By Melville Robertson Roberts Esq
In politics, emotion often runs ahead of fact, and narratives travel faster than truth. The recent claims that Talib’s political aspirations amounted to an “internal coup” within the United Democratic Party (UDP) reflect less a sober reading of events and more a symptom of how easily ambition can be misunderstood when loyalty is defined too narrowly.
Let us begin from first principles: democracy is built on renewal, not reverence.
It thrives when new voices rise, when ideas are tested, and when leadership is earned through persuasion rather than preserved through fear. Every political organisation, no matter how venerable, must make space for the next generation to express vision and ambition. To seek office within one’s party is not rebellion; it is participation in the democratic process.
Talib’s critics have painted his actions as a plot, a “coup”, an attempt to unseat a respected leader, Ousainu Darboe. But to equate political aspiration with treachery is to misunderstand both Darboe’s legacy and the democratic spirit he himself fought for. Darboe’s long years of sacrifice were not meant to fossilize the UDP into a shrine to his person; they were meant to enshrine values, freedom, choice, and constitutionalism, as the beating heart of Gambian democracy.
If Darboe stood for anything, it was for the right of every Gambian, young or old, famous or unknown, to aspire. To suggest that one must first seek permission to dream of leadership is to betray that very creed.
The “Unite Movement” that Talib inspired was not a mutiny; it was a conversation , perhaps imperfect, perhaps ambitious, but fundamentally legitimate. It reflected the yearning of a younger political class to have its voice heard, to imagine a UDP that is both faithful to its roots and responsive to its future. There is nothing dishonourable in that. Every great political movement must face its moment of generational tension. The ANC did. The Labour Party did. The Democrats and Conservatives have. Renewal is the price of relevance.
To label internal debate as treachery is to create a culture of fear rather than a culture of growth. It is to say to the youth: “Your passion is dangerous.” And when that happens, parties stagnate, innovation dies, and loyalty turns into idolatry.
Ousainu Darboe remains, rightly, a towering figure, the conscience of the UDP and the embodiment of perseverance. But even he would recognize that leadership succession is not betrayal; it is legacy. A true leader’s greatness lies not in preventing others from rising, but in preparing others to lead.
Talib did not “plot” against the UDP; he participated in its evolution. He brought energy, digital engagement, and a fresh vocabulary to the party’s public life. His only “crime” was daring to dream aloud in a space that was not yet ready to listen. That is not the story of a traitor. That is the story of a reformer misunderstood.
Chairman Yanks Darboe, whose loyalty to the party is unquestionable, must also be seen in context, not as an antagonist, but as a guardian of stability in a time of noise. His defence of Darboe Sr. reflects love for the movement. Talib’s ambitions, meanwhile, reflect love for its future. These two forces are not enemies; they are necessary opposites, the stabilizer and the spark.
The UDP will not grow by silencing ambition. It will grow by learning to channel it and by creating an orderly, transparent, and fair mechanism for leadership transition that allows both respect for the past and room for the new.
In the end, there was no coup, only a contest of visions and that contest, far from being dangerous, is the clearest proof that the UDP remains alive, dynamic, and self-aware.
History will remember that this was not a war of betrayal, but a test of maturity. Whether the party chooses to demonize ambition or to embrace it will determine whether it remains a movement of continuity or becomes a monument to nostalgia.
Let us, therefore, call things by their right names.
A coup is the seizure of power by force.
An aspiration is the exercise of hope by choice.
Talib’s actions belong firmly in the latter.
The rest is political theatre, passionate, yes, but not profound.
