Fatou,

I have read your memo of 16 August 2000. I believe the essence of
communication is to understand each other. You initially claimed that I was
sitting on the fence. I responded by agreeing with you that that would be
inappropriate at this moment when decisiveness is most required.

I believe I have made it abundantly clear that the Constitution makes
provision for a second round of voting; that the first round serves as a
primary to determine the numerical strength of a political party among the
voting population; that it is this instrument which helps a political party
to assess the quantity and quality of its work among the population. It is
generally in the second round of voting that united fronts are established.

I have given example of Senegal in some of my postings where Niasse and
Djibou Ka stood as presidential candidates in the first round. In fact there
were approximately eight presidential candidates in Senegal. In the second
round of voting, Djibou Ka even allied with Abdou Diouf but this did not
prevent the opposition alliance from winning. In contrast, there were only
two parties in Zimbabwe, yet ZANU-PF still managed to win.

I am, therefore, not sitting on the fence. Our position is clear. I even
went further to indicate that it would be unrealistic for us to ask other
opposition parties to form a united front around a PDOIS presidential
candidate, but that we will not oppose such a development in the name of
unity in the first round. I said this because of my conviction that other
opposition parties have the prerogative to test their numerical strength
among the voting population. We are not creating any blockages to bar such
parties from testing their numerical strength. this is why they were
established in the first place.

Instead of accepting the position that each opposition party could say the
same ,thus giving legitimacy to the filing of candidate by each party in the
first round to determine which candidates are wanted by the people to go to
the second round, you automatically try to show how unrealistic it is for a
PDOIS Presidential candidate to be the candidate of an opposition alliance
by asserting the following: "Halifa we do not need to conduct a poll in
Gambia's political environment to know that UDP support is likely to
outnumber PDOIS. Halifa even though PDOIS is in Gambia's political scene for
a long time it would be unrealistic to suggest Seedia as presidential elect
knowing fully well that PDOIS doesn't or will be incapable of carrying the
majority  vote. I do not need to be a political analyst to predict this."

Fatou, what then is the essence of having an electoral system if you
advocate the principle that once a majority party always a majority party;
once a minority party always a minority party? What is a democratic order
based on other than the principle of governing by the consent of the people?
What is the essence of multipartyism other than giving opportunity to the
people to make informed choices as they gauge the practices and programmes
of political parties who appeal to them? Who can guarantee that those who
voted for a ruling party yesterday will vote for them today?

Let me give you clear examples. People keep on hammering that PDOIS is not
getting votes. Serrekunda East is a constituency in the urban area with the
largest number of voters. We did not take any colanut to any compound. We
did not bribe or induce anyone. Even the committees we have today had not
been established yet. Yet, PDOIS had over 8500 votes in Serrekunda East
which was more than the UDP vote. Needless to say, PDOIS stood on its own
merit while UDP is a coalition of different parties. The same thing can be
said for the Wuli constituency where Sidia Jatta stood on his own merit
against APRC and UDP and still won the seat without inducing or intimidating
anyone. Now, everybody knows what Sidia is doing in the National Assembly.
This was not the case when he stood as a presidential candidate.

You see, my sister, there is a long story that PDOIS has to tell about its
politics. One cannot judge PDOIS on the basis that it has been here longer
than all other political parties. One must also understand the quantitative
growth of a party leading to its qualitative development.

PDOIS started as a small unit with few people struggling with material
resources on their own to grow up to have branches all over the country
without inducing or intimidating anyone. It was competing with parties with
tremendous material resources which could rely on inducement to establish
their branches everywhere. Herein lies the slowness of PDOIS in spreading
and having grip all over the country. This is a simple and elementary truth.

Suffice it to say, it was easy for the UDP to arise and grow by simply
assimilating the structures established by the older parties like the PPP,
NCP, GPP, as well as to draw tremendous resources from the same spring. This
is also very easy to explain.

The consolidation of the APRC by assimilating the structures left by the
PPP, NCP and GPP, as well as the utilisation of the huge State machinery and
immense financial resources from all sources, could also be easily
explained.

Hence, it will be wrong to simply conclude that even without analysis one
can forecast that PDOIS cannot have a majority. This negates the democratic
principle. It gives the impression that once people's minds are made up they
are forever made up.

The democratic principle is based on the presumption that the minds of
people are in a state of flux and that political parties are to compete to
win the minds of the people on a continuous basis, thus leading to variation
in their numerical support from one stage to another. It is this variation
that is to be assessed through the electoral process.

It is, therefore, only fair for you to acknowledge that PDOIS is a party in
The Gambia. It is your prerogative to support it or oppose it. It is your
right to make suggestions of tactical alliances, but it would be unfair to
pass the type of judgment that you have passed on PDOIS before assessing the
verdict of the people.

In fact, taking what you have said that there is no need for even assessment
to know that PDOIS cannot have majority, it would be suicidal for PDOIS not
to assess its numerical support among the people. In short, if it is put in
a coalition, when will people know again how much support PDOIS has? What
will prevent people like you to even continue saying when PDOIS wants to
stand for elections tomorrow that PDOIS is an insignificant party and was an
insignificant part of a coalition?

This is the point, my sister. We need to understand the true political
weight of PDOIS so as to shatter the myths which are based on PDOIS' own
mode of growth as a party within a political environment which has always
been unfavourable.

Everybody knows that nothing is more difficult than to root your political
evolution on informing, enlightening and persuading people whilst others are
inducing and intimidating them. However, the fact that despite inducement
and intimidation, we could take the Wuli seat and had more votes than the
UDP in Serrekunda East confirm to us that with more organisation and more
material resources from people who are convinced of PDOIS' politics, PDOIS'
numerical strength among the voters will grow quantitatively and
qualitatively.

I hope my message is clear this time.

Greetings,

Halifa.



----- Original Message -----
From: Fatou Darboe <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: Mr. Sallah>> Attn: Mr. Halifa Sallah


> Yes Halifa we indeed met in washington.

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

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