Re: [Ugnet] Mr President , What's 'Partisan' politics?
Hi John, Thanks for Paul's clip. Did Paul ever do high jump in High School? It's just incredible that he could jump so high!! He must be very athletic. That said have you heard from Juliet and Sanyu since we last spoke? I should imagine Juliet and Paul are now in Uganda . Quite possibly being reacquainted with Amin's days when walking was the order of the day. I understand there is some serious gas shortage in the country. In Paul's case it should be quite an experience. I also hear a lot of Kenyans have crossed into Uganda as refugees to escape the ethnic fighting. Enough of this stuff. By the way my home phones are now working. The Vonage one is (708)747 0796 and AT &T is (708)2838250. I had to get an AT&T one because it was the only way to get DSL. They are charging $16.00, a month, before taxes, for it . Then I have to pay $25.00 (before taxes) for Vonage . Chances are I will switch to another provider of DSL , which doesn't require installing a telephone line. I am staying with these folks to recoup the initial costs I incurred in installing the DSL. Take care. Semei - Original Message From: Bwambuga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Uganda Net Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:53:05 PM Subject: [Ugnet] Mr President , What's 'Partisan' politics? ..."History never repeats itself; it is only the unenlightened or the forgetful who repeat the mistakes of history"... Mr President, what’s ‘partisan’ politics? TRADITIONAL LEADERS: Dr Oloka Onyango President Yoweri Museveni’s “Letter to the Kabaka” run in Daily Monitor and Sunday Vision is the most articulate expression of the problem of bad governance that results from a continued and excessive stay in power. The letter not only instructs the Kabaka when to speak; but also what he should speak about, to whom the Kabaka should address himself when speaking, and when the Kabaka should shut his mouth. Despite its placid introduction, the President’s letter is not an appeal; it is a command! To fully understand the President’s problem one needs to take a short step back into history. The precise history in this case relates to the restoration of the Buganda Kingdom in 1993 and to the reasons why Museveni supported its restoration. It is important to recall that the kingdoms (with the obvious exception of Ankole, which was not a vote winner) were restored in mid-1993, shortly before elections for the Constituent Assembly (CA). Among the few voices who spoke out against the move was that of Solome Bbosa, President of the Uganda Law Society at the time, and current judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Justice Bbosa advised that the matter of traditional leaders should be given a full and comprehensive examination in the debate that was to take place in the CA. After all, the Justice Odoki draft of the Constitution contained several provisions on the restoration of traditional rulers which would be given a full consideration in the national debate. For her efforts, Justice Bbosa was condemned as a member of FOBA-Force Obote Back Again-by such luminaries of the time as the late Dr Samson Babi Mululu Kisekka (Vice President), Abu Kakyama Mayanja (Attorney General/Minister of Justice), and Prof. Apolo Robin Nsibambi (then Minister of Constitutional Affairs in the Buganda government, and current Prime Minister) who were intent on securing their positions as the main links (bayungirizi) between Buganda and the NRM government. On his part and true to character, President Museveni declared that any attempts to stop the restoration would be met with (military) force as he was eying the many votes that would come from Buganda as a result of the restoration. What was the result of all these manouvres? In the first instance, there was very little debate on the legal character of the restored kingdoms with the exception of the clause designed to ensure that they remained ‘non-partisan,’ a clause that has been opportunistically (mis)interpreted by the President to mean support for the NRM. Thus, President Museveni sees no problem with employing members of the Royal Family in his office as Presidential Advisors or letting them speak at his electoral campaigns, while he does not hesitate to condemn Royals who declare their support for the political opposition. The second problem with the restoration was that there was no indication of who had the right and the power to determine what actions by traditional leaders should be regarded as ‘non-partisan.’ Quite clearly, it should not be the President, because he has a direct interest in the matter. Thirdly, the law did not provide for any institution or forum with the mandate to resolve a dispute between traditional leaders and the central government over actions that may be regarded as ‘partisan.’ In brief the term ‘non-partisan’ was not
[Ugnet] Mr President , What's 'Partisan' politics?
..."History never repeats itself; it is only the unenlightened or the forgetful who repeat the mistakes of history"... Mr President, whats partisan politics? TRADITIONAL LEADERS: Dr Oloka Onyango President Yoweri Musevenis Letter to the Kabaka run in Daily Monitor and Sunday Vision is the most articulate expression of the problem of bad governance that results from a continued and excessive stay in power. The letter not only instructs the Kabaka when to speak; but also what he should speak about, to whom the Kabaka should address himself when speaking, and when the Kabaka should shut his mouth. Despite its placid introduction, the Presidents letter is not an appeal; it is a command! To fully understand the Presidents problem one needs to take a short step back into history. The precise history in this case relates to the restoration of the Buganda Kingdom in 1993 and to the reasons why Museveni supported its restoration. It is important to recall that the kingdoms (with the obvious exception of Ankole, which was not a vote winner) were restored in mid-1993, shortly before elections for the Constituent Assembly (CA). Among the few voices who spoke out against the move was that of Solome Bbosa, President of the Uganda Law Society at the time, and current judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Justice Bbosa advised that the matter of traditional leaders should be given a full and comprehensive examination in the debate that was to take place in the CA. After all, the Justice Odoki draft of the Constitution contained several provisions on the restoration of traditional rulers which would be given a full consideration in the national debate. For her efforts, Justice Bbosa was condemned as a member of FOBA-Force Obote Back Again-by such luminaries of the time as the late Dr Samson Babi Mululu Kisekka (Vice President), Abu Kakyama Mayanja (Attorney General/Minister of Justice), and Prof. Apolo Robin Nsibambi (then Minister of Constitutional Affairs in the Buganda government, and current Prime Minister) who were intent on securing their positions as the main links (bayungirizi) between Buganda and the NRM government. On his part and true to character, President Museveni declared that any attempts to stop the restoration would be met with (military) force as he was eying the many votes that would come from Buganda as a result of the restoration. What was the result of all these manouvres? In the first instance, there was very little debate on the legal character of the restored kingdoms with the exception of the clause designed to ensure that they remained non-partisan, a clause that has been opportunistically (mis)interpreted by the President to mean support for the NRM. Thus, President Museveni sees no problem with employing members of the Royal Family in his office as Presidential Advisors or letting them speak at his electoral campaigns, while he does not hesitate to condemn Royals who declare their support for the political opposition. The second problem with the restoration was that there was no indication of who had the right and the power to determine what actions by traditional leaders should be regarded as non-partisan. Quite clearly, it should not be the President, because he has a direct interest in the matter. Thirdly, the law did not provide for any institution or forum with the mandate to resolve a dispute between traditional leaders and the central government over actions that may be regarded as partisan. In brief the term non-partisan was not subjected to any concise definition. While it is quite clear to me that traditional leaders should not be partisan, i.e., they should not offer their support for one political party against another, it is ridiculous to imagine that they should (and can) be non-political. This is because the line between matters political and matters cultural, economic, social or environmental is a very thin one. Thus, for example, should a traditional leader be considered to be engaged in partisan politics if he challenges the central governments expropriation of the forests in a certain region, or if he speaks out against the governments attempts to outlaw certain cultural practices held dear to a particular community, or if the government attempts-as the Buganda Kingdom has argued with respect to the issue of land-to alter what are regarded as traditional relations between the subjects of that kingdom? What is clear today is that the restoration of the traditional rulers was based on the short-term and opportunistic calculation that simply viewed the matter as a vote winner for the NRM in the CA elections. This is why very little attention was paid to detail. The restoration also worked on the presumption that the Baganda would forever be grateful to the NRM and Museveni for having restored the kingdom. The last assumption was