Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The Gambia’s 2026 presidential election is still two months away, but a worrying narrative is already taking shape around the electoral process.
Political parties have every right to scrutinize the voters’ register, question the Independent Electoral Commission, and demand transparency. But there is a difference between questioning an election and preparing the public to distrust its outcome.
That distinction matters.
The repeated suggestion that the electoral process is compromised, the increasingly confrontational rhetoric towards the IEC, and demands for extensive access to voter data risk creating a political environment in which suspicion becomes the default position.
The danger is not simply what happens before December 5. It is what happens afterwards.
When suspicion becomes the narrative
The UDP’s concerns about voter data and the voters’ register deserve answers from the IEC. Legitimate discrepancies should be investigated, explained, and, where necessary, corrected.
But voter data must not become political ammunition.
A disputed registration or apparent duplication does not automatically constitute electoral fraud. Such claims require independent verification and due process. Otherwise, raw data can easily be turned into political evidence for a predetermined conclusion.
This is where the Gambia should be particularly careful.
If political actors spend months telling their supporters that the register is unreliable, the IEC cannot be trusted and the electoral process is compromised, what happens if their candidate subsequently loses?
The defeat may not be accepted as a defeat.
It may be presented as proof that the election was stolen.
That is how an insurrectional narrative can develop: the argument against the election is constructed before the election takes place, leaving almost no possible outcome that can be accepted by those who have been convinced that the system is rigged.
The rhetoric matters.
Reported threats of marching on or taking over State House before the IEC has completed the counting and declaration process should therefore concern every Gambian, regardless of political affiliation.
Such statements may ultimately amount to nothing. But political language matters, particularly when it is directed at institutions whose decisions will determine whether an election is accepted as legitimate.
The same applies to disputes over candidate eligibility and court decisions.
What happens if a court rules against an aspiring candidate? What happens if the IEC is legally required to reject a nomination? Does the dispute remain within the courts and constitutional institutions, or does it spill into the streets?
These questions should be answered before an election crisis, not during one.
Protect the referee.
The IEC must remain the referee, not become the source of political ammunition for competing parties.
Its responsibility is to provide lawful access to electoral information, explain its decisions, and ensure that disputes can be independently examined. Political parties, meanwhile, have a responsibility to challenge the process without undermining confidence in democracy itself.
The Gambia should learn from the increasingly polarized electoral politics elsewhere, including the United States, where voter-registration data has become deeply politicized.
Our lesson should be simple: protect the register, protect the ballot, and protect the institutions that certify the result.
The campaign should be about why Gambians should vote for one candidate rather than another, not about preparing them to believe the election is illegitimate if their candidate loses.
December 5 will be decided by voters.
The real test of Gambian democracy, however, may come after the votes are counted: will political leaders accept the verdict, or will they tell their supporters that the verdict was never legitimate?
Leave a Reply