Commentary

By Musa Camara

In the history of modern failed states few men are called upon to shape the uncharted destiny of their people for a new dispensation. The Gambia is at that crossroad as two of its imminent citizens are called upon to answer the clarion call of the day. They must embrace the enormous responsibility of leadership in the struggle to end the despotism engulfing the country; or bear the haunting burden of its perpetuation for failing to rise to the occasion. These two gentlemen are Mr. Halifa Sallah and Mr. Ousainou Darboe. Their work is cut out for them in the up-coming presidential elections. The need to dethrone the incumbent is beyond all debates. As if the current predicaments the clownish dictator imposed on the nation were only meant to be test drive of imperium, he has unveiled a diabolical desire to transform the Republic into his kingdom. We had enough already! All resorts to peaceful regime change share a common denominator: the opposition parties contesting the 2011 election on a single ticket.

Notwithstanding the iron curtain descending upon The Gambia to degrade the citizens into subjects of a would-be malevolent King, the opposition is still disunited. The lack of consensus and common front will translate into another election night victory for Yahya Jammeh to continue his reign of terror and suppression of freedoms. Worse, he may achieve his apocalyptic goal of subverting our sovereignty for monarchy. These dire and glum of prospects raise much concern for some people to seek a way out through any means that appear to provide even the dimmest outlook of our political situation.

The two contending visions for an alliance presented to the country provide breathing space for ardent supporters of the respective camps. The proposal by the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) for a united front is based on what Mr. Musa Jeng of Save The Gambia Democracy Project (STGDP) has accurately described as a precondition that any alliance for the 2011 election has to be UDP-led. The People’s Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) contends that an opposition alliance should be based on the principle of democratic equality of the contracting parties. Not surprisingly, however, the irreconcilability of the two options leaves many more Gambians gasping for political fresh air. In the light of the foregoing, I write to appeal for common sense. People on both sides would have to exert appropriate pressure on their camps to facilitate the necessary compromise, which alone can end the stalemate and broker a democratic arrangement among the principals of the proposed alliance, and set the country on the launch pad of a democratic path we all yearn.

As we earnestly call out in good faith for a proper and solid alliance, we must take cognizance of individuals who are out to promote ulterior motives in the guise of national interest. We need not imagine potential rude awakenings; we already have the benefit of experience. For the second time in a row, a rookie party leader throws himself into the negotiation as the wild card. In 2006, Mr. Hamat Bah’s National Reconciliation Party (NRP) was the poster child for the failure of National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD). Similarly, this year, Mr. Mai Fatty of The Gambia Moral Congress (GMC) who travels everywhere on the planet except Banjul, where he does not even meet the residency qualification to contest the upcoming presidential election, never had a single vote cast in his name in an election to credibly claim a seat at negotiating table for any alliance, naively puts his head in the clouds, and arrogates himself the authority to be the kingmaker. These misguided political posturing of these political neophytes could be attributed to their obvious inexperience, or unreasonable and insatiable desire to be heard by all means, even when and where their opinions and views are unsolicited. Fatty’s pretensions (just like Bah’s was in 2006) are detrimental to The Gambia’s democratic discourse. It must be rejected because it is divisive to the core and will render any foresight-driven solution or compromise impossible.

Political alliances can mostly be successful if they are rootedin the legal system, political structures and civil institutions within the country. The UDP’s proposal for an alliance is unfair, undemocratic and anachronistic for the present political realities in The Gambia. It calls on other political parties to rally behind it “without any preconditions” to help elect its leader to the Office of President who will have all the powers Yahya Jammeh currently has to implement UDP agenda. This proposal gives no voice to other invited parties with regard to the selection of the presidential nominee. Because only the UDP members could make that choice, the invited guests are treated like second-class partners without any vote as would democratic participants enjoying equal rights of citizenship. Furthermore, the UDP has not laid out any ground rules for democratic deliberations of how the alliance would conduct its business nor has it presented any formal agenda for any responsible political party to consider as the framework of serious negotiation.

In addition to its undemocratic nature the proposal lacks the core principle of fairness. It is unfair for it would help elect a UDP candidate into office without guaranteeing the other alliance members mechanism to hold him accountable and transparent. Also, if elected, it gives him the powers and privileges of the incumbent in subsequent elections. In fact after the election of such a government without any preconditions or programs for the public to determine whether it keeps its promises, it may even refuse to draft a new constitution with term limits, or may even try to perpetuate itself in office like its two predecessors. We need to look no further than the “soldiers with a difference” who among themselves supposedly “democratically”selected Jammeh, gave him all the powers “without preconditions” only to have realized they had chosen the man who would throw them in prison for life, fired them from their positions, banished them and now runs our country in ways unimaginable in their wildest nightmares.

Notwithstanding this, the UDP proposal would have merited some serious consideration had the electoral system required a presidential candidate gain over 50% of the votes to be declared the winner. Under such a system, all minor parties could be encouraged to stay in the race in the first round of voting to deny the ruling party outright victory and thus enabling the two leading candidates to contest the second round of voting. Any leading opposition party could have the advantage to call on the minor parties to form an alliance to call on their supporters to vote for the main opposition party. But should the minor parties decline to endorse the main opposition candidate, the voters would decide for themselves since the second round of voting would be held as scheduled without the participation of the non-viable parties. Under the “first past the post” (i.e. winner takes all) electoral system in The Gambia, that is not feasible and the UDP does not have that advantage to insist on a party-led alliance. This explains why their proposal is anachronistic in The Gambia today because the Constitution has been amended to disallow second-round of voting. The proposal is simply suited for a parliamentary system of government wherein after the election; the party with most seats in Parliament could call on other minor parties to form a party-led coalition government. Therefore UDP stands on no moral granite to, twice consecutively I'm afraid, stall progress or abort democratic transformation for a non-democratic proposition in our country.

The option the current political infrastructure in The Gambia provides to best succeed is a united alliance under a single political party like the option, the National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) envisions. All parties should shelve their individual programs to coalesce behind a single agenda to remove Jammeh from power; implement a transition program with limited but targeted reforms for the restoration of a true democracy. If in the future their partnership proves successful, cordial and harmonious they may decide to stay together as a party. In addition, NADD is already a registered political party with an agenda to implement, has the capacity to unite all the parties since nearly all of them were its founding members, has the popularity to defeat Jammeh in the next election, and has the human capital within its ranks to transform The Gambia into a genuine democracy.

An undemocratic or informal party-led alliance as proposed by the UDP is very dangerous for The Gambia for it would undoubtedly lead to electoral failure because democratically oriented parties would not take a leap of faith in such an unpredictable arrangement. Even wherein such an alliance manages to win the election ― which is practically impossible ― it would fail colossally in advancing meaningful democratic changes in the country. This is precisely so because alliances of this sort are formulated in backroom deals, implement policies not acceptable to coalition partners, and to a great extent, rely mostly on personal promises which filter through to the public in “he said, she said” recollections during times of disputes or crises. Generally, it can be argued that nothing is more easily abandoned by men than their words, especially after they have acquired power. I’m aware of the cynics who would argue that even under the NADD format anyone who comes to the helm of authority of the nation could dishonor the agreement since it is not a legally binding contract. Similarly, I’m one skeptic who thinks that any future NADD president could choose to disregard even the Constitution and misrule The Gambia as worst as Jammeh. However, these risks can be minimized if we construct an alliance in a judiciously prudent fashion in which NADD came into being.

A transitional program under NADD is superior in that it provides a roadmap, which its members are fully aware of and they would hold one another accountable with transparency. A deliberate deviation from the agenda by anyone could easily be detected by casual observers and probably even by the unsuspecting citizenry at large. In short, the NADD formula empowers all parties and equips the people with the yardstick to measure the sincerity of the players in the coalition, and the means to check for abuses within the coalition similar to the limits set by the Constitution on the powers of the Executive and the legislative bodies in government. Therefore, even though it’s possible that a future NADD president could abandon the plan, and abuse the Constitution, at least, each individual citizen has the instruments―both the legal and non-binding― to render informed judgments on such abdication of responsibilities or extra-legal excesses. An informal alliance provides these structures to neither the consenting parties nor the voters since the agreement is not transparent to public scrutiny.

Some critics have argued that NADD’s selection process of the flag-bearer is cumbersome and tedious. Others have argued, including Mr. Ousainou Darboe himself that a primary election would be damaging to the coalition nominee in the general election because of the possible utterances of negative statements against him by primary opponents. First, while these may appear genuine on the face value, quite frankly, they are cultured in a world of paranoia: the fear of democracy that terrifies African leaders whether in opposition or in government. Second, I believe that any nominee selected by NADD regardless of the selection process or method would be attacked by President Jammeh and his political lackeys and mouthpieces. In fact, they will say negative things about a NADD flag-bearer than any human being would ever say about such a person. Third, Gambians expect a NADD nominee to be a strong, better and formidable candidate who would respond to Jammeh’s attacks by drawing a clear distinction between them. The NADD candidate should tell Jammeh a statement of this sort: “I was selected in a democratic process, probably, the first of its kind on the African continent; and if I’m elected president I would have as my vice-president and cabinet members people who have said nasty things about me and would say anything they may think of me; and you know what, they would not get fired let alone get arrested or sent to jail. That would be just one of the many differences between my presidency and yours.” Issues oriented response to Jammeh’s petty personal attacks should convince enough rational voters who care about their collective freedom, personal security and economic prosperity to elect a NADD presidential candidate for the Office. Moreover, numerous democratic dividends come to The Gambia in the nomination process of the NADD flag-bearer through either a national convention or a primary. Concomitant with the process, NADD will set up campaign branches across the country and end that pesky but all too important problem of voter apathy evident in the last election. The voters will directly invest in the alliance with their emotional, social and political capital, and the nation's electioneering culture will be all the richer for it.

Some have also argued that we do not need any formal alliance or a process to select any nominee since any of the opposition candidates would fare a better president thanYahya Jammeh. I humbly beg to differ with this premise because its advocates could not provide any guarantee to back their argument besides mere assumptions about leaders they barely met or knew very little about. Plenty of examples are abound everywhere in Africa, but we should just draw some few instructive lessons from our own recent developments to alert us to some undemocratic tendencies, as elusive as some of them may appear, grandiosely displayed by political actors on the Gambian stage.

First, in 2006, Hon. Hamat Bah boastfully announced that he had in secret signed a no-bid contract with some anonymous power company somewhere in the United Kingdom to provide electricity in The Gambia in the event of the UDP/NRP coalition winning that election. Even though solving electricity shortage may be the second best news to any Gambian ― the first is the news Yahya Jammeh is kicked out of office ― these are the corrupt practices we all abhor about the Jammeh maladministration. Second, we could also draw lesson from Mr. Ousainou Darboe’s self-entitlement, who signed NADD’s Memorandum of Understanding in 2005, participated in the nomination process until he realized that it wasn’t a coronation but a democratic exercise and withdrew from the alliance. And even today, he continues to stubbornly insist on being the only candidate to lead any alliance for the next election. Above all, we must draw lessons from Yahya Jammeh’s reckless, arrogant and narcissistic claim that because of some economic developments he initiated in The Gambia, financed by revenues collected from tax payers and loans contracted in the name of the people, he feels and acts entitled to expropriate “the peoples’ natural rights” by plotting to become a sovereign king over them. I do not in any way attempt to create a false equivalence between these leaders, but these examples should serve as lessons for us as a nation to stop being a complacent people who trust and empower their leaders only to later fall victims to their machinations.

All political leaders in The Gambia should operate in the same moral universe. The standards the opposition leaders apply to Jammeh must be the same standards they apply on themselves, or even more stringently. If they failed in this sphere, they will lose their credibility and stand accused of hypocrisy for they preach what they would not practice. We the people have the responsibility to build democratic institutions, instead of personalities and idols, to guarantee our eternal freedom in dignity. We can seek guidance from the Islamic dictum that people deserve leaders who lord over them. For Gambians to create a democratic society, or be worthy of democratic governments in their land, the people must ensure that leaders who should facilitate that change conduct their affairs in a democratic atmosphere. Democratic institutions strive on open and deliberative processes to produce acceptable outcomes out of the contentions, conflicts and struggles in and for a just and fair society. As long as Gambians choose mere expediency over prudential process, our country will never be democratic. We can’t easily leapfrog our way into democracy and simply put, we never will.

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of The Gambia Echo Newspaper, LLC.

The Gambia and the challenges of democratic change in 2011