By Kebba Nanko
Coalition politics has become an important feature of democratic governance, particularly in societies where political parties seek to unite around a common national objective. Coalitions are often necessary to build consensus, broaden political participation, and offer voters a united alternative. However, the success of any coalition depends not only on its electoral strength but also on its transparency, credibility, and accountability to the electorate.
In my view, there are two distinct models through which political parties can build a coalition.
The first is the party-led coalition model, where political parties openly negotiate, agree on a common programme, and collectively nominate a presidential candidate from among themselves. Under this arrangement, every participating party publicly assumes responsibility for the coalition, its policies, and its leadership. Voters know exactly which parties are asking for their mandate, making the arrangement transparent, honest, and politically accountable.
The second is the independent-led coalition model, where political parties decide to support an independent presidential candidate. This model can also be credible, but only where the candidate is genuinely independent—someone with no previous political affiliation to any of the participating parties. In such circumstances, both the legal status and the public perception of the candidate reinforce the claim of independence.
The challenge arises when political parties negotiate among themselves, select one of their own leaders as the coalition’s presidential candidate, and then require that individual to resign from his or her political party in order to contest as an independent. While such a step may satisfy a legal requirement, it does not necessarily convince the public that the candidate has become politically independent overnight. Political identity is built over years of association, and public perception cannot simply be erased by a resignation letter.
The experience of the 2016 coalition demonstrates the practical challenge of this model. Although President Adama Barrow resigned from the UDP before contesting as an independent candidate, many Gambians continued to associate him with the UDP throughout his presidency. Whether that perception was justified is a matter of individual opinion. However, it illustrates an important political reality: public perception does not change simply because a candidate changes their legal status. Political identity is built over years of association, and voters often continue to view a candidate through that history.
Supporters of the independent-led coalition model may argue that presenting the presidential candidate as an independent helps reassure coalition partners that no single political party dominates the alliance. That concern is understandable, particularly in broad-based coalitions where trust among partners is essential. However, if the candidate is already a leader or senior member of one of the participating parties, requiring that individual to resign changes the legal form of the arrangement without necessarily changing its political substance or the way it is perceived by the electorate. In such circumstances, the distinction between legal independence and political independence becomes increasingly difficult to sustain in the eyes of the public.
This raises an important constitutional and political question. If coalition parties have already negotiated among themselves and agreed that one of their own leaders should become the coalition’s presidential candidate, what is achieved by requiring that individual to resign from his or her party in order to contest as an independent? In my view, this requirement creates a conceptual inconsistency. The candidate’s political mandate still originates from the coalition parties that selected him or her. The resignation changes the legal label, but it does not necessarily change the political reality or public perception.
Conversely, if political parties genuinely wish to pursue an independent-led coalition model, they should rally behind a politically neutral individual who has never belonged to any of the participating parties. Such a candidate would more naturally embody the principles of independence, inspire broader public confidence, and reduce perceptions that the presidency is aligned with the interests of a particular political party.
Our political history also offers an instructive lesson. The alliance between the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), the Democratic Congress Alliance (DCA), the Muslim Congress under Jahumpa, and the Gambia Democratic Party under Rev. JC Faye was built on openness and cooperation among political parties. Rather than concealing political identities, the participating parties openly united behind a common national purpose. Their alliance successfully defeated the incumbent United Party led by Pierre Sarr Njie and laid the foundation for the PPP government that subsequently led The Gambia to independence.
The strength of that alliance was not merely that it achieved electoral success, but that it did so through political openness. Each participating party retained its political identity while openly committing to a shared national objective. There was no attempt to redefine a party leader as an independent candidate or to create uncertainty about where the coalition’s leadership originated. The electorate understood which parties constituted the alliance, who was leading it, and where political responsibility rested. That transparency strengthened the alliance’s legitimacy and helped build the public confidence necessary to govern effectively after victory.
As a matter of personal opinion, that historical experience reinforces my conviction that the party-led coalition model remains the more transparent, coherent, and democratically accountable approach whenever the coalition’s presidential candidate emerges from within the participating political parties. It aligns legal form with political reality, provides greater clarity to the electorate, and ensures that coalition partners collectively own both the campaign and the responsibility of governing.
Democracy is strongest when political arrangements are transparent. If a candidate is chosen through negotiations among political parties, then that political reality should be openly acknowledged before the electorate. If, however, the intention is to present an independent candidate, then that individual should be genuinely independent from the outset—not only in law but also in political identity and public perception.
For these reasons, I believe the party-led coalition model is the more principled approach whenever the presidential candidate emerges from within the participating political parties. It is honest about where political authority comes from, transparent about who is seeking the people’s mandate, and respectful of the electorate’s ability to make informed choices.