Hi Kebba!
      I have to first of all apologise for not replying earlier but I simply
have not been able to. Thanks for bringing in your perspectives. You wrote:

"It will be a mistake for us to be hard on the UDP leadership and the
electorate."

Could you please quantify why you think the UDP should not be put on the
spot like other parties such as APRC, PDOIS, NRP etc.? Is it not a form of
disservice to them if one treats them with rubber gloves even when there is
something to be pointed out? I do not have anything against the UDP. In
fact, I am impressed with some of their leaders and policies but that should
not mean that if they are seen to be making mistakes one should not point it
out. My opinion is that all political parties and their representatives, as
public figures vying to control the destiny of our country, should be put on
the spot to make them realise that they are being watched so that they do
not become complacent.

You also wrote:

"It is very easy to engage in this Monday morning quarter-backing and second
guessing of what went wrong here."

What I attempted to do in my post was not to apportion blame but to provide
humble analyses, which hopefully will be helpful. I strongly believe that
there are a thousand lessons to be learnt from every failure. I will not
argue with the fact that my contributions on the L in general and pre the
elections have been trickling but that is due to other engagements that
limit the amount of time I have to engage in debates. That however does not
mean that issues that are of significance to The Gambia are not discussed
and dealt with in other places. The by-elections were a test for the
opposition in the country and the activities of the opposition prior to and
what they do after the elections will have a significant impact in the
coming elections. The UDP performed less than most expected and thus the
outcry. It will be fine to keep quiet and not put the UDP, the largest
opposition, on the spot to at least jolt them into further analyses of what
went wrong for them this time and how they can avoid them come the next
elections. Would this not be a disservice to them? I do not want to appear
to be chattering about this but I believe that even if one did not have time
prior to the by-elections to contribute, one can make contributions now in
the form of analyses etc. in light of the fact that the big prizes are yet
to come.

You wrote:

"As opined by many, including yourself, the fact that the Opposition did not
carry Kiang shows that our message is not adequately engraved in the
electorate. We should accept responsibility for that and not try to say that
the people did not get it because they are stupid. That does not mean that
the message is wrong."

I did not say that the message is wrong or that the people are stupid.
Regarding the message, one can have the absolute best message but without
the right delivery, the message fails to make its point. It is a simple case
of marketing. One can have the best product in the world but with inadequate
marketing strategies, someone else with a much inferior product will outsell
and outdo him/her. Elections have in the past generally not been premised on
issues but on which party can create the most fanfare and create a sense of
this candidate is my uncle's friend, or my neighbour's sister or our
grandparents were friends etc. feeling. This is not unique to The Gambia but
is a characteristic prevalent in most developing countries due mostly to
poverty and illiteracy. That is why many politicians of the First Republic
who only remembered the electorate every five years were able to win
landslides election after election. The emphasis is on marketing. Even
though these politicians had nothing to offer the people, they knew how to
entice them into voting for them. It is therefore important to have an
effective means of delivery.
 Regarding the people, I did not say that they are stupid. What I said was
whether they have been given too much credit in the face of circumstances
that render them victims to those with less than honourable political
machinations. Something is wrong somewhere when one sells his/her voters
card for 25 Dalasis or 2000 Dalasis. The essence is to find that wrong
something and remedy it be it through enlightenment about the importance of
a single vote or through other means such as vigilance on the part of the
parties.

You further wrote:

"Instead of second guessing UDP now, Gambians with functioning brains (not
to mention journalists and other Opposition parties) should have been
talking about these ISSUES BEFORE the elections and showing how APRC cannot
take the country forward. You do not wait until after the elections and say
that APRC might have won on the ISSUES. What issues? Surely, the issues I
read from Foroyaa and heard from calls made to Gambia, cannot be winners for
APRC. Clowns on G_L and elsewhere theorizing that UDP might have lost these
elections because they did not discuss the ISSUES, do not know what they are
talking about. Gambian newspapers are replete with reports showing that UDP
tackled the issues during the campaign rallies."

I did not say anywhere that the APRC won on issues or that the UDP lost on
issues. What I asked was whether the electorate views the things that we
view as people living abroad important enough to bring the government down
over. The central theme of our contention with the government deals with
human rights issues. This should be important to all people but I know for a
fact that Gambians can be quite detached as long as an issue or an act does
not directly affect them or their loved ones. Many would in the heat of the
moment say "ndey saan" but forget about it a day after. The UDP of course
tackled issues, but my point was whether they tackled the issues dear to the
heart of the electorate in such a manner that they were won over. That is
the issue. The opposition has to talk about all the issues but has to
analyse which issues are more important in which part of the country. For
example, basing an election campaign in Banjul on farming issues would be a
mistake because the population of Banjul is not engaged in farming. So they
have to diversify the issues and zero in and hammer home issues that are
dear to the electorate in various parts of the country with regard to the
prevailing circumstances and realities. This has to be done effectively in
order to yield results. I asked whether the APRC delivery machinery was more
effective than UDP's because despite all the human rights issues and all the
problems the farmers and ordinary people are facing, the UDP lost to them.
This says something and this something must be examined to determine how to
create an effective delivery system.

 Sorry for this long post. Thanks for the compliments. Have a good weekend.
          Buharry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------