Let Ugandans not be fooled by Mr. Bidandi Ssali. He is in it up to his gills on this "manipulations" saga. In fact his objections to the "third" (fifth) term is part of the overall strategy!
Gook
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.
--- Begin Message ---From SUNDAY MONITOR, April 06, 2003
The five manipulations that silenced Bidandi
By Dani W. Nabudere
April 6, 2003Bidandi Ssali justifiably feels let down and manipulated by a "system" he has worked for so hard and defended so much. Many Ugandans welcomed his appeal to give Museveni "his last term" during the last presidential election.
He did this in his honest belief that if indeed Mr Museveni was given his constitutional last term, it would be easier to call for his succession.
Well he has so far been proved wrong and it is interesting to look at the way his calculations and those democratic forces within the NRM were outmanoeuvred.This is because this experience also at the same time gives a partial record of the manner the NRM administration in general and President Yoweri Museveni in particular have successfully pursued a hidden agenda to consolidate a new form of dictatorship based on manipulations.
This experience, will in particular, show that not only was Bidandi and his camp outmanoeuvred on the issue of succession, they were also outmanoeuvred in their demand that the NRM be turned into a party just like all the other political
organisations.The success of the manipulation has brought us nearer to the real hidden agenda of the NRM since it gained power: the exercise of monopoly power by all means by Yoweri Museveni and his henchmen who pushed through the decisions which Museveni wanted in the National Executive Committee-(NEC) and the National Conference- (NC).
Indeed by these forces succeeding, at least for the moment, the blocking of any democratic changes, including Museveni's exit and succession, and the retention of the NRM as an "organisation" instead of a party, goes to prove that the camp of "no change" to which Bidandi so much subscribed as the chief election official, in the last two presidential elections have prevailed.
This also goes to show from the rear that any "freeing of political parties", will amount to nothing, if the constitutional amendments they suggest are adopted by the Ssempebwa Constitutional Review Commission and finally by Parliament.
The most noteworthy observation to make of the Ugandan political elite is to the extent these forces can easily be manipulated by small dictatorial groups. It is staggering how a group of almost 3,000 delegates at a conference can be manipulated to agree in a chorus decisions that go against their own interests.
How can elected members of Parliament included in this jamboree all keep quiet (save for a few members of the NC) when recommendations to reduce their powers are being tabled?The same goes for the district leaders from the 56 districts of Uganda. Does this perhaps prove that the decentralisation of power was itself a manipulation to create greater centralisation under the Movement System to which all these district leaders owe allegiance?
In these circumstances, how can members of the NC claim to be representative of the people of Uganda, when they are so easily manipulated to agree to whatever is demanded by the centre?
To be sure, this is the process that Mr Bidandi has expressed his disgust with. In his interview with the BBC after the National Conference, he referred to these "political manoeuvrings" as "wrapped up and stage-managed and orchestrated scheming."
The real question is how did this "scheming" happen despite the fact that Mr Bidandi had a sizeable backing in the NEC in Kyankwanzi a year ago when he called for the succession debate?
In our view, there have been five manipulations that have been deployed to silence not only Bidandi, but all those that seemed to be backing him as well as the population as a whole.
First, the accusation by president Museveni that Bidandi and his supporters were using the wrong forum was the first shot in this manipulation game.
This manoeuvre not only put Mr Bidandi's camp into disarray, it also disoriented the every democrat in the country. By accepting the decision to shut up and go to the "proper forum" in closed-door discussions, he by implication accepted this silencing, perhaps, in the hope that his views will in the end prevail. Otherwise why did he concede to the demand?
It is clear, however, that within this "proper forum," he was outmanoeuvred into a minority position so that by the time the committee put out their first draft of recommendations in April 2002, he had a handful of backers within the "forum."
And finding himself in this isolated position, he decided to write a minority report together with his declining bandwagon of supporters. It is interesting to find out what was happening to those supporters who were now going to the other side-because this would give us an idea as to what goes on when people are silenced! Is it the money or threats?
The next manipulation came when he was approached not to publish his minority report on the ground that it will "shame" the Movement.
It is reported that the "compromise" reached between him and Kigongo was that the two reports should be combined so that Bidandi's demand for succession be accepted so long as Bidandi agreed that the Movement continues "for sometime."By the time the Kyankwanzi committee under the chair of Kiyonga went to Gulu to present this "compromise," it was clear that Museveni was unhappy with it and this is why the committee was sent packing only to be met briefly in Kampala.
The reported "agreement" that the issue of a third time was not to be raised again became the basis for the planning of new manipulations to overcome such a `wrong compromise' by the powers that were.
Hence, the third manipulation was to plan how the Kiyonga committees report could be circumvented so that another report could be given to the NEC and the NC favourable to the "possibility," as Mr Kiyonga recently put it, of Museveni standing for the presidency again. The manipulative manoeuvre was now to create another "proper forum" which could produce a favourable report to be put forward instead of the Kiyonga "compromise" report?
According to president Museveni himself, as reported in the New Vision of 3 April, 2003, the recommendations he put forward to the NEC and NA were based on the fact that "the majority of memoranda from the district chairpersons and other delegates, called for the lifting of the restrictions on the two-term tenure of the president."
The question is; how did these memoranda come about and who organised them in a way they could become the basis of the constitutional discussions, instead of those memoranda going to the Ssempebwa Commission? Why did the "compromise" document not surface?
But it must be said in all fairness to Ms Matembe, Mr Bidandi, Gen. Muntu and Maj. Mushega, who put up a spirited fight in the NEC against the third term, that Mr Museveni found himself cornered and suggested another "proper forum" to reconsider the third term!
However, another in-between manipulation seems to have been hatched, we are told by The Monitor editorial, that an impromptu NEC was called over the week-end to "reconsider" the decision to put in place a committee on the matter. This "reconsideration" ensured that the issue of the third term was put to the main jamboree of 2400 NC members who approved the recommendation overwhelmingly with
only three lonely voices expressing disagreement with the recommendation.Whoever these "very senior people" were, they succeeded not only in reviving the third term issue but they also sidestepped the demand for the succession debate. What is more, during the interlude between the time since Bidandi raised the issue of succession and the meeting of NEC, these highly placed people had managed to introduce into the debate the third term issue, in almost all cases using the "wrong forum."
It means that these high ranking forces were in a position to create an atmosphere which legitimised the use of this "wrong forum" by using public platforms to raise the issue, which was denied Mr Bidandi and those who supported him.
But the most interesting of these manipulations at this stage, was to introduce the idea that the president was "prepared" to grant and/or discuss the Buganda demands for federo.
It is know that Mr Bidandi is one of the critics of the Buganda demand for federo. The president was giving a clear message to Buganda-that while he was prepared to discuss the whole issue of federo, people like Bidandi were hostile to the idea.
What he wanted to demonstrate publicly was that Baganda should support him in his quest for a "third term'" so that he can deliver to them the federo they crave for.
This manipulation, would have had the effect of silencing Bidandi Ssali and isolate him further, had it not been for Mr Binaisa's "meddling" in advising Museveni not to concede to the federo demands wholly!
At this stage, it should perhaps be pointed out that this resort to Buganda with promises of federo is not the first one. The Baganda political elite have been manipulated before by Museveni and his henchmen, just as they had been by Obote and his henchmen in the 1960s. During the elections to the Constituent Assembly in 1994, Buganda Lukiiko had been assured by the NRM that their demand would be considered in the CA, only to find that Bidandi had dug in his heels against it in favour of decentralisation.
When the National Caucus for Democracy-NCD in he Assembly agreed to Buganda's demands on condition it would to be discussed on a country wide basis, the NRM immediately turned around and revealed its true colours when the then Ssabalangiira Besweri Mulondo denounced federo and blamed Baganda CA delegates of working with "snakes"-meaning UPC. Even Mr Elly Karuhanga, at this stage, accused Baganda leaders of being used as "political condoms" by whoever wanted to do so!
The interesting thing is that the Buganda Lukiiko is now being called upon to do just that. They are being asked to "talk federo," but by first "giving Mzee" his third term. The problem is that the support will be to give the president unlimited "life presidency" and not a third term. In that case whatever he agrees to with the Buganda Lukiiko can during his long rein of power be overturned and disregarded just as Obote did in the 1960s. The important thing to raise here is whether the Buganda political leaders have learnt any lessons? Equally, it can be also asked whether Mr Bidandi Ssali has also learnt any lessons!
By the Lukiiko agreeing to talk federo and by Bidandi agreeing to continue to serve in the government despite his isolation both the Lukiiko and Mr Bidandi Ssali do not seem to have learnt any lessons. For Bidandi Ssali, in particular, the hope is still entertained that he could, "when we cross-the bridge" in three years, act as an election campaigner for Mr Museveni's life presidency (see New Vision, 3 April, 2003).
© 2003 The Monitor Publications
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
--- End Message ---
