|
 |
 |
|
|
NADD: The Solution Agenda
|
|
|
 |
|
|
NADD: The Solution Agenda
By Foday Samateh
NADD: The Solution Agenda
After
reading my article on Diplomacy, a friend of mine, an AFPRC supporter,
sent me this e-mail: “I may not share your Jammeh-bashing sentiments
but I would be unjust if I do not admit the beauty of the following
statement as the acme of literary excellence! Read: ‘NADD is led by a
superlatively eloquent man with time-tested solid integrity matched by
un-dimming strength of vision to light our way into the future. What
more could The Gambia ask for?’” Translation? Mr. Halifa Sallah is our
only and best choice.
While NADD is fighting for the soul of The
Gambia, APRC and UDP spin-masters are frantically hard at business as
usual. At best, they are putting up shows for political gimmicks and
theatrics if only to out do each other in shallow jingoism at the
expense of our nation’s prospects for genuine democracy.
The APRC is
the status quo party. On the question of change for the betterment of
our country, it has no legitimacy. It cannot deny that there is a
galaxy of reasons for urgent change, because there is. Nor can the
party promise any meaningful change in the twin essentials of democracy
and economy, since it is not only responsible for the current quagmire;
it stands firmly by it as the laudable achievement of Yayha Jammeh’s
12-year rule. In short, the APRC is barren of solutions to the problems
of its own making. It is as guilty as charged with misgoverning the
country, gross negligence of the democratic duty, and willful violation
of electoral mandate. And this September, it must be sentenced to the
retirement facility of ex-governments: history.
With the law of
elimination passed on the APRC, the two remaining contenders ─ UDP/NRP
and NADD ─ must exhaustively be put to the same standard test on the
merits of their agenda for solution to The Gambia’s crippling problems.
We can best do this by transcending the partisan rhetoric to base our
judgment on the fundamental differences that resulted in UDP/NRP split
from NADD. Some, led by Hamat Bah in deliberate misinformation
campaign, have attempted to recast this difference as a leadership
dispute on who should be the flag-bearer. But clearly, that is bedside
the central point. The real difference is not about leadership, it is
about leadership philosophy for post-Yahya-Jammeh democracy.
NADD
was established on two distinct agendas. The first was to combine the
strength of the opposition parties to unseat Jammeh on a simple
majority constitutional amendment that annulled the more than 50% vote
requirement for the presidency. The second, if not the more important,
is to create a transitional program of institutional reform for a
viable, genuine democracy for five years, so that the likes of Yahya
Jammeh presidency, executive branch of government with unaccountable
power, are now and forever a sad history. This is the substantive core
of the NADD agenda, and the rest of it is structural means to achieve
the democratic enterprise. I find it difficult to understand why
anyone would have a problem with such a clear-cut solution agenda, but
those who want to game such noble project to achieve their ulterior
motives: namely, UDP and NRP.
While the UDP and NRP agreed with
the first agenda of NADD to consign the Yayha Jammeh presidency to the
archives of history, they have, by all indications, no genuine
demonstrative desire to dismantle the imperial presidency status quo
once and for good. They signed the NADD Memorandum of Understanding in
bad faith, because they are only interested in changing faces in the
State House and not policies that have trapped the Gambia at the bottom
of United Nations Human Development Report year in year out. All Lawyer
Darboe and Hamat Bah have given us on why they quit NADD are invented
excuses (and they are all foolish) made by the UDP/NRP alliance that
democracy is by numbers, that all coalitions are led by the biggest
opposition party, and that they therefore made a cardinal “mistake” by
agreeing to be equal with their former NADD colleagues when they were
not equal. (George Orwell will be refreshingly impressed!)
Is it
not too late to make such groundless complaints? Where were Lawyer
Darboe and Hamat Bah when the language of the MOU was being framed? And
how did they read the constructed language of the MOU before they
appended their ceremonial signatures to the document? Two men: a
veteran lawyer, and a veteran politician? This is more than a partisan
problem; it is a monumental national embarrassment at a time of most
urgent need for visionary leadership! (Even Yahya Jammeh would not
under-perform himself this low.)
The respective supporters and
members of the UDP and NRP should have openly held their leaders
accountable for making a grand deal and honoring it with absurd
utterances, instead of blaming Halifa Sallah for his negotiation skill,
which is great asset for The Gambia in the international community.
They should have charged and convicted Lawyer Darboe and Hamat Bah of
gross incompetence and sentence them to resignation from their
leadership positions in their parties. That is what we need in The
Gambia, holding leaders accountable for their actions and performances,
if we mean any serious about a new democratic nation.
To
substantiate my point that Lawyer Darboe and Hamat Bah signed the MOU
in bad faith, we need not look further than the memorandum itself. It
provides for:
A five-year transition period for comprehensive institutional reform.
A one-term presidency of that transition period.
And
a post-transition period two-term presidency (not to be contested by
the transitional president in the first election following the
transition period).
If Darboe was not interested in this
arrangement, why did he sign the MOU? If he was more interested in a
full two-term presidency, (as we now know), why did he put up his name
for the single-term transition presidency of only five years? For both
questions, his answer is “mistake.” Don’t you believe it! Lawyer Darboe
wants the best of both worlds. He has no intention to honor the MOU
principles after he served the transition presidency. His plan was to
game the noble democracy project! He can’t wait for five more years to
be president, because everyday he waits is a day lost in waiting to
fulfill the alleged promise of his great grandfather that God answered
the old man’s prayers for his great grandson to be president of The
Gambia.
We, the people of The Gambia, cannot hang our hopes and
aspirations on un-provable statements, like Lawyer Darboe’s great
grandfather’s promise of cutting a deal with God. NADD has a scientific
approach to our problems, if we are living in a rational world!
[This is the Fifth in a series of Ten Articles] |
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 (Archive on Tuesday, August 29, 2006)
Posted by PNMBAI Contributed by PNMBAI
| | Return |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|