In your article entitled the Raleigh Conference a step in the right direction you indicated that “PDOIS has given a somewhat vague reason as to why it was not represented”.
Unfortunately, you did not proceed to indicate what was vague about our statement. In that respect you owe us a critique so that we could fully understand the substance of your claim which could then inform our future actions.
You also added the following “While there is no doubt that some aspects of the PDOIS position had some merit, but the Raleigh conference offered quite an opportunity which they should have never missed.”
Here too you have left us confused as to what the merit of our position is.
For the sake of clarity, allow us to state that when we received the invitation of the organisers we did applaud their initiative. However in order to promote ownership of the process and engender a more formal arrangement for consensus building, we proposed for the Diaspora to meet and work out a consensus, the content of which would be conveyed to the political parties at home for review and decisions taken by their own organs in line with their party constitutions. We further proposed that after taking their individual party positions on any proposal from the diaspora political parties at home could meet to discuss their party positions and form a consensus which shall then be followed by a Diaspora – opposition meeting that would entirely focus on concrete proposals for a consensus on the way to facilitate electoral reform or effect democratic change if proposals for reforms are rejected. In this way no parochial difference would be entertained and the deliberations would be devoted solely on National consensus building. Hence it is clear to all that we have not only endorsed consensus building but have concretely stated how it could be done in a climate of serenity and sobriety, free from any acrimony and hairsplitting wrangling over issues that have no national relevance, as befits those who aim to engage in the most important task of our times, that of building a country fit for a sovereign, free , prosperous and dignified citizen to live in . Our compatriots in the opposition have known us for working with concept papers to guide meetings to avoid sloppy and crude ways of doing things. This is why we have earned the respect of all without exception. You seem to be the only Gambian who cannot see that this was a purely diaspora affair and Gambia based newspapers, NGOs and Political activists could not be involved for obvious reasons Hence our proposal for the meeting to be restricted to the diaspora in the first instance is quite reasonable and justifiable as the first leg for consensus building. What then is vague about our proposals?
Secondly, you seem to be insinuating that we are sitting and banking on a Reverend Jesse Jackson mediation. Our statement is very clear and incapable of distortion. We indicated that democratic change could come through electoral reform by restoring the second round of voting and ensuring a level ground for multi party contest but that if the incumbent resists electoral reform the Banjul Mayoral election has given us the way out. All forces should just rally behind one independent candidate to remove the incumbent and preside over a one term transition. We therefore cannot understand where you got the notion that PDOIS is proposing a sit and do nothing agenda and wait for mediation. You are attributing to us what is entirely a figment of your imagination. We have a concrete way forward. What you may say is that you are not in agreement with it which is quite your prerogative. In fact, we have alluded to this by asserting that no one has monopoly over the solutions and each sovereign Gambian could stand and be counted in paving a way forward. We are willing to consider a more credible option.
Let us take this opportunity to inform you that we are not banking on any one’s mediation. PDOIS is firmly on the ground working for change to the best of its ability. It is the Gambian people who will bring it about and we are with them by day and by night. We are in support of any credible initiative that would enhance change.
For your information, Reverend Jesse Jackson came into the picture when the opposition was invited through the US Embassy to meet him. He informed the opposition of his successful intervention to facilitate the release of Tamsir Jasseh and Dr. Scattred Janneh and asked what he could do to promote peace in the Gambia. The Opposition on the ground, without exception, unanimously requested for his mediation. Since he is in touch with the US Embassy and has access to the highest offices in the US, one could only consider him as one of the possible credible mediators. Nothing more should be read into the initiative to hypothesize political amnesia on the side of PDOIS which is vigorously engaging the powers that be.
For your information, the clashes of the opposition leaders at Raleigh completely distort the way they interact during our meetings at home. The Opposition has been meeting and taking decisions. Never have we even held a meeting at home after the Presidential elections which ended up with any ill-will, despite remarks that may be made outside of meeting places to promote the interest of individual parties, which should be expected in any multi party political system. Hence, your claim that “we have all seen that it is taking an unnecessarily long time for the opposition at home to meet and arrive at a consensus” is rather inaccurate. We have already reached consensus on mediation efforts and what to do if the incumbent fails to respond. This is why we were surprised by the news that the opposition leaders were at each other’s throat at Raleigh.
According to you “the Raleigh conference offered quite an opportunity which they should have never missed. Apart from the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with the other stakeholders, it would have also accorded them the opportunity to explain to a much wider audience the party’s stance on a number of issues, some of which do not seem to be quite well understood by many of those who were at the conference.”
This is a very strange logic. PDOIS would never be a party to relying on funding provided for people to meet for consensus building just to go to the US to promote its party’s agenda. PDOIS is really not competing with any party for cheap popularity. We are just contributing our quota, no matter how little towards the building of a society that would guarantee liberty, dignity and prosperity to the people. Those who agree with the agenda would support PDOIS and those who agree with other agendas should support theirs. We have shown by our practice in NADD and the United Front that we are not competing to monopolise power. In fact, in the United Front we made it clear that PDOIS would not accept any Ministerial posts upon a United Front Victory but would restrict its presence to the National Assembly to check on power. The NRP and GPDP leaders would confirm this fact. In fact, one of your oversights is to ignore the absence of the GPDP leader.
Hence, if you want to convince us that we should not have missed the Raleigh Conference you should not project your mystification of the outcome of the conference and distort the realities of our struggle on the ground but should inform us of the resolutions of the conference which have harmonized the objectives, strategies and tactics on how to bring Democratic change in the Gambia. You seem to imply that such resolutions exist.
Hence you concluded thus:
“Let us therefore hope and pray that those who did not go to Raleigh would still adopt the resolutions and work towards achieving the desired national consensus.”
Either you know something we are yet to know or that your vision has been blurred by your own imagination victim . We are not aware of any resolution indicating how Gambians are to effect electoral reform or bring about democratic change if the APRC Government resists reform. What we is achieved is to start a consensus building process. The raw material for National consensus building is yet to be available. The organizers have made a good start just as we predicted. Hence what you should be calling or is the continuity of a dialogue and not the embracing of a finish product
As far as we are concerned your comments reveal a classic case of making political commentaries from the disadvantageous position of political innocence. Hence, it becomes difficult to distinguish sentiments from reality, fiction from facts and euphoria from substance. We await your clarification on the concrete proposals made at the Raleigh conference on how to effect Democratic change in The Gambia and what to put in place after the change which are projected as the strategic objectives of the conference. If you remain blank after searching for the concrete proposals from the conference on how to effect political reform or ensure change without political reform then you should know that you are simply labouring under a misconception that we have missed or should embrace something which is still illusive to the conference. Nothing concrete has emerged yet. Let us hope that it will emerge with dialogue and open-mindedness.
To conclude let me assure you even though we do not expect all Gambians to support us but we are confident that we know what we are doing and are sincere about our commitment to our nation and people. History will never find us culpable for mediocrity.
Halifa Sallah