As opposition parties intensify efforts to build a united front ahead of The Gambia's 2026 presidential election, a growing debate has emerged over whether a new coalition can succeed without the political framework and discipline that many associate with veteran politician Halifa Sallah.
The discussion has been fuelled by ongoing consultations involving opposition parties, the Coalition Taskforce Mediation Committee (CTMC), APEX and the Coalition for System Change, as political actors seek agreement on a common strategy and a possible joint presidential candidate.
Supporters of a broad opposition alliance have repeatedly pointed to the success of the 2016 coalition, which united political parties behind a single candidate and ended the 22-year rule of former president Yahya Jammeh. However, disagreements over leadership, candidate selection and political trust for the 2026 presidential elections have once again exposed divisions that have long characterised opposition politics.
Veteran journalist Alagi Yorro Jallow provided a political commentary on the matter. He argued that the current process has become as much about repairing fractured political relationships as it is about building an electoral alliance.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
"What is unfolding under APEX, the Coalition Taskforce Mediation Committee (CTMC), and the Coalition for System Change is not merely coalition building; it is political therapy," Jallow wrote.
"It is the slow, careful massaging of bruised egos, estranged political families, and unspoken hierarchies. It is a choreography of reconciliation masquerading as strategy."
According to Jallow, the current negotiations have highlighted what he describes as an ongoing political realignment among opposition figures who previously broke away from the United Democratic Party (UDP).
"At the centre of this choreography is a quiet but unmistakable gravitational pull: the godsons drifting back toward the godfather they once renounced," he wrote.
"They have not declared their return. They have not pledged allegiance. They have not made any formal commitment. But the signs are there, visible in posture, tone, proximity, and the architecture of the coalition-building process itself."
He added, "This is not a reunion. It is a realignment in slow motion."
The debate comes at a politically sensitive moment as opposition groups attempt to avoid the fragmentation that has affected previous electoral cycles.
The CTMC recently announced that it had formally opened nominations for a joint opposition flagbearer following its seventh strategic session held at the Baobab Hotel.
According to Jallow, the committee produced "a 25-point reform agenda, a governance framework, and eligibility criteria based on competence, integrity, and national acceptability."
The move has been welcomed by some opposition supporters as evidence of progress towards a united ticket. Others, however, have questioned whether the process can overcome long-standing disputes over who should lead a coalition.
Professor Yerro Mballow, who has been involved in coalition discussions, said opposition unity remained essential.
"The only solution to all the problems of The Gambia is the unity of the opposition," Mballow said.
Jallow acknowledged the appeal of that argument but suggested that achieving unity requires more than political declarations.
"Unity isn't just a slogan; it's a discipline," he wrote. "And that's precisely what the opposition lacks."
The issue of leadership has become particularly contentious because of the continuing debate surrounding UDP leader Ousainou Darboe and former UDP members who have since established their own political platforms.
"When Talib Bensouda and his colleagues left the UDP, they claimed Ousainou Darboe wasn't a winnable candidate and shouldn't lead any future coalition," Jallow wrote.
"Now, that stance is gaining even more traction."
He noted that other political figures, including MC Cham Jr, have publicly supported the argument that coalition leadership should not be determined solely by the numerical strength of political parties.
"Their point is clear: coalition leadership shouldn't be decided by electoral numbers alone," he wrote.
The debate has raised broader questions about the criteria that should determine who leads a coalition.
"If numbers do not matter, then what does?" Jallow asked.
"If party strength is irrelevant, then what is the basis for selecting a flag bearer? If competence and integrity are the new criteria, who decides what competence looks like and whose integrity counts?"
While advocates of coalition politics have called for compromise, resistance remains visible within sections of the opposition.
According to Jallow, some UDP supporters have already signalled that they would reject any process resulting in Talib Bensouda becoming a coalition candidate.
"UDP supporters have drawn their own red line: they will not accept Talib Bensouda as a coalition flagbearer under any circumstances," he wrote.
"The godsons may be drifting back toward the godfather, but the godfather's household is not prepared to hand them the keys."
The disagreements have prompted concerns that coalition negotiations could produce further fragmentation rather than unity.
"The CTMC has opened nominations, but it has also opened a wound," Jallow wrote.
"The opposition now stands at a crossroads where every path leads to fragmentation."
He added: "If Darboe is nominated, Talib's camp will revolt. If Talib is nominated, the UDP base will reject the process outright. If a third figure emerges, both camps may walk away."
Such concerns have revived memories of previous coalition efforts that ultimately failed to maintain unity.
Much of the current debate has centred on comparisons with the National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD), which was formed ahead of the 2006 presidential election.
Jallow described NADD as one of the most ambitious political experiments in modern Gambian history.
"It was not a handshake agreement. It was not a gentleman's pact. It was a legally registered political institution -- a unified ticket, a shared platform, a constitutional framework," he wrote.
According to Jallow, NADD's architects sought to create a durable political structure capable of governing rather than merely contesting elections.
"Halifa Sallah, Sidia Jatta, and PDOIS were its principal engineers," he wrote.
"They insisted on rules, discipline, and ideological clarity. They believed a coalition must be more than a temporary alliance; it must be a governing institution."
Despite those ambitions, NADD ultimately collapsed amid internal disagreements.
"NADD collapsed -- not because of ideology, but because of ambition," Jallow wrote.
"Not because of policy, but because of mistrust. Not because of the structure, but because some actors refused to subordinate their personal aspirations to collective strategy."
He argued that many of the tensions that undermined NADD continue to influence coalition politics today.
"The seeds of fragmentation that destroyed NADD are the same seeds sprouting today under APEX and CTMC," he wrote.
"The lesson was clear then, and it is clear now: a coalition without discipline is a coalition destined to fail."
The debate has also renewed focus on the coalition that defeated Yahya Jammeh in the 2016 election.
For many Gambians, the election remains the benchmark against which all coalition efforts are measured.
Jallow argued that while the victory itself remains widely celebrated, the organisational work behind it is often overlooked.
"When the 2016 coalition succeeded, many celebrated the victory but ignored the architecture behind it," he wrote.
"Halifa Sallah's role was not ceremonial. He was the moral and intellectual anchor of the process."
According to Jallow, Sallah played a central role in shaping the principles that governed the coalition.
"He insisted on a single candidate. He insisted on a transition framework. He insisted on a coalition agreement that would prevent the abuse of power."
Jallow argued that the coalition's success was not simply the result of opposition parties agreeing to work together.
"The coalition succeeded not because the parties suddenly became ideological, but because the stakes were existential," he wrote.
"Jammeh's rule had exhausted the nation. The opposition had no choice but to unite."
He added: "Halifa's disciplined approach provided the structure that enabled unity."
The article contends that current coalition efforts have embraced the symbolism of 2016 while neglecting some of the principles associated with it.
"Today, the political class remembers the euphoria but forgets the discipline," Jallow wrote.
"They invoke 2016 but abandon the principles that made 2016 possible."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Beyond coalition negotiations, the debate has raised broader questions about the nature of party politics in The Gambia.
Jallow argued that political loyalties often revolve around personalities rather than institutions.
"In The Gambia, political parties are not built on ideology; they are built on personalities," he wrote.
"Leaders do not emerge from institutions; institutions emerge from leaders."
He added that this political culture has shaped how voters and politicians view party defections and alliances.
"This creates a political culture where loyalty is personal, not ideological; where dissent is treated as betrayal; and where leaving a party is not a political act but a family rupture."
Referring again to former UDP members now participating in coalition discussions, Jallow wrote: "They left the UDP under the banner of principle, claiming to reject the godfather's authority."
"They spoke of new visions, new movements, new political cultures."
"But today, under APEX's coordination, they find themselves back in the same political orbit, negotiating, aligning, and harmonizing with the very structure they once denounced."
As coalition discussions continue, Jallow suggested that voters are likely to judge political actors based on consistency as well as promises of unity.
"Gambian voters are not naïve," he wrote.
"They understand the difference between unity and convenience. They can distinguish between coalitions built on principle and coalitions built on survival."
He added that many voters are asking difficult questions about shifting political alliances.
"They ask themselves: If the split was principled, why is the reunion strategic? If the departure was ideological, why is the return emotional? If the break was moral, why is the reconciliation political?"
According to Jallow, such questions are likely to influence public perceptions as parties move closer to the election campaign.
The coalition talks remain ongoing, with opposition leaders continuing consultations over a possible joint candidate and common platform. Whether those discussions produce a single alliance or multiple competing opposition blocs remains one of the central political questions ahead of the 2026 presidential election.
