Gambian opposition efforts to form a unified front for the 2026 elections have resulted in multiple frameworks emerging, complicating the long-standing call for political convergence. This proliferation of approaches shows the deep-seated challenges in forging a cohesive opposition strategy. Coalition 2026 has selected Talib Ahmed Bensouda as its flagbearer, signaling a clear direction for one segment of the opposition. Concurrently, the United Democratic Party (UDP) and its partners have now formalised a separate political framework through the Gambia First Coalition, further diversifying the landscape. Meanwhile, the People's Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS) is participating in the Team Gambia process, which continues to advocate for wider political convergence, emphasizing a more inclusive approach. Calls for opposition unity have become almost ritualistic in Gambian politics, with observers noting the immediate objective should be one credible negotiating framework where no participant is required to concede defeat merely by entering discussions. These developments highlight the fragmented nature of the current opposition landscape, where various groups pursue distinct paths rather than a unified front. The lack of a single, universally accepted platform for dialogue and collaboration remains a significant hurdle.
The Pitfalls of Current Approaches
Unity cannot begin by demanding surrender, according to Dr Lamin K Janneh. He states that the sentiment often treats unity principally as a moral problem, when the obstacles are also institutional and strategic. This perspective suggests that simply appealing to a moral imperative for unity overlooks the practical and structural impediments that political parties face. Dr Janneh emphasizes that no existing political formation should be required to dissolve itself, abandon its candidate, or surrender its political position merely to enter negotiations. Such preconditions, he argues, inherently undermine the possibility of genuine dialogue and cooperation. He further asserts that participation in dialogue should not constitute concession, as this creates an immediate power imbalance and disincentivizes engagement from stronger parties. For any convergence process to be successful, it must respect the autonomy and legitimacy of all participating entities from the outset.
The immediate objective should not necessarily be one candidate, Dr Janneh advises, but rather one negotiating framework. If negotiations begin with the presidency, every major organization will naturally protect its candidate, bargaining position, and political investment. This approach inevitably leads to deadlock, as each entity prioritizes its own leadership aspirations over the collective good. Dr Janneh maintains that political parties should enter negotiations with equal political dignity, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected. He states that compromise must be reciprocal and politically dignified, fostering an environment where parties feel valued and are willing to make concessions. Without this foundational respect, any attempts at unity are likely to crumble under the weight of individual ambition and mistrust.
The first stage of a convergence process should not begin by reopening the presidential contest, which is often a source of contention. Instead, it should establish whether sufficient common ground exists to justify deeper convergence, focusing on shared principles and objectives. The second stage, Dr Janneh suggests, should identify minimum national commitments. These commitments would serve as a foundational agreement on key policy areas and governance principles that all participating parties could endorse, regardless of their individual platforms. By building consensus on these fundamental issues first, the process can create a strong framework for future cooperation. This strategic sequencing ensures that the focus remains on substantive agreement before delving into the more contentious issue of leadership.
Designing a Legitimate Negotiating Framework
The immediate challenge for Gambian opposition groups is to establish a singular negotiating framework. This framework would allow existing political formations to determine whether meaningful convergence remains possible, providing a structured environment for dialogue. Dr Lamin K Janneh stated that "Where personal trust is weak, agreed rules must carry more of the political burden." This notes the necessity of institutionalizing the process, rather than relying solely on individual goodwill or relationships. Reconciliation, in this context, implies establishing sufficient political accommodation for competing organizations to collaborate where their interests and national objectives align. It is not about erasing differences but finding common ground for collective action.
If negotiations prioritize the rules governing cooperation, the leadership question would then integrate into a broader political settlement. This approach shifts the focus from who leads to how leadership will function within an agreed-upon system. The proposed logic suggests reversing the typical approach: Design the political settlement first, then determine who can legitimately lead within it. This ensures that the leadership role is defined by the needs of the collective framework rather than pre-existing individual ambitions. Team Gambia's most consequential role would not be to produce another competing presidential candidate, but to help initiate a structured convergence process in which existing political formations participate without first dissolving themselves. This would allow for a more inclusive and less demanding entry point for all parties.
The third stage of this process should determine rules governing political cooperation, representation, candidate selection, accountability and post-election governance. These rules are key for building a durable and equitable alliance, addressing potential points of conflict before they arise. Only if sufficient agreement emerges should the formations determine whether a common leadership arrangement is both necessary and possible. This phased approach ensures that a strong institutional foundation is in place before the sensitive issue of leadership is tackled. The primary political objective is not to force immediate unification, but to prevent today’s fragmentation from becoming tomorrow’s political permanence. Dr Janneh affirmed that "Democratic cooperation requires political competitors to recognise one another as legitimate without requiring them to agree on everything." He further elaborated, "The immediate challenge is not to agree on one candidate. It is to agree on one political table, one legitimate negotiating process, and rules under which everyone can enter without first surrendering who they are." This shows the importance of a process that respects the identity and integrity of each political entity.
Learning from Past Coalitions
Coalition 2016 demonstrated that electoral unity can transfer political power, but without sufficiently institutionalising the governing settlement that follows, according to Dr Lamin K Janneh. This earlier coalition achieved its immediate objective of political change, yet its framework did not adequately address the subsequent governance, leading to internal challenges and a weakening of the initial unity. The experience of Coalition 2016 serves as a critical lesson that winning an election is only the first step; sustaining governance requires a well-defined and agreed-upon institutional structure. The lack of clear protocols for power-sharing, decision-making, and accountability post-election ultimately undermined its long-term stability and effectiveness.
Subsequently, Coalition 2026 demonstrated that even pre-election cooperation can become unsustainable where leadership, representation, political weight and governing expectations remain contested. This instability arises particularly when issues such as leadership, representation, political weight, and governing expectations remain contested among the participating entities. The challenges faced by Coalition 2026 highlight that mere agreement to cooperate is insufficient if the underlying mechanisms for managing power and expectations are not robustly established. Without clear guidelines on how these sensitive issues will be resolved, pre-election alliances are prone to internal strife and eventual collapse, jeopardizing their electoral prospects.
Dr Janneh stated that any new convergence process must learn from both Coalition 2016 and Coalition 2026. He emphasized that such a process must be capable not only of competing together effectively but also of governing together the morning after an election. This perspective suggests that future efforts at opposition unity in The Gambia require a more strong and forward-looking institutional design to ensure both electoral success and stable post-election governance. The lessons from these past experiences show the need for a full framework that addresses not just the immediate goal of winning power, but also the critical task of governing responsibly and coherently. A successful convergence strategy must therefore embed mechanisms for conflict resolution, equitable representation, and shared accountability from its very inception, ensuring that the unity forged before an election can endure and thrive in the complexities of post-election governance.