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