I will send Daffeh's or any newspapers article i see
on the net, if any body do not want to read it delete
it. If Kebba Foon a tribalist can insult all Mandinkas
and got backed by people, we will see how an
intellectual argument cannot be accepted here. We have
seen false names like Birago.

If Mr mballow think that respect will work here, i
will tell you it will not work here.

LL Mboge





      NADD’s Flag bearer selection- An Appalling
Cherry Picking Fiasco


Mr Editor

On the 2nd of March 2006, Jabou Joh, in an internet
based Gambia-L discussion wrote: ‘What has transpired
is that some of those who had subscribed to this
magnificent ideal have decided that they did not like
what the results of a democratic process to select the
representative or flag bearer may bring, that this
process may not result in things going the way they
want it, and so they decided to break their word and
abandon an agreement that they had made to the Gambian
people in order to have their way.’

I consider this as a desperate attempt to sewage
attentions from my previous article. Nevertheless, I
would like to commend her for expressing her sincerely
held opinion. However, I have no doubt that she has
erred. She does not seem to understand the term
‘democracy’. I wonder whether she is alone in this.
Democracy is not simply about majority vote. Democracy
operates on two scared principles. That is respect for
the rule of law and for minority rights. These
principles are so scared that they cannot be
overridden by even a majority decision. That is why
most democracies do have them entrenched in their
constitutions. Even in the United Kingdom where there
is no written constitution, a position has been
adopted since the thirteenth century that a residuum
of justice resides in the Crown. This has long since
been recognised by both Equity and the common law
jurisprudence. The Lord Chancellor was accordingly
referred to as ‘the keeper of the King’s Conscience.’
If the US for example, passes a law that bans the
practicing of Islam simply because that great country
was founded on Christian values or because majority of
her citizen are Christians, she will loose her
credibility of being a democracy notwithstanding the
fact that such a law would transgress on the rights of
only a tiny minority. What this shows is that an
arbitrary exercise of majority power cannot be
described as democratic. It has to take cognisance of
certain inalienable rights and principles. Otherwise
it is not democratic.

 The so-called democratic process referred to in
Jabou’s article was meant to produce a sellable flag
bearer. The scared word here is ‘sellable’ and as far
as the MOU is concern, this was well embedded and
entrenched. No matter how the selection process is/was
dealt with, it would be flawed if it does not produce
a sellable candidate even if supported by a majority. 

NADD was confronted with the task of selecting a flag
bearer.  Since there were several aspirants, this task
ultimately requires them to determine the electibility
of the different contenders so as to enable them to
select the most sellable. The MOU postulates that this
must be achieved by way of unanimity at least at the
executive level. Since this was the case, one would
have thought a rigorous scrutiny exercise would have
been conducted to that effect. That would have enable
NADD to easily achieve the mutual consensus referred
to in the MOU thereby aborting the ugly impasse that
later ensured. People would have understood why
Candidate ‘A’ is chosen and not Candidate ‘B’. That
would have also made easier for different factions
within the camp to easily reconcile their differences
and together, we could have chanted the slogan,
‘Jammeh Jeepo’ in the spirit of unity and for our
common aspiration. The absence of this was a cartre
blanc for the sword wielders who eventually hijacked
the process in furtherance of their vicious personal
hidden agendas against the personality of Lawyer
Ousainu Darboe. As a result, constructive debate was
relegated in favour of their individual likes and
dislikes of each other. The whole selection process
became heavily vitiated with malice and flirty
conspiracy. That is certainly not democratic. Is it?
It was an appalling cherry picking fiasco.  Contrary
to Ya-jabou’s assertions, the selection process was in
fact fettered and therefore a transgression on its
originating authority, the MOU. That is what makes it
flawed and that is what makes it undemocratic.

 NADD having realised that the first selection process
had alienate the electibility requirement, an abuse
they know the UDP would never accept, decided to set
up a committee that was to draw certain criteria to
guide the process. In my view, this was actually good
because it provides NADD with an opportunity once
again, to debate the electoral strengths of the
different contenders, something they had persistently
and deliberately refused to do. However, the condition
precedent attached to the process, which is a
declaration that one would accept any outcome that may
emerge from the process, was unacceptable because it
effectively thwarted the possibility of invoking the
primary election provision of the MOU in the event of
a continuing impasse. That was certainly a usurpation
of the sovereign authority conferred on NADD’s grass
root membership by the MOU. That can’t be right. Can
it? PART 111 [8] of the MOU states:

 'The selection of a candidate of the alliance for the
presidential, National Assembly and Council elections
shall be done by consensus; provided that in the event
of impasse selection shall be done by holding a
primary election restricted to party delegates on the
basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the
chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party
from each village/ward in a constituency.’

What is clear from the above, particularly in relation
to the attached condition precedent is that the later
have rendered the spirit of the MOU completely
obsolete. That is a serious travesty and should not
have been condoned. Even if the UDP had subscribed to
this dodgy deal, there is no guarantee that other
parties would have acted bona fide. Nothing will stop
the rogue elements from going back to their dirty game
knowing fully well that UDP would be left with no
option but to accept any outcome even if it is
perverse on the MOU because they [UDP] would have made
a declaration to that effect. That was the
blackmailing tactics NADD was playing and it is a
complete grotesque. Mr Darboe brilliantly spotted this
grotesque behaviour and decided to honourably resign
in order to save his well-cherished integrity.
Therefore and contrary to Ya- jabou’s postulation,
this process was completely flawed. It has despicably
fallen short of democratic standards. That is why the
UDP decided to opt out. Therefore, any suggestion that
they [UDP] had abandoned the process because thing
were not going their way is not only malicious but
also a complete utter nonsense. More so, any
suggestion that decisions supported by the majority of
NADD’s Executive should suffice and adhered to by all
parties is indeed fallacious, completely deceitful,
absurd and disingenuous. 

‘Let justice guide our actions towards the common
good’


SS Daffeh

Bottom



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤