NADD FLAG-BEARER ON THE ELECTION
THE BIRTH OF A NEW BEGINNING
This is the beginning of the end of an era in Gambian politics. The Gambia is now at a cross road between the past and the future. The past can never be restored and the present can never be sustained. The future must come. This is why clarity is necessary to shape a new way forward for the country. This is inconceivable without putting the election results in their proper perspective. 
First and foremost, it is important to point out that an election is not a wrestling march where one has the victor and the vanquished.
Executive office in a democratic society is a position of public trust. Election to the position of Chief Executive of a nation carries the duty of being the guardian of the liberty and prosperity of our people. Honour is due to those who enlarge the liberties and enhance the prosperity of the people in exercising executive authority. Hence those who find themselves in a position of public trust have a duty to prove that they deserve being entrusted with the task of charting the destiny of a people. Those who have not been elected should live exemplary lives to prove that they deserve being considered for election to such high level of public service. They should keep the person in office on his/her toes by being a force of example in words and deeds regarding what they would have said and done if they were elected. This is the demand of democracy which should be addressed at all times and circumstances if there is to be a legitimate government and opposition in a country.
Now, allow me to address the question that is often asked regarding my reaction to the election results.
Those who have a clear-sighted appreciation of the events preceding the September 2006 polls would agree with me that I was an unwilling candidate who procrastinated up to the end because of my conviction that under a NADD umbrella a united opposition had the opportunity to kick start a new Republic founded on the fullest expression of the sovereign power of the people, fullest respect for their fundamental rights and freedoms, fullest display of accountability and transparency in public office, unalloyed display of Republican and democratic values thus overriding monarchical and autocratic behaviour in governance and further ensuring an unparalled humbling of the office of the president. Consequently, up to the eleventh hour I refused to take a picture to put on my ballot box for the election in anticipation that a democratic united front would be created so that only one opposition candidate would contest the elections. These aspirations did not materialize. The demise of the prospects of creating a democratic united front that would have bound all opposition parties to a minimum programme of establishing a democratic foundation and an accountable auditing system that would put in place a viable fiscal, financial and macro economic base and thus give Gambia a new start in the 21st century, forced me to rethink, reassess and reshape my state of mind.
President Jammeh strongly believes that he has given Gambians a new start. I cling to the NADD agenda because of my strong conviction that the new start NADD would have given Gambia in terms of liberty and prosperity would have been far superior to what he could have ever imagined.
Left with no option but to stay aloof and be guilty of indecision and betrayal of the expectations of people or plunge into a sea of uncertainty and risk an exercise in futility, I chose the safer option of using my nationwide tour as a presidential candidate as a gauge to determine the viability of my candidature. The response was electrifying. It confirmed all the more that NADD possessed the potential that all National Democratic Movements are endowed with to ensure their success, that is, the power of ideas and the power of mass support. Eyes and ears were glued on TV or radio and the NADD message was received with comprehension and passion that were rare in Gambian politics. The omnipotence of the force of logic in NADD's message gave it authority and clout all over the country. As the masses received NADD with ecstasy irrespective of tribal or regional distinctions, it became increasingly difficult to predict the outcome of the election.
THE ROLE OF IDEAS RESOURCES AND MASS SUPPORT
Let me reiterate again that fundamental to the outcome of the election were three factors, that is the power of ideas, the power of human and material resources and the power of mass support.
Any objective analyst would agree with me that NADD had overwhelmingly edge to both the APRC and UDP regarding content and delivery of convincing messages. This is the first point.
Needless to say, the UDP and APRC had edge over NADD regarding material and human resources. In comparison to the two, the APRC had overwhelmingly edge in terms of material and human resources In short one could not see the distinction between state and party. Governors of divisions, chiefs of districts, heads of villages, heads of institutions, prominent members of the business community, the army, police, NIA were all associated with the President's campaign. Vehicles with numberless plates were distributed all over the country.
Incumbency was exploited by the APRC to its optimum degree in mobilizing human and material resources of the state to its advantage.
Suffice it to say that, having an edge in ideas or material and human resources is not sufficient to determine the outcome of elections unless such advantages could be transformed into mass support.
The voters who could give mass support could be divided into three categories. There were the legitimate voters who acquired their voters' cards in the proper manner and were ready to cast their votes without inducement or intimidation.
Secondly, there may have been those underaged Gambians who had acquired their cards illegally by giving false information to the registering officers to get registered. Thirdly, there may have been those non-Gambians who had acquired their voters' cards illegally by posing as Gambian citizens.
How many of those in these three categories of the voters cast or did not cast their votes? Who did they vote for? Why did they vote or fail to vote? These are questions that all analysts should be interested in. For our purpose, the analysis must not be an academic exercise. It must not be a refuge for the people to escape the consequences of their actions.
It is only by facing soberly the inadequacies in thinking, actions and institutional processes that the people will be enabled to make a fresh start in thinking and thus be empowered to take charge of their destiny.
Outstripped by the APRC in terms of material and human resources NADD tried to compensate its inadequacies by giving convincing arguments regarding the demonstrated incapacities of the government and the type of leadership that is in store if the people were to maintain it in office.
The deficits in liberty and prosperity that were prevalent in the country were put into sharp focus. NADD would not have had much to criticise about the electoral system other than the abuse of incumbency and the need for the IEC to become more vigilant to prevent the underaged and the non Gambians from interfering with the electoral process if an unheard of fiasco did not have dramatic effect in undermining the comparative advantages acquired by the NADD Presidential candidate in the use of the media. NADD's fundamental blunder was to have faith in the impartiality of the director of GRTS. Our cassettes were recorded and handed over to GRTS. There was no mechanism in place for editing the cassettes jointly by the IEC, representatives of the candidate and a representative of GRTS. In the future, we must insist on such a tripartite arrangement.
Our first experience was the continuous featuring of a cassette of our No Kunda meeting for a period of three days. We received reports that the speeches of the flag bearer which exposed the regime were always featured at the tail end.
The weight of the fact and figures were frequently impeached on by giving lengthy focus on other speakers who dwelled on the weakness of the other opposition candidate. The attitude of the GRTS management went from censorship to minimize the impact of the powers of our arguments to unbridled hostility and defamation when they waited until a day before the end of the campaign period to broadcast, on the TV, a recording of Buba Sanyang in NIA custody indicating that he impersonated an IEC official to fill some nomination forms. The deception of the broadcast was without parallel. They broadcast a confession without approaching me for opinion. The IEC was not also informed before my nomination to at least discredit my nomination. The objective was therefore not to challenge my nomination since I had over 6000 people supporting my nomination. The attempt was to mislead the voters.
The deceptive tricks of the GRTS management reached repugnant and malicious proportion when they deliberately suppressed my last ten minutes broadcast where I exposed the deceptive nature of their broadcast which the Observer Newspaper chose to publish under the heading NADD's Buba Sanyang spills the Beans†with my picture on the front cover. GRTS refused to cover my press conference. The Observer published it in an inside page. I called on the IEC to intervene to ensure that my message is transmitted as a matter of right. I quoted section 93 subsection (1) of the Election Decree for their observation but to no avail. Section 93 subsection (1) states that "The Commission shall, during an election campaign period, ensure that equal air time is given to each candidate and national party on the public radio and television." I emphasised that depriving me of my last ten minutes before the end of the campaign period constituted a gross violation of my right as a presidential candidate. The IEC appeared totally helpless in protecting my integrity against a deliberate attempt to defame me. To add insult to injury, the GRTS management made news out of the television broadcast and transmitted it by radio so that it would reach the whole country, on the day before elections which was supposed to be a resting period. The news item gave the impression that as a presidential candidate I asked a 7th grade child to fill my nomination form by impersonating an IEC official. I called the IEC to intervene to stop the erroneous and malicious broadcast but to no avail. The GRTS management did therefore make history in displaying a conduct that did not remotely resemble impartiality in the presidential election. They brought my whole campaign, whose content had been irreconcilable to any falsehood, into disrepute, without availing me any opportunity to clear any doubts.
The deficit in liberty which is criticized during my campaign became nakedly evident because of the absence of any private radio station to disseminate my opinion as a Presidential candidate after the state media deliberately refused to broadcast my last message to the nation. It was evident to the GRTS management that reputable journalistic practice requires the publication or broadcasting of two sides of a story. They preferred to negate my own opinion so as to make fiction to pass as facts. Where then was my freedom to be heard? Where lies the fairness in suppressing my last broadcast? How can I commend the IEC for presiding over a free and fair election when they were impotent in directing the director of GRTS to broadcast my last statement as required by law and stop their fabrications against my integrity on the day before an election?
In fact, many people who had an axe to grind with NADD began to spread the rumour that my nomination papers were fraudulently filled even though I had about 6000 people supporting my nomination.
Before taking leave of the subject allow me to prove how ridiculous it is to even hint that Halifa Sallah could ask anyone to impersonate an official to enable him to acquire electoral advantage. First and foremost, I have never canvassed a relative or a neighbour to vote for me so as not to violate their free will to choose. I have written countless letters to the IEC to expose corrupt registration practices so that we can have free and fair elections.
Although, I am a National Assembly member my earnings go mostly to render services to others instead of wining and dining at state expense. I have tried to make my wife to get the highest level of education so that she would be completely independent in getting what she wants in life rather than depend on loot from a state to live in prosperity. What temptation is there that Halifa Sallah could be subjected to, to the point of motivating a young man who is an extremely famous football player in his area, who is known to both young and old, to go to an area where he is well known to impersonate an IEC official, just to fill my nomination forms. This notion is absurd to say the least.
THE WEIGHT OF DECEPTION
Notwithstanding, the broadcast is the chief event which had a devastating impact on the electorate. I cannot say how many people were convinced by the broadcast that NADD could not win and either decided to vote for another party or abstained entirely from voting. I cannot tell how many youths in Kombo East were intimidated. What is evident to me is that when I visited Buba Sanyang's family many of his friends had been seen by people in the community or their families and advised to stay clear of politics.
The television and radio broadcast on Buba did not reduce the climate of uncertainty, if anything one should expect the situation to have been worsened.
The truth however is that before the people went to fill my nomination forms; I was invited by Mrs. Amie Sillah who was in charge of the operation to inspire them. As a civic educator I gave them an inspiring speech and asked each of them to be given a cassette to play for the people to listen to before being asked to nominate me.
I therefore wish to call on all youths not to support me unless they are ready to defend their principles at all times. Anybody who makes the mistake to tarnish my image no matter under what pressure would be disowned and measures taken for ones prosecution. We will not allow again such simplistic disinformation tactics to affect our progress. After lessons are drawn from Buba's experience any NADD militant who abandons the message and proceed to claim to do a criminal act under NADD's auspices could only be a common criminal implanted to do something else other than to serve NADD. When Amie Sillah was put into contact with Buba while he was in detention he had to confess that he mentioned her name because of fear.
Suffice it to say that when Mrs. Sillah finished her discussion with the NIA I was informed. I did not take the matter lightly. I decided to wage a battle of integrity by requesting the IEC chairman to post all the names of the people who signed my nomination papers and were registered under Kombo East and request for scrutiny of the list. I indicated that if any person's name were to be found to be featured under false pretence I would be willing for it to be subtracted from the 6000 or so names I had submitted and would withdraw my candidature if the number fell short of the 5000 persons required to permit a person to stand as a presidential candidate. The chairman of the IEC indicated that this was unnecessary. I further made the proposal that he should give me photocopies of the names from Kombo East so that I would proceed to do my independent investigation and subtract any name found to have been acquired through dubious means. The chairman of the IEC indicated that it was not necessary. This was proposed few days after nomination. It is therefore amazing that nothing was done until the end of the campaign period to try to attack my integrity.
I therefore saw the move by the GRTS management as a deliberate tactic to erode the confidence of the voters in me. Taking the margin of victory, I cannot sincerely claim that this unprofessional conduct of the GRTS management barred me from being elected. However, it stands to reason that I cannot have respect for an electoral system which could not protect any integrity at the most relevant period of an electoral process.
In this respect, I can only observe that when it came to the battle for mass support NADD was disadvantaged at a time when people had little time to make a decision on to what to do with their votes.
I cannot honestly say what the number of votes would have been if the GRTS did not broadcast a farcical picture that NADD was in complicity with corrupt electoral practices which was orchestrated by the Daily Observer newspaper. History will therefore record the tragic-comical scene which should earn GRTS an award in outdoing all broadcasting stations in the world in misrepresenting a Presidential candidate.
Notwithstanding my inability to combat the scheme of the GRTS management at the right time, the GRTS team that covered our meeting in the country have enough evidence that NADD is in the heart and minds of the Gambian people irrespective of the attempt to tarnish its image.
THE FACTS AND THE FIGURES
Let me now focus on the results and the lessons to be derived from them. We are informed by the IEC that Gambia has 670, 336 registered voters. Out of this 392, 685 voted in the 2006 presidential elections. This amounts to 58% of the registered voters. I have 23, 473 votes or 6%, President Jammeh had 264, 404 votes or 67% and Ousainou Darboe has 104, 808
votes or 27%.
Mr. Ousainou Darboe, UDP/NRP
Interestingly enough in the 2001 presidential elections there were 504, 301 registered voters. 457, 484 voters voted comprising 89.83% of the votes. President Jammeh had 242,304 votes, Ousainou Darboe had 149, 448 votes.
Compared to 2001, there is an increase of 166,035 registered voters in 2006. However the number of voters who voted in 2006 as compared to 2001 fell by 64, 799 votes.
It is also evident that the number of votes received by President Jammeh increased by 22, 104 votes as compared to 2001 even though there is a rise in number of voters by 166, 000 votes. In the same vein, Ousainou Darboe's votes decreased from 149, 448 in 2001 to 104,808 in 2006. This is a decline of 44,640 votes. Needless to say, the UDP/NRP/GPDP alliance was based on the premise that if the UDP served as the vanguard of the opposition parties it will accumulate the votes of the NRP leader of 35, 671 in 2001 as well as the votes of other parties to win the election.
However, instead of Ousainou Darboe adding 35, 671 votes to his 149,448 he had in 2001 there is a decrease of 80,000 votes from the coalition's votes. What is responsible for this? What is responsible for a voter turn out of 392, 685 out of a 670, 336 registered voters. Are the figures realistic or does this mean that all parties in the Gambia are rejected, that the Gambia is a failed democracy? Should all parties resign and allow for a new breed of representatives to emerge or is the country demanding new institutions and approaches to politics that can earn the confidence and trust of the voters in the system? Is the result a strategic victory for the APRC or a tactical error for the opposition?
THE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
Once the facts are put on their feet it stands to reason that the results of the election were more a by product of a tactical error on the side of the opposition than a land slide victory by the ruling party.
The statistics reveal that out of the 670, 336 registered voters only 264, 404 voters voted for President Jammeh. This means that 405, 932 voters did not vote for him. In the same vein, the voters' registered increased by 166, 035 voters since the 2001 elections but President Jammeh's votes in 2006 increased by 22, 104 votes as compared to 2001.
On the other hand, 542, 055voters out of 670 336 voters did not vote for the opposition. Even though the registered voters had increased between 2001 and 2006 the votes of the major opposition contender in 2001 decreased by 44, 640 votes.
The picture of The Gambia's democracy becomes bleak when one confronts the fact that the people who did not vote were more than the people who voted for President Jammeh.
Some claim that the total number of registered voters may have been exaggerated. This however, does not help us to rescue Gambian democracy from a state of slumber. In short, the statistics reveal that, currently, there are 1.24 million Gambians out of 1.36 million persons living in the Gambia, 661, 399 Gambians are below 18 while 699, 280 Gambians are above 18 years. In actual fact, all these Gambians should be registered or others would register in their places. This would make the determination of the undiluted choice of the people more precarious. Now one is justified to ask how we got to this state? It is the duty of both ruling party and opposition to address these fundamental questions: How did we get to where we are at this moment? Where do we go from here?
TWO DIFFERENT TACTICS BY THE OPPOSITION
In my view, the two opposition alliances which contested the elections relied on two fundamentally different tactics to do so.
The National Alliance for Democracy and Development stood for a monolithic alliance where all parties will accept to coexist under an umbrella party that would serve as a united front and contest the elections in the name and platform of such an umbrella party instead of allowing one party and its leader to serve as the vanguard of the rest. It stood for collective leadership to change a system and then put in place a level ground for genuine pluralism or multiparty contest based on the ideologies , policies , programmes and practices of the respective parties.
The UDP led alliance stood for the elevation of one party and its leader to become vanguard for the others to follow. It stood for regime change where the UDP leader retains the same powers as president Jammeh.
It goes without saying that even though all the opposition parties excluding the NCP which had allied with the APRC formed the National Alliance for Democracy and development, the UDP/NRP decided to withdraw from the alliance because of their conviction that their tactics will work.
What then was the basis of their tactics?
The UDP/NRP alliance was based on the notion that since Darboe had 149, 448 votes in 2001 and Hamat had 35, 671 votes an alliance between the two will yield a total vote of 185, 119 votes. It was assumed that if other parties like the GPDP agreed to contest the election under the vanguard of the UDP the APRC will be easily defeated. The results of the election have confirmed that the tactics of the UDP led alliance have not led to achievement the results anticipated. In short, instead of getting 185, 119 votes plus the votes from GPDP supporters the alliance had 104, 808 votes. Needless to say, if the NRP and GPDP votes are subtracted from the 104, 808 votes one would discover that Mr. Darboe had lost a substantial part of the number of votes he gained as the UDP candidate in 2001.
The NADD alliance aimed at system change and not just mere regime change because of our realization that in a country where no separation existed between party and state, where Divisional Commissioners/Governors, District Chiefs, Village Heads were duly bound to show allegiance to a party and where state resources are put in the service of the party, one could not speak of a level ground to conduct a multi party contest on the basis of the strength of individual parties. It was argued that where such gross imbalance or disparities in political weight exist between ruling party and opposition parties it is necessary to create a democratic united front that will draw all forces together to undo the imbalance, separate state and party, create democratic structures, institutions and standards of best practice, eradicate the advantages of incumbency and set the country on the road to free and fair elections that would foster the election of the undiluted choice of the people.
In order to achieve these strategic objectives ,the Democratic united front had to have a provisional or transitional mandate aimed at building a democratic foundation through constitutional, legal, institutional and administrative reforms that culminate in building checks and balances to humble the executive ,strengthen parliamentary oversight, introduce independent commissions to safeguard rights ,conduct civic education to enhance and safeguard freedom of expression, introduce financial discipline to curb unauthorized and extravagant spending ,and create a state that will stand the test of international and continental scrutiny by acceding to the Africa Peer Review Mechanism. It is these objectives which informed the NADD programme to restrict the mandate of the flag bearer of the united front to five years after which he/she will neither be a candidate nor support any candidate in the next following election and shall agree to hand over to the person elected who would be subjected to a two term mandate of five years per term.
Suffice it to say, in order to ensure the widest possible support the united front was given a new name, emblem and colour. In this way it would not be associated with the shortcomings of any of the parties or personalities in the alliance. On the contrary, the positive attribute of each personality or party would serve as the collective attribute of the united front.
The NADD had a concrete agenda which was acceptable and praised by many Gambians at home and abroad. In terms of human and material resources it was very easy to combine the activities of the different parties and many were ready to provide resources. In terms of mass support, NADD participated in 6 by elections and won 4 out of the six. The UDP/NRP analysts failed to rely on Dembo Bojang's report of chronic voter apathy after the results of the by election in old Jeshwang was revealed. In brief, the UDP insisted in putting up a candidate instead of hastening the process of founding NADD. The results were devastating. Out of 4650 registered voters the APRC had 718 votes while the UDP had 418 votes. This voter apathy is what motivated most of us to hasten the founding of NADD. Needless to say, the first two by elections NADD participated in, involved Nianija and Njau. Nianija was an APRC seat but it won the election by a majority of 365 votes. NADD won the Njau seat. The only other seat lost to APRC is Hamat's seat which was being contested in court. There is absolutely no doubt that if NADD remained intact, with hundreds of thousands of people supporting the NADD campaign trail governors/ Chiefs, village heads, members of the security forces and all state operatives would have either been neutralised or rendered incapable of influencing the politics of the country in favour of the ruling party. One can say without any fear of exaggeration that it is the splitting of NADD that led us to where we are today. It is therefore necessary to put into proper perspective the impact of the split on the campaign and the results before mapping out a way forward.
THE ESSENCE OF NADD'S CAMPAIGN
The NADD alliance relied on the explanation of the cause of the split and further elaborated on what it intended to do to promote liberty and prosperity. It maintains the position that the country needed change because of the huge deficit in liberty and prosperity.
I made it abundantly clear that the government had two sources of revenue other than grants and loans, that is, tax and non tax revenue. I spared no effort in explaining that the tax revenue mainly comes from import duties, 30% of which depend on the re-export trade. I emphasised that the tax base of the government is very fragile and very vulnerable to trade barriers by neighbouring countries. I argued vehemently that the public corporations which should generate dividends to provide a portion of the non tax revenue are not managed to attain such an objective.
I have made it clear that countries are being given debt relief but Gambia is yet to be qualified for debt relief because of unsatisfactory performance in financial management. I intimated that we had to meet the completion point established under the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative programme to get debt relief. That our Poverty Reduction Growth facility programmes had to be suspended and the country put under a staff monitored programme before we could be assessed again to gain benefits. I gave facts to show that since the AFPRC/APRC government came into being, it has experienced budget deficits annually which had to be partly financed by domestic borrowing. I gave examples of a total budget deficit of 856 million in 2005 which had to be financed by borrowing. I explained that the total debt of the country has risen to 22 billion dalasis leaving us with debt repayment and servicing obligation of 1.5 billon, comprising more than 1/3 of our national budget. I emphasized that the commitment made to give the Gambia 115 million dollars under the Geneva Round in 2002 was not forthcoming. I explained that this year Gambia is conditioned not to borrow more than 200 million dalasis to finance any budget deficit and is required to pay its arrears. I gave a forecast that there will be budgetary cuts in the next financial year as well as increases in taxes which is likely to lead to growth in poverty. I had made it clear that despite some infrastructural developments in terms of roads, electricity, etc, the loans which made them possible will have to be paid and the cost will have to be shouldered by the consumer. This is principally what is responsible for the high cost of electricity and high increase in road tax. I emphasized that government statistics have revealed that 69% of the population are living in abject poverty.
In terms of social development I emphasized that they depend on the development of the productive base to be sustained; that without a corresponding development in the productive base, revenue will not be generated in sufficient quantity to increase salaries, provide drugs and books, expand employment, service roads and so on.
I gave concrete plans of action such as the signing of a performance contract with public corporations so that they pay annual dividends to be reinvested in the corporations or used to finance other priority services. In this way, no public corporation will have any obligation to meet haphazard, unplanned, unbudgeted and unauthorized expenditures. I emphasized that a NADD government would not need IMF conditionalities. It will establish the financial discipline necessary to curb unauthorized expenditure, get dividends from public corporations and mobilize the tax and non tax revenue necessary to meet government expenditure without relying on domestic borrowing from the banking sector. In this way the banks will have no option but to invest in the private sector to promote private sector development. I explained that 15 billion dalasis is exchanged in the foreign exchange market annually. That Gambians abroad brought remittances amounting to 855 million in 2005; that proper management could also bring us aid money like the 115 million dollars promised and debt relief.
In short, public sector resources will provide investment in the productive base of the public sector and private sector resources will provide investment in the productive base of the private sector. I argued that this would provide investment capital for fishing, mining, processing agricultural production, utilities, construction and other services. I pointed out that instead of buying hotels, social security funds could have built low cost housing schemes for its members. It could have also provided short term funding for coop financing through the Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives which could further maintain a managed fund for agricultural input financing at subsidized rates. I gave concrete examples that the D345 million used to purchase and refurbish Ocean Bay Hotel could have been utilized for crop financing which could have enabled social security to recover the investment at a rapid rate. I even mentioned that the hotel complex at the Independence Stadium could have been transformed into university dormitories and support mobilized to improve the complex to serve as a university campus. Taiwan or the People's Republic of China who built the stadium could easily provide such funding if we maintain an open door and principled policy in international relations.
On the other hand, I emphasized that good governance impacts on investment and international solidarity. I exposed the deficits in liberty in the country. 
Civil servants openly canvassing for Jammeh
The incarceration of Duta Kamaso and Malick Mboob for months without charge in gross violation of the 72 hours limit established for detention without trial under the constitution was focused on. I referred to the closure of Citizen FM, Sud FM and the dispersing of the staff of The Independent Newspaper.
I argued that a NADD administration would give full respect to fundamental rights and freedoms and would establish human rights, women, children, disabled and other commissions to safeguard such rights; that we will give completely different orientation to the Police, NIA, Army and any security force so that they will perform all their functions in accordance with the law; that there will be complete separation between party and state and that we will be a signatory to the Africa Peer Review Mechanism to ensure that all institutions shall operate in accordance with the standards of best practice.
I emphasized that we would create a department of state for African integration, eradicate alien ID cards and ensure that the nationals of different African countries would build democratic communities elect their leaders who would be equally empowered to be their inter-locutors with state authorities to address their problems.
I indicated our commitment to apply the two states one people concept in diplomacy with all African countries starting with Senegal by encouraging harmonious relations between the members of our executive, legislature, judiciary, public corporations, civil societies and people in general. I emphasized that with such policies, Gambia will be part of the heart of the African people and the people of the world.
In short, NADD advanced a very concrete and comprehensive programme that was heard, understood and appreciated all over the country.
These ideas increased the popularity of NADD and the massive support was translated into popular welcome of the NADD Flag-bearer wherever we went. The message reached everyone.
Even though, because of the split and some operational shortcomings NADD could not consolidate its structures in the communities as originally planned, one must admit that NADD’s message was heard by everyone.
WEAKNESS OF THE OPPOSITION
The original plan was to divide the country into operational zones with each executive member controlling a zone. Each zone should have been divided into five sectors to be controlled by sectoral organisers and mobilisers. They were to go about to sensitize and mobilize people to form NADD militant fora or committees every where. This should have been done before the date for election is set.
However, the split deprived NADD of the human and material resources needed to carry out these tasks at the rapid rate required because of the scheduling of the elections to a closer date than expected.
Negotiations to overcome the split which should have enabled us to overcome the disadvantages of time and resources did not materialize.
Hence once the flag-bearer started his countrywide tour he became so overstretched that many places, even Western Division and KMC where the bulk of the votes reside were relatively untouched by the flag-bearer.
Hence NADD relied mainly on its convincing message for the outcome of the elections. It is best for me not to get into the campaign issues of the UDP and APRC. They are in a better position to do that for themselves in their own analysis.
What is of profound significance is the impact of the split on the UDP led alliance.
The first impact is that it deprived them of the NADD agenda. Secondly they were asked continuously why they left NADD. The failure to give satisfactory answers undoubtedly added to the voter apathy or the protest vote against the opposition.
It goes without saying that they also had to give arguments why the people should not vote for NADD. The UDP leader made the remarks that voting for the NADD is as good as voting for the APRC.
The campaign messages became devastating when tribe began to feature as an instrument of their supporters. Many of them focused on the result of the 2001 elections and tried to utilize it as a confidence building mechanism to convince voters that Mr. Darboe would win. They argued that Hamat joined Darboe because he had the majority; that all the Fulas are supporting Darboe; that the Manjagos are supporting Henry and that only the Mandinkas can spoil it for Darboe; that voting for NADD is to spoil Darboe's chance to be President.
Even if the objective, of such remarks were not to promote tribalism in the country it had that effect.
Contrary to the expectations of the members of the UDP camp reference to tribal alliance did not increase their support in the country, the old slogan of the APRC were brought to life. The youth in KMC, Western Division, Niamina, Fulladu, Nuimi began to perpetuate the APRC slogan that UDP was the party of the disgruntled politicians and tribalists. That they were only out for revenge and not for development.
The APRC leadership capitalized on these prejudices against UDP to tell the youths that if they vote for NADD they will be wasting their votes; that UDP will take over the country. On the other hand the anti Yahya enthusiasts also maintained that if they vote for NADD Yahya will win. When GRTS broadcast the Buba Sanyang story, the APRC cashed on it to sow the seed of doubt regarding the legitimacy of my candidature. Hence the swing of the youth vote to Yahya and the apathy or protest displayed by others for not voting can easily be explained.
This swing of Gambian voters into apathy and tribal sentiments makes it difficult to explain the outcome of the results on the basis of intimidation or corrupt registration practices.
At the final phase of my campaign I receive reports of Mandinka speaking youths and Jola speaking youths being insulted by their parents in the foulest of languages for not joining tribal band wagons. Whenever I met UDP or APRC convoys the youths will rush to greet me with the usual statement "we love you." However, the sentiments of their parents took control of them.
This is why at the time of my campaign I continued to emphasise that Gambians can either be dictated by tribal or other sentiments or by truth. If we are dictated by truth it would set us free. If we are dictated by sentiments we will remain captives of our own deeds.
Being a part of the living political history of the Gambia at its moment of happening compels me to rethink about time nature of the people we call Gambians and my role as a servant aimed at promoting their liberty and prosperity. Unlike Senegal where political leadership no longer hinges on manipulating tribal notions to be in political office, in the Gambia the canker worm called tribalism is alive and obstinate to the missiles of clarity and civic education. It concedes only to state power and selfish interest.
Although, I have always subscribed to the view that it is the duty of every good citizen to be ready to die for his country and people I am no longer sure whether I have a people that are fully convinced that they are first and foremost a Gambian people. I am no longer sure whether I should join the group of representatives or the group of civic educators and help to shape a new social consciousness that can shape and bring to life the sovereign Gambian social being. A purposeful life is a battle to be relevant. Is one relevant by pursuing a field of national duty where one is loved and disowned at the same time? How is one to overcome such absurdity? It was common to hear the slogan in my constituency Darboe for President, Yahya for President, Halifa for National Assembly. The president executes to solve problems. The national assembly merely points out the problems and the solutions but have no executive power to solve them. Is it not an irony to want Halifa in the National Assembly to merely speak the truth while depriving him the power to exercise executive power to solve the problems?
What type of son and daughter does this nation want? What type of service do they want from them? What is the demand of the current political situation?
Is NADD relevant? Should it continue to exist? Should it perish? Should opposition parties revisit their strategies and tactics? Should they remain separately? What is the way forward for me? What is the way forward for NADD? What is the way forward for Gambia? These are questions I posed to the NADD Executive. They are questions I have posed to myself. They are questions I am posing to every Gambian. They require honesty and objectivity to be answered.
CRYING CONTRADICTIONS
Why is it necessary for me to ask Gambians what type of sons and daughters they want at this very juncture of our political history, that is, 46 years after the introduction of universal suffrage, 41 years after the formal declaration of independence and 36 years after the proclamation of the Republican status of The Gambia?
The reason for this is very simple. The result of the 2006 Presidential elections reveals a mixture of crying contradictions. First and foremost, the election itself is one of the pillars of our Republican existence.
In short it signifies that each Gambian voter is a sovereign person who has the absolute authority to play an equal part in determining who governs the sovereign Republic of The Gambia.
Chapter 1 section 1 subsection (2) of the Constitution of The Gambia captures this power of the Gambian voters in the following words "The sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of the government are to be exercised."
Each sovereign Gambian is therefore a building block of the Sovereign People of The Gambia. He or she should have a national consciousness determined by his/her realization of being a Gambian social being.
In short, nationhood presupposes a national identity. This national identity emerges from national consciousness. Universal suffrage emerged to give each Gambian a vote to enable the collective will of Gambians to be expressed periodically in order to guide the collective destiny of the Gambian people.
It means that each Gambian is empowered to vote not because one is a member of a family, tribe, ethnic group or religion but because one is a citizen of the nation. In a word, one is entitled to represent or be represented because one is a citizen of the nation.
Hence one should not ask to be a representative or be represented on the basis of family, tribal, ethnic or religious ties. Hence the type of son and daughter that the sovereign Gambian people should want is one with a national identity and national consciousness, one who is free from nepotism, tribalism, religious bigotry or prejudices and has developed virtues, values and attitudes that would enable all to take pride in having him or her as the prime decision maker capable of steering our state towards the shores of liberty and prosperity.
In my view during the 2006 Presidential election, each sovereign Gambian has listen to the words and are fully aware of the deeds of the Presidential candidates. 277, 651 voters decided to abstain from voting. Does this mean that none of the candidates conveyed messages that could promote the liberty and prosperity of the people or had the credibility to be worthy of trust. Does this mean that all the candidates were disliked by the people? Why did they abstain?
Secondly, I received the least votes. Does this mean that the message I delivered was inferior to that of the rest or that I was rated the least credible among the candidates or that I was the least loved?
I kept on asking people these three fundamental questions and I kept on receiving answers that are diametrically opposed to the conclusions that the results permit one to draw. People keep on telling me that my messages were superb and that I stand unassailable in credibility; that many people have affection for my type of politics. Do you now see why I assert that the results of the 2006 election reveals crying contradictions that needs to be unraveled if one is to separate the grain from the chaff and map out a realistic way forward.
Let me take Serrekunda Central which I represent in the National Assembly as seating MP, as a case study to unravel the contradictions in Gambian politics.
The history of parliamentary elections since the birth of AFPRC/APRC regime reveals the following facts that I can draw lessons from.
In short, in 1997 Serrekunda Central was part of Serrekunda East. I stood as a candidate for the Serrekunda East Constituency seat and had 8,528 votes, UDP had 8, 067 votes and APRC had 9, 575 votes.
In 2002 Serrekunda Central Constituency did feature as a National Assembly seat. I stood against the APRC. The UDP boycotted the election. I came up with 5,583 votes. The APRC candidate had 5, 143 votes. I occupied the seat.
In 2005, the seat was declared vacant. I contested under NADD in a by election held in September 2005. All parties were then part of NADD. I had 5,911 votes. The APRC had 3,984 votes. I occupied the seat again. In 2006 I stood as a Presidential candidate. As far as Serrekunda Central is concerned I had 2,142. Ousainou Darboe had 4,908 and Yahya Jammeh had 11,395. How are these results to be interpreted? Does it mean that the messages of the two other candidates were considered by the people in Serrekunda Central to be more convincing than my own message? Are they more credible than me? Do they appreciate the other two candidates more than me?
I have posed these questions to many voters in my constituency and their answer to all these questions is in the negative. Am I speaking to the wrong people? Can those who have affirmative answers write in the press or send word to me somehow. If reasonable people are of the view that my message was not the least convincing; that I was not the least credible and that I was not the least loved then common sense must beg the question: What grounds did the people rely on to vote or boycott the election.
A clear explanation is necessary to enable people to assist me to determine my present political weight and future political fate.
A close study of the history of Presidential and parliamentary elections in Wuli provided me with the indication of what may have actually happened in Serrekunda Central.
In 1996, the results of the Presidential election in Wuli revealed that Sidia Jatta, my colleague fell behind Jammeh for the APRC and Darboe for the UDP.
However, when it came to the parliamentary elections, UDP's Alhamdu Conteh had 1,098 votes, APRC had 4,641 and Sidia Jatta had 5,499 votes.
In short, the voters of Wuli rejected Sidia’s candidature as a Presidential candidate in 1996 and favoured his candidature as a National Assembly Member over the APRC and UDP candidates in 1997.
This repeated itself in 2001/2002. In 2001 Sidia again stood as our Presidential candidate. In Wuli West he had the following votes: Sidia had 1,790, Darboe had 2,553 and Jammeh had 2,174 respectively.
However when it came to the parliamentary election Sidia stood in Wuli West. The UDP boycotted the elections. Sidia had 3,405. The APRC candidate had 3,056 votes. During the September 2005 by election Sidia had 3,430 while APRC had 2,659 votes.
Two fundamental lessons can be drawn from the Wuli experience.
It confirms that from 1996 to 2002 the voters in Wuli subscribed to the slogan Darboe for President, Sidia for Parliament. Hence their reason for not voting for Sidia during the Presidential election cannot be attributed to lack of credibility either of his person or message but because of the circumstantial preferences of the voter at the time.
Could we say that what is true for Wuli is also true for Serrekunda Central? I will come to this later.
The second fundamental lesson is that Wuli, the farthest territory from the coast on the North Bank of the Gambia has always proven to be a pace setter in Gambian politics, thanks to its vigorous grass root political organisations and their vibrant civic education culture.
In short, the trend for supporting Darboe and UDP in Presidential elections and Sidia in National Assembly elections has changed.
In both the by election of September 2005 and the Presidential election in 2006 Wuli has accepted NADD as its major opposition party. NADD had more votes than UDP in both Wuli West and East.
Hence Wuli has now distinguished itself as the bridge head for the political transformation of The Gambia.
The question however arises: What is my political weight and fate in Serrekunda Central? I certainly will not dismiss the incalculable loss in political weight in the Presidential election and simply prophesy victory in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. I want to be sure of my political relevance in present day Gambian political climate. There is no doubt that both Darboe and my very self need to interrogate the facts and come up with irrefutable answers.
In short, how can one explain the difference between the 5,911 votes I had during the by election in 2005 and the 2182 I had in the 2006Presidential election in Serrekunda Central? In the same vein, how can one explain the drop in Darboe's votes as a Presidential candidate from 7,764 in the 2001 election to 4,908 votes in 2006.
In my case, the revelations are becoming pervasive. Take the example of a young boy who lives in the neighbourhood where I have my office. Most of these families draw water from our office tap. Their children study IT free of charge from the centre. Their little children benefit from our recreational services. They benefit from our counseling. When he came to our office with an APRC T-shirt he was asked jokingly whether he had abandoned NADD for the APRC. He explained in an innocent manner that his father and mother have promised that they will vote for APRC for the Presidency and for me for the National Assembly. He added that his parents think that I will make a good President in the future. The mentality of pushing my votes to the future is ironically corroborated by a NADD polling agent in Banjul who came to me after the election to say that before he was approached to be a polling agent he had given his word to Marie Dalia, an APRC councillor and mobiliser that he will vote for Yahya in this election for the last time but will become committed to NADD from henceforth. I mention the name to give authenticity to the story. Amazing honesty and political innocence, isn't it?
The third scenario is the case of a visually impaired young man in Serrekunda Central who told me that he could not understand some of his peers who tried to convince him that he should vote for Darboe for the presidential election and for Halifa for national Assembly. He indicated that when he argued that they should vote on the basis of the messages they have heard and the credibility of the candidates they scolded him of being a NADD fanatic. He lamented that some people in the constituency were fanatically being motivated to vote on the basis of tribe. He said he has warned his peers that they were making a terrible mistake in allowing some people to mobilize them on the basis of tribe.
Another case study is that of a supporter of NADD who came to the headquarters to explain that some people who wanted to vote for NADD told him that they will vote for the UDP after they saw their convoy from Brikama. Unlike the UDP who stayed in Brikama to organize a big convoy to enter the KMC area NADD was met by a big crowd in Brikama but did not see the merit of staying in Brikama because of the rain and mobilised a huge force from KMC and Western division to enter the KMC the following day.
Hence NADD's political weight could not be seen in the Western Division and KMC area. What is evident from the results of the election in Serrekunda Central is that crowds during rallies are not automatically translated into votes.
In short, the UDP had one of its biggest meetings in Serrekunda Central but Darboe's vote went down by more than 2800 votes in 2006 when compared to the 2001 Presidential elections. In spite of this fact, the lesson is however clear that the size of crowds are ways and means of convincing some voters that a particular party or candidate is going to win. The desire to be on the winning side can lead them to shift loyalty.
What then are the lessons to be drawn from the studies and from the focus group discussions I held with people to explain why NADD had the votes it had. What is my decision? What is the decision of the NADD Executive? What is the way forward for the opposition in The Gambia?
THE STATE OF NADD
The lessons are clear. The destiny of the Gambian Republic lies in the sovereign hands of her sovereign people. In the same vein, my political weight and fate lie in their hands.
Of course, it is rational to conclude that people just decided to vote for either candidate for the presidency because of their assumption that NADD cannot win and then proceed to prophecy that voters in Serrekunda Central will vote for me in the National Assembly election. I will not allow my mind to harbour such a fanciful logic.
Hence if I were to be asked whether I will be a candidate in the forthcoming National Assembly elections my answer will be simple. My political fate now hangs on the balance of probabilities. It is for the people to decide. It is not for me to decide. To me representation is not a career but a duty that one is called upon to perform. Whenever the people want me to rest I will gladly do so. I have gained nothing from politics.
The fact that Wuli East and Wuli West gave me second place in the election while Serrekunda Central gave me in 2006 almost 1/3 of the votes they gave me in the by elections of 2005 must not be taken lightly. I need to know how the people in Serrekunda Central rank me in terms of message, credibility, popularity or charisma and trustworthiness. I want the voters in Serrekunda Central to answer these four fundamental questions for me.
During the Presidential campaign; did they find my message to be inferior to those of the other two candidates? Did they find me to be less credible than the other two candidates? Was I less charismatic or popular than them? Did I inspire less trust and confidence than them? If their answers are in the positive then I have no reason to contest National Assembly elections not to talk about future presidential elections. If their answers are in the negative then I would want to know what motivated them to vote the way they did. In short, if the good Jola is one who votes for Yahya Jammeh, the good Mandinka is one who votes for Darboe, the good Fula is one who is under the dictate of Hamat and good Manjago is one who follows Henry, then where is the place of Halifa Sallah, a detribalized human being who has long committed tribal suicide and belong to no tribe in Gambian politics. If this is how people intend to conduct politics in this country then let me be excused to build my centre for Social Science Research and Civic Awareness and leave the task of liberating The Gambia to the future generation.
In order to interact with the electorate, I will conduct a constituency tour to listen to what people have to say regarding my role as their representative these past four years. I will start the tour on Tuesday, 31st October and continue up to Sunday. I will send people to visit voters and get their opinions. I will conduct the widest possible consultation to determine my political weight and fate as the Member of Parliament for Serrekunda Central constituency.
I hope the people in Serrekunda Central are fully aware that it is the executive, the Office of President which has mandate to make policies, prepare a budget to be approved and monitored by the National Assembly to solve the problems of the nation. It is the role of the KMC to raise funds from the rates, licences and taxes to provide good roads, public taps, street lights, proper waste collection facilities, recreational facilities, markets, community centres and so on. The duty of a National Assembly Member is to serve as a watch dog to tell the executive what it should do and inform the people whether it is being done or not. This is how they can put pressure on the executive just as I have put pressure on them regarding the terrible conditions which existed near Sandika in Serrekunda. National Assembly members should combat bad laws and promote good laws. They should conduct civic education to educate their electorate. It is now left to them to determine the type of MP they want in January 2007. I have done the best I can. I have exposed how women still draw water from wells and queue for hours to get water from taps 500 to 1000 metres away. I have exposed the poor road conditions. I have exposed the unemployment situation and the high cost of education. I have done what is not even the role of an MP, that is, to deposit half of my National Assembly income in to a fund that some borrow from to run small scale businesses or sponsor disadvantaged students. We have launched sponsorship schemes for poor students sponsored by interested persons; provide vocational training to members of the community, provide football gears to children, established a counseling service to settle land disputes, marital problems, juvenile delinquency cases, psychological problems, labour disputes. We have a library where students conduct research and seek advice to write their thesis and dissertations. There is not a week that we are not invited to present papers or give lectures to societies and schools. Most of the monies received from workshops go to finance the fees of students including the education trust fund for girls.
We are consulted by NGOs, CBOs and other societies in writing their constitutions. We are also invited internationally to give lectures on the problems of the African continent. Not being an MP will not make me to stop these services. I used to provide them before being an MP and I will continue to provide them even if I cease to be an MP. Being asked to quit will provide me with more time to do research.
In my view, people in developing countries often confuse the period of National liberation and the period of the Democratic Revolution. People like Marti, Castro, Nkrumah, Nasser, and Ghadaffi have played major roles in creating a sense of Nationhood, a sense of Common destiny among their peoples just as George Washington of the US did but was opposed to multi party system. Without people liberating and taking ownership of their countries one could not talk about building democratic societies or government for the people. Herein lies the merit of the nationalist leaders.
What many liberated countries have failed to do under the pretext of ideology or pragmatism is to carryout the democratic revolution to the fullest point of empowering the people to be totally in charge of their countries. Once the people of each country are in charge everywhere and governments exist only to serve them there will be national peace and world peace. The most important of all battles to be won in the 21st century is the battle of democracy. All progressive forces should strive to win this battle for the fullest empowerment of the people to push world history forward to guarantee greater liberty, dignity and prosperity for the people. This is the direction NADD wants to take the Gambia.
I maintain an active political life because of my subscription to the philosophy that even though it is good to understand the world it is better to contribute towards changing it. Knowledge for its sake is sterile unless it can be translated into action to make the world a better place than we found it.
Infact, my Centre for Social Science Research & Civic Awareness is stagnant because of the duties I had to perform as an MP and for NADD. If the people do decide that it is best for me to give way to others I would then proceed to prepare my long awaited dissertation for sociology under the title “The Language and Culture of Custom, Tradition, Religion and Rights in the Gambia. This will be very important to the way the future generation is brought up. There is a lot of conflict in society today because of lack of understanding of how socialization should take place in the 21st century. That will provide a new insight.
It will show that religion is a depository of moral values and culture that should not be a source of conflict. It will shatter the myth of the clash of civilizations between the west and the east. It will give credence to certain universal values and culture that could transform the world into a universal home for people living in liberty, dignity and prosperity.
In the area of International Relations I would work on the title "The Doctrine of Collective Sovereignty." This will be very relevant to solving the problems in the Middle East, Darfur and emerging conflicts on the continent. Instead of a polarized world and the creation of spheres of influence. This will show the importance of creating zones where clusters of states like Israel, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Palestine will agree on standards of how to contain each other on the basis of strategic balance of power and establish a compact monitored by the international community to maintain good neighbourliness. The doctrine of collective sovereignty could have enabled Sudan, Chad, Libya, Central African Republic, Niger to all serve as a cluster of states adhering to a common standard monitored by the African Union. Instead of seeking military solution in Darfur civic education will start in the refugee camps and elections done to select a leader as a starting point to empower the people. Men, women and youth representatives could be selected. In the same vein negotiation for cease fire should go hand in hand with negotiation on a comprehensive plan for the sharing of wealth and power. In my view the future of world peace does not lie in the unilateralism of George Bush of the US or Neo anti imperialism of Chavez of Venezuela. It lies in the promotion of collective sovereignty where all states are required to adhere to standards of governance that are acceptable to the people of the world. In this way developing countries can develop better standards than the developed countries and push them to create a new international economic, political, military and diplomatic order instead of justifying their own misgovernance by pointing out the inadequacies of the developed countries. Anyway, this is just mentioned in passing. Let me get back to the point.
Now one may ask: What is the future of NADD and the NADD flag bearer?
It should be understood that my mandate as a NADD flag bearer did not go beyond the acceptance to serve for one term as President with the sole objective of putting in place a democratic constitution, laws and institutions, policies and practices that would protect fundamental rights and freedoms, build a transparent and accountable financial system, eradicate the excesses of incumbency and set the country on the road of a genuine multi party system that can guarantee free and fair elections. Since we did not win the elections I had to ask the NADD executive to come to a determination and decision on the political fate of NADD and its current flag bearer.
In short, should NADD disintegrate or should it be retained? Should the post of flag bearer be void or should it be retained? The members of the NADD Executive have resolved that as far as they are concerned NADD has been enthusiastically received and accepted by the people.
According to them, the objectives NADD to separate state from party, conduct civic education, curb the advantages of incumbency by restricting the term of the NADD Presidential candidate to one term of five years, open up the media to divergent views and build a foundation for a genuine multiparty system to emerge, respect and protect fundamental rights and freedoms and consolidate a democratic foundation for the country, are still valid. They resolved that NADD should be maintained and that it should contest the forthcoming National Assembly election. According to them, NADD's flag-bearer was shown to the people after many felt that the opposition will present only one candidate; that time was needed to explain to the voters what led to the split for them to be able to make up their minds where to cast their votes. “That finally many abstained and others who traditionally use to cast their votes for the UDP did so in anticipation that it could win. They argued that now that it is clear to such people that UDP cannot lead the opposition to victory, many saw the need for the type of alliance NADD sought to build based on the equality of all opposition parties just to achieve the aim of building a democratic foundation for the country.
The Executive partly attribute NADD's results to the overwhelming resources of the APRC which enabled it to go back where NADD displayed strength such as Fass Saho, Fulladu etc, to erode its support. The short time exposure of the NADD candidate, the inadequate resources which prevents NADD to give T-Shirts and flags to its supporters to retain their identification with NADD. The Executive lamented that STGDP could not provide the resources anticipated because of the split in NADD. They noted that the movement for Democracy in New York and the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy in the UK were completely absent in giving support to NADD in the campaign. They asked me to make enquiries why that was the case. They resolved that we should thank all those who supported NADD in kind, cash, votes, prayers and spirit especially the voters of Wuli. They resolved that the flag-bearer should continue and that the structures created in Wuli which enabled the voters to develop a strong resistance against inducement and intimidation should be emulated everywhere. They mandated me to issue a press release to this effect. They called for a tactical alliance between NADD and the other opposition parties or independent candidates so that the strength of the opposition in the National Assembly will increase. They resolved that all those who are opposed to such a political alliance should be seen to be working so that there will be no opposition in the National Assembly thus making the Gambia a one party state. They concluded that such people should be exposed. What is my respond to the resolution of the Executive Committee for me to continue to be flag-bearer?
NADD'S FUTURE
In my view, NADD is not a party designed to promote the specific ideology, principles, policies, programmes and practices of a given political party. It is a united front, which embraces principles, programmes and practices that no one in the left or right of the political spectrum can object to. It is designed to give the country a democratic political gene from which a healthy democratic organism we call the Gambian state can emerge. In this respect, I cannot object to their resolution to retain NADD as a point of convergence for the opposition in the Gambia.
However, five years is a long period in politics. Many people can emerge who can best lead NADD to victory. Another alliance may emerge. Hence I can only accept to be a caretaker flag bearer to give it focus. I will be willing to stand back whenever the executive deems it necessary. The reason for my position is simple.
The developments since our July 4th and July 5th 2003 meetings in Atlanta are instructive.
I went to Atlanta in 2003 not to be part of an alliance but to promote PDOIS, which had won 2 seats out of five in the 2002 elections. My mandate was to win over the crowd and proceed on a tour of the US to raise funds and come back to the Gambia to build PDOIS branches all over the country. I still believe that if I had done this a PDOIS Presidential candidate after four years of consolidation would have had more votes than I now have. I still wonder how the UDP would have come out of its boycott to contest the Jarra West by election of 2004 if there was no discussion about an alliance.
The situation would have been more favourable for PDOIS' Fadera who was already very popular in the area.
Fadera gave way to Kemeseng and we put all our finances to help him to win not because of any desire to promote PDOIS. In that regard 20,000 dalasis is still owed to my constituency development fund as a result of Kemeseng's first By-election. We spent time, energy and resources not to promote any individual party but to ensure that we could have more opposition seats in the National Assembly to check the overwhelming power of the APRC, which was being abused in amending the constitution. We contributed immensely in resources for the launching of NADD, the Njau and Nianija by elections.
All these resources could have been utilized for my constituency projects and that of Sidia and for PDOIS if we wanted to promote a PDOIS agenda. Suffice it to say, the only trip I took on behalf of NADD led us to many states in the United States and when I came back I gave account of a sum of 2,165 dollars. 1,000 dollars came from the Movement for Democracy in New York. 565 came from the Raleigh group. In Seattle Mr. K gave me 300 dollars for personal use, which I put in the NADD account. Mr. J of Seattle, and his brother plus Mr. M of New York gave me a combined sum of 300 dollars for personal use. I put it in the NADD account. The treasurer should have issued receipts to all such people but because of the split the treasurer left. Other than this no money had ever passed in my hands from abroad except 200 dollars, which was sent through somebody's father by his son in Minnesota for the elections. All monies contributed locally or externally towards the by elections in 2005 did not finance my own campaign but went to benefit other campaigns. I financed my own campaign during the 2005 by election.
I have received no personal benefits because of my association with NADD. I have spent time, energy and resources that could have been devoted elsewhere. I am stating this without any regret just to confirm that we were moved by duty and not by any desire for power or personal gain.
Needless to say, up to the eve of nomination I was trying to put NADD together so that only one candidate would contest.
Finally, I took the decision that if there was no enthusiasm shown for my candidature after my nationwide tour as NADD's flag bearer I will at least withdraw my candidature.
There is no doubt that if I withdrew my candidature after the raptuous reception I received everywhere in the country I could have been easily accused of being bribed to withdraw without any credible means to defend my integrity. History has therefore done its will. It is now left for posterity to judge. I am however very convinced that the worst political move I could have ever made is to encourage NADD to support a UDP or PDOIS or PPP or NRP or NDAM led alliance. The objective of NADD was not to put any particular person or party in power but to empower the Gambian people. I have always made it clear that I was ready to be an instrument for the empowerment of the people and not an instrument to help a person or party come to power for its sake. NADD was indeed the strategic instrument to liberate the country. We missed the opportunity.
THE WAY FORWARD
The way forward is clear. As a caretaker flag bearer I have no option but to create a new foundation for opposition politics in the country. No one doubts that in my speech after my nomination I had shown my determination to confront the APRC regime with my bare hands and risk death if they wanted to intimidate my supporters not to vote for me. Now, no stretch of imagination could enable me to win a presidential election with 23, 473 votes. In this regard, I have no moral authority to claim that I am mandated to liberate a people who had all the power to entrust their voices and authority for me to speak on their behalf but decided not to do so. Yes we have talked about many anomalies such as underage and foreign voters, suppression of voters' cards through tricks by Yai Compins, intimidation, tribalism, inducement and some even coming to vote with voters' cards without their names being found in the register or the counter foil but were rejected. However, this can only be of use for electoral reform.
In this respect, the only opposition that is permissible for me to be a flag bearer of is one that accepts to function under the MOU that all politicians signed under the auspices of President Obasanjo and the Commonwealth.
The preamble states that the parties do recognize that a peaceful and stable political environment underpinned by a transparent, plural and democratic political dispensation is vital for the future prosperity and for the happiness and well being of its people; that they do recognize, legitimacy of the present government and its right to govern, within the constitution and the laws of the land on the one hand and the rights of the political opposition to operate freely and to hold the government to account on the other hand.In this respect, NADD will move away from squabbles, monitor the policies and practices of the APRC government and the party. We will consult, give advice, scrutinize and criticize where necessary. We will do so by seeking audiences with members of the executive and the various officers of their party apparatus. We will issue letters, statements, press releases, cassettes so that an alternative voice of sanity will remain ever present in this country to help promote our collective awareness to guide our collective destiny. We will try to conduct ourselves in accordance with the standards of best practice so that we earn national and internal respect. We will try to have weight to put a stop to impunity and promote respect for fundamental rights and rule of law. We will serve as the conscience of the state by being involved in anything that a people who love their country and people should be involved in. we will provide examples by precepts and practice.
To conclude I wish to thank all those who have contributed in cash, kind or spirit to work day and night to promote our common aspiration to create a Gambia that we can call our dear motherland because of the protection it gives us to live in liberty and prosperity. Of course I am not satisfied with the way we were abandoned by The Gambian community abroad. We can all fold our hands. Who then will save our dear motherland? If 400 Gambians abroad were to contribute 200 dollars each we would have had all the T-shirts, flags, transports and mobilisers we need to conduct a successful campaign in addition to our resources. May be they will respond to the National Assembly elections. If not they should partly accept responsibility for any quasi one party state that may emerge. All this blame should not go to split, lack of support is another cause.
Notwithstanding, we wish to express special appreciation to the 27 people who gave their support to NADD, especially the few members of the STGDP who kept their promises, the Minnesota Group.
That all people must one day live in liberty and prosperity free from oppression and poverty is the verdict of the human conscience and will. This verdict is irrevocable. The just conscience and will are always outraged by injustice and degradation. Such conscience and will always yearn for dignity and self worth. This is why hope must never be lost. Hope will never be lost!! Hope never dies where the just are alive. Behind all the dark clouds the golden sunlight is waiting to shine. The future is bright.
Long live NADD!
Long live Democracy!
Long live the people!