UDP, coalition politics, and the need for consistency

By Kebba Nanko

The ongoing coalition debate offers an important lesson for all political stakeholders, but particularly for the United Democratic Party (UDP). If a political party is unwilling to change or compromise its position, then it should not engage in coalition talks in the first place.

Coalition politics is built on negotiation and compromise. The moment a party agrees to participate in coalition discussions, it creates the public perception that it is prepared to make certain concessions for the greater objective of building a united political front. By taking part in such discussions, the UDP naturally gives the impression that it is willing to adjust its position if necessary.

If that is not the case, then there is little justification for engaging in a process that is designed to find common ground among different political parties.

This is the reason why there has been so much back and forth over the past six months. The process that was intended to unite the opposition is now facing difficulties because the UDP appears unwilling to shift its position. If that was always the party’s position, then it would have been more honest and politically consistent not to participate in the process at all.

The UDP had another option. As the party with the largest electoral support within the opposition, it could have established its own negotiation team and engaged directly with other political parties. It could have presented its own coalition framework, outlining what it was willing to offer potential partners and what role those partners could play in a future government.

Instead of surrendering the process to independent bodies or mediators, only to reject the outcomes when they did not align with its position, the party could have managed its own coalition engagement from the beginning. Had that approach been taken, much of the current debate and uncertainty could have been avoided.

The fundamental question is simple: if you are not prepared to compromise on your majority, why engage in a process whose very purpose is to balance that majority with the interests of other stakeholders?

In that context, the justification for figures such as Talib Bensouda’s departure from the UDP is often linked to arguments about electability and strategic direction, including claims that leadership under Ousainu Darboe may not be electorally competitive. Whether one agrees or not, it raises a deeper question: why invest time and political capital in negotiation rooms if the underlying assumptions about leadership, viability, or compromise are already fixed?

Coalition politics is based on the belief that no single opposition party can guarantee victory on its own. It is intended to increase electability by bringing together different political forces under a common objective. While it is natural that the party with the largest support base would expect to play a leading role, that leadership also comes with the responsibility to accommodate the interests of other partners.

Compromise does not necessarily mean surrendering leadership. It can involve agreements on policy direction, parliamentary elections, local government elections, governance reforms, and fair power-sharing arrangements. Since only one person can become President, coalition negotiations can also focus on creating opportunities for all participating parties to contribute meaningfully to national governance.

An important lesson can also be drawn from Uncle OJ’s statement that “The PPP supported the UDP candidate in 2016 because if they did not win the convention, they would walk out of the coalition, and we would still have Yahya Jammeh because of their majority.”

Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it reflects a political reality. The 2016 coalition was shaped by electoral mathematics and strategic considerations. Difficult decisions were made because the overriding objective was to achieve political change.

That lesson remains relevant today. Politics is not simply about emotion or party loyalty. It is about logic, strategy, negotiation, and the ability to place national interest above partisan calculations.

If the UDP believes that its electoral majority should not be compromised, then it should pursue its own coalition strategy and negotiate directly with parties that are willing to work under its framework. However, if it chooses to participate in a broader coalition process, it should do so with a genuine willingness to engage with the agreed rules and procedures.

Big or small, all political parties should put the country first. At a time when many believe that a united opposition offers the strongest chance of electoral success, consistency and honesty are essential. A party should not create the perception that it is open to compromise only to reject the very purpose of the process when difficult decisions arise.

The central lesson is clear: if a party is not prepared to compromise, it should not enter a process that is built on compromise. Political credibility is strengthened when actions match public commitments, and coalition politics can only succeed when all participants engage in good faith and with a shared commitment to the national interest.