By Muhammad K. Mayanja
Oct 21, 2003
|
The major lesson I learnt from the experience of being a non incumbent candidate who contested for the office of the president in 1996 and 2001 was that Article 105 of the 1995 Constitution, which limited the tenure of office for the president to two terms was its greatest strengths. Although elections are supposed to take place every five years, the genuine election would be one in which the incumbent had served his two term limit and is therefore not a candidate. For the people of Uganda this opportunity would come in 2006 after President Yoweri Museveni had served the two terms allowed him in the Constitution of 1995. Now, if the cabinet plot to assassinate Article 105 succeeds, it will be a coup d�etat against constitutionalism. In those two presidential elections I learnt that the notion that power belongs to the people of Uganda under Article 1 of our Constitution is still more of a myth. The people�s power is at the mercy of the incumbent. In all elections we have held with incumbent Museveni as a candidate, we have never had a level playing field. The election law favoured him. For example, the election laws for 2001 allowed the incumbent to retain all the facilities he ordinarily enjoyed because he still remained the President of Uganda. After the elections in 1996, a seminar for all stakeholders, which was held at Mbarara Lake View Hotel, recommended several changes in the electoral laws. But come 2001 no action had been taken. Experience has shown that we cannot have a level playing field for as long as the problem of incumbency persists. During the run up to the 2001 elections, some people suggested that in order to level the field, the incumbent should first resign and hand over power to the Chief Justice. This view was ignored. Mr Steven Akabway, who was Interim Electoral Commission Chairman in 1996, was constantly bombarded with accusations against candidate Museveni about his abuse of incumbency to control the election process. During the election of 2001, the then Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Hajji Aziz Kasujja wrote a letter to Museveni objecting to the deployment of the army Museveni disregarded Kasujja�s letter. The Parliamentary Probe Committee on Election Violence collected ample evidence implicating state security organs in election violence and electoral fraud. The results of 2001 election were contested in the Supreme Court by candidate Dr Kizza Besigye. In their ruling, all the five presiding judges agreed that the election process was full of fraud. They only differed on the scale of rigging which made three out of five to rule that the scale and level of rigging did not substantially affect the final result of the election. There was also another dimension in which incumbency was played against us. As campaigns for 2001 elections gained momentum, a number of huge contracts for construction of critical roads were signed. This included the Karuma-Arua and Kiboga-Masindi Roads. Immediately Museveni went through, construction was shelved. Do not be surprised when as election time approaches you hear that work is commencing on the construction of Mubende-Fort Portal Road. Several such carrots were dangled before the electorate in various parts of the country. The biggest crime anyone can commit now is to expunge Article 105 which is the heart of the 1995 Constitution. President Museveni�s political career itself is testimony to this. Museveni formed the Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM) in 1981 and contested in the general election. He lost miserably Nyabushozi and his UPM won only one constituency in Kasese District for Dr Cripus Kiyonga. He fled to the bush and fought a rebel war until he took power in 1986. He consolidated power for ten years until 1996 when he organised an election which he won. What made the difference between the 1981 and 1996 election was that in 1996 Museveni was the incumbent and that is how he managed to win. The real credit, which the framers of the 1995 Constitution, can get is the inclusion of Article 105 in the final document. Presidential term limits are the real neutralizers of the incumbency advantage. Every after 10 years an election which is not contested by the sitting president takes place and the people have a chance to choose from candidates who are not yet intoxicated by power. The term limit guarantees people�s power. This experience was clearly demonstrated in last year�s Kenyan election where, after President Daniel Arap Moi had completed his term, Kenyans voted in a candidate of their choice. They did this in spite of Moi�s support for another candidate. The same experience was also exemplified in the Ghana election where former President Jerry Rawlings organised an election in which he was not a candidate. The term limit in Article 105 has been shown to be the essence of constitutionalism in fragile democracies such as our own. The million-dollar question, therefore, is what guarantee against incumbency will be left after Article 105 is removed? Lifting of the term limit in Uganda is tantamount to introducing life presidency Elections and referenda will not liberate Ugandans because the people are powerless having been already taken hostage by incumbency. The only ray of hope is the mounting opposition against third term by a variety of forces. These include the opposition political parties which are marshalling their forces, the several anti-third term and anti-life presidency voices in the country, religious groups and the students in institutions of higher learning who are re-awakening to the challenge of resisting dictatorship. The potential is there but what remains is to consolidate all these anti-third term groups into one formidable force for a viable civil action. Every thing possible must be done to protect and preserve Article 105. Mr Mayanja is President of Justice Forum. |
� 2003 The Monitor Publications
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
