By Abubacarr

Copyright standard

By Ousman Ceesay

In any collective institution, particularly one as inherently people-driven as a political party, the reactions of leadership and members to internal dissent or departures are not just momentary responses—they are indicators of the party’s long-term viability and maturity.When individuals who have contributed to an organisation decide to voice dissatisfaction or leave, the reaction of those who remain is critical. A dismissive and defensive attitude, exemplified by the flippant question “NEXT?”—as in, “Who’s next to leave?”— reveals a troubling lack of introspection and maturity. It is not merely a rhetorical misstep; it is symptomatic of a deeper organizational problem.Political parties, by design, are instruments of power. Before any lofty goals or ideological promises written in manifestos can be fulfilled, a party must first secure political power.This is not achieved through subtraction or exclusion but through addition—by attracting new supporters and retaining current ones. In that light, the departure of members should not be trivialised, especially when it occurs in noticeable numbers. Every exit is a data point, a signal that something may be amiss within the party’s structure, strategy, or culture.To mock or minimise those who leave—especially when they were once committed members—is to alienate potential supporters further. It sends the message that the organization is not interested in self-improvement, dialogue, or accountability. More dangerously, it creates an environment of fear and hostility, where questioning leadership or expressing concerns is met with scorn rather than engagement.Some militants and leaders within the United Democratic Party (UDP) in recent times have displayed exactly this attitude. Rather than engaging with the substance of the concerns raised by departing members, they resort to dismissiveness. This is counterproductive.Political engagement thrives in an atmosphere where people feel heard, valued, and respected—even in disagreement. When a party ignores or belittles its own members’ criticisms, it stunts its capacity to grow and adapt.True political leadership requires humility and a willingness to look inward. It involves asking difficult questions: Why are these members leaving? What are we failing to address?How can we evolve to remain relevant and effective? Such self-examination may be uncomfortable, but it is necessary for organizational development. A party that fails to evolve becomes stagnant and in politics, stagnation is a precursor to irrelevance.Even if a party has a solid base, as the UDP certainly does, a base alone is not enough. In democratic systems, especially those with competitive multiparty landscapes, electoral victory requires coalitions, outreach, and the ability to persuade the undecided and disillusioned. Shrinking the tent by chasing away voices of dissent or refusing to engage with legitimate criticism only narrows the path to power.The “NEXT?” mentality displayed by some UDP militants towards party executives and members leaving after the contentious flag bearer race is not just a rhetorical misstep, it is a reflection of organizational immaturity and a failure to grasp the core principles of political engagement. If the UDP, or any party for that matter, seeks to be more than just a permanent opposition or a regional force, it must abandon arrogance for introspection. The question should not be “Who’s next to leave?” but rather, “What must we do to make people stay?” Political success is a game of addition. And in that game, empathy, accountability, and openness will always outmatch defiance.