There have been
claims made during the campaign season for the recently concluded National Assembly
elections that if the parties to the Tactical
Alliance approach did not win a combined majority in the National Assembly,
then the Barrow-led coalition government will have an antagonistic assembly to
contend with, which if challenged could impeach him. Are we witnessing a
vindication of such claims just mere days after the process has ended?
Going by statements
made by Halifa Sallah at his recent press conference, one could be forgiven for
making such observations. Blame it on the choice of words or a misconstrued
statement, but what he said is a statement of clear intent. And for a man so
composed and so skilled at oratory, his words are always very carefully chosen
and his statements cannot be easily passed off as gaffes at any time. I may be
limited in my knowledge of his political life but I cannot recall reading
anywhere that he ever retracted a public statement or apologized for having made
a mistake in his choice of words. The point I am trying to make is that his
words are always carefully chosen for precision, an asset to a politician.
Now, at the press
conference, Halifa stated;
One
problem that has been averted is the problem of threatening the executive in
terms of legislative interventions. He said the National Assembly could pass a
vote of no confidence on the executive but that could only be done with 2/3
majority. He said the 31 seats occupied by the United Democratic Party do not
provide the legislative cloud to be able to threaten the executive. He said the
same composition cannot give any particular party to make any Constitutional
amendment without being passed by the 2/3 majority of the house members.
However, he also said with the 31 seats of the UDP, if all of them refused to
support any bill in the parliament then the other members cannot pass such bills.
(www.standard.gm)
Why would it be a
good idea to threaten the executive? Were there plans afoot to move a
motion to pass a vote of no confidence and effect a change in leadership? The statement
even calls into question the integrity of the members of the National Assembly,
who Halifa assumes will not vote their conscience or the interest of the nation
but will only vote along party lines. Why does the PDOIS have a Holier than Thou perspective on anything
Gambian? The mere belief that only the PDOIS members are informed enough to put
the national interest first is a fallacy and is lacking in humility; being a
party member has already ingrained an ideology in you, the ideology you believe
is the best for the country. Thinking that that is the only approach is
insulting to the other stake holders at the very least. It is too soon to pass
judgement on these members even before their first test. We should not be
judges of character, just actions.
Less than three
months after assuming office amidst the worst transition ever, it is
disappointing to note that the main issue on Halifa’s mind is the length of
time Barrow serves as president. For a man lauded as the Republican
Constitutionalist of the highest order to speak of “injecting” a clause into
the constitution in order to make the coalition MOU a constitutional instrument
is disappointing too. Regarding the 3 year mandate as agreed upon by the
coalition partners; he stated that constitutional amendments will be required in
order to make legal Barrow’s resignation after 3 years.
He stated; “But at the moment that provision is not in
the Constitution therefore as it stands, Barrow has a 5 year term. But if it is
injected in and he agrees then he would be able to resign after 3 years and
presidential election would be held.”
So what is the problem if the sacred constitution is not
being infringed upon? Oh I get it, Barrow’s credibility. If Barrow decides to honor the terms of the
MOU, that is commendable and will be welcome in many quarters. But if he
decides to stay on to fulfill his constitutional mandate, the only dent that
may be made will be to his image but the laws of the land will not be infringed
upon in the slightest. That being the case let us focus on the institutional
reforms and worry about crossing the 3 vs 5 year term bridge when we get to it.
Should we point to a lack of foresight at the drafting of the
MOU or something sinister? If anyone else other than Barrow became the
coalition flag bearer and subsequent president of the republic, could we say
with certainty that there will be an “injection” into the 1997 constitution as
is being advocated now? We can only speculate. One thing is clear though,
Barrow was not an expected winner as flag bearer.
On the other hand, isn’t the whole debate around the
appointment of the Vice President hinged on this notion of “injecting” clauses
into the constitution to favor a certain approach; who was the loudest advocate
against such a move? Suddenly it is convenient to tweak the constitution a
little bit. By the way, in this specific situation, such an amendment will only
be temporary because if all goes well we are not expecting another coalition of
this nature. With a thriving democracy, which we aspire to; the political
landscape will be ideal for healthy rivalry. The immoral law of setting an age
cap on the other hand, will tackle discrimination in that sphere for good. But
that is only looking to favor a certain individual which we cannot have, right?
And then comes my favorite; the political subterfuge hinged
on fear mongering. We all know that across the political spectrum in The
Gambia, everyone is in support of the introduction of presidential term limits
as well as reforms to eliminate the simple majority first-past-the-post winner
that currently obtains. So why is it constantly being drummed up in our ears
that there is a potential for the reintroduction of tyranny/dictatorship or
self-perpetuating rule?
Halifa stated;
…the
objective of the Coalition as far as PDOIS is concerned is to put an end to
self-perpetuating rule and build a democracy which will allow the supreme
Gambian people to make an undiluted choice of leadership. This is what directed PDOIS in terms of the
National Assembly election so as to fulfill that three year mandate to be the
bright example of how self-perpetuating rule would be amputated for good from
the politics of this country. It was our conviction that if President Barrow
leads the example of limiting his own term then no other leader will ever
emerge again that will go beyond two terms,”
In that regard wouldn’t
the most important bill before members be the bill that introduces term limits
for the president? Because in passing that bill, the problem will be solved
once and for all, and FOREVER. In that statement too is the projection of the
all too familiar PDOIS political grandstanding; alluding to the notion that
without PDOIS in the National Assembly, such a feat could not be accomplished;
that is mere speculation yet again; another way people feel insulted. The
December 1st 2016 choice that the
supreme Gambian people made was undiluted.
This is one reason why people are taking issue with Mr. Sallah’s statement that
Gambia is yet to decide. The decision of December 1st 2016 was
probably the most important decision Gambians will ever make. The agenda was
sold to remove Yahya, it was bought with no dilution. The same will be true in
the new democratic dispensation, politicians sell their agenda and programs,
voters buy those that appeal to them and in the process give mandate.
Here is my take; how
many elections can The Gambia afford with her meager resources and dried out
coffers? Part of the recommendations made by the election observers was to
organize the Presidential and National Assembly elections in such a way that
they coincide on the same day; this will save costs and reduce voter apathy.
The turnout we now know is much lower for the National Assembly elections than
was the case for the presidential elections.
So let’s say Barrow
resigns in 3 years, 90 days later there are fresh Presidential elections in
2020, two years later there will be fresh National Assembly elections as the
current mandate runs out in 2022. The next president’s mandate will run out in
2025, another 3 year period from the preceding National Assembly elections
whose mandate lasts till 2027. Factor in the local government and council
elections as well as the impending referendums to amend some of the entrenched
clauses in the constitution; we are set to be going to the polls on an almost
yearly basis. It is unsustainable, at some point someone else’s mandate has to
be cut short or the constitution tweaked some more.
You prescribed a dose
of humility for Barrow when you said “…the
first humbling would have been to concede to the 3 year term agreed by the
coalition…” this same dose I prescribe for you too Honorable Sir. I
have no doubt that you mean well for The Gambia and her sovereign people and we
Gambians owe you a debt of gratitude for your years of continued sacrifice and advocacy
for our collective rights. But every once in a while it is a mark of humility
to concede to popular will, especially when laws are not violated or rights
impinged upon; we will get to that promised land but it is a gradual process
and lots of concessions have to be made along the way.
We certainly do not
want a rubber stamp assembly but the other extreme of that scenario that none
seems to bother talking about is an antagonistic one that seeks to hinder every
legislation out of spite, that too we do not want.
So I ask, is it gratifying to be the lone voice of opposition even when it seemingly is not necessary?
No comments:
Post a Comment