By Muhammed Jallow
Politics in The Gambia has increasingly assumed the character of a relentless game of political ping pong where ideas, accusations, promises and counter promises are struck back and forth across the national table with speed spectacle and sometimes startling irony.
What was once a restrained engagement of ideology and policy has evolved into an arena of constant motion where political leaders and party advocates volley narratives with theatrical precision often prioritising applause over substance and momentum over memory. In this exchange the Gambian people stand not as passive spectators but as the table itself bearing the weight of every strike absorbing the vibrations of rhetoric hope disappointment and renewed expectation.
The political ping pong of The Gambia did not begin in the present moment. Its roots are deeply embedded in the country’s post independence history where power was first exchanged through constitutional idealism and later seized through force only to be reclaimed again through popular will. The First Republic under Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara was marked by decorum and institutional respect yet even then political contestation was alive through parliamentary debates regional loyalties and ideological disagreements. However the game was slower then with longer rallies and fewer reckless shots. The irony is that the calmness of that era became its vulnerability as complacency created the space for abrupt disruption.
The coup of nineteen ninety-Two marked the most dramatic smash in Gambian political history. Overnight the ball was ripped from the table and the rules were rewritten. What followed under Yahya Jammeh was a prolonged match played on uneven ground where power spoke louder than principle and fear replaced persuasion. Political ping pong during that period was largely one sided. Opposition voices were returned not with counter arguments but with intimidation exile or silence. The irony of that era lies in the language of patriotism and development that was loudly proclaimed while the democratic spirit was quietly suffocated. The ball moved but the people were rarely allowed to serve.
Yet history has a sense of theatrical symmetry. The events of two thousand sixteen and the subsequent transition stand as one of the most classical ironies in African political history. A leader who rose through a coup was removed through the ballot. A system that once dismissed elections as ceremonial was undone by their very legitimacy. The coalition politics that emerged then represented a rare moment of unity where ideologically diverse actors agreed to suspend ego for national redemption. It was a rally that inspired hope across Africa. However even in that triumphant exchange the seeds of future political ping pong were sown.
Coalition politics quickly transformed into coalition contradictions. Promises made with clarity began to blur under the pressure of incumbency. The celebrated three year transition pledge became the most symbolic ball in Gambian political discourse struck endlessly between camps. One side defended continuity in the name of stability while the other accused betrayal in the name of principle. The irony was unmistakable. Leaders who once demanded strict adherence to term limits found creative interpretations of constitutional silence while former allies became vocal critics armed with the very moral arguments they once jointly advanced.
Political parties in The Gambia have increasingly embraced personality over philosophy. This has intensified the ping pong effect as political debate revolves around individuals rather than ideas. Party advocates often mirror the tone of their leaders amplifying praise and weaponising insults. Social media has accelerated this phenomenon turning every statement into a rally and every misstep into a viral spectacle. Classical political discourse which once relied on reasoned persuasion has been replaced by rapid exchanges of slogans accusations and emotional appeals. The ball barely touches the table before it is hurled back with greater force.
One cannot examine Gambian political ping pong without acknowledging the recurring irony of defection. Politicians cross party lines with remarkable ease often justifying the move as a response to national interest or ideological awakening. Yet these same actors are quick to condemn similar moves by others as opportunistic or immoral. The classical irony here is that loyalty is demanded but rarely practiced. Parties become temporary shelters rather than ideological homes and the electorate is left to decipher shifting allegiances that rarely align with policy consistency.
The National Assembly has also become a central stage for this political sport. Debates that should illuminate policy often descend into performative exchanges where members speak more to cameras than to constituents. Moments of genuine legislative courage such as rejecting executive overreach or demanding accountability are often followed by periods of conspicuous silence. The irony lies in the contrast between fiery campaign rhetoric and cautious parliamentary conduct. The ball moves swiftly during elections but slows significantly when governance demands endurance.
Civil society and the media have attempted to act as referees in this game yet they too are sometimes drawn into the rally. Advocacy groups are praised as patriotic when aligned with certain positions and condemned as biased when critical. Journalists are celebrated as fearless one day and vilified the next depending on whose narrative they amplify. The irony here is that freedom of expression is universally championed in principle yet selectively tolerated in practice. The ball of truth is welcomed only when it lands favorably.
Regional and ethnic undertones have further complicated the political exchange. While The Gambia has largely avoided overt ethnic polarisation subtle appeals continue to surface especially during tense political moments. Leaders preach unity while their supporters whisper division. The classical tragedy in this is that The Gambia’s greatest strength its social cohesion risks being used as a tactical tool rather than a foundational value. Political ping pong becomes dangerous when identity is used as spin.
Youth engagement adds another layer of irony. Young people are hailed as the future and courted aggressively during campaigns. Their energy is instrumentalised through music slogans and digital activism. Yet once elections conclude youth voices are often marginalised in decision making spaces. The same leaders who danced with them on platforms later lecture them on patience. The ball of empowerment is served passionately but returned with hesitation.
Perhaps the most striking feature of Gambian political ping pong is the persistence of hope despite repeated disappointments. The electorate continues to listen engage and participate even when promises are recycled and timelines extended. This resilience is both admirable and tragic. It reflects a deep belief in democratic possibility yet it also exposes the people to perpetual emotional investment. The irony is that the people remain the most consistent players while leaders rotate positions and narratives.
Historical moments continue to echo in contemporary exchanges. When calls for constitutional reform resurface they invoke the memories of past struggles. When security sector reform is debated the shadows of the old order reappear. When economic hardship intensifies leaders trade blame between global conditions and inherited challenges. Each reference is a return shot drawing from history to justify the present. The classical irony is that lessons loudly cited are often quietly ignored.
The international community too becomes part of the rally. External praise and criticism are selectively embraced depending on convenience. Reports are quoted when favorable and dismissed as interference when not. Sovereignty is defended passionately even as foreign validation is sought. The ball of legitimacy travels across borders and returns with conditions.
Yet amid all this motion there remains an opportunity. Political ping pong need not be destructive. In its ideal form it can sharpen ideas test policies and refine leadership. Healthy contestation is the lifeblood of democracy. The tragedy lies not in disagreement but in the absence of sincerity. When leaders engage not to score points but to solve problems the game transforms into a collective exercise of nation building.
For this to happen political leaders must reclaim the moral discipline of leadership. Party advocates must temper loyalty with truth. Institutions must assert independence with courage. The media must persist in balanced scrutiny. Citizens must demand substance over spectacle. Only then can the ball move with purpose rather than chaos.
The Gambian story remains unfinished. It is a narrative still being written through every speech debate protest and vote. The political ping pong continues but the outcome is not predetermined. History has shown that Gambians possess the capacity to surprise the world with peaceful change and moral clarity. The irony would be to forget that power ultimately returns to the people who have always been more than a table for others to play upon.
In the end the question is not who wins the next rally but whether the game itself evolves. Will politics in The Gambia mature into a disciplined exchange of ideas anchored in service or remain a perpetual performance of accusation and applause. The answer lies not only with leaders and parties but with a citizenry that has already demonstrated its ability to change the rules when the game becomes unjust.
