Saturday, July 9, 2011

“Meet the New Boss same as the Old Boss!” shifting from One Regime to A Multiparty System: experiences from Uganda: A Ugandan perspective By Vincent Nuwagaba Introduction For two decades, Uganda has been operating without political parties as they were suspended when President Museveni captured state power. As such, we have been having a no-party system. The key players in this arrangement baptized it the no-party democracy, which was later to be called the movement system during the constitution making process. On the other hand critics believed that this was a monolithic de facto one party system. The proponents of the so-called no-party system/ movement system succeeded in deliberately manipulating the gullible population that political parties were synonymous with mayhem and thus it was in the best interest of the country to do away with them. In my view, this was meant to entrench the new leaders as they felt they were not credible enough since they had been rejected in the 1980 election – an election that was followed by a protracted bush war that brought Museveni and his comrades into power. After two decades, the crusade to hold a referendum to revert to a multiparty dispensation was ironically championed by the number one person that had hitherto demonized and vilified political parties. The reasons for his crusade were however misleading as he reportedly only bowed to donor pressure and his argument was, “let’s get rid of them (tubegyeko) and let them go (mubaleke bagende)”. Accordingly, initially, the movement was not meant to become a political party but to get rid of “pig-headed” dissenters so the movement could remain “pure.” The reintroduction of political parties therefore was not out of principle but expediency. The president has never been comfortable with parties and he prefers calling NRM an organisation to a party. Because of the above situation, FHRI deemed it prudent and imperative to participate in the first “multiparty” elections in twenty years. The system changed but the players and the modus operandi remained the same. The July 28 2005 referendum ushered in a new era of multiparty politics. Surprisingly, I have not seen anything multiparty since then. Multiparty politics calls for fair competition which sadly has not been the case. The police are still directly controlled by the president and have assumed unlimited powers to grant permission to political parties on whether or not to hold meetings. President Museveni still has that patronizing attitude. Shortly after the 2006 elections the President called the other parties that participated in the 2006 elections including the independent candidate Dr. Bwanika for talks, when Forum for Democratic Change refused the president said he had saved his tea. One wonders whether the president was using his personal monies to run the talks or not. The new Boss or the extension of the old Boss? i) For more than two decades, President Museveni has remained the key actor in the politics of Uganda despite the cosmetic change of the political system. The president has made it abundantly clear that he is not about to let go of state power as he feels he is the only person with the vision. He erroneously thinks that even when he doesn’t share his vision with his Ministers, that is a sign of strength. ii) Since 1986, the country has been undergoing a transition. The old boss promised he would be here for only four years thereafter pave way for multiparty democracy. This surprisingly has taken twenty years after his firm grip onto power. It is abundantly clear to me that Mr. Museveni wouldn’t hand over power within only four years before he could popularize himself among the citizens and before he could firmly control all the state institutions responsible for his hold onto power. iii) The shift from the “movement” political dispensation to the “multiparty” political dispensation was a tradeoff for Museveni’s kisanja (third term). Many Museveni adherents argued that Museveni is an indispensable resource in a new political dispensation. iv) It is vital to note that during the era of Museveni, Uganda has had two referenda on political systems with the first one held in June 2000 and the second held in 2005. The multiparty activists boycotted both referenda on grounds that political parties are avenues via which fundamental freedoms and rights are exercised and enjoyed and as such there should never be a referendum on one’s rights. In regard to the above argument, former Gulu Municipality Member of Parliament Norbert Mao had this to say’ “Fundamental human rights are enjoyed not because you are many but because you are human”. Surprisingly though, the 2000 referendum was largely rigged even when the movement was practically running against itself v) President Museveni is partly responsible for the current dilemma (intraparty wrangles) within the old political parties- Democratic Party (DP), Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and the Conservative Party (CP). As soon as he captured power, he vilified them, demonized them and embarked on the chakamchaka (politicization programmes what others have called brainwashing programmes) programme wherein political where largely discredited. vi) Whereas I don’t support the discriminatory nature of our past political parties, notably Democratic Party and Uganda People’s Congress, I wish to aver that in my opinion the political parties were far less discriminative compared to the Movement. This is because even though parties were largely founded on the basis of religion, religion cut across the entire nation. The movement however, largely remained dominated by the “freedom fighters”, friends and relatives. At the end of the day, one region and one ethnic group dominated. The system that was meant to be inclusive became more and more exclusive as time went. Ironically, the person who used to bash political parties because of discrimination presided over the largely discriminatory movement. This may partly explain why many people who ordinarily would have been deemed to be the movement pillars had to jump off the movement boat- Bidandi Ssali, Kiiza Besigye, Augustine Ruzindana, Eriya Kategaya (although he later made a one eighty degree turn), Mugisha Muntu, Winnie Byanyima, Amanya Mushega, Richard Kaijuka, Salaam Musumba, David Pulkol, Henry Tumukunde, the list is endless. vii) The former movement only metamorphosed in name (from Movement to National Resistance movement) but has actually remained the same. It is vital to note that since its inception the movement was but a party. Uganda operated as a de facto one party state for two decades. More so, the National Resistance Movement Party built on the existing structures of the “movement” system. The award of free membership cards was meant to ensure that majority of Ugandans subscribe to the National Resistance Movement Organisation (NRM-O) viii) The new Boss just like the old Boss has kept all the critical state institutions (the Police, the Judiciary, the Electoral Commission, and the Uganda Human Rights Commission etc) under his armpits. It is not uncommon to find that the Police, the Electoral Commission, the Judiciary and the Military are occupied by the NRM cadres. ix) Uganda is faced with the problem of personalization of political parties. The movement and the National Resistance Movement (NRM) now revolves around the personality of Museveni. This has had a spillover onto other parties such as Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) which revolves around the personality of Dr. Besigye and Uganda People’s congress that revolves around the Obote family. x) Political parties are not supposed to be treated like electric switches that one can be put on and off at will. They are indispensable institutions in the democratic process. They are engines through which fundamental freedoms of expression, association, assembly, choice and so forth are enjoyed. From the foregoing, it is imperative to note, that there is nothing like a new boss. We only have an extension of the old boss adorned in new clothes. Like earlier mentioned, the actor is the same, the acts are the same, the method of work is the same possibly what has changed is that the one-party system has been formalized by registering the NRM as a party. Otherwise I personally see nothing multiparty in the new political dispensation in this country. There are a few questions that we need to ponder about; a) What should be the role of opposition parties in critical institutions like the judiciary, electoral commission, and the police and human rights commission in a multiparty setting? b) Won’t the ruling party dominate these institutions to the disadvantage of other parties? c) How should political party activities be funded? If they are to be funded by the government won’t the ruling wish to set a pace for these parties? If parties are to be funded by the government won’t that compromise their independence whereby the old boss will continue with his patronizing attitude? d) If that be the case, what does such a situation portend for our fledgling democracy? Conclusion The change of the system from the “movement system” to the multiparty political dispensation in Uganda has not been conceived. Apart from being told that we are in a multiparty setting, the practice on the ground shows otherwise. Political parties are not free to hold rallies, demonstrations and/ or political meetings without let or hindrance from the police. Tear gas has remained a tool of taming the “stubborn opposition” akin to how it used to be prior to the July 2005 referendum. That FHRI has made an indelible mark on the Ugandan politics because of her participation in observing of the 2006 is axiomatic. The FHRI report raised a lot of concern as to what direction the country is heading in this new political dispensation. The struggle for democracy and human rights continues and all of us must join the struggle for it calls for concerted efforts. All of us must not fold our hands because it is in our best interest that we work not only to realize free and fair elections but genuine elections. Allow me end with three quotations from celebrated thinkers; i. The necessary condition for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing. (Edmund Burke) ii. We must be the change we wish to see in this world (Mahatma Gandhi) iii. No matter whether my contribution is a drop in the ocean, it is important I make it (Sr. Mother Theresa) iv. At first they came for Jews, I didn’t speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for trade unionists, I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, I did not speak out because I was a protestant, finally, when they came for me there was nobody left to speak out for me. (Pastor Martin Niemoller, commenting on the Nazi Regime in Germany)

X

By Vincent Nuwagaba

Introduction
For two decades, Uganda has been operating without political parties as they were suspended when President Museveni captured state power. As such, we have been having a no-party system. The key players in this arrangement baptized it the no-party democracy, which was later to be called the movement system during the constitution making process. On the other hand critics believed that this was a monolithic de facto one party system. The proponents of the so-called no-party system/ movement system succeeded in deliberately manipulating the gullible population that political parties were synonymous with mayhem and thus it was in the best interest of the country to do away with them. In my view, this was meant to entrench the new leaders as they felt they were not credible enough since they had been rejected in the 1980 election – an election that was followed by a protracted bush war that brought Museveni and his comrades into power.
After two decades, the crusade to hold a referendum to revert to a multiparty dispensation was ironically championed by the number one person that had hitherto demonized and vilified political parties. The reasons for his crusade were however misleading as he reportedly only bowed to donor pressure and his argument was, “let’s get rid of them (tubegyeko) and let them go (mubaleke bagende)”. Accordingly, initially, the movement was not meant to become a political party but to get rid of “pig-headed” dissenters so the movement could remain “pure.” The reintroduction of political parties therefore was not out of principle but expediency. The president has never been comfortable with parties and he prefers calling NRM an organisation to a party. Because of the above situation, FHRI deemed it prudent and imperative to participate in the first “multiparty” elections in twenty years.

The system changed but the players and the modus operandi remained the same.
The July 28 2005 referendum ushered in a new era of multiparty politics. Surprisingly, I have not seen anything multiparty since then. Multiparty politics calls for fair competition which sadly has not been the case. The police are still directly controlled by the president and have assumed unlimited powers to grant permission to political parties on whether or not to hold meetings. President Museveni still has that patronizing attitude. Shortly after the 2006 elections the President called the other parties that participated in the 2006 elections including the independent candidate Dr. Bwanika for talks, when Forum for Democratic Change refused the president said he had saved his tea. One wonders whether the president was using his personal monies to run the talks or not.

The new Boss or the extension of the old Boss?
i) For more than two decades, President Museveni has remained the key actor in the politics of Uganda despite the cosmetic change of the political system. The president has made it abundantly clear that he is not about to let go of state power as he feels he is the only person with the vision. He erroneously thinks that even when he doesn’t share his vision with his Ministers, that is a sign of strength.
ii) Since 1986, the country has been undergoing a transition. The old boss promised he would be here for only four years thereafter pave way for multiparty democracy. This surprisingly has taken twenty years after his firm grip onto power. It is abundantly clear to me that Mr. Museveni wouldn’t hand over power within only four years before he could popularize himself among the citizens and before he could firmly control all the state institutions responsible for his hold onto power.
iii) The shift from the “movement” political dispensation to the “multiparty” political dispensation was a tradeoff for Museveni’s kisanja (third term). Many Museveni adherents argued that Museveni is an indispensable resource in a new political dispensation.
iv) It is vital to note that during the era of Museveni, Uganda has had two referenda on political systems with the first one held in June 2000 and the second held in 2005. The multiparty activists boycotted both referenda on grounds that political parties are avenues via which fundamental freedoms and rights are exercised and enjoyed and as such there should never be a referendum on one’s rights. In regard to the above argument, former Gulu Municipality Member of Parliament Norbert Mao had this to say’
“Fundamental human rights are enjoyed not because you are many but because you are human”. Surprisingly though, the 2000 referendum was largely rigged even when the movement was practically running against itself
v) President Museveni is partly responsible for the current dilemma (intraparty wrangles) within the old political parties- Democratic Party (DP), Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and the Conservative Party (CP). As soon as he captured power, he vilified them, demonized them and embarked on the chakamchaka (politicization programmes what others have called brainwashing programmes) programme wherein political where largely discredited.
vi) Whereas I don’t support the discriminatory nature of our past political parties, notably Democratic Party and Uganda People’s Congress, I wish to aver that in my opinion the political parties were far less discriminative compared to the Movement. This is because even though parties were largely founded on the basis of religion, religion cut across the entire nation. The movement however, largely remained dominated by the “freedom fighters”, friends and relatives. At the end of the day, one region and one ethnic group dominated. The system that was meant to be inclusive became more and more exclusive as time went. Ironically, the person who used to bash political parties because of discrimination presided over the largely discriminatory movement. This may partly explain why many people who ordinarily would have been deemed to be the movement pillars had to jump off the movement boat- Bidandi Ssali, Kiiza Besigye, Augustine Ruzindana, Eriya Kategaya (although he later made a one eighty degree turn), Mugisha Muntu, Winnie Byanyima, Amanya Mushega, Richard Kaijuka, Salaam Musumba, David Pulkol, Henry Tumukunde, the list is endless.
vii) The former movement only metamorphosed in name (from Movement to National Resistance movement) but has actually remained the same. It is vital to note that since its inception the movement was but a party. Uganda operated as a de facto one party state for two decades. More so, the National Resistance Movement Party built on the existing structures of the “movement” system. The award of free membership cards was meant to ensure that majority of Ugandans subscribe to the National Resistance Movement Organisation (NRM-O)
viii) The new Boss just like the old Boss has kept all the critical state institutions (the Police, the Judiciary, the Electoral Commission, and the Uganda Human Rights Commission etc) under his armpits. It is not uncommon to find that the Police, the Electoral Commission, the Judiciary and the Military are occupied by the NRM cadres.
ix) Uganda is faced with the problem of personalization of political parties. The movement and the National Resistance Movement (NRM) now revolves around the personality of Museveni. This has had a spillover onto other parties such as Forum for Democratic Change (FDC)whose strength lies with the personality of Dr. Besigye and Uganda People’s congress that hitherto revolved around the Obote family. In fact, with Olara Otunnu as UPC President, the Party is no longer the same.
x) Political parties are not supposed to be treated like electric switches that one can be put on and off at will. They are indispensable institutions in the democratic process. They are engines through which fundamental freedoms of expression, association, assembly, choice and so forth are enjoyed.

From the foregoing, it is imperative to note, that there is nothing like a new boss. We only have an extension of the old boss adorned in new clothes. Like earlier mentioned, the actor is the same, the acts are the same, the method of work is the same possibly what has changed is that the one-party system has been formalized by registering the NRM as a party. Otherwise I personally see nothing multiparty in the new political dispensation in this country.
There are a few questions that we need to ponder about;
a) What should be the role of opposition parties in critical institutions like the judiciary, electoral commission, and the police and human rights commission in a multiparty setting?
b) Won’t the ruling party dominate these institutions to the disadvantage of other parties?
c) How should political party activities be funded? If they are to be funded by the government won’t the ruling wish to set a pace for these parties? If parties are to be funded by the government won’t that compromise their independence whereby the old boss will continue with his patronizing attitude?
d) If that be the case, what does such a situation portend for our fledgling democracy?

Conclusion
The change of the system from the “movement system” to the multiparty political dispensation in Uganda has not been conceived. Apart from being told that we are in a multiparty setting, the practice on the ground shows otherwise. Political parties are not free to hold rallies, demonstrations and/ or political meetings without let or hindrance from the police. Tear gas has remained a tool of taming the “stubborn opposition” akin to how it used to be prior to the July 2005 referendum. That FHRI has made an indelible mark on the Ugandan politics because of her participation in observing of the 2006 is axiomatic. The FHRI report raised a lot of concern as to what direction the country is heading in this new political dispensation. The struggle for democracy and human rights continues and all of us must join the struggle for it calls for concerted efforts. All of us must not fold our hands because it is in our best interest that we work not only to realize free and fair elections but genuine elections. Allow me end with three quotations from celebrated thinkers;
i. The necessary condition for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing. (Edmund Burke)
ii. We must be the change we wish to see in this world (Mahatma Gandhi)
iii. No matter whether my contribution is a drop in the ocean, it is important I make it (Sr. Mother Theresa)
iv. At first they came for Jews, I didn’t speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for trade unionists, I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, I did not speak out because I was a protestant, finally, when they came for me there was nobody left to speak out for me. (Pastor Martin Niemoller, commenting on the Nazi Regime in Germany)

No comments:

Post a Comment