Effecting Political Change in 2011: A Differing view To Sonny Daffeh

 By Modou Nyang

Mr. Editor,

I currently live in the United States and have witnessed events which led to the establishment of NADD. I am privileged to witness all the last three elections, presidential, National Assembly and Council Elections. I have been engaged in a debate at the other on line Forums notably the Gambia-L with people who claim to be part of UDP-UK branch, on the best way forward to bring about change in the next presidential election in 2011.

The UDP-UK decided to move from the forums into the open online media in an attempt to distort facts on the statistics and analysis of the performance of the various parties in the past two presidential elections by Halifa Sallah, that drew the conclusion that the best available means to the opposition is to submit themselves to a primary enabling the people to choose a candidate to contest against Yahya Jammeh and his APRC. I swiftly reacted to the distortions and had to conduct further research to ascertain the exact figures the UDP polled in the 2001 elections. The results have been posted online with the signature of the then chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission Gabriel Roberts for all Gambians to see.

I have also revisited Agenda 2011 and found out that the figures in the Agenda tallies with what I have posted. Apparently, the UDP-UK spokespersons prefer to make reference to a Foroyaa publication on the way forward by Halifa Sallah which was sent during Gainako’s anniversary. This contained approximate figures. I have referred the members of the UDP-UK to the Agenda 2011 publication to confirm my position and even offered to send the Agenda to them electronically if they made a request. They have not done so and yet they continue to claim that Halifa’s figures were wrong. Mr. Editor, I am convinced that the members of the UDP-UK are not interested in the truth. They just have their prejudices against Halifa. In fact in my debate with them they express their joy that Halifa has lost the SerreKunda Central seat even though many people in the Gambia are in agreement irrespective of party affiliation that he was most competent in keeping the APRC on its toes while in parliament because of his analysis of policies rather than just focusing on human right issues and corruption as most political figures do. Jammeh was so relieved that he had to mention his joy after Halifa lost the seat. I just want the general public to know that the spokespersons of UDP-UK are capable of saying anything just to give the impression that Agenda 2011 is not accepted in the diaspora. This is why they are attacking those who have started to speak their minds like Jeggan so that others would keep quiet. I suggest that readers should try to find out what the UDP really want as a party for 2011.

It became much clearer to me what the UDP is calling for at least through their UK branch when I read what Sonny Daffeh had written in response to Jeggan Grey-Johnson’s article with the conclusion that: " Halifa Sallah and his PDOIS Party [should] put their personal pride, egos and idealism aside and immediately embrace a UDP led alliance without any obnoxious precondition whatsoever".

This topic was discussed in the forums and in one of my postings debating with the UDP-UK group I quoted Halifa Sallah in a recent interview with Foroyaa where he stated: "Interestingly enough, in 2001 the APRC candidate had 242,302 votes when it forged no alliance with the NCP. At that time there were 501,304 registered voters. Suffice it to say, even though the number of voters increased by 169, 032, by 2006 the votes of the APRC could only increase by 22,102 votes. The UDP candidate had 149,448 votes in 2001. Even though it developed alliance with NRP, which had 35,671 votes in 2001, its votes went down to 104,808 votes in the 2006 elections, despite the increase in the number of registered voters by 169, 032 voters.

- Foroyaa: What is your advice?-

"It is therefore necessary for political leaders to go back to the drawing board and map out a new way forward. How is the opposition to attract the 542,055 voters who did not vote for them is the subject at hand. This is what Agenda 2011 is all about. Even though I am not excluding acceptance of candidature, I have already declared that the best option is to select a neutral candidate who will be able to run a non partisan transitional cabinet for a period of 2 to 5 years and then step aside after a genuine multi party contest. It is left to Gambians to decide whether they have a better way forward."

After referring them to the above I added the following request to the leader of the group: "Please ask Darboe to state his proposal for a way forward so that we know what the UDP want for the Nation. That is better than endless bickering by the spokesperson of the party in the UK ." This request was ignored with even one of them calling me a Ndokey and indicating that they were not my errand boys. This confirms that they are not really serious and are not inspiring at all to those of us who are in our thirties. One person who has the same frame of mind as them but claims to be non partisan was even shamed for saying that he used the Agenda as toilet paper instead of reading it. As you can see any serious person should have given up on such people.

However, before writing this letter I wrote them the following: "Could you give us the UDP position on the way forward instead of pouring venom on Halifa for being bold enough to come up with concrete proposals?" The following answer was given: "I will give you the UDP's position on the way forward, which was eloquently expressed by SS DAFFEH, that is "Halifa Sallah and his PDOIS Party should put their personal pride, egos and idealism aside and immediately embrace a UDP led alliance without any obnoxious precondition whatsoever".

I hope the UDP leadership is reading what is being said by those who claim to have established a UDP branch in the UK. That is one reason why I decided to bring out some of the points being raised on behalf of their party by those claiming to represent it.

Now let me go to the point. We the young people who have more to lose are fully conscious that there is no second round of voting in the Gambia . It is clear that many people, even some who are currently posing themselves as APRC, do not want the way things are going and do feel insecure. It is very clear that many people are interested in change. Halifa has even given statistics that 405,932 people did not vote for the ruling party and 542,055 did not vote for the opposition. He said that both NADD and UDP need to accept their failures and go back to the drawing board.

Agenda 2011 has addressed the concerns of all sectors of the Gambian society that could draw them together to support change. Secondly it calls for the empowering of each of the people who want change to vote for a candidate on a non partisan platform so as to keep the voters together. Halifa has gone as far as to say that the candidate could be a neutral person. However other party leaders could insist on being considered as candidates during the primary and pledge to run a non partisan administration if they win.

Sonny accepts that NADD was a failure but maintains that the UDP NRP and GPDP alliance was not a failure and should now be extended to incorporate NADD. This is where Sonny has become absurd in his thinking.

The results of the 2006 elections are clear. The motive for establishing the UDP NRP Alliance is also clear. I could go back to the archives to extract what the leader of the NRP said in the US before the elections. Hamat said that if the results of the UDP and NRP in the 2001 elections are to go by they would need only 5 more percent to win the 2006 Presidential Elections.

Sonny, despite the attempt by members of the UDP UK branch to distort the figures the reality is that in the 2006 elections the UDP failed to get the 149,448 votes it got in 2001 when it did not forge any alliance with the NRP. Even though it developed alliance with NRP, which had 35,671 votes in 2001 which should have been added to the 149,808 votes if Hamat’s prediction became the reality, it came up with 104,808 votes in 2006 instead.

Any person with common sense would agree that with the increase in registration of voters between 2001 and 2006 both the NRP and UDP should have added new voters to their camp. Alliance with GPDP should have also added some voters to the UDP camp. What Sonny should accept is that the votes of the UDP NRP GPDP Alliance together in 2006 fell below what the UDP had in 2001. Hence Hamat’s hope that his 35,671 votes in 2001 would be added to Darboe’s 149,448 votes to give them 185,119 votes did not materialize as expected. Instead they lost 80,311 votes as compared to their combined votes in 2001.

The lesson is clear. If the UDP NRP GPDP Alliance had more votes and still failed to win the elections one would have rightly said that if other parties gave the alliance support it would gain more votes. If there was second round of voting one could also take the risk of testing the strength of different alliances and political parties.

However, since the support of other parties did not stop the UDP from losing votes what is there to convince any other party that their support would transform the failed adventure in 2006 into success in 2011. Why is it necessary to engage in trial and error when the UDP leader could test his popularity through a non partisan primary to give more assurance to those who want change that it is achievable. Darboe himself said in an interview with the Daily News that his party is the only one capable of winning a primary had it been pursued in the NADD arrangement in 2006. After all, more people abstained from voting than those who voted for the UDP or NADD. Hence what is urgent is to know how the non party elements - the independents - would vote. Every honest Gambian could see that the proposal to hold a non partisan primary to determine the candidature of just one opposition contender in the 2011 elections is the best option so far.

Daffeh, however does not agree with this simple truth. According to him "Jeggan’s suggestion of a primary election as a mechanism for selecting a candidate for a possible coalition of all opposition parties is both misplaced and untenable." He added: "Primaries are normally an internal party contest where individuals contest for the leadership/candidature of a given party in a forthcoming general election. Coalitions of independent sovereign political parties don’t contest primaries to determine who their leader should be. That is normally determined by the results of the preceding general election."

If preceding elections determine the outcome of the next following election then we might as well give up hope of change since the results of the ruling party will always be greater. Secondly Agenda 2011 is not talking about coalition of political parties but a grand coalition of the people.

It is unfortunate that Daffeh’s brain is focused on parties instead of the people who give power to political parties. Halifa has explained over and over again that opposition parties should focus on the 405, 932 people who did not vote for the ruling party and 542, 055 who did not vote for the opposition in the 2006 Presidential election. How are we going to bring such people on board? This is the challenge.  

Daffeh however does not care how such independents could be drawn on board. According to him: "The UDP has proven itself over and over of being the dominant force in Gambia ’s opposition politics". However, its votes went down to 104, 808 votes out of 670, 336 votes. NCP was once the dominant opposition force, where is it today? UDP started as a big force because it was an amalgamation of the former ruling party which was overthrown and the two major opposition parties of the first Republic. It had resources and influence passed on to it. Despite its favorable situation in the past it is able to pull only 104,808 votes in 2006 Presidential elections, 4 seats in the National Assembly elections and 3 seats in the Council elections. Out of 128, 451 voters in KMC its Mayoral Candidate was able to pull only 8, 412 votes. This is not a sign of growth. Hence Daffeh’s conclusion is ill conceived.

According to Daffeh again: "Any future alliance/coalition of all opposition parties must therefore be built around them [the UDP]. This is a sacred principle of any democratic political dispensation and no amount of spinning and hypocrisy will be allowed to circumvent it. The earlier the fringe parties recognize this, the better for our chances of forging a unified alliance of all opposition parties against the ruling APRC in 2011. This is not about helping someone to become an elite as Halifa would say. It is about adhering to the rules of conventional politics; coalitions are usually led by the biggest party in the group."

This may be true in a normal multi party system where parties try to share power. It may also be true where you have second round of voting. It is not the case in a situation of political emergency like ours. In Guinea today the Prime Minister is from the fringe parties. In Mali , Tumani Touray came out of the blue to become a symbol of unity to consolidate the democratization process. If the UDP leadership shares the same view as Daffeh then they should be told right away that they are preparing for failure.

Again my understanding is that Agenda 2011 is calling for a non partisan grand coalition of all those who are willing to vote at a primary to select a presidential candidate for the opposition irrespective of party affiliation or non party affiliation. It is not about NADD or UDP which both failed miserably to bring about change in 2006. It is shameful that a UDP supporter would compare The UDP vote with the NADD vote knowing fully well that UDP and NRP had established structures and funding while the NADD they Walked away from had held only its inaugural meeting and was yet to raise money to carry out a Presidential electoral campaign. Most PPP leaders like Yahya Ceesay supported the UDP. Other PPP leaders like Ganyi Touray went to the APRC even though he was responsible for NADD’s Campaign in CRR North. We all know the story. The 20 per cent of the opposition vote that NADD had was picked as it were from the fire. This is why it is accepted that the NADD ended up in failure. What is the use of talking about the UDP having more votes than NADD when their combined votes could not have helped them to win a Presidential election.? We need a new initiative. This is what Agenda 2011 is all about. I pause for a reply.

Let the dialogue continue.