|
On Tuesday September 9, I undertook to discuss peaceful retirement of faded presidents. Let�s examine why President Museveni and his Movement have overstayed. It was, in my view, accidental and opportunistic, as I shall indicate.
The background
While Godfrey Binaisa bred his �umbrella� concept, the predominantly UPC �parliament,� the National Consultative Council awaited a chance to reintroduce party politics. It came when Binaisa attempted to remove chief of staff, David Oyite Ojok, from the army, and distance him by appointing him ambassador.
When head of the seemingly inconsequential Military Commission, Paul Muwanga, sized power, and set December 1980 for multiparty elections; which the Democratic Party (DP) had won if, allegedly, Milton Obote and Oyite Ojok had not, at gun point, told Muwanga that it was either UPC victory or his life. Muwanga usurped powers of the Electoral Commission: declaring non-UPC candidates already pronounced winners, as losers to defeated UPC candidates.
Yoweri Museveni had recently registered the Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM), for which Crispus Kiyonga won the single seat. And how Museveni, who definitely had a nucleus of tested fighters, had carried out his threat to stage an armed rebellion in case the elections were rigged. The question persists: who was the aggrieved party: Paul Ssemogerere�s DP, robbed of victory, or Yoweri Musevseni whose rather obscure party could not have won more than say two seats.
Now that civilians accused of supporting Kony are regarded as traitors; and might be punished accordingly, who was responsible for the Luwero deaths? Was it President Obote who was fighting rebels and their collaborators trying to overthrow him or Museveni who mobilised the Luwero�s civilian population against Obote�s �legitimately elected� government?
The twin Okellos, having overthrown Obote, would talk peace with the Museveni rebels: through the so-called �peace jokes.� Clearly the NRA was not genuine about the talks, as its forces were apparently advancing as the talks progressed: which annoyed Presidnt Moi, whose Nairobi arbitration efforts they were mocking. The rest is history.
Promises, Hopes and Expectations
The �liberators� brought not a mere �change of guard,� but fundamental change: with an integrated, self-sustaining economy. We would utilise our vast fertile lands to feed ourselves and the region�Liberators denounced the self-aggrandizement excesses of previous regimes; using taxpayer�s money to import locally obtainable household furnishings and luxury cars.
Government furniture would be Kawempe and Bwaise made. Tumpeco mugs would serve tea at State House. Ministers and officials would use simple affordable utility cars, etc�Above all, the Rule of Law would be restored together with peace and stability. Four years from January 26 1986, a government elected by the people would replace the NRM�s. As Hon Jack Sabiiti has reminded us, political parties had, by clubby mutual agreement, been put on hold.
The formation and metamorphosis of the National Resistance Council (NRC) were not objectionable. But before its four years were up, and �after consultations with their respective constituents,� the NRC decided to extend its own life to another five years.
Thus the President had, by a stroke of the pen (or word of mouth) pocketed nine years of uninterrupted rule; during which time political parties would remain tethered; with an assiduous diatribe demonising them as the cause of Uganda�s woes, without them gainsaying the accusations since political party activity was �mutually� stilled.
Although some protested, hardly anyone objected to these developments because the NRM was at the apex of its popularity; and party leaders had succumbed to the rewards of the broad base. Hardly anyone questioned the assumption that all were �Movementists.�
Similarly: why the taxpayer funded the Movement secretariat; or was (and still is) paying debts, incurred by NRA as a rebel army. But these were mere preliminaries. The greatest bait that hooked practically all, including leading intellectuals, was the making of a dream �people�s constitution!�
Uganda�s non-controversial, and sensibly legitimate 1962 Independence Constitution, was occasionally criticised for being ethnical, having a substantial federal flavour. Obote�s Pigeonhole 1966 edict merits no mention. His 1967 constitution destroying the seed of federalism and giving overwhelming powers to the President was popular with �socialists.�
I have, in the past opined about Yusufu Lule being hoodwinked into swearing to it; and why Museveni�s NRM government was pleased to follow suit: mainly because it had abolished kingships; about which they hastily � and �extraconstitutionally� - changed complexion after assessing the volume of votes commanded by monarchists.
The constitution-making process of 1994-5 bought time for Movement rule, and entrenched its rule indefinitely by the introduction of Articles 69 to 74 and 269 to 271, all of which contradict the fundamental democratic precept enshrined in by Article 75.
How? The Constituent Assembly comprised partisans. A number of us commentators, including constitutional experts such as Prof. George Kanyeihamba (now judge of the Supreme Court), protested against aspirants to the next parliament being elected delegates. They must disqualify themselves as Constituent Assembly Delegates or renounce their right to stand for the next parliament.
These suggestions were ignored because they would trim the majorities cultivated by the Movement all along among special interests: such as the disabled, the army, the youth, women and nominees.
In any case, apart from tough party candidates, practically everybody stood on the Movement ticket. Since each county was a constituency, you had an unwieldy Constituent Assembly approaching 300 the great majority of whom were self-proclaimed Movementists: the ones who passed the obnoxious articles I mentioned above, the inclusion of which caused some opposition CADS to withhold signatures to the 1995 Constitution.
The seed of one man�s rule
As a matter of unified opposition to brazen Movement partisanism, one or two common interest caucuses were formed. This spelt the end of parliamentary democracy. How? Parliament was overwhelmingly predominated by the �Movement caucus.�
Thus partisan legislative proposals were first �discussed� by this caucus, chaired by the president after hefty rumours of impending cabinet reshuffles, were scattered; with �informed� whispers to the influential, that they were strong candidates. Much of the time members would carefully listen to the chair: whose views became those of caucus - and of parliament, and therefore law.
Thus, apart from the dissenting voices of pluralist minorities, Parliament progressively became the legislative wing of the voice and wishes of the president. Added to the presidential range of appointments, the LC network and his grip on the army, the president often disregards Parliament even where he constitutionally should consult it.
Examples abound. That is the reason presidential appointments sail through en masse; the reason we have 56 districts, nearly 70 ministers and over 300 MPs and countless idle presidential �advisers� and RDCs. Many of them being misfit or discard loyalists. He rules through the instruments of fear and rapacity, not love or loyalty as such.
Space will not permit discussion of the effect of this environment on presidential and parliamentary elections except that, since Col. Kizza Besigye�s presidential candidature; and its seismic effect on the rigorous assumption that no person of consequence could dare stand; all we have known are rancour, revenge intolerance; and the woes that the Besigye family and supporters have endured. Only God knows what might have happened if Besigye had won his rerun petition! One insider confided to me that Besigye would have won the elections.
In which case �practically all of us would be inside.� Why? Besigye knows too much for our rulers� comfort.
For the past 17 years there have occurred historical episodes providing opportunities that have been politically exploited. The greatest was the constitution-making process which opportunistic NRM leaders exploited to make a blatantly partisan constitution where the president and his cohorts would hold power perpetually.
At the same time, and during elections, certain undertakings were made in the process of procuring votes. The major current one was that President Museveni would step down at the end of his �second� (actually 4th) term in accordance with Article 105 (2). But he had sequentially overstayed already: sustaining a real �Chiluba� in the process.
Adulators must have told him that whispers in the correct ears would indefinitely sustain him in power: provided �the people� chorused the tune that the limit set by Article 105 (2) was a pointless �handicap�. The opposition would be greased by the lure of removing party restriction, overlooking the twist of the �voice of the people� through the accursed referendum.
The whole Movement �family� cannot be said to be rejoicing about the 17-year exclusive rule. The President had acquired such influence that it was like Hitler�s time, when hardly anyone dared even backbite him for fear of mutual betrayal and harsh reprisals.
Seventeen years was bad enough. Twenty-two was the bottom line. Loyalists Bidandi Ssali, and Miria Matembe; the reticent like Eriya Kategaya, Mathew Rukikaire and Augustine Ruzindana�the churches and clerics have all come out openly to oppose the 22-year one man�s rule.
Instead of talking to them with a view to a national conference, the president�s advisers have told him to sack dissidents and talk tough. Those are his real enemies.
My question: May President Museveni retire in peace? Yes, if he ignores (or sacks) adulators; and listened to the dissidents instead of trying to throw them out of the party. This way he need not fear a �Chiluba.� Next time we discuss how.
Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] & Tel: +25677401173 | 
