By Melville Robertson Roberts Esq
Politics has a way of forcing uncomfortable honesty. There are moments when wishful thinking must step aside and reality must be confronted without fear or flattery. The Gambia is approaching such a moment. If the time comes when only a truly viable opposition coalition can remove the incumbent from power, then it would be an act of clear dishonesty to suggest that such a coalition can succeed without the leadership of the United Democratic Party.
This is not a claim rooted in pride or entitlement. It is a conclusion drawn from history, endurance, and political fact.
For decades, the UDP has carried the heaviest weight of opposition politics in this country. At a time when dissent came with real consequences, when harassment, imprisonment, and economic persecution were routine tools of state power, the UDP stood its ground. Its leaders were jailed, its supporters intimidated, and its progress deliberately obstructed. Yet the party survived, organised, and expanded, building national structures patiently and persistently when resistance offered no rewards other than principle.
That record cannot be wished away or rewritten to suit present ambition. To demand that the UDP should surrender leadership of a coalition or submit to a convention designed to dilute its historical investment is not democratic fairness. It is political opportunism dressed in the language of equity. Anyone, regardless of position or public standing, who refuses to acknowledge this reality is not being sincere. They are being selfish and power hungry.
However, honesty must also be demanded of the UDP itself. Leadership carries responsibility, not only to history but to the present moment. The political landscape has changed. New actors have emerged, and new ambitions have taken shape. In a democratic society, individuals retain the right to chart their own political paths. That right cannot be selectively defended.
Mayor Talib Bensouda’s political ambition should therefore be understood as part of this evolving reality. It is not an act of betrayal, nor should it be framed as perpetual hostility. To permanently cast such ambition as an enemy of the UDP would contradict the democratic ideals the party has long claimed to defend. Political growth produces competition, not treason.
The UDP must be capable of engaging difference without fear. Coalition politics is not built on domination but on negotiated purpose and mutual respect. Refusing dialogue or insisting on rigid control would only project an image of intolerance. Worse still, it would suggest a willingness to preserve the status quo rather than make the compromises necessary to dismantle it. That outcome would serve no one.
It must also be stated plainly that many newly formed political parties are unlikely to survive beyond the next election cycle. Experience shows that some are driven less by ideology and more by calculation. Investments are made in anticipation of future appointments, with the quiet expectation that access to power will allow those investments to be recovered. Corruption then becomes not an accident but a strategy.
This is precisely why the UDP’s long struggle, institutional depth, and moral credibility remain essential.
The way forward lies neither in denial nor in inflexibility. It lies in honest coalition building rooted in reality. The UDP must lead, because history and structure demand it. At the same time, it must lead with maturity, recognising legitimate ambition and embracing cooperation rather than hostility.
Anything less would reduce politics to performance, and The Gambia has outgrown performance. What the country needs now is courage. Courage to acknowledge who has borne the struggle for the longest time, and courage to accept that unity does not require uniformity. Only then can a coalition become more than numbers and truly serve as an instrument of change.
PS: The substantive reasoning of my article is premised on a situation where only a coalition can unseat the incumbent.
