THE WRITER: Paul Waibale Senior
Recent newspaper headlines proclaiming that President Museveni has “released political parties” or urged the Movement’s National Executive Committee (NEC) to release them are technically misleading. While, in my submission, the inappropriate attribution of facts is, by and large, a consequence of semantic pit-falls, it would be impertinent to let it pass without comment. One obvious misconception created by that linguistic misappropriation is the false conclusion that it was either President Museveni or NEC, or both, that “locked up” political parties, and have, therefore, both the duty and authority to release them.
Interestingly, neither Museveni nor NEC has the key to open for the political parties the door that was locked by Article 269 of the Constitution. A referendum is the key provided by the constitution for unlocking that door. Museveni has, quite correctly, in my view, categorically advised that a referendum is the proper way to proceed. It is pertinent to point out that the recent judgement of the constitutional court, which declared null and void two articles in the recently enacted law on political organisations, has no effect at all on the constitutional provision embodied in article 269 which demarcates the perimeter within which political parties have to operate. Given that situation, all that President Museveni and NEC can do to enhance the process of releasing political parties” (if I may borrow that rather crude terminology) is to actively mount a campaign to have article 269 expunged from the constitution. But that has to be in compliance with the prescribed method. Consequently, advancing the argument that there is no need for referendum merely because two articles in the political organisations law have been declared null and void is, to put it mildly, the height of folly. I am intrigued by President Museveni’s contribution to the so-called third term debate in which he suggested that the whole concept of limiting a president stay in office to a specific number of terms, be it two or 10, should be abolished. He contends that a president’s stay in office should be determined exclusively by the electorate rather than technicalities in the law.
I have a lot of sympathy for President Museveni’s proposal.
I nurse the conviction that the limitation of the number of presidential terms is an American innovation that militates against the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. In fact, it was an after thought that crept into the American constitution after one President wanted to contest for a fourth term after serving three consecutive ones. Interestingly, developing countries, particularly in Africa have blindly adopted that system and cultivated the false view that it symbolises democracy.
Britain, which is regarded to be the world’s cradle of democracy does not have any such limitation.
So long as somebody has the endorsement of the party he leads and that party has the ability to win elections any number of times, he or she will remain the occupant of 10 Downing Street. By that shroud combination, Margaret Thacher remained the Prime Minister of Britain for a good 12 years. Incidentally, the Frech and the Germans do not have limitations regarding the number of terms somebody can hold the post of President.
It is important for Ugandans to realise that traditions imported from outside, whether from Britain or America, have to be swallowed with a pinch of salt. If we have to choose between the Ameican system where Congress has to approve ministerial appointments or the British one where the Prime Minister’s choice is final, should depend on careful study of both systems. It should not be dictated by sentimental considerations.
Be that as it may, I would, as I have indeed subscribed in the past, support the idea of abolishing the setting of minimum academic qualifications for electoral offices. The present system has precipitated forgeries by prospective candidates who produce false crtificates in a bid to beat the qualification target. Subsequently, several MPs have had their elections nullified following petitions challenging their academic qualifications. Consequently, fresh elections have to be held, and at times the displaced MP is a very capable legislator. Why waste money on holding two elections and lengthy court proceedings just because one may not have acquired the standard of education that entitles him to hold one piece of paper or another?
That is not the case in Britain or the United States where school drop-outs have turned out to be great Presidents and capable Prime Ministers. If they had had such supid hinderances, Sir Winston Churchill would never have become Britain’s, perhaps greatest, Prime Minister.
And Reagan would never have had the opportunity to leap from the cinema screen to White House. Ends
Published on: Monday, 31st March, 2003
Email this article to a friend.
© Copyright The New Vision 2000-2002. All rights reserved.
