F,
Absolutely right, but the fact that we will vote for anyone from NADD,
should not be abused by grabbing power by the back door. Why
'selection' and not an election, if the selection fails, as laid down
by the MOU!. The composition of the executives, is questionable, the
membership of this body, that do not show any proportionality of the
parties in the alliance.. We have  three PDOIS members ( even though I
am a PDOIS supporter), and the other parties, UDP, PPP, NRP and NDAM,
all with one or two  executive member, according to Panderr's
reporting of the selection process. NADD should exhaust all democratic
means of electing leaders, at least by the whole NADD, and not by a
handful of unelected leaders! Or else it will be  like the coming into
power of Yaya Jahanam! It is amazing how intelligent GLers, could just
chose to ignore the issues raised by Ginny Quick. She is truly
unbiased, I mean untainted as most of us, conveniently align ourselves
with the candidate that we can identify with. Much like Dulo Bah of
NRP contrary to his parties resolution, nominating OJ, because they
are all Fulas or Pa Musa Jallow defending OJ, even thought he knows
the nomination process have not been exhausted. As much as it is
desirable to forget about the ethnicity of squabbling leaders, the
respond from this forum shows the Fulas, Wollofs, and all others
aligning with OJ ( Why not Hamat Bah, a unifier, and the Mandinkas
supporting Darboe. Waa, another Mandinka, publicly commenting that we
will have no Mandinka as leader, whatever happens, even though they
are the majority with the Fulanis in second. Ever guessed why White
Americans will not vote for Jessy Jackson, and why minority tribes
never rule in any country, except by force, as in the case of Ghana,
etc.
There appears a clear line between those supporting OJ and Darboe,
that shows their ethnicity, the same reason the whole Foni refused the
opposition parties their right to holding meetings in the Jolla
regions, and why coups failed in the Gambia, as most of the boys in
the army are Jolas or Manjagos. We cannot ignore these facts, it
happens everywhere. In Malaysia, forexample, the Malays are the only
people who can be presidents, as per their constitution, so as not to
allow the Chinese to take over.  Those of us caught in the middle, or
nowhere, like Ginny Quick,  will have to be the abiterers of this
dispute, but we cannot hide our heads in the sand and pretend that
this is not happening, and that our opinions here matter more than
does who are going to vote.
NADD should go to the people and seek their mandate for the leadership
selection, as only a handful of politicians can never choose a leader
to be the leader of  the whole country, unless if the situation is
really desperate, or may be we are that desperate. 
 
 
Kejau Touray

www.bfaml.com

________________________________

From: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list on behalf of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun 05/02/2006 03:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [>-<] NADD NOT A COALITION BUT A PARTY



ALL THE PARTY REPRESENTATIVES DECIDED TO MAINTAIN NADD. This means the
UDP, PDOIS, NRP, NDAM and PPP ceased to exist. In The Gambia
therefore, there are only TWO political parties: NADD and APRC. It is
under this ticket that the new NAMs are voted in. Kemeseng is NOT UDP,
Halifa is NOT PDOIS, SIDIA too. They are all NADD candidates.

 Fatoumata:

The above statement is not completely accurate. All the above parties
you mentioned: NDAM, PPP, UDP,NRP, PDOIS, still exist, including NADD
as a political party

Thanks

Musa Jeng
> From: Fatoumata <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2006/02/04 Sat PM 09:34:42 EST
> To: Gambia Post <[log in to unmask]>,
>    The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [>-<] NADD NOT A COALITION BUT A PARTY
>
> Fellow Gambians,
>
>
>
> Allow me to make a stern rectification here that is NOT a coalition
but a
> Party. NADD can be defined as a party of parties if one wishes but
it
> changed status once it is decided by the Supreme Courts of The
Gambia that a
> coalition or an Alliance of parties is not provided for under the
electoral
> act.
>
>
>
> Allow me to recall a little history here. When NADD was formed, the
idea was
> to bring together all the opposition parties (those that wish to
join that
> is) and form an alliance. This idea was provoked by Jammeh's
decision to
> tamper with the constitution and suppress the second round of
voting. The
> whole idea is, if Jammeh wins by a majority of votes and there is no
second
> round, he can be re-elected. However, if the opposition parties come
> together as one force, the chance is they can beat Jammeh by that
majority
> vote he is hoping for. Therefore, the coalition came into being. Let
us also
> remember that the coalition was meant to select a flag bearer who
will lead
> the nation, in case NADD wins, for a period of five years. During
this
> period, the flag bearer-president, would not rejoice of any
dictatorial
> powers whatsoever and a democratic government will be set in motion
where
> affairs of the state shall be entirely discuss in the principles of
fair
> play involving the stakeholders, that is the people.
>
>
>
> The hitch was Jammeh's counter-attack through the Clerk of the NA.
The
> opposition MPs lost their seats consequently when it was legally
proven that
> NADD IS A POLITICAL party and as such those NAMs under a different
ticket
> should vacate their seats. NADD had two choices to make; be a
political
> party or break-up as a coalition and return to its former political
parties.
> ALL THE PARTY REPRESENTATIVES DECIDED TO MAINTAIN NADD. This means
the UDP,
> PDOIS, NRP, NDAM and PPP ceased to exist. In The Gambia therefore,
there are
> only TWO political parties: NADD and APRC. It is under this ticket
that the
> new NAMs are voted in. Kemeseng is NOT UDP, Halifa is NOT PDOIS,
SIDIA too.
> They are all NADD candidates.
>
>
>
> In this light, we should forget saying that one party has more
supporters
> than another within NADD because it has been mutually agreed that
NADD is NO
> MORE a coalition or an alliance but a PARTY. Darbo is a member of
NADD and
> if he resigns, it should be understood that he has resigned as an
executive
> member of NADD and not as a UDP leader as we have rightly proven
that UDP
> does not exist anymore. This difference is of utmost importance. UDP
can
> only exist if it is decided that another party should be created and
be
> called UDP. It has to go through the whole process of registering.
However,
> Kemeseng will not lose his seat, as he was not voted in as a NADD
candidate.
> He can choose to vacate his seat by rejoining the UDP (if ever this
break-up
> happens) but he can also choose to stay as a NADD candidate. A new
UDP would
> not necessarilyy be the former one. Darbo has not created the UDP.
Quite the
> contrary, it was UDP that created Darbo as the party was formed and
he was
> designated as its leader. His resignation should therefore not be
seen as
> doomsday for NADD because the decision lies entirely on the former
UDP
> supporters.
>
>
>
> Those of us given support to NADD should rejoice instead of
condemning NADD.
> The trust we have for the executive should grow stronger day by day.
They
> have without doubt proven to be quite a democratic party. Contrary
to APRC
> where there is a one-man show and all he decides is law, NADD has
proven the
> contrary. They not only believe in dialogue to arrive at decisions
but they
> have proven that consulting their electorate before any major
decision are
> taken is one of their fundamental principles. They have adhered to
it.
> Democracy is more complex than autocracy because before a decision
is
> reached, particularly on sensitive issues such as selecting a flag
bearer,
> series of discussions must be carried out and consultations will
have to go
> on. NADD instead should win our respect and support at this crucial
stage.
> We wanted NADD to be and it is. If we continue the trend of
"assuming" and
> "supposing", then we will give the trusted leaders a hard time
because we
> will be driving them to the corner that we all hope they will not
reach only
> to condemn them again for reaching there.
>
>
>
> What we should do is suggest the next positive step to take now that
Darbo
> has resigned from the executive!!!!
>
>
>
> Good luck and Good night!
>
>
>
> Fatou
>
>

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤



¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤