By Anne Mugisha
Dec 28, 2003
I read with disbelief President Yoweri Museveniâs opinion titled âI will not tolerate subversion in the Movementâ (The Monitor, December 24).
Mr Museveni reportedly delivered the paper to MPs from Ankole on April
22, 2003. In my opinion this paper and other recent writings by our president have been helpful in exposing to all Ugandans the deep contradictions that are inherent in both the Movement system and in the mind of the president.
President Museveni
Museveni states:
âAccess to public service jobs is, mainly, through advertisements and interviews and the political jobs are through elections. Who can be marginalised in such a system if he/she has the individual merit (political or professional)? Maligning me personally by saying that I was clandestinely supporting certain elements against other Movement cadres.
How can this be? In keeping with my character to do something in public and something else in private, except of course in intelligence operations? Why should I fear to oppose somebody publicly whom I believe to be subversive? Since when did I develop such fear?
In the last parliamentary elections, I openly opposed the re-election of Ms Winnie Byanyima, Ms Winnie Babihuga, Mr Musinguzi [Garuga] of Kinkizi West, Mr Kibanzanga of Kasese, etc because they had identified with the conspiracy of dividing the Movement spear-headed by [Dr Kizza] Besigye.â
The contradictions in that passage alone are amazing. In one breath President Museveni tells us that political jobs are obtained through elections based on individual merit and he even wonders how anyone can be marginalised by such a system.
Then he goes on to reveal how he actively campaigned against Reform Agenda candidates who supported Col. Besigye. The rationale for his illegal action is that Dr Besigye led a conspiracy to divide the Movement.
I say illegal because the 1995 Constitution under which the 2001 elections were held states that: Article 70. (1) The movement political system is broad based, inclusive and non-partisan and shall conform to the following principlesâ (a) participatory democracy; (b) democracy, accountability and transparency; (c) accessibility to all positions of leadership by all citizens; (d) individual merit as a basis for election to political offices.
Article 71. A political party in the multi-party political system shall conform to the following principlesâ (f) no person shall be compelled to join a particular party by virtue of belonging to an organisation or interest group.
Byanyima, Babihuga, Musinguzi and Kibanzanga did not at anytime denounce the Movement during the 2001 elections. Moreover the Constitution guarantees their right to leave the Movement if they so wished, while Article 70 guaranteed their right to stand on the basis of individual merit.
So in spite of the fact that they acted within the law, they still had to deal with an array of hostile and illegal intelligence organisations like Kalangala Action Plan and self styled Movement promoters like âNyekundiireâ in violent and extremely frustrating political campaigns.
The examples that Museveni chose to illustrate his illegal campaign against Reform candidates are also revealing. Perhaps without exception these were the constituencies that witnessed the most violence, rigging and controversy during the 2001 elections. One can confidently conclude that the presidentâs involvement against these political leaders was in itself a cause for violence.
The president was also engaged in all kinds of illegal activities. The High Court has found that the Movement at the time of the 2001 elections was behaving like a political party, yet Article 73(1) does not allow political parties to exist during the tenure of the Movement system.
He used the Movement organs to deny Kizza Besigye his legal entitlement of standing as a Movement candidate on individual merit. The Movement Conference urged Museveni to stand as their only candidate and Museveni âgraciouslyâ accepted.
In this paper Museveni also reveals that he used the platform of the Movement to go around de-campaigning candidates who were acting within the ambit of the law to offer themselves as candidates in the 2001 parliamentary elections.
Since Article 71(f) makes it unconstitutional to forcefully conscript people into a party, one cannot help wondering where Museveni gets the audacity to flagrantly flout the laws of the country while demanding that all members of the Movement and those who opt out must abide strictly by his wishes or else risk bursting his tolerance levels.
This is just a manifestation of the phenomenon that the Reform Agenda highlighted in 2001 and continues to speak against today: President Museveni simply cannot draw a line between the Movement organisation and himself.
The organisation is simply an extension of his personal territory, indeed of his very ego and self.
This is a very dangerous tendency that must be resisted by all right thinking Ugandans. It is the same tendency that leads President Museveni to rely heavily on individuals like in-law Mr Sam Kutesa and brother Lt. Gen. Salim Saleh for political and military strategy and to vest the responsibility of his personal security in the hands of his son, Maj. Muhoozi Kainerugaba.
In the final analysis he can trust these individuals because he regards them as an extension of himself because they are his family.
The sectarian undertones that pervade the whole paper that the president wrote are simply a continuation of this misguided and dangerous thinking.
It is clear from statements like the following one that Museveni can not fathom why Ankole politicians would choose to abandon his treasured Movement when they could opt in and indulge in the spoils of his regime.
âYet certain leaders from Ankole, sometimes in concert with other elements from other areas, carry out a whispering campaign against the leadership of our Movement and the State. Sometimes, they take over acts that are at variance with collectively agreed positions. I always hear about these subterranean goings on in which certain MPs from Ankole are involved.â
The attempt by the president to skim over the issue of Bahima-Bairu relations in a deliberately simplified manner is a mockery to the people of Ankole. President Museveni knows better than many that the politics of Ankole must confront rather than evade the real likelihood of an explosion of Bahima-Bairu sentiments that could cause a rift that would simply bury the Movement in Ankole. He is treading on thin ice and he knows it.
It is this fear and understanding of Ankole politics that caused the president to call the meeting where he delivered this paper in the first place. By taking the initiative, the president hoped to instill fear in the MPs from Ankole not to over react to his actions; like firing Mr Eriya Kategaya and Ms Miria Matembe as well as sidelining Mr Richard Kaijuka and Mr Amanya Mushega all from the Bairu caste.
He also knew that his actions would cause simmering tensions between the two castes, but tried to exploit another well-known division in Ankole politics which is that of Catholics and Protestants.
President Museveni knows that if the Bairu ganged up against him in Ankole, he would have hard time selling his Movement (NRM-O) to anyone, particularly in areas like Bushenyi.
And so another clever way to keep them divided is on religious lines.
And so one might find it illuminating to consider that the sidelined and fired former ministers were all Protestants while Mr Peter Kasenene, Mr Kahinda Otafiire and Mr Tarsis Kabwegyere and I am sure a few more retained and new Ankole ministers are Catholics.
So it is hypocritical and diversionary for President Museveni to write
a paper that appears to attack sectarianism when he excels at using that very divide and rule strategy to scatter the opposition in Ankole and elsewhere.
*The author is Reform Agendaâs secretary for International and Regional Affairs.
 2003 The Monitor Publications
