By Alhaji Kemo Conteh
Since its founding in 1996, The Gambia’s United Democratic Party (UDP) has stood as a symbol of resistance, continuity, and political resilience. Emerging during the country’s authoritarian era, the UDP evolved into the primary opposition force against the Yahya Jammeh regime and later played a key role in shaping post-dictatorship democratic discourse. Central to this legacy is the towering figure of Ousainou Darboe, the party’s founder and long-time leader. Yet beneath the surface of this storied institution lies a dilemma faced by many political parties in post-authoritarian democracies: the unresolved and often abstract question of leadership succession.
The personalisation of a party
The UDP’s long-standing structure, like many African parties born in resistance, is heavily personalised. The party’s organisational strength and moral authority are largely derived from Darboe’s personal narrative—his legal career, imprisonment for political beliefs, and unbroken commitment to democracy. While this has offered stability and identity, it has also constrained institutional development. The party remains heavily centralized around Darboe, leaving little space for internal democratic competition or organic leadership renewal.
This personalisation has created a reality where the UDP is seen less as a party governed by structures and more as a movement orbiting a singular figure. The implications are significant: without deliberate transition planning, the UDP risks a crisis of identity, legitimacy, and internal cohesion when Darboe eventually exits the political stage.
Factions without fractures
Despite outward appearances of unity, the UDP harbors quiet but potent factional currents. These divisions are not yet publicly explosive but are increasingly evident in political subtext—strategic absences, parallel youth groups, and whisper campaigns in local constituencies.
One dominant faction—often referred to informally as the “loyalist guard”—remains closely aligned with Darboe’s long-serving associates. They prioritise continuity, loyalty, and ideological consistency. Another emerging bloc, composed of younger, reform-minded party operatives and regional leaders, advocates for a more dynamic, modernised, and inclusive approach. Caught between these is a third camp—ethno-regional power brokers and diaspora affiliates—seeking greater influence in leadership structures they feel have become insular.
The tension remains abstract because it has not yet culminated in open confrontation. However, the longer the succession question remains unaddressed, the more likely these latent factions will solidify into camps—potentially fracturing the party’s base and weakening its electoral prospects.
Institutional weaknesses and democratic lag
In healthy democracies, succession is a natural process, guided by party constitutions, congresses, primary elections, and term limits. Within the UDP, such mechanisms exist on paper but lack consistent application. There is no established timetable or transparent process for selecting a future party leader. The position of Secretary General and Party Leader remains inextricably linked to Darboe, with prospective successors often choosing deference over ambition—either out of respect or political caution.
This ambiguity fosters uncertainty. Without clarity on how or when leadership transition will occur, the party remains vulnerable to external shocks, internal disillusionment, and generational drift. The absence of open internal debate and leadership grooming sends a signal to voters, particularly younger ones that the party is out of step with modern democratic norms.
Electoral risks in a changing Gambia
The demographic and political landscape of The Gambia is changing. The median age is under 20. Youth unemployment, digital literacy, and urbanisation are reshaping the priorities of the electorate. While the UDP retains strong support in rural regions and among older demographics, it is increasingly seen by some as a party rooted in the past rather than one ready to define the future.
The UDP’s inability, or unwillingness to spot its next presidential candidate risks alienating key voter blocs. In an era of coalition politics, youth-driven movements, and online mobilisation, a party that fails to innovate or reflect generational change may find its historical relevance gradually eclipsed by newer, more agile political actors.
A defining choice
The UDP now stands at a historic crossroads. The path forward must be guided not only by loyalty to legacy but also by a commitment to institutional reform and democratic deepening. To remain a credible national force, the party must:
 Codify transparent leadership transition mechanisms and timelines.
 Elevate younger leaders into national prominence through meritocratic structures.
 Rearticulate its vision, shifting from its anti-Jammeh past toward a bold future-facing national agenda.
 Balance continuity with renewal, ensuring the Darboe legacy strengthens, rather than overshadows, future leadership.
If managed wisely, succession can be a moment of rebirth and unity. Mishandled, it could lead to internal fragmentation, reputational erosion, and electoral decline.
Conclusion
The succession struggles within the UDP are real, but they are abstract, playing out in symbols rather than statements, in deference rather than debate. Yet their impact is potentially historic. As The Gambia deepens its democratic experiment, the UDP must evolve from a party of resistance to one of renewal. Its ability to navigate this transformation will not only define its own survival but may also shape the country’s political trajectory for years to come.
The author is an independent consultant and former Secretary, Political Research and Strategy, National People’s Party, (NPP).
