By Madi Jobarteh
The vibrations rumbling in the UDP are nothing new, unexpected, or surprising. Instead, they reflect an outdated system that has characterized our political parties since independence, a system that has led to poor governance in this country ever since.
The malaise afflicting the UDP is a phenomenon that exists in all political parties to varying degrees. This is due to a lack of weak governance and leadership, resulting in the stagnation of the party and democracy in the country. When a group of people remains stagnant and unable to move forward and evolve, it generates division, injustice, antagonism, and resentment from within. In that case, the narrative eventually shifts to and revolves around personality, identity, group, and other sectarian interests and outdated ideas that favor only those in power and the privileged.
I have consistently raised the issue that we cannot have a truly democratic government in the Gambia unless our political parties are genuinely democratic from within. A political party that is not democratic while in opposition cannot win power and then transform itself into a democratic government immediately upon taking office. Thus, as long as our political parties are owned or dominated by a single person, they cannot claim to be democratic and viable. This is why we need system change first in our parties.
UP was PS Njie. PPP was Jawara. NCP was SM. GPP was Assan Musa Camara. PDOIS is Halifa. APRC was AJJ. UDP is Ousainou. NRP is Hamat. GPDP is Henry Gomez. GMC is Ahmad Mai Fatty. GDC is Mamma Kandeh. The list goes on… Once a leader leaves, the party either dies or becomes a shadow of its former self. Yet the leaders refuse to leave until pushed out by design or default.
Personalizing political parties or allowing them to be overshadowed by an individual is not democratic. Such an entity does not even qualify as a political party. It is, at best, a cult and, at worst, a cult. This situation is what makes party politics in the Gambia a farce.
It is this reality that every political party should dismantle to build a party system that upholds the principles and standards of good governance. It may be understandable that, until 2016, political parties had weak governance systems, given the 22-year authoritarian dispensation that preceded a relatively dormant political culture from independence to 1994. However, what is unacceptable is continuing with the same system from 2017 to date. By now, all political parties should have reformed to modernize and democratize themselves such that the overall quality of politics and governance would be at a higher level today. Sadly, all the parties failed to reform!
As we advocate for presidential term limits, gender equality, and the inclusion of minorities in national decision-making structures, should these principles and standards also be applied to political parties? For example, we need term limits for party leaders. Secondly, the positions of secretary general and party leader should be separate from that of a flag bearer. A person who is currently serving as secretary-general or party leader should not at the same time vie for the flag bearer position. This is to prevent abuse or the advantage of incumbency in which two powerful positions are vested in one person.
Furthermore, our political parties should be transparent about their finances. They should decentralize power and decision-making by creating strong youth, women, and persons with disabilities committees in addition to the central committee. They should establish a well-balanced central committee that represents a diverse range of elements, including gender, youth, disability, and other aspects of diversity. They should avoid decision-making bodies being overtly dominated by a single ethnic group, region, or region.
Therefore, while I am disappointed by the uncouth remarks of Chairman Yankuba Dabo, I am not surprised by it at all. That is, I am not equally surprised by the rancor within the UDP because the party has been democratically stagnant since inception, hence the presence of internal wranglings. The arguments put forward by Nanama Keita and Yunus Hydara are the steps toward dismantling stagnancy and autocracy in political parties that all should welcome. Yes, there is a lot of vibrancy in most of our parties. Still, they continue to be beset by democratic dormancy due to the dominance of identity and personality politics, resulting from the failure to uphold enlightened democratic standards.
I welcomed Alhagie Kurang and PDOIS members to agitate for the reform of PDOIS, and II also called on UDP members to confront and dismantle the stagnation in their party. This call applies to all our political parties to refuse authoritarianism, patriarchy, identity, and personality politics. Creating a semblance of democracy through holding congresses, establishing structures, building party bureaus, and participating in elections does not necessarily indicate true democracy and good governance. Political parties should be institutions that operate with high professional and ethical standards, upholding democratic principles and governance practices.
I would have expected that young and modern intellectuals like Yankuba Dabo would join forces with like-minded party members, such as Mayor Talib Bensouda, Mayor Rohey Malick Lowe, and others, to demand the reform and modernization of the UDP. It’s rather disappointing that, despite its impressive array of intelligentsia with diverse national and international experience and expertise, UDP has remained one of the most anachronistic parties in this country. The founders of the party in 1996 remain the leaders of the party in 2025. That is not progress and democracy.
