By Dr Lamin Keita
The United Democratic Party’s (UDP) 11 candidates vying for the position of presidential flag bearer presents both opportunities and a political smokescreen in African politics. This development has inspired considerable debate about the nature and quality of democracy within the UDP party. While the sheer number of candidates might suggest a vibrant democratic practice depicted by diversity and competition, a closer theoretical breakdown reveals that these candidacies and their selection procedures represent forms rather than the substantive degrees of democracy defined by political scientist Samuel Huntington. In essence, creating a space to challenge Ousanu Darboe is commendable and marks a significant moment in Gambian party politics. However, these openings of multiple aspirants do not necessarily equate to genuine democratic consolidation or meaningful political participation.
It is important to differentiate between procedural forms of democracy and substantive degrees of democracy, particularly in the context of the current UDP flag bearer selection. Forms of democracy relates to mechanisms, such as opening the space for the 11 candidates, including Lawyer Lamin J Darboe, Lawyer Borry Touray, Amadou Sanneh, as well as professionals from business and medicine. The variability of the backgrounds among these candidates may reflect the party’s aims for unity. Still, it also suggests a calculated move to restrain any potential candidate who may pose a threat to the incumbent party’s Secretary General. The forms may also include primary elections for candidacy declarations and voting processes that constitute democratic practice on paper. The situation can lead to major internal conflict and damage the party’s image because many candidates may be suspected of being sponsored through cooptation to neutralise opposition and maintain control, ultimately benefiting the one who hold the most power.
The degrees of democracy are the effectiveness of the UDP’s democratic credentials, which can be clearly evaluated by examining its dedication to key values, including accountability, transparency, inclusiveness, and unwavering respect for the fundamental rights of every candidate without fear or favour. The UDP’s current scenario exemplifies this distinction. At the same time, there is an apparent assortment of choices reflected in 11 candidates competing for leadership roles—a hallmark of procedural democracy. The underlying dynamics suggest limitations in achieving substantive democratic engagement with party supporters, who often fail to tolerate and accommodate all candidates as their own, instead adhering to a “us versus them” primordial and ideological theory that divides the people of the same party and country.
One alarming factor undermining substantive forms of democracy within UDP’s flag bearer race is the issue of internal party dynamics and power structures not clearly defined to immediately address indiscipline or to negotiate during the time of crisis. What is often presented in Gambian political parties with entrenched hierarchies or patronage networks, candidate selection has less to do with open competition based on merit or policy platforms and more about strategic positioning influenced by elite interests. This can lead to tokenistic candidacies where individuals run not necessarily to challenge prevailing norms but to fulfill figurative roles that maintain existing power balances. Thus, although several candidates are presented as evidence of choice and pluralism, this plurality may cloud an absence of genuine contestation and ideological diversity. In the Gambian party politics, we engage in superficial efforts to appear inclusive or supportive of disadvantaged groups, but we lack a genuine commitment to implementing lasting, structural changes. These actions are often disingenuous, intended to create an impression rather than achieving true equity.
Moreover, voters’ engagement within such intra-party competitions inclines to be superficial, especially when some members perceive that outcomes are predetermined or manipulated behind closed doors. It is imperative to question who chose the individuals from the diaspora and The Gambia to serve as the main agents responsible for selecting the party’s flagbearer. What conditions and criteria govern this selection process? Is there any selection bias involved, or are these representatives chosen randomly to avoid favouring a particular candidate? Ultimately, these questions need to be addressed in a transparent manner. The proliferation of candidates is a ‘split screen’ that creates confusion rather than clarity among party supporters because clear policy distinctions are lacking or as the flag bearer campaigns focus primarily on personality politics instead of issue-based debates among party supporters. This situation reduces voters’ preferences and abilities to make informed decisions and weakens democratic accountability mechanisms essential for healthy party politics.
UDP’s 11 presidential flagbearer candidates superficially embody democratic forms through their variety and electoral procedures, but may fall short in representing deeper degrees of democracy. For UDP—and indeed any political parties in The Gambia—to advance its democratic credentials beyond mere formality requires addressing structural barriers within its internal processes that hinder authentic competition and participation. Only then can such flag bearer competitions transcend symbolism to become true reflections of the degrees of democratic governance.
