By Jerry Jallow, Manchester

Over the past year or so, the opposition parties in the Gambia have been engaged in a discourse aimed at to the best to remove the APRC from power in the forthcoming 2011 elections and at the minimum to create a multiparty system in the Gambia. However, this could fail as the two main opposition parties are engaged in finger pointing politics rather than a constructive dialogue, shallow and dishonest analysis of their failures in past elections, and the lack of organisational structures (this applies to all political parties Africa). Hence “Agenda 2011” is doomed to fail. Using empirical evidences, albeit from Western democracies, this article would argue that a multiparty system has indeed never existed in Gambia’s political history. Building on that, I want to add my voice to the current debate between PDOIS and the UDP over whom to blame for their shortcomings in the 2006 elections by offering assessable questions in my analysis.

Let us consider what a “multiparty system” is. Multiparty system is a system where more than one party has the potential and ability to win and govern in a country. It also implies that two or more parties are capable of influencing the outcome of policies adopted in parliament and thus act as a check on the incumbent party. For a country to have a multiparty system, the opposition parties have to be able to some extent influence and contribute towards national and foreign policies of the country. Although the agenda or the final words maybe decided by the ruling party, but major parties are involved in the discourse leading to the adoption of these policies. Typical examples would be the Obama Healthcare Reform in which a bipartisan approach is applied or the Parliamentary Committees in the British House of Parliament or the proportional representations in Germany and Scandinavia. All these provide instances were oppositions parties are part (more or less) in the policy discourses. PDOIS, the UDP, NRP, and GMC are so remote from the legislation circles that their existence is not felt by Gambians or by the government.    

Impunity was the order of the day in the First Republic and still is today due to the lack of opposition parties with the ability to lead and represent the helpless Gambian population. These parties lack distinguished campaign managers, PR representatives, youth wings, and most importantly, almost never held press briefings or conferences. Without established institutional practices, an entity can hardly be called a political party. Bertrand de Jouvenel defined politics as ‘the capacity to bring into being a stream of wills: to canalise the stream and regularise and institutionalise the resulting cooperation’ (1958: 29). The PPP was an oligarchy with Jawara as the leader. The APRC is a one man show where Jammeh perfectly sits like Stalin as the sacred leader. PDOIS suffer similar factors as the party is solely associated with Halifa, Sedia and Sam. The UDP is like the PPP, a party of the few with Darboe as the leader. The NRP is categorically about Hamat Bah. And the story goes on, and on.

As always these entities never attempted to institutionalise their organisations and as a result when the leader disappears or is weak, the party crawls to its knees. Thus the entity is much easier to discredit and destabilise by opponents. The PPP, NCP and GPP are typical examples here. Division of labour and the coordination of efforts is a pivotal part of any entity as the continuous prosperity is dependent on it as the supportive will of others are orchestrated towards a common goal. Future leaders are schooled and nurtured to carry forward the seeds of the organisation. It also helps generate funds for the maintenance of the entity. Gambian political parties lack these features and this is manifested in the “Agenda 2011” discourse.

How can this agenda be realised when the two major camps (PDOIS and UDP) are engaged in a finger pointing campaign against each other instead of looking at the bigger picture? How honest are these two camps to themselves or to the Gambian voters? I want to answer these questions by examining what has so far transpired in the media.

The dissolution of NADD can be attributed to many different failures on all parties involved. First, Halifa should be honest to acknowledge his shortcomings as the Chair of the Execute Steering Committee. As a chairperson, your responsibility is to stream the wills of the different parties involved so that a compromise could be reached. Halifa as chairperson failed in achieving that. First, he avoided responsibility by refusing to accept being the flag bearer. To further complicate things he and Waa Juwara advocated for a primary election to be held to choose the candidate. How could that happen in a country where people are persecuted for just speaking your mind at the village bantaba much more to openly sympathise with opposition parties? I believe Halifa has to accept that he did fail in that aspect.

Two issues that struck me most were: one, the way Halifa approached the debate and his “spilling of the beans” and two: how both parties approached the analysis of the 2006 elections. In the heated debate, Halifa revealed his dealings with other individuals during past elections. He adduced that he had sponsored a candidate who still have not paid back his money. The appropriateness of this matter in the media is a cause of concern for me as a person. This may damage his credibility and trust among political partners as no one would like such issues that were handled in confidence to be revealed to the whole world.

Rather than an in-depth and honest analysis of the 2006 elections, both parties decided to apply a shallow, basic and meaningless one. As a sociologist, Halifa should have done better than just asking one “why” question. Instead a better approach from both sides would have asked “how” and “why” questions over and over again to answer why they failed. The question of voter apathy in the Gambia cannot just be explained by the single answer that ‘the opposition parties were divided’. Analytical tools such as “fish bone chart”, “minding mapping”, or a simple “brainstorming” session would reveal a lot problems with the last election.

Now I am not suggesting that things are simply done. Am aware that the political conditions are not favourable, but that is what political parties are for- to shape and change the political landscape of a country. And a better way of doing that is to institutionalise your party and its practices. This will boost your credibility among voters and within the international community.

Jerry Jallow, Manchester