Malanding,
              You made some very interesting observations. And this is the
crux of the  matter. When PDOIS came into existence, it was faced with two
fundamental  choices: either to follow the politics of patronage or use an
entirely different  method to build its mass base of support. And for the
underlining reasons quoted  below, it decided to pursue a completely different
route.

              "We discovered that the mass base of the ruling party may
have reflected a  popular will at the beginning but at the time of PDOIS’ birth
the support was  based on patronage. The Commissioners, Chiefs, Village
heads, and all those in  position of authority in government or private sector
had the primary aim of  sustaining the Government in power. The masses were
generally controlled by  their social groups and the heads of those groups
were mobilised by the ruling  party to build its own political base. Our
review of the system of patronage  also revealed that the existing opposition
parties were just mimicking the  system of patronage of the ruling party. They
would look at all the government  and private structures and then promise
the rivals of those who occupy different  positions that they would replace
the substantive holder of any office once  change comes about. These promises
often motivate those who aspire to be  ministers, heads of departments and
para-statals, ambassadors, commissioners,  chiefs  and  Village heads to
utilise their energy, time, resources  and connections to campaign for the
opposition party. This created a two party  system based on patronage."

            Your  argument that had PDOIS decided to pursue the politics of
patronage, their  political capital would have increased tremendously or
even make them to be  voted into office, is not supported by the substantial
evidence that when two  political forces, one oppositional and the other
governing, and both relying on  patronage for electoral votes contest, the
outcome is always  predisposed that the governing party would win. This happened
to the NCP in  its years of struggle to unseat the P.P.P. It happened to the
G.P.P. It  also happened to other parties that were formed but had to die a
natural  death because they could not gain any traction. So this is not the
 exception, it is the norm. This is where the concept of politically
leveling the field comes into play, and it requires a complete overhaul of our
governing and electoral systems.

         You also said: " My point  is why did the followers of the
disbanded PPP decide to create UDP instead of  joining the PDOIS bandwagon?" This
is an interesting observation, and I  believe has not been lost to PDOIS
either.

           "By the  way votes are the only metrics that count in
parliamentary democracy." And we  all know where and to whom all the votes are going
to.

Rene

**************Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to
School
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223105306x1201716871/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D9)

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