By Dr Lamin K Janneh
Democracy is not merely a concept we discuss in our African politics, but it is demonstrated through the choices we make and the actions we take every day to improve our governance system.
In the current political landscape in The Gambia, the ability to set aside ideological and political differences for the greater good of a party and the country is not only commendable but indispensable. The historical cooperation between prominent political figures like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during their respective campaigns exemplifies this principle. Despite their initial rivalry in the 2008 Democratic primaries, both camps eventually prioritised party unity and national interest over personal ambitions. This phenomenon raises an important question: if such collaboration is possible among high-profile politicians with divergent views, why can’t a similar unity be achieved within other political entities, such as the United Democratic Party (UDP)?
The cooperation between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s camps was primarily driven by a shared vision for progressive democratic change in America, which required overcoming factionalism within the Democratic Party. The concluding alliance demonstrated that political maturity involves recognising when personal or ideological differences must be set aside for the sake of collective goals of the country. This transition was crucial in advancing a united front against opposing the incumbent party, thereby enhancing electoral competitiveness and fostering governance stability after elections. The success of this approach emphasises that pragmatic cooperation can strengthen not only party cohesion but also democratic processes by encouraging constructive dialogue over divisiveness among party militants.
Employing this principle in the current UDP context reveals significant prospective benefits. Like any political organisation, UDP’s effectiveness depends on the parameters of its internal solidarity and coherent policy direction. However, internal disagreements driven by conflicting interests or ideological rigidity would certainly undermine these objectives, leading to weakened leadership structures and a decline in public confidence in the party. Mimicking the example set by the Clinton-Obama collaboration could help UDP members transcend parochial concerns in favour of broader strategic interests that serve both party integrity and the country’s development goals.
Fuhrer prioritising unity within UDP would likely improve its competitive stance against rival parties by consolidating resources and harmonising messaging strategies at this critical juncture of the party and during election cycles. It would also foster inclusive policymaking where diverse viewpoints are respected but channelled towards common objectives rather than dissenting disputes. Notwithstanding, this approach aligns with democratic ideals that emphasise consensus-building as foundational for future sustainable governance of our country.
In theory, the precedent established by Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s camps illustrates that it is indeed feasible—and necessary—for politically diverse groups within a party to reconcile their differences for collective advancement and the greater good. Suppose such cooperation can occur at high levels of American politics despite intense competition. In that case, there exists no valid rationale preventing similar unity within the ranks of UDP in Africa’s smallest country’s politics. Implementing this ethos could significantly empower both party dynamics and national progress by reinforcing cooperation over conflict as a guiding principle.
