 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dalton1
3485 Posts |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 18:25:40
|
Guys and ladies, here is maafanta just in case you need another source to get yourself better informed.
Regards and see below;
http://www.maafanta.com/OusainuDarboePressconference.html |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 21 Sep 2010 18:28:23 |
 |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 19:11:30
|
"In the same vein he categorically ruled out the notion of initiating a nation wide primary as a vehicle for settling on a
flagbearer saying such a move is impractical, unnecessary and unprecendented. He said individual political parties can
resort to primaries to choose their candidates"
Neither is a pre-election alliance where all the smaller opposition parties rally into a union to elect the main opposition party into office precedented or deemed necessary or democratic anywhere else on this planet. It is a tyrannical innovation that any democrat in their right mind should abhor.
The difference is that the primary model seek a wider participation of the masses to choose their leader. The leadership is chosen from a broader national coalition with a well defined and term-limited mandated. Hence we have a people-oriented and driven concensus. The later seek the election of a selected group which derives its consensus from the opposition hieracy(elitisism) and subject to the whims and caprices of the selected group. Just like the AFPRC Junta where power was highjacked at the mercy of a seleted group of about five to seven nincompoops who would unleash an unrestrained and heavy handed dictatorship and tyranny on the masses.
Unless the UDP has a plan B then choosing between these two novelties is a no-brainer
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Guys and ladies, here is maafanta just in case you need another source to get yourself better informed.
Regards and see below;
http://www.maafanta.com/OusainuDarboePressconference.html
|
Edited by - shaka on 22 Sep 2010 19:13:15 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2010 : 02:12:01
|
I am even puzzled. I listened to the interview in its entirety, and heard the call of Lawyer Darbo where he is willing to meet any and all the opposition leaders, anywhere and at anytime, to discuss about the oppostion's unification efforts for the 2011 elections.
He has also surmised, when asked what would be the character of this opposition unification effort if he is to lead it, that there would be an executive committee of all the party leaders. This executive committee will jointly agree on the modalities of the opposition's unification efforts.
How is this proposal different from the executive committee of NADD, where all the party leaders are represented with equal voices; except in this proposal, lawyer Darbo will be the defacto opposition leader?
And why missed an opportunity in the last elections, when in all eventuality we may come back to the same issues again?
If all the party leaders accept Lawyer Darboe's invitation to meet with him, and agree that he would be the sole opposition presidential candidate for the 2011 elections; it is my belief that there would be a memorandum of understanding between them as to the modalities of his government, should he win the elections.
Again, how is this different with the characteristic features of Nadd, except this time the leadership issue has been resolved?
If the other opposition leaders give their support to lawyer Darbo as the sole opposition presidential candidate, it would be under the party platform of the UDP, and as a consequence fall under the party-led paradigm. What are the dynamics of a coalition government under this paradigm?
It would make this proposal more attractive, if the UDP which is going to form the executive in such a government, to outline a policy position of what would be the nature of its government; and how will it be consistent with all the other demands that have been made from the other political parties.
This should not be just a matter of giving assurances; there should be a detailed exposition of how a government is evolved that will do away with all the monarchial inclinations of perpetuating a political hegemony.
There should also be a well articulated vision of how the sovereignty of the people, and the sovereignty of the nation-state is consolidated.
Rene
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2010 : 08:57:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by sankalanka
This should not be just a matter of giving assurances; there should be a detailed exposition of how a government is evolved that will do away with all the monarchial inclinations of perpetuating a political hegemony.
Well it is not just a matter of giving assurance. It is about building a coalition and putting out a joint programme for election. If the suggestion is that UDP should put out a detailed document in the public domain on how to achieve opposition unity/coalition, I am sorry to say; that is not going to happen. This process needs a pragmatic approach, not an academic one. That is why it is imperative for parties to meet and discuss all the substantive issues. Should there be an agreement on the way forward, a joint statement or document will be produced expousing how a government would emerge that will do away with all the monarchial inclinations of perpetuating a political hegemony. An academic approach will not achieve this for it will manifest as its hallmark, an endless philosophical debates that would take us nowhere and might even widen the gap between the opposing sides thereby resulting to hightened intransigence in Gambia's opposition politics.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 23 Sep 2010 09:07:54 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2010 : 20:13:37
|
Rene you've touched on the wrong nerves here. Haven't you figured by now that the surest way to give a UDP official a heart attack is to ask them for policy details or documents. These people are scared to death about public scrutiny. This is as a result of the fairest ever scrutiny the UDP leadership had been subjected to on policy by the Gambia diaspora in the wake of cashew-and-mango-trees-gate. The traumatic effect of that sham of an attempt on policy details by the UDP leader had resulted in a self-gagging order from him. The euphemism deviced for this traumatic effect is "i am not presumptious" on anything policy related ask of the man. For five good year the UDP had not released a single policy document on anything related to the public discourse what so ever. They just expect us to hand-over power to them wily nilly and ask questions later. For them, somehow the opposition is so lacking in options and choices that the only available means is to hand them their devine birthrights. Power at all cost.
One of the most fundamental aspects of any future talks yet to be asked of Mr Darboe and the UDP is whether a party-led coalition is the only option on the table for the UDP and if it is rejected would the UDP executive still be committed to the drawing board to hatch up a plan B and not bolt away as they did in NADD? Mr. Darboe has been dancing around the notion that his discussions with other opposition leaders "is not to get them rally
behind the U.D.P." but at UDP public rallies, recent congress and press statements of UDP officials, the only answer for opposition unity is that "other opposition parties must rally behind the UDP." You just don't know what is what with the UDP. Yet the private press continues to treat him with kids gloves. They never ask the relevant questions of the UDP. But when Mr Halifa Sallah or the PDOIS is at their disposal for comment you not help but realise how they sharpen their intellectual instincts and wits. I don't if this is due to simplicity in demeanor on the part of UDP officials or because the press can't seem to get the required facts and information about the UDP based on thier notorious political hibernation in desperate times. The major stumbling block in this opposition impasse is not that the PDOIS agenda is unknown to the public, but what has the UDP got to offer or bring to the negotiating table. It is time the private press and concerned citizens to get the UDP to stop hiding under the "we are not presumptious" mantra and engage the public with substance and intellectual maturity required of public officials.quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
quote:
Originally posted by sankalanka
This should not be just a matter of giving assurances; there should be a detailed exposition of how a government is evolved that will do away with all the monarchial inclinations of perpetuating a political hegemony.
Well it is not just a matter of giving assurance. It is about building a coalition and putting out a joint programme for election. If the suggestion is that UDP should put out a detailed document in the public domain on how to achieve opposition unity/coalition, I am sorry to say; that is not going to happen. This process needs a pragmatic approach, not an academic one. That is why it is imperative for parties to meet and discuss all the substantive issues. Should there be an agreement on the way forward, a joint statement or document will be produced expousing how a government would emerge that will do away with all the monarchial inclinations of perpetuating a political hegemony. An academic approach will not achieve this for it will manifest as its hallmark, an endless philosophical debates that would take us nowhere and might even widen the gap between the opposing sides thereby resulting to hightened intransigence in Gambia's opposition politics.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Senegambia
175 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2010 : 22:56:03
|
Dear Shaka, do you have any plans of moving beyond the same old yellings and crying and howlings anytime soon? If so, I would like to hear from you on what you think is the best and most practical way to achieve opposition unity before 2011. Ofcourse without going after individuals or being too uneconomical with words since it only makes your postings unnecessarily hard to grasp. I am tired of hearing just the negatives...... from pessimists.... just saying 
|
Tesito
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2010 : 23:46:37
|
| I am just fulfilling my citizen duties by vetting those who aspire to lead us. The future of my children and their children as does other Gambians in tomorrow's Gambia is at stake here unless you fail to notice. Regarding my take on "the best and most practical way to achieve opposition unity before 2011," unless you are deaf, dumb and blind you should have known my position. You just need one of the senses associated with them to dig me. Half my brains is on my finger tips, you might just want to chop them off otherwise nothing give a pleasure more than filling these pages. How you are not able to take on board what i have to say lies in the deficiencies in some part of your skull. Adress those deficiencies first then you might just feel me and the same goes for Halifa Sallah with whom i have seemed to have caused you a headache in the deciphering department. |
Edited by - shaka on 23 Sep 2010 23:55:24 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2010 : 13:50:16
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sankalanka
"This should not be just a matter of giving assurances; there should be a detailed exposition of how a government is evolved that will do away with all the monarchial inclinations of perpetuating a political hegemony."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well it is not just a matter of giving assurance. It is about building a coalition and putting out a joint programme for election. If the suggestion is that UDP should put out a detailed document in the public domain on how to achieve opposition unity/coalition, I am sorry to say; that is not going to happen. This process needs a pragmatic approach, not an academic one. That is why it is imperative for parties to meet and discuss all the substantive issues. Should there be an agreement on the way forward, a joint statement or document will be produced expousing how a government would emerge that will do away with all the monarchial inclinations of perpetuating a political hegemony. An academic approach will not achieve this for it will manifest as its hallmark, an endless philosophical debates that would take us nowhere and might even widen the gap between the opposing sides thereby resulting to hightened intransigence in Gambia's opposition politics."
Regards
It is very unfortunate that the most fundamental requirements in building the viability and sustainability of our nation-state, which should have been done years before an election, is now sacrificed at the alter of political expediency so that political parties that have different interest persusations and aspirational goals, can come together to remove an incumbent government.
The rationale is that to remove something bad, you should be able to have the conviction, the vision and the fortitude to replace it with something that is even better. You have to be able to articulate a vision, and not only that; but should also have the capacity to garner the trust and build the confidence of the people, so as to indentify with a common desire and a common purpose.
These are the fundamental prerequisites to build a nation. And God knows the attempt here is to build a third republic; after the first republic, and the second one after that failed miserably to consolidate the soverignity of the people.
I will be waiting to see how there will not be an academic approach to achieve this; you need to convince the people.
Rene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union.
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2010 : 14:45:39
|
First of all, the people are utterly convinced that the best strategy is for the opposition to put up a united front in 2011. It is now the responsibility of the opposition to not only recognise this but also engender a dialogue among themselves for the realisation of this supreme objective, and this can only be realised if parties can agree to a meeting where all positions and visions would be articulated and compromises made without any party being belligerent towards the other[s]. That is the first step. Once there is a final agreement, it is the joint statement/programme that would articulate the vision, the conviction and the fortitude of the coalition to replace the status quo with something better and desirable, and seek to earn the trust of the people on that basis.
Again, if the insinuation is that all parties should put out a statement in the public domain articulating their respective positions on coalition building and the issues thereto, I am afraid that is not going to happen as this would lead to heightened intransigence between the parties as they try to influence public opinion towards their individual positions rather than being focused on the main issue, a united opposition front. In the end, there would be a grave potential that voters would become apathetic as was the case with the NADD fiasco, and may not even vote at all. Given that 2011 is now at our doorstep, I respectfully submit that the opposition do not have the luxury of time to repair any such colossal damage on their electoral prospects neither can they afford it.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 25 Sep 2010 14:59:07 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2010 : 15:12:38
|
Brother Nyarikangbana! THATS AN EXCELLENT INPUT! HOWEVER ALL THESE IDEAS ON DIALOGUE, THE NEED FOR COALITION, TACTICS & STRATEGIES TO CHALLENGE JAMMEH/APRC WERE TENDERED EARLIER YEARS BEFORE TIME RAN OUT BUT NEVER TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY! NADD HAD PROBLEMS & DIS-INTEGRTAED BUT WASN'T A BAD TACTICAL/STRATEGIC COALITION; IN MY OPINION
THANKS FOR BECOMING VERY SERIOUS ON CURRENT TASKS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES AT STAKE FOR ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE CURRENT REGIME & WAY FORWARD TO MOBILISE THE OPPOSITION PARTIES UNDER A UNITED FRONT INORDER TO REVOLUTIONISED!!!
WE SHOULD NOT BLAME ANY OPPOSITION PARTY & PARTY LEADERS, IF WE (SO-CALLED ELITE/EDUCATED/BRAINS) CANNOT ARTICULATE AND ENGAGE A PROPER BRAINSTORMING EXERCISE TO TACKLE JAMMEH/APRC
THIS IS A VERY GOOD TOPIC BUT I INTEND TO INTRODUCE A NEW TOPIC AS THE MELTING POT FOR IDEA & OPINIONS TO MOBILISE AGAINST CURRENT REGIME OR TO HELP WITH A REGIME CHANGE THROUGH MASS MOBILISATION & REVOLUTION THROUGH BALLOT OR OTHER MEANS AS DEEM APPROPRIATE TO FORWARD THE GAMBIA OUR HOMELAND! |
Edited by - kobo on 25 Sep 2010 15:26:23 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2010 : 16:23:28
|
"First of all, the people are utterly convinced that the best strategy is for the opposition to put up a united front in 2011. It is now the responsibility of the opposition to not only recognise this but also engender a dialogue among themselves for the realisation of this supreme objective, and this can only be realised if parties can agree to a meeting where all positions and visions would be articulated and compromises made without any party being belligerent towards the other[s]. That is the first step. Once there is a final agreement, it is the joint statement/programme that would articulate the vision, the conviction and the fortitude of the coalition to replace the status quo with something better and desirable, and seek to earn the trust of the people on that basis."
On that note, make it happen. As a citizen who is conscious of my utmost desire to see a Gambia that can transcend the parochial issues of its complex identity, and consolidate a national identity that is rooted in the rule of law, institutions and structures that promote and engender an enviable democractic dispensation, I am sympathetic to a cause that brings out the best of our humanity, and the best of our ability, to build a country we can all be proud of. This is all I want.
Rene
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2010 : 17:24:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by sankalanka
[br
On that note, make it happen.
Rene
Well that is exactly what the main opposition United Democratic party is trying to achieve at the right time and with the right strategy. Unfortunately, they are so far met with intransigence from PDOIS's Grand Ayatollah, Halifa Sallah, whom by all accounts, has a totalitarian grip on the entire PDOIS apparatus. This is what is stalling the process even before it starts.
It is to be noted that human beings are not baskets that you can put on your head and carry alone with you. They have to be willing to come alone with you. I hope with time, PDOIS will do away with intransigence and come on board in the interest of our collective national interest. That is what most people would like to see happen.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 25 Sep 2010 17:42:15 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2010 : 18:39:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
"Well that is exactly what the main opposition United Democratic party is trying to achieve at the right time and with the right strategy. Unfortunately, they are so far met with intransigence from PDOIS's Grand Ayatollah, Halifa Sallah, whom by all accounts, has a totalitarian grip on the entire PDOIS apparatus. This is what is stalling the process even before it starts."
First of all, you should not cast aspersions on a person's personality, nor ascribe labels to that person solely because he holds a different view or a contrary political position to that which you hold.
If Halifa has not proven to be a formidable force, and has the capacity to influence and guide public opinion on so many issues of political and national import, I don't think you would have attached much importance to him. Therefore you should accord him the utmost respect that he deserves, more so when you have to admit that you cannot prosecute your desire for an opposition coalition because of his "intransigence".
And I put the word "intransigence" in quotes for a reason. What is it that Halifa or PDOIS found so uncompromising in all this coalition effort?
And what is it that you cannot compromise with him or the party that he represents? It will help if you can identify the bone of contention on Halifa's side as well as the bone of contention on your side?
Since we want to make this discuss as fruitful as possible, I will let you answer the questions I have posed.
Rene
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2010 : 19:16:14
|
I wasn't casting a judgement, Madam. I was only stating the facts as they are. I only alluded to the fact that we cannot prosecute the desire for opposition unity without PDOIS's Ayatollah, Halifa, only because the type of coalition the people are calling for is an all inclusive one and also that he has a totalitarian grip on the entire PDOIS apparatus. So this statement is not exclusive to Halifa and his PDOIS party but to all other opposition parties and politicians. In other words, great importance must be accorded to the participation of all opposition politicians and political parties if the national desire for an all inclusive opposition coalition is to be realised. It doesn't make anybody indispensible or unique but only makes everyone a relevant player in the realisation of our common aspiration.
As for the bone of contentions, I have stressed that that is a matter for the proposed opposition meeting to take care of should it ever take place. Once the talks are done and dusted with and depending on the outcome, we can have a debate on that too. I am not prepared to put the cart before the horse and I hope you recognise this.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 25 Sep 2010 19:59:26 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
