As the dust begins to settle on the recently concluded by-elections of Kiang
East and Baddibu Central, the Opposition and those that wish to complement
their efforts in ending the tyranny we are accursed with in the Gambia,
should engage in a constructive stock taking as to why the Kiang East "went
away" to the APRC?

 As the facts surrounding the by-elections continue to trickle in to those of
us in the Diaspora, it is beginning to emerge that the Opposition leadership
anticipated much of the adversity that contributed to the Kiang East "defeat"
and made decent efforts in combatting them. Admittedly, whilst the
vote-buying spree the APRC embarked upon made the cookies crumble, mammoth
confidence and its concomitant effects of complacency, lack of coordination
of the Opposition's activities and general lack of capital to fund basic
logistical support like transport amongst others contributed to the defeat.
Information i received provides these incontrovertible facts on the
by-elections:

i) The APRC spent up to 3 million Dalasi much of which was spent on buying
votes. Depending on the compound visited, these people were doling out
between D250-D500 and in some cases, were adding a bag of rice depending on
the number of votes to be bought in a particular compound.
ii) In contrast to this financial might, the Opposition had only TWO vehicles
in their campaign; one of which was to later to give up on the fight when it
was rendered useless because of old age and stuff.
iii) In the said two constituencies, the APRC stationed a team over a month
to "work" on the voters.
iv) The Opposition on the other, because of their mammoth self-confidence,
campaigned less and in the dying minutes were laid back in sharp contrast to
the APRC who were paying last minute late night visits to voters whose votes
they have yet to "work" on. This last minute campaigns and the UDP's lack of
attempts to keep up with the APRC, was not due only to mammoth confidence but
largely to being cashstrapped to ward off the invaders
v) It has also emerged that in countering the APRC's vote-buying spree, the
Opposition did make some decent efforts in warding off these illegal
vote-buyings. The Opposition did in fact collect up to 1000 votes of their
supporters only to give them back the night before the polls. This with
hindsight was a fatal mistake as the APRC made last minute late night visits
to these voters and "worked" on them. The rest as they say is history.

In taking stock of the by-elections, and making comparative analysis of what
chanced in 1996/7, three things rippled galore: the Opposition's mammoth
self-confidence in winning the elections and its concomitant effects like
complacency, the Opposition's cashstrapped status and the Machiavellian
methods the APRC uses to notch "victory". In countering these malaise - come
October 2001 - the Opposition is not only going to have to reach out to
voters but learn how to use unorthodox means to keep vigilance of those
votes. Contrary to some received wisdom on the List lately, it is not only
campaigning on issues that delivers elections. In a very hostile to win
election milieu where the incumbency wants to win by hook or crook, you will
need more than talking to voters but countering any illegal means to nullify
those votes by the incumbency through both orthodox and unorthodox means.

Those who keep harping about the Oppositions campaign and its lack thereof
miss the point about the extent to which the APRC was not interested in
winning the hearts of these voters but just grubbily "winning" these
elections. It is a matter of historical record that the Opposition DID raise
all the issues that its critics are claiming it should have raised to avert
voter apathy - which they said contributed to the Opposition "defeat".
Besides, voter apathy is largely a sympthom of a contented electorate. The
by-elections chancing in  two rustic constituencies hard hit by the current
farming crisis and where a huge chunk of the country's poor lives can hardly
be associated with voter apathy. You would have thought that such an
electorate would flock to the polls, given the fact that the gov't of the day
was responsible for their economic wretchedness. At least conventional wisdom
would suggest such a scenario. With the Kiang and Baddibu by-elections, all
evidences debunks the voter apathy thesis.

As things stand and gauging by the Machiavellian mechanism of the APRC
political machine, putting on kiddie gloves to fight the 2001 general
elections - if they ever do take place - would be suicidal. To fight these
elections, the Opposition will not only have to campaign harder, acquire more
funds to effectively coordinate their activities, take nothing for granted
with their mammoth confidence and complacency but to jump into the gutter
with the APRC - if need be. What jumping into the gutter would entail would
be whatever unorthodox means we have within the ambits of the law to ward off
any illegal influencing of the outcomes of the said elections. As KB never
tires in telling us, elections are not won/lost on election day alone itself:
the process leading to the said elections invariably determine the outcome of
these elections. We must at this stage enquire whether in attempting to
counter the APRC's ploys to buy votes, it is legal for the Opposition to
safe-keep the votes of their supporters until polling day itself? To the
extent that this question is crucial is the bane of stuff that will determine
the October 2001 general elections - if they ever do take place. This has
become the incontrovertible moral lesson of the by-elections.

Hamjatta Kanteh

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

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------