![]() |
|
THE WRITER: Kabushenga |
IN a typical multiparty setting where you have an opposition, it has one major obligation to the country. It has an intellectual duty to provide alternative policies for public consideration. This is because it is not in government (in any case not doing much else) and does not have the pressure of having to run the Executive. It is expected to respond to government proposals with criticism and other well thought out options. These can then be debated for their viability or thrown out for their lack of it. When I look around, I do not see that this role will be effectively served or at all by those who will obviously be in these ranks.
FDC, the main aspirants seeking to champion opposition politics, sometime back issued a wish list of what they intend to do once they came into office. This has since been shelved and what we hear now is a completely different language. Their message is insurrectionist and articulation full of hyperbole, and exaggeration has become their typical method of delivering it. They have resorted to mantra and scare-mongering instead of analysis and persuasion. That is why you hear phrases like "life presidency", "manipulation", "intimidation", "rigging", "mafia", "corruption" etc repeated so many times over like a damaged CD.
To champion this line, they have adopted a campaign style that is typically used by the civil society. It is the way these organisations have been constructed to pursue their agenda. The approach they are taking is one of activism and advocacy which is why you hear a lot more criticism and pretty much nothing else. It is the kind that brings public attention and awareness to an issue but is not designed to get votes. The strategy is to prepare the public for a flawed election long before we even know who is going to stand for what. It is meant to deflect public scrutiny from following up the opposition on their obligation to provide a real alternative to the incumbent government. This is also why they are more obsessed with Museveni in their campaign than even those who prefer his leadership. So now you know why this approach is a losing one even if there was no incumbent to contest against. One thing for sure is that this is hardly an outfit you can have anywhere near state power.
Elsewhere, they have been caught in their own logic and have failed to appreciate their own contradictions. They never stop to think about what they last said before they utter the next statement. In the past they have accused President Yoweri Museveni of lacking the commitment to take the country to partisan politics. When he gives them a taste of the majoritarian politics which is about the numbers that you persuade to agree with you, they complain.
Many of them are political children of the inclusive politics of NRM. For this reason they cannot appreciate the implications of multiparty politics. Now that they find themselves in the cold, it is because of manipulation by the incumbent. The other argument frequently made is that intolerance has replaced consensus in the Movement. But then that is the bitter reality of the world of multiparty politics. You can only either eat your cake or keep it. It is one or the other. Externalising the causes of their political failings is typical case of living in denial. It is a refusal to accept that the way they have approached the issue and the whole ideological basis of their politics is essentially defective.
Let me borrow their logic on the kisanja issue to contextualise their premature and indeed suicidal war cries. They say the campaign for removal of term limits can only be for the benefit of Museveni's candidature. By the same logic one can argue that their war-mongering can only favour them. This is the only reason they are going on about it. It is a way of preparing the public for what they have already decided to do. Losing a free and fair election is something they have trouble dealing with. It is not, as they say, an innocent word of caution to the country to avoid another Museveni term. It is what they intend to do notwithstanding that there is no basis for it. They will do anything to take power. And they have already shown affinity for precipitous violence.
On the day of the second vote on kisanja, they rented a few hundred goons, gave them posters of Besigye, paid their transport, lunch and then led them into a stone-throwing run around with the Police. What was even more comical was the choice of the leaders of the so-called demonstration. It cannot get any more laughable, can you imagine a political process in which Mayi Kiggundu (controversial wife of Dr. Sulaiman) is one of the icons for us to follow? Then of course they came up with this argument that this matter was far too important to be dealt with by Parliament on behalf of 25 million Ugandans. So who was it who first objected to kisanja being taken to the people? It was the same people if my memory still serves me well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Published on: Sunday, 17th July, 2005 |
