The Gambia’s democracy has matured. Elections are competitive, debate is vigorous, and citizens are more politically conscious than ever. Yet beneath this progress lies a dangerous undertow that threatens to pull us backward: the creeping tribalisation of our politics.
It is an open secret. In political rallies, in WhatsApp audios, in taxi garages and market stalls, support is too often framed not by what a party will do, but by who leads it and what language he speaks at home. Wolof, Mandinka, Fula, Jola — identities that have coexisted for centuries, intermarried and shared ceremonies — are now being weaponised as political blocs. This is not our culture. This is imported political laziness.
Gambian politicians must learn a hard truth that when you cannot win on issues, you will resort to tribe. And when you resort to tribe, you have already failed the nation.
The Gambian voter in 2026 is not asking which tribe will rule. The voter in Bakau, Basse, and Barra is asking the same five questions; will there be light, will there be water, will there be jobs for my children, will my hospital have drugs, and will the price of rice come down.
Electricity does not know tribe. Nawec’s $11.9 million deal with TBEA to fix the Greater Banjul Area network will benefit 80,000 people across 40 communities — Wolof, Mandinka, Fula, Jola together. A transformer in Tallinding does not ask for a tribal certificate. The Access to Information Act of 2021 and the Personal Data Protection Act of 2025 do not protect one tribe. They protect every citizen’s right to hold government accountable.
So why then do our political debates rarely center on these laws, these projects, these policies? Because issue-based politics is hard. It requires data, plans, budgets, and accountability. It requires a candidate to explain how he will reduce the 21% food import bill, how he will fund school feeding, how he will implement the Ecowas Common External Tariff to protect local industries.
Tribal politics is easy. It requires only a microphone and fear. “They will dominate you.” “We must protect our own.” It is a shortcut used by politicians with no blueprint for development.
But three consequences make this path suicidal for The Gambia: First, it destroys competence. When we elect based on tribe, we promote loyalty over merit. A brilliant engineer from a minority tribe is sidelined, while a mediocre loyalist from a majority tribe gets the ministry. The result is what we see — institutions that cannot deliver water, power, or passports.
Second, it kills accountability. If a politician knows his tribe will vote for him no matter what he does, why would he build roads? Why would he declare assets? He becomes unaccountable to all Gambians and accountable only to his tribal gatekeepers.
Third, it threatens peace. We have watched our neighbors. Rwanda did not collapse in one day. It started with jokes, then speeches, then “us vs them.” Sierra Leone’s civil war started when citizens felt unheard, unrepresented, and unprotected because of identity. As Vice President Juldeh Jalloh of Sierra Leone recently said in Europe: “Peace is built when every citizen feels heard, represented, and protected.” Tribal politics does the opposite — it makes citizens feel protected only if their kinsman wins.
What we expect Gambian politicians to do is to compete on manifestos, not microphones. Party leaders must publicly condemn and dismiss any surrogate who uses tribal language, even if it benefits them electorally in the short term. Silence is endorsement.
The best antidote to tribalism is deliberate inclusion. A presidential ticket, a party executive, a cabinet that visibly includes all groups tells voters that governance is shared purpose, not ethnic census.
Finally, journalists and media houses also play a critical role in preventing the spread of hate speech and tribal bigotry by adhering to strict ethical standards and framing stories responsibly. They must make best use of training provided to them by organisations such as Gambia Participates to counter the viral spread of divisive rhetoric.
