In every electoral cycle, a familiar pattern emerges as general elections approach, opposition parties begin a hurried courtship, speaking the language of unity and coalition-building. To the untrained eye, this may appear as a noble convergence of minds for the national good. But a closer, more dispassionate governance-based analysis reveals a more troubling reality, one that raises serious questions about sincerity, preparedness, and ultimately, fitness to govern.
Coalitions, in principle, are not inherently flawed. Across mature democracies, they have served as instruments of inclusion, balance, and collective leadership. However, what distinguishes successful coalitions from fragile alliances is not merely the coming together of parties, but the purpose and process behind that union. Where coalitions are built over time, grounded in shared ideology, policy alignment, and a coherent national vision, they tend to endure. Where they are hastily assembled, driven by expediency and singular ambition, they often collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.
The recurring challenge in many emerging democracies is precisely this that opposition parties that remain fragmented, disengaged, and at times even hostile toward one another throughout an entire electoral term, only to attempt unity in the eleventh hour. This sudden shift is rarely underpinned by deep policy harmonisation or a clearly articulated development agenda. Instead, the unifying thread is often a single objective and that is the removal of the incumbent.
Yet, history provides a powerful counterexample that demonstrates what a purpose-driven coalition truly looks like. The 2016 presidential election stands as a defining moment of collective political maturity. The coalition formed at the time was not an arrangement of convenience, it was a convergence of conviction. It was anchored in a clear and urgent national objective which was to bring an end to authoritarian rule and to restore dignity, rights, and democratic governance. It was further strengthened and guided by a revered custodian of constitutionalism, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on constitutional governancewhose intellectual depth, experience, and unflinching commitment to the rule of law helped shape the coalition’s direction within the bounds of legality and democratic propriety. It is this very ingredient, principled constitutional guidance, clarity of purpose, and disciplined leadership, that, in my respectful view, is conspicuously lacking in many of the coalitions that are proposed today.
That coalition was purposeful because it was driven by the fundamental interests of the citizenry. It ushered in a new era marked by freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home and workplace. It reopened civic space, allowing citizens to express themselves without fear. It reinforced the principles of free movement of people, goods, and services which are key pillars of any functioning democracy and economy. More importantly, it restored hope. It signalled a new beginning, a new day in which governance would be more accountable, inclusive, and responsive.
This is what a coalition is meant to be and not merely a political arrangement, but a national instrument for transformation. It must be anchored in a good cause, driven by a shared vision, and committed to delivering tangible improvements in the lives of citizens. Anything short of these risks reducing coalitions to hollow alliances devoid of substance.
Such an approach is not only politically shallow, it is fundamentally misaligned with the principles of good governance. Governance is not about the transfer of power for its own sake. It is about stewardship, continuity, and the responsible management of a nation’s affairs. When coalitions are formed primarily as vehicles for political displacement, rather than platforms for national transformation, they risk becoming instruments of instability rather than progress.
A coalition without a clearly defined agenda signals a deeper institutional weakness. It suggests that the parties involved have not invested the necessary time to understand each other’s philosophies, reconcile policy differences, or develop a unified roadmap for governance. The electorate is therefore left with uncertainty and that is, if these parties cannot agree before assuming power, how will they govern effectively once entrusted with it?
This absence of a substantive agenda is particularly concerning in the context of pressing national challenges such as economic development, youth unemployment, education reform, healthcare delivery, and gender inclusion. These are not issues that can be addressed through rhetoric or reactive policymaking. They require deliberate planning, technical expertise, and sustained collaboration. A coalition that emerges without detailed strategies in these areas risks governing by improvisation, which is neither sustainable nor responsible.
As Nelson Mandela once observed, “It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory… You take the front line when there is danger.” Leadership, therefore, is not about the optics of unity, but the substance of responsibility. A coalition that is forged in haste may struggle to demonstrate either.
This critique finds resonance in the works of African intellectual giants such as Cheikh Anta Diop and Frantz Fanon. Diop consistently emphasised the need for African political systems to be anchored in long-term vision, institutional continuity, and cultural coherence rather than short-term political expediency. For Diop, true governance required intellectual preparation, historical awareness, and a deliberate commitment to nation-building beyond electoral cycles.
Similarly, Fanon warned against the dangers of post-colonial political movements that prioritise the capture of power over the transformation of society. In The Wretched of the Earth, he cautioned that without a clear program for economic and social development, political alliances risk degenerating into mere instruments of elite competition. His reflections remain strikingly relevant, a coalition that seeks power without purpose risks inheriting the machinery of the state without the capacity to use it for the public good.
The warnings of African political leaders further reinforce this reality. Ahmed Sékou Touré famously declared, “We prefer poverty in liberty to riches in slavery.” While spoken in a different context, the underlying principle remains relevant and that is political action must be grounded in conviction and purpose, not expediency. Coalitions formed without ideological clarity risk sacrificing long-term national interest for short-term political gain.
In the same vein, Kwame Nkrumah cautioned that “Those who would judge us merely by the heights we have achieved would do well to remember the depths from which we started.” His broader philosophy emphasised planning, unity of purpose, and disciplined governance. A coalition that emerges without a structured developmental agenda ignores this essential foundation for nation-building.
Equally compelling is the voice of Thomas Sankara, who asserted, “You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness.” Sankara’s message was not an endorsement of recklessness, but a call for bold, principled, and well-defined transformation. Crucially, such transformation must be anchored in clear policies and genuine commitment to the people, not in opportunistic alliances formed on the eve of elections.
Beyond the internal weaknesses of such alliances lies a broader societal concern and that is the narrative that positions government and opposition as adversaries in a zero-sum contest. This framing is not only misleading, it is dangerous. It undermines the very essence of democratic governance.
Government, in its truest sense, is not an abstract entity separate from the people. It is an extension of the collective will of the citizenry. To portray government as an “enemy” to be defeated rather than a system to be strengthened undermines public trust and promotes unnecessary division. Opposition, when functioning effectively, serves as a mechanism for accountability and alternative thinkingnot as a force of destruction.
Abraham Lincoln famously defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” This definition carries a profound implication that the responsibility for governance does not rest solely with those in office. It is shared by every citizen. To disengage, to become indifferent, or to reduce governance to periodic voting is to abdicate that responsibility.
This brings us to a structural concern that cannot be ignored. In our country, The Gambia, with a population of less than three million people and fewer than one million registered voters, the existence of over twenty registered political parties raises legitimate governance and institutional questions. While multi-party democracy remains an essential pillar of democratic governance, the excessive proliferation of political parties in such a small jurisdiction may reflect not necessarily ideological diversity, but rather fragmentation of political ambition.
This concern becomes even more pronounced when compared with Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria, a nation of over two hundred million people, which as of 2026 maintains approximately twenty-one registered political parties. The disparity between the two countries is difficult to ignore. It inevitably raises an important governance question, if a vastly larger and more complex federation such as Nigeria can function within a comparatively restrained political framework, what justifies the existence of such an expansive political terrain in a much smaller state like The Gambia?
The issue is not opposition, nor political participation because both are indispensable to democracy. Rather, the concern lies in whether this political proliferation is genuinely driven by ideology, policy alternatives, and national vision, or whether it increasingly reflects personal ambition, personality-driven politics, and fragmented interests. Political parties should emerge from coherent philosophies, clearly articulated development agendas, and long-term commitments to nation-building. Where these elements are absent, political parties risk becoming vehicles of convenience rather than institutions of governance.
In small democracies especially, excessive fragmentation can weaken national cohesion, complicate consensus-building, dilute policy clarity, and encourage unstable alliances formed primarily around electoral arithmetic rather than substantive governance objectives. Democracy is not strengthened merely by the quantity of political parties, but by the quality of leadership, the strength of institutions, the maturity of political engagement, and the ability of political actors to subordinate personal ambition to national interest.
It is precisely for this reason that coalitions must be formed for purpose, not convenience. Where political actors are genuinely committed to the advancement of the nation, consolidation around shared principles, national development priorities, and institutional stability becomes not a sign of weakness, but rather a reflection of political maturity and responsible leadership.
This brings us to a critical issue and that is the tendency among citizens, particularly the youth, to approach elections with apathy. Low voter turnout is not merely a statistic, it is a symptom of disengagement and, at times, disillusionment. Yet,the act of voting remains one of the most powerful tools of civic participation.
Choosing not to vote does not absolve one of the consequences of governance, it merely forfeits one’s influence over it. As John F. Kennedy reminded us, “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” Participation, therefore, is not optional, it is essential.
However, voting alone is not sufficient. Citizens must move beyond the expectation that government will address every individual concern. Governance is a shared enterprise. While governments are tasked with creating enabling environmentsthrough policy, infrastructure, and regulation, individuals must actively contribute to national development.
Economic growth, for instance, is not generated solely by government initiatives. It is driven by entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity at the individual and community levels. Social cohesion is not legislated into existence,it is cultivated through everyday interactions and mutual respect. Education is not confined to classrooms,it is reinforced by families and communities.
Aristotle captured this interdependence succinctly when he stated, “The state is a creation of nature, and man is by nature a political animal.” In other words, governance is not something that happens to us, it is something we actively shape through our actions and choices.
The danger of poorly conceived coalitions, therefore, extends beyond political instability. It risks perpetuating a culture of dependency, where citizens view governance as a spectacle rather than a shared responsibility. It reinforces the false notion that change is achieved solely through the replacement of leaders, rather than through sustained, collective effort.
For young people in particular, this distinction is crucial. The future of any nation rests disproportionately in their handsnot only as voters, but as thinkers, innovators, and leaders. To be swayed by simplistic narratives or short-term alliances is to underestimate the complexity of governance and the depth of responsibility it entails.
A more constructive approach would see political parties engaging continuouslynot just in the lead-up to elections, but throughout the governance cycle. It would involve policy dialogues, joint initiatives on national issues, and a genuine commitment to putting country above party. Coalitions, if they are to be formed, should emerge organically from these sustained engagements, not as last-minute arrangements driven by electoral arithmetic.
Similarly, citizens must cultivate a more nuanced understanding of governance. Support for government does not equate to blind allegiance, just as criticism does not equate to disloyalty. The objective should always be the strengthening of institutions, the improvement of policies, and the advancement of the national interest.
As Winston Churchill once remarked, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” While often quoted with irony, this statement underscores a serious point that the quality of governance is directly linked to the quality of civic engagement.
Nations are not transformed by slogans, nor are they built on temporary alliances forged in the heat of electoral competition. They are shaped by vision, discipline, and an undeterred commitment to the common good.
A coalition that lacks purpose cannot deliver progress. A citizenry that lacks engagement cannot demand excellence. And a political culture that prioritises power over principle cannot sustain development.
The question, therefore, is not merely who governsbut how, why, and with whose participation.
To the young minds observing these processes, the message must be clear and enduring, governance is not a distant theatre reserved for politicians. It is a living system that depends on your intellect, your integrity, and your involvement. Do not reduce your role to that of a spectator, swayed by rhetoric or disillusioned by imperfection.
Instead, understand this fundamental truth that a nation works best when its people do.
Support good policies, challenge weak ones, participate in civic life, and hold leaders accountablebut never disengage, and never mistake disruption for development.
For in the final analysis, the strength of any government is not measured by the power it holds, but by the people who stand behind it, not in blind loyalty, but in informed, active, and responsible partnership.
About the Author
Omar FaFa M’Bai is a Legal Practitioner, a governance advocate, and a parent based in Dubai, UAE. He writes regularly on institutional integrity, leadership, and education across Africa, Middle East, and Asia.
