“..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” Wrote Paul Waibale Sr
If only present and future Ugandan leaders practice the fundamental
principles of parliamentary democracy, I would not have a problem with that. If our parliamentary democracy proves to
be short-sighted and endorse a no-term limit and give Museveni and other future
leaders life terms, they will take Uganda back in the
days of kijambiaism.
Our democracy is still determined by who has the bigger gun. The road to the State House is still
decorated with citizens’ blood.
Even after becoming a victor on the populist’s horse, victims
continue to paint the country red with blood. The number of victims created during the
fight to the state house more than double when the election campaign are done.
Once again, our lose democracy still needs a term limit …. Just to limit the times an incumbent can rig himself or
herself to power.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath
of God; for it is written, " Vegence is mine, I will repay, says the
Lord". No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty,
give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his
head". Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:19-21
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:17
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ugnet_: Neither Museveni
nor Nec can free political parties
Neither Museveni Nor NEC Can Free
Parties
![]()
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.
![]()
