What’s Behind Jammeh’s Perplexing Decision to Accept Gambia’s Election Results?

What’s Behind Jammeh’s Perplexing Decision to Accept Gambia’s Election Results?
Gambians celebrate the victory of opposition coalition candidate Adama Barrow, Serrekunda, Gambia, Dec. 2, 2016 (AP photo by Jerome Delay).

In a surprise victory that shocked Gambians and foreigners alike, opposition candidate Adama Barrow defeated Gambia’s long-time dictator, Yahya Jammeh, in the country’s presidential election last Thursday. Initial reporting suggested that Barrow had won by 50,000 votes or more, which would have been a blowout victory in a country with roughly 1.8 million people. But the revised and final tally issued by Gambia’s Independent Electoral Commission on Dec. 5 showed a much closer result: 227,708 votes for Barrow, 208,487 votes for Jammeh and 89,768 for third-party candidate Mamma Kandeh.

It will take time before the structure of Barrow’s victory is fully understood, but even with that narrower margin, the electoral upset suggests that either voters or elites—or both—were so sick of Jammeh that he saw the writing on the wall. In other words, Jammeh likely could have won if he wanted to, by manipulating the results. But it seems he calculated that the cost of victory would be too great.

Jammeh took power in a junior officers’ coup in 1994. As head of state, he won elections in 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011. Each time, the runner-up was lawyer Ousainou Darboe, head of the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP). Some of those elections were close, but Jammeh repeatedly used state power to guarantee victory. For example, in advance of the 2011 election, the Commission for the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) declined to send observers to Gambia, stating in a press release that “the preparations and political environment for the said election are adjudged by the Commission not to be conducive for the conduct of free, fair and transparent polls.” The Commission added, “The reports of [our] fact-finding mission and the Early Warning System paint a picture of intimidation, an unacceptable level of control of the electronic media by the party in power, the lack of neutrality of state and para-statal institutions, and an opposition and electorate cowed by repression and intimidation.”

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.