 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Sep 2010 : 02:23:49
|
"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."
Rene is the masculine for my name, and the feminine is spelt with a double e: Renee.
This is what I alluded to; that in the absence of a substantive policy position, it would be difficult to guide public opinion one way or the other, more so when there are entrenched political and philosophical differences, which just cannot be discounted because it is politically convenient to do so.
What makes you to be certain that you can compromise on your principle positions in secret, when in the public domain it hasn't been subjected to a robust interrogation, thus in this instance putting the horse before the cart.
It would have been easy for people to form an opinion, one way or the other, if the policy positions of the parties were articulated in the open, rather than to be hatched and evolved as a give and take, thus it takes aways the serious deliberations to which it should have been committed.
Rene |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2010 : 04:25:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by sankalanka
[br This is what I alluded to; that in the absence of a substantive policy position, it would be difficult to guide public opinion one way or the other, more so when there are entrenched political and philosophical differences, which just cannot be discounted because it is politically convenient to do so.
What makes you to be certain that you can compromise on your principle positions in secret, when in the public domain it hasn't been subjected to a robust interrogation, thus in this instance putting the horse before the cart.
It would have been easy for people to form an opinion, one way or the other, if the policy positions of the parties were articulated in the open, rather than to be hatched and evolved as a give and take, thus it takes aways the serious deliberations to which it should have been committed.
Rene
This is not about guiding public opinion but getting the opposition to answer to the call for an all inclusive coalition to confront the current regime in 2011/12 elections. So clearly the competition is not and should not be between the different opposition parties- we expect them to be allies instead- but between the opposition combined and the incumbent APRC. That is where guiding public opinion is relevant for the purpose of seeking to influence the way people will vote in 2011. What is now required is for the opposition to meet, put their house in order and collectively begin the process of guiding public opinion and influence the way people are going to vote in 2011. Anything that has the potential of perpetuating intra-opposition intransigence is a strategic blunder and would undoubtedly militate against our ultimate objective, an all inclusive opposition coalition. It would also very well make voters to become apathetic thereby hampering the opposition's electoral prospects. Like I said before, the opposition does not have the luxury of time to repair any such colossal damage before the 2011 election neither could they afford it. So no; apart from PDOIS's Ayatollah Sallah who has his own ulterio motive for doing so, no other opposition party or politician will be putting out a substantive policy position on coalition building in the public domain. The right forum for that is the proposed inter-party meeting. Should there be an agreement on the way forward in this meeting, a joint statement/programme will be produced articulating the vision, the conviction and the fortitude of the coalition to replace the status quo with something better and desirable. It will also be the instrument through which the opposition would seek to guide public opinion and earn the trust of the people. This is what our sole focus should be as it is what the people have asked for.
I do apologise for the feminine reference. It was an innocent mistake.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 26 Sep 2010 04:38:06 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2010 : 17:45:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
"This is not about guiding public opinion but getting the opposition to answer to the call for an all inclusive coalition to confront the current regime in 2011/12 elections. So clearly the competition is not and should not be between the different opposition parties- we expect them to be allies instead- but between the opposition combined and the incumbent APRC. That is where guiding public opinion is relevant for the purpose of seeking to influence the way people will vote in 2011. What is now required is for the opposition to meet, put their house in order and collectively begin the process of guiding public opinion and influence the way people are going to vote in 2011. Anything that has the potential of perpetuating intra-opposition intransigence is a strategic blunder and would undoubtedly militate against our ultimate objective, an all inclusive opposition coalition. It would also very well make voters to become apathetic thereby hampering the opposition's electoral prospects. Like I said before, the opposition does not have the luxury of time to repair any such colossal damage before the 2011 election neither could they afford it. So no; apart from PDOIS's Ayatollah Sallah who has his own ulterio motive for doing so, no other opposition party or politician will be putting out a substantive policy position on coalition building in the public domain. The right forum for that is the proposed inter-party meeting. Should there be an agreement on the way forward in this meeting, a joint statement/programme will be produced articulating the vision, the conviction and the fortitude of the coalition to replace the status quo with something better and desirable. It will also be the instrument through which the opposition would seek to guide public opinion and earn the trust of the people. This is what our sole focus should be as it is what the people have asked for.
I do apologise for the feminine reference. It was an innocent mistake."
You have to remember that a lot has changed since the Nadd imbrogilo, and the factors that were responsible for the subsequent political and voter apathy, and the rejection of the opposition coalitions by a sizeable number of the voting population are still present.
What makes you think that waiting one year before an election, and without any recourse to changing the dynamics that can still militate against the same opposition political structures, can produce a different outcome this time around?
Since Halifa and PDOIS tends to be the scapegoats, and may be their legitimate basis of inquiring a term of reference upon which a coalition talk could be facilitated, is deliberately miscontrued as intransigence; let us explore what is Halifa's and PDOIS's position which is in the public domain.
Halifa has said, based on the results of the two last elections in 2001 and in 2006, and even whereas coalitions have been formed between the different political parties, there is no political party which can claim to be a majority party and hence can lead the other parties, since all the parties have witnessed their electoral fortunes dwindle in every election cycle.
As a consequence a party led opposition coalition is not a safe modus operandi to be explored in the 2011 elections. As an option, an indepedent candidate who may come from the ranks of the opposition or elsewhere, could be selected as the presidential candidate for all the opposition parties, and will stand under no parties platform. The mechanics in which such an individual will be selected would be either through a primary; or if this method is not feasible, another method that may be discern by the parties involved.
The rationale behind the independent presidential candidate option is that, since all the opposition political parties have been rejected by a large percentage of the voting population, either by voting for the incumbent or staying at home and not voting, any of the opposition party structures should not be used as a conduit or a platform for the presidential candidate, but their combined human and material resources could be exploitetd to support such a candidate.
Is your party open to support this option? Can it also be a legitimate basis as an option for the coalition talks?
Secondly, Halifa and PDOIS support the idea of a coalition government of 2 to 5 years, should the opposition presidential candidate wins, and after the 2 or 5 years this person will supervise an all party elections in which he or she does not support and political party; and the party that wins will form the next government.
The rationale behind this idea is that, the coalition government that this presidential candidate leads, should be able to build and consolidate institutions and structures that will engender a viable democracy, as well as constitutional instruments and civil soceity segements that will all make it possible to restrain and humble any executive. This leadership can also put an end to self-perpetuating rule by an entrenched presidential term limits, and an executive that is accountable to the will of the people.
Is your party open to support this proposal? Can it also be a legtimate basis as a proposal for the coalition talks?
If the answers are in the affirmative, I will implore the services of Shaka to impress upon Halifa and PDOIS to join the opposition talks forthwith.
Rene |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2010 : 19:14:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by sankalanka
You have to remember that a lot has changed since the Nadd imbrogilo, and the factors that were responsible for the subsequent political and voter apathy, and the rejection of the opposition coalitions by a sizeable number of the voting population are still present.
What makes you think that waiting one year before an election, and without any recourse to changing the dynamics that can still militate against the same opposition political structures, can produce a different outcome this time around?
Since Halifa and PDOIS tends to be the scapegoats, and may be their legitimate basis of inquiring a term of reference upon which a coalition talk could be facilitated, is deliberately miscontrued as intransigence; let us explore what is Halifa's and PDOIS's position which is in the public domain....
Rene
I have not made any opinion to that effect so I don’t know where you are coming from. My point is that parties that have not put out a policy position on the coalition issue in the public domain have good reasons for not doing so. I have explained what some of those reasons are and therefore do not need to repeat them. If Halifa Sallah thinks otherwise and decided to put out a statement in the public domain but then refuses to talk to the main opposition leader on the subject of opposition unity,- he didn’t ask for a term of reference as you posited but instead wouldn’t even take calls from the main opposition leader let alone talk to him- then that is entirely a matter for him and his disciples. However, if he is genuinely interested in serious dialogue rather than mere political intransigence, he would have to come to the table and trash out the issues with the other side in a pragmatic fashion. This would also give him an opportunity to learn about the positions of the other parties on all the issues he has raised in his public statement. This is how a political dialogue between independent sovereign political parties should be conducted. It is how Danny Alexandra MP [UK’s Chief Treasury Secretary], a liberal and William Hague MP [UK’s Foreign Secretary], a conservative, have done and ended up producing a coalition government for Britain. It is also how Benjamin Netanyahu and Far right Lieberman have done and produced a coalition government in Israel. Just recently in Uganda, it is what Dr. Kizza Besigye has done with his fellow opposition politicians and succeeded in putting together a formidable opposition coalition to contest against the incumbent in the forthcoming elections in Uganda.
There is no precedent anywhere in this world where a coalition is built through media invective exchanges between concerned parties. Those who are interested in that kind of stuff are only interested in the continuation of intra-opposition intransigence rather than the fulfilment of the national aspiration of an all inclusive opposition coalition. That is why it is imperative that nothing is done by the other parties that would give them [the belligerent opposition politicians] comfort in that respect.
It looks like you are going in cycle now as you are not bringing up any new issue. I have to say; it is not my style to keep repeating myself on the same issue. Therefore, it would be nice if you can bring up new areas for my exploration as all the issues you have talked about in your last two postings have all been previously dealt with. You don’t have to accept anything I said in respect to them though; you just have to live with them as they are the realities you cannot change.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 26 Sep 2010 21:54:40 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2010 : 01:04:46
|
"My point is that parties that have not put out a policy position on the coalition issue in the public domain have good reasons for not doing so"
Utter nonsense! You can never spin the UDP position on opposition unity to decieve folks here. We are way too smart for that. The only reason the UDP is shying away from policy issues in the public domain is simply because it has no policy whatsoever except to trap the rest of the opposition into a UDP party-led coalition. Just like they did in NADD. They did not offer nothing to the NADD negotionation table but accepted every idea put forward by other parties believing that the rest of the opposition would foolishly give them their claim of birthright to the presidency by unanimously electing Ousainou Darbo as flagbearer, only to pull out when their agenda did not materialise. Then blamed the failure to reach a consensus on those who not only brought forward ideas but honestly articulated those ideas in the public glare. It is a similar approach they have this time around except that they want to keep ideas and deliberations out of the public light so that they can easily shift blame of any failure of opposition unity on others when the expect impasse resulting from a party-led invitation from the UDP occurs. The UDP knows very well that their position of a party-led alliance is untenable and will be flatly rejected at any negotiation table in the blink of an eye by anyone with an ounce of a brain. So stop acting and pretending that you have something else to offer outside a party-led alliance to realise the prophesy of Dobong, by electing Ousainou Darboe flagbearer of any future coalition. The all-inclusive party you are peddling here stank of downright dishonesty and a worm on a fishing hook to those who are familiar with what you have been spewing in this forum. Only a stupid fish will take the bait. If i was to have it my way, every minute of any meeting, negotiations and talks with the UDP will be recorded for posterity based on their history of smearing and slandering their partners-in-negotiation when things don't go according to their agenda.
You can compare apples and oranges all you want but everyone knows that the UK government coalition was not borne out of a pre-election alliance but by default of parliamentary majority after an election was held. I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind trying to ally the Conservative and the Liberal Democrats before the elections. You would have been shot there and then. Likewise attemptiing to compare the Israeli situation to the Gambia is rather moronic in that no single party can yield a government with a majority on its own. Almost every government in Israel is a coalition government of some sort. In fact Mr. Netanyahu's Likud party was beaten to second place by Tzipi Livni's Kadima party. Likud could only form a government because it has the support of right-wingers and religious parties to make the required majority. If this was Gambia Tzipi Livni would have been president. Yahya Jammeh does not need a parliamentary majority to rule incase you don't know. Regarding the Ugandan opposition, if you had the slightest clue about what you are talking about then you would have realised that the Inter-party Cooperation coalition in Uganda is not an all-inclusive opposition alliance but a coalition of four political parties from a possible eight opposition parties. I am glad that you brought it up because is a perfect example of all what is bad about an alliance hinging on party-led. I will delved further into this later. As we speak, that alliance is already in disarray with the second largest party pulling out citing "dishonesty and hijacking the coalition for its own gains" by the main opposition party of Dr. Kizza Besigye. Exactly what is so formidable about that coalition? That alliance is as good as dead right now because people had not sat down and debated what was at stake before agreeing in principle to elect a flagbearer.
|
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2010 : 01:26:17
|
| Totally agree.... |
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. |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2010 : 17:18:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
"I have not made any opinion to that effect so I don’t know where you are coming from. My point is that parties that have not put out a policy position on the coalition issue in the public domain have good reasons for not doing so. I have explained what some of those reasons are and therefore do not need to repeat them. If Halifa Sallah thinks otherwise and decided to put out a statement in the public domain but then refuses to talk to the main opposition leader on the subject of opposition unity,- he didn’t ask for a term of reference as you posited but instead wouldn’t even take calls from the main opposition leader let alone talk to him- then that is entirely a matter for him and his disciples. However, if he is genuinely interested in serious dialogue rather than mere political intransigence, he would have to come to the table and trash out the issues with the other side in a pragmatic fashion. This would also give him an opportunity to learn about the positions of the other parties on all the issues he has raised in his public statement. This is how a political dialogue between independent sovereign political parties should be conducted. It is how Danny Alexandra MP [UK’s Chief Treasury Secretary], a liberal and William Hague MP [UK’s Foreign Secretary], a conservative, have done and ended up producing a coalition government for Britain. It is also how Benjamin Netanyahu and Far right Lieberman have done and produced a coalition government in Israel. Just recently in Uganda, it is what Dr. Kizza Besigye has done with his fellow opposition politicians and succeeded in putting together a formidable opposition coalition to contest against the incumbent in the forthcoming elections in Uganda."
Well, I wanted to established the basis upon which you inferred that Halifa is intransigent; and knowing the protocols and standards that Halifa and PDOIS would employ to be a party to any opposition coalition talks, it is even more baffling for you to reveal that the leader of the main opposition party was trying to establish contact with Halifa over the phone.
After all, the man has put out a detailed explanation of what he and his party's policy options are; the type of opposition coalition that he and his party can support, as well as their position on all the major substantive issues and other related political issues, that are widely disseminated and in the public domain. Yet time and again, and without challenging him on any of these issues, you continuously "BLAH BLAH"(trying to find a suitable word) on the man, calling him an Ayotallah, that he is intransigent, arrogant and all sorts of things.
You said we should not expect your party to put out any substantive policy position in the public domain; it is not going to happen. Fair Enough. However, others should also be free to put out substantive policy positions in the public domain, curry the support of the people, and guide public opinion in favor of whatever they want to do.
Now that it is convenient, you are saying we cannot do that because it will create competiton between the opposition political parties; it will cause intra-party intransigence, and all the opposition parties should rally behind the main opposition party, and form an all inclusive opposition party coalition because that is what the people want.
Notwithstanding, there is no official pronouncement, correct me if I am wrong, that emanates from the UDP secretariat in Banjul, that a party led coalition effort is the official position of the party. All the arguments I heard about the party-led paradigm is from you; and it is the same arguments that you are still making.
However, what I read from Shaka with respects to coalitions, and particularly the examples you have cited is very, very instructive. He made the argument better than I could have. I thanked him for that.
You should make your party-led coalition desire official; court the parties that wish to rally behind you in preparation for the 2011 elections. Time is of the essence, and good luck.
Rene
|
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2010 : 17:27:58
|
quote:
After all, the man has put out a detailed explanation of what he and his party's policy options are; the type of opposition coalition that he and his party can support, as well as their position on all the major substantive issues and other related political issues, that are widely disseminated and in the public domain.
So true. |
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. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2010 : 18:41:44
|
Just brainstorming of possible alternatives for possible power sharing of political parties for the next election.
On theory:
1. Strategic nomination for the ridings: Political parties could have strategic nomination unity for the National Assembly. For example, UDP would not have nomination for riding A, instead they support PDOIS candidate. PDOIS candidate would not run for riding B, instead they support UDP candidate. This would translate the unity of opposition in most efficient way.
2. For presidential election, political parties would try to agree on a non-partisan candidate and support this candidate.
Here is the idea of actual power sharing strategy for opposition parties.
The unity talks is more like UDP vs other parties. So, negotiation of power sharing would be based on the following principle. Power sharing criteria is based on 'who gets what in terms of executive and legislative power'. For example, UDP would determine the presidential candidates from the suitable candidate. Smaller parties would dominate the selection of National Assembly candidates. Or smaller parties would determine the presidential candidate, UDP gets the support from all other parties for the National Assembly Election. In summary, one side get executive, the other side gets legislative power.
In summary UDP determine the candidates for National Assembly and NADD would support these candidates. NADD determine the presidential candidate, UDP support him or her. Or vice versa. |
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 27 Sep 2010 18:44:45 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2010 : 02:05:08
|
‘‘You said we should not expect your party to put out any substantive policy position in the public domain; it is not going to happen. Fair Enough. However, others should also be free to put out substantive policy positions in the public domain, curry the support of the people, and guide public opinion in favour of whatever they want to do.’’-Rene
I have answered that before. I said it is a matter for Halifa and his disciples. I have nothing to add.
‘‘Now that it is convenient, you are saying we cannot do that because it will create competition between the opposition political parties; it will cause intra-party intransigence, and all the opposition parties should rally behind the main opposition party, and form an all inclusive opposition party coalition because that is what the people want.’’ -Rene
You have misrepresented me here. What I said was that the competition is not between the various opposition parties but between the combined opposition and the incumbent APRC. The other thing I said was the following;
‘‘So no; apart from PDOIS's Ayatollah Sallah who has his own ulterior motive for doing so, no other opposition party or politician will be putting out a substantive policy position on coalition building in the public domain. The right forum for that is the proposed inter-party meeting. Should there be an agreement on the way forward in this meeting, a joint statement/programme will be produced articulating the vision, the conviction and the fortitude of the coalition to replace the status quo with something better and desirable. It will also be the instrument through which the opposition would seek to guide public opinion and earn the trust of the people. This is what our sole focus should be as it is what the people have asked for.’’
‘‘Notwithstanding, there is no official pronouncement, correct me if I am wrong, that emanates from the UDP secretariat in Banjul, that a party led coalition effort is the official position of the party. All the arguments I heard about the party-led paradigm is from you; and it is the same arguments that you are still making.’’-Rene
I have repeatedly said that for good reasons, UDP is not likely to put out an official position in public before they are able to meet representatives of all opposition parties. If your Ayatollah is interested in knowing their position then he should agree to have a meeting with them. The UDP have made their position known to all the opposition leaders who have given them audience on the coalition issue, and if pdois agrees to meet them, they will make their position known to them too with a view to engender dialogue. That is how coalition building is negotiated.
It appears that you are only interested in going around the circle as you are only bringing issues that have already being dealt with. Should this trend continue, I will take it that you have exhausted your points.
I hope I will not be misrepresented the next time you post.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 28 Sep 2010 02:08:05 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2010 : 00:34:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
‘‘Now that it is convenient, you are saying we cannot do that because it will create competition between the opposition political parties; it will cause intra-party intransigence, and all the opposition parties should rally behind the main opposition party, and form an all inclusive opposition party coalition because that is what the people want.’’ -Rene
You have misrepresented me here. What I said was that the competition is not between the various opposition parties but between the combined opposition and the incumbent APRC. The other thing I said was the following;
But the contextual implications of what I said, are not any different from what you said I misquoted. It is saying the same thing but differently; that if the combined opposition are not competing with the incumbent party, the competition of necessity would be between the various opposition parties. Anyway, I concede to your point.
‘‘So no; apart from PDOIS's Ayatollah Sallah who has his own ulterior motive for doing so, no other opposition party or politician will be putting out a substantive policy position on coalition building in the public domain. The right forum for that is the proposed inter-party meeting. Should there be an agreement on the way forward in this meeting, a joint statement/programme will be produced articulating the vision, the conviction and the fortitude of the coalition to replace the status quo with something better and desirable. It will also be the instrument through which the opposition would seek to guide public opinion and earn the trust of the people. This is what our sole focus should be as it is what the people have asked for.’’
It looks like you are underestimating what is at stake here by your above contention. And it appears to me that a deliberation of this nature, will not be informed by all the fundamental questions that would be at the cornerstone of building a third republic.
What happens to the idea of formulating a concept paper, at least to allay the fears and concerns of others, of what would be the nature of a coalition government under a UDP executive presidency?
What happens to the rights of the people, those who would be supporting the coalition effort, as well as those who would be voting you into power; what happens to their right to know what you would be doing when you are in power? They would have to wait until the inter-party meets:
"should there be an agreement on the way forward in this meeting, a joint statement/programme will be produced articulating the vision, the conviction and fortitude of the coalition to replace the status quo with something better and desireable. It will also be the instrument through which the opposition would seek to guide public opinion and earn the trust of the people."
In essence there would be a promise between those who are to form the executive in the goverment, and those who would be their partners in the government, that they would be doing such and such a thing (statement/programme)to change the status quo, with something better and desireable.
The only problem is that there is a precedence whereby people promise to change the status quo, but when they get into power it becomes a completely different reality. This is how a government in the first republic lasted for more than 30 years, and would have still continued to be in power if not for a coup etat. This is how the government of the second republic is more than 16 years in power and still counting. And this is how it could happen:
a) the nature of our government is an executive presidency, whose resposibility is to formulate government policies and impliment them. The role of the national assembly is to formulate the laws which should guide the formulation and implimentation of the government policies; and the judiciary.
Once a person is elected president, all the loyalties that were enjoyed and preserved under the previous one would be automically transferred over to that person. The people who were singing the praises of the first one, would be singing the praises of the second one too. The people who were vying for the attention, and help create the myth around the presidency, will be the same people who would do the same thing with the second.
In short, all the internal dynamics and interest relations and persuasions that were evident in the first one, will also begin to manifest itself in the second one. Without checks and balances, an executive president could easily exhibit monarchical tendencies, if there are no instutitions and structures that would harness the vast powers of the executive presidency. He/she could easily control the legislature and the judiciary.
Now, if there is a coalition government with an executive president from the majority party, who have agreed in principle that they will do such and such (statements/programmes)once they assumed office, and someone close to the president who happens to be in the cabinet, convinces the president that he doesn't need to honor certain provisions in the "statements/programmes".
Let's say the provision in question has to do with term limits. And the justification would be that the president was elected with a mandate from the people. And if he can have the mandate of the people he will not be bind by any term limits.
At this time a constitutional review has not yet been done. And there might even be justifications that certain provisions in the constitution will not be changed. Like say, the present system in the electoral process where a simple majority will ensure that a presidential candidate is the winner.
Now what happens; a conflict of interest at the very beginning could ensue. If the president should side with those who do not want term limits, or favors the current electoral provision whereby a simple majority ensures that a presidential candidate is the winner. So what?
Those in the government who do not agree will resign on principle; those in the legislature will try to use parliamentary procedures to block whatever it is that the president is trying to do.
I painted the above scenario to underscore the point that, without a non-partisan presidential arbiter it would be difficult to prosecute any change that would be meaningful.
Rene
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2010 : 01:52:05
|
The answers to all your questions are in my previous postings. Please see above. I am certainly not inclined to do a merry go around with you. And by the way, I do not know of any opposition party in the Gambia which hasn't advocated for a term limit. As far as I know, it has always being part of UDP's programmes since 1996 and so as the NRP.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 29 Sep 2010 02:11:06 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2010 : 05:50:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
The answers to all your questions are in my previous postings. Please see above. I am certainly not inclined to do a merry go around with you. And by the way, I do not know of any opposition party in the Gambia which hasn't advocated for a term limit. As far as I know, it has always being part of UDP's programmes since 1996 and so as the NRP.
Regards
Since you have answered all the questions in your previous postings; and since you are not inclined to do a merry go around with me, I thank you for your indulgence in having these exchanges with me.
Rene |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 00:36:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by sankalanka
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
The answers to all your questions are in my previous postings. Please see above. I am certainly not inclined to do a merry go around with you. And by the way, I do not know of any opposition party in the Gambia which hasn't advocated for a term limit. As far as I know, it has always being part of UDP's programmes since 1996 and so as the NRP.
Regards
Since you have answered all the questions in your previous postings; and since you are not inclined to do a merry go around with me, I thank you for your indulgence in having these exchanges with me.
Rene
You are most welcome, and thank you for having me too.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 15:36:21
|
We have been here at time of 2006 general elections! Didn't we have a coalition under NADD for equal representation and a UNITED FRONT TO FLUSH OUT JAMMEH/APRC Since then we have waisted many more years until 2011 already is here for another shot but even mobilising efforts are being undermined by petty squabbles, back-stabbers and character assassins!
STGDP did a good job to mobilised all opposition parties in forming an alliance! Then followed by the so-called academic/intellectual exercises, smearing, castigations & under-mining of efforts by certain party militants on partisan politics, petty criticisms or commentaries of Gambian on-line celebrities; namely Mathew K Jallow amongst others.
THE SAME HATE CAMPAIGN AND DIS-RESPECT IS STILL HAPPENING AGAINST ONE OF OUR BEST BRAINS, IN FRONT-LINE & ON THE GROUND; DOING THE HARD WORK, ENCOUNTERING ALL THE HARDSHIPS OF SERIES OF ARREST, DETENTION & IMPRISONMENT
WHAT A SHAME & PETTINESS IN NAME-CALLING, CHARACTER ASSASINATION & PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST HALIFA THESE ARE THE PETTINESS & LACK OF SOLIDARITY THAT DERAILS ANY PROGRESSIVE MOVE TO SAVE GAMBIANS FROM PLIGHT UNDER JAMMEH/APRC!
THE QUESTION MARKS ON PETTY POLITICS THAT DEFEATS ANY EFFORTS FOR A UNITED FRONT ARE; "Ayotallah" and also PDOIS/NADD issuing a press release and now publish or circularised under this forum as "Halifa missing a life time opportunity for change"
Related Gambian politics topic Halifa missing a life time opportunity for change! under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9791
|
Edited by - kobo on 30 Sep 2010 16:53:30 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
