambia, executive power is determined with the presidential election. Sand Mr. Dbladeh, explain us how the power sharing government could be form while under Presidential system. Explain it to me referencing the constitutional terms. You say first
quote:
The opposition could share power in the executive if the President is not a bully and someone who wants absolute power. The very constitution you are referencing can be changed the last time I checked.
You have to get to power to get some of these constitutional falacies changed. You know (oh may be not) many provisions of the constitution favors absolute power... So a genuine citizen who wants to see genuine democracy in Gambia can order the changes to the road blocks..
But until the change of the constitution one must work under the rule of law whether you like it or not. Unless, one is suggesting getting power unconstitutionally, that is another debate.
quote:
People act as if Gambia is being ruled under a normal democracy with a working constitution. This is simply a disguise by this regime. In many aspects the constititution is neither respected nor honored by those in power.
Any change in the Gambia for a genuine democracy will have to suspend those manipulated parts of the constitution and restore normalcy in the Gambia.
Gambia is being governed under the most abnormal of circumstances... Dictatorship and disregard to rule of law and fairness period.
These are also some of the most fundamental mistakes Darboe and Halifa are making... everything they want to do is according to the very constitution that does not serve the democratic principles they are advocating..
So why keep referencing what the constitution says if in fact it is meaningless? Why go to court if you know what the outcome would be!!!
Mr. Dbaldeh! Above is just short of a call for another coup. Or call for undemocratic regime change.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 28 Aug 2010 11:20:06 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 11:13:20
|
What is normal and not so normal circumstance? Last time i checked military decrees from 1994, unless nullified are still applicable under Gambian law, so are colonial era laws. So what are you on about? Besides most of the authoritarian powers of the Executive were bestowed onto him by Parliament.quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Constitutional amendments do not occur under normal circumstance
The obsession with the constitution is not only paralyzing innovativeness but also reinforcing fear and distrust. And implies that constitutional modifications or amendments always occurs under normal conditions, that is an erroneous belief, most constitutional modifications, or changes occur under abnormal conditions, a typical example is Gambia 1994.
It is very interesting that none of the opposition parties has confidence in winning the elections on its own. Why? It can not be because the political atmosphere is hostile, hence the hostility, if true, would not change overnight, because of a united opposition. In that case, what would the united front do that individual parties can’t do.
Yes, without TRUST,we have seen it in NADD, there is no possibility to establish any form of cooperation between people much more political parties. The fear of replacing one authoritarian leader with another is a speculation based on the lack of TRUST. Therefore, trust is crucial for the opposition to reach any meaningful agreement or procedure. Secondly, when we talk about opposition unity, or coalition, or collaboration we tend to forget possible allies outside the parties. To create new allies or reduce voter apathy, parties should consider broadening their scope of alliance or collaboration to include prominent people, religious leaders and other influential personalities and not limit it to political parties and their leaders.
What we need here, in this topic, is a dialogue where Janko learns from others perspectives and not an intense debate where Janko is for or against and nothing in-between. Let’s also acknowledge that politics is negotiation, negotiation and negotiation.
|
Edited by - shaka on 28 Aug 2010 11:18:14 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 11:31:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by dbaldeh
Uncle Janko right on!!!
"Constitutional amendments do not occur under normal circumstance"
Stop acting like a robot and start knowing and understanding basic facts before agreeing to erroneous statemaents. |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 11:58:48
|
Lacking a good knowledge of any particular subject(in this case the constitution as it apply to party politics) is not a crime. What is not only ignorant but downright stupid is knowing and acknowledging that unchecked and absolute power is vested on an authoritarian executive and yet still is happy and soliciting for the same powers to be transfered to another party of your choice at all cost. That is whilst admiting that unchecked and absolute power is evil. The evil is therefore more than change of the current leadership. These are basic facts you have to understand before attempting to force the opposition to accept your self-righteous position. No relationship is mutually beneficial to any party if you want to ignore underlying differences, obstacles and basic facts towards a union. Get friggin real!!
quote:
Originally posted by dbaldeh
Shaka, if you think you have the knowledge more than anyone else here power to you!!! you so have not demonstrated that here.
If fact, you have been all over the place. So stop cherry picking and distorting facts. People like you are the main problems we have in Gambia. This is what we call intellectual dishonesty!!!
Let me ask you a simple question.
Which body changed the 1997 constitution to eliminate the recommended second round of voting??? Wasn't it not Parliament? Don't they have the power to change the constitution with majority?
Come on be real!!!
Besides, a power sharing government doesn't have to have President and Prime minister...
The opposition could share power in the executive if the President is not a bully and someone who wants absolute power. The very constitution you are referencing can be changed the last time I checked.
You have to get to power to get some of these constitutional falacies changed. You know (oh may be not) many provisions of the constitution favors absolute power... So a genuine citizen who wants to see genuine democracy in Gambia can order the changes to the road blocks..
We are talking about change NOT the status quo should you not have any clue.
Everything is on the table when it comes to negotiating for a coalition... it all depends on the agreements the parties can reach.
If these parties are serious about coalition they would have to put everything on the table for negotiation.
Any pre conditions for negotiation is a sign of dictatorship and cannot be too far from what Jammeh is offering...
The people who only think one way are the tumbling blocks on this issue and Shaka you appear to be one of those old school who sees only one way out!!! your way or the high way... how are you more knowlegeable???
One of the major problems of NADD MOU was the equal party representation... it was not realistic period...
Get real!!!
|
Edited by - shaka on 28 Aug 2010 12:01:36 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 12:16:02
|
| I think so that the fundamental problem is here that as Gambia IS NOT an established democracy, there are no checks and balances, so who ever gets the power, it is absolute. For smaller parties, there is no mechanism to be share the power. The POWER belongs to a few person/institution. Maybe West Minister system is better as the power is shared by many considering the legislation has power over the executive. For example, MPs have power to bring down the executive, in Gambian case, there are no other authority to bring down the executive. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 28 Aug 2010 13:02:20 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 12:45:45
|
Politics 101
Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:
Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country it has been attempted. Critics such as Dana D. Nelson in her 2008 book Bad for Democracy[2] see the office of the presidency in the United States as essentially undemocratic[3] and she sees presidentialism as worship of the presidency by citizens which tends to undermine civic participation.[3]
Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 28 Aug 2010 12:46:49 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 13:08:09
|
How are the other countries doing?
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 28 Aug 2010 13:12:51 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2010 : 19:30:23
|
Turk,
Explain “…it is ok to find a solution for regime change which could be unconstitutional.” You should know by now that I am a disciple of NONE – VIOLENCE.
I would only take fish from you in daylight not at night. And you know very well that Sweden is more democratic than both England and Australia.
Tell us about the disadvantages of the “Westminster system”
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2010 : 22:21:09
|
janko says: The obsession with the constitution is not only paralyzing innovativeness but also reinforcing fear and distrust.
OK, my apologies that there is no evidence for Janko to support violance regime change, that is an exaggeration, however, Janko's suggestion that
- The obsession with constitution....! It does sound like you are referring to disregard the law of the country.... I would have expect Janko could suggest either stick with the law or if the law is not appropriate, to change the law. But the reason I bring constitution is not about 'breaking the law', but it is about to remind what the realities of Gambia, so that the unity argument must consider the realities of Gambia in order to find solution to the unity.
- ...is not only paralyzing innovativeness.... The constitution does limit your options, your being innovative is about to be creative to work within the constitution, politician must be innovative to work with the constitution. That is the rule of the game. You can how ever, change the rule.
- You need to explain how constitution reinforce the fear and mistrust? I thought unconstitutional solutions would reinforce the fear and mistrust.
Sweden being more democratic from both England and Australia has no relevance to argument. Westminster system has disadvantages but why ask? |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 29 Aug 2010 22:22:48 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
