Kategaya wrong on origin of third term
By Yoweri K. Museveni
Dec 28 - Jan 3, 2003
It is my duty to continuously enlighten Ugandans, in general, and Movement
supporters, in particular, about the future of our country. In The Monitor of December
23, Mr Eriya Kategaya was quoted as making some statements that were false or
tendentious.
Mr. Kategaya
I will not deal with all the issues because some are of no serious consequence.
Nevertheless, I must point out that the practice of Movement or government
leaders making discordant statements in public, outside Movement fora, is wrong. Until
we deal with this problem, however, I have no alternative but to, once in a while,
correct those false positions.
I will just deal with, the following aspects of Mr Kategaya's alleged statements:
(1) He has got "circumstantial" evidence that "Museveni is behind the third
term";
(2) He was shocked to learn that Museveni intended to "manipulate" the
Constitution for "selfish interests";
(3) "At times if people sing so many praises for you, you may think that you are
indispensable";
(4) "The leadership in the past has never been trusted. If Museveni amends the
Constitution, it will be part of the old cycle";
(5) "Political turmoil is a result of lack of strategic planning", asserts Mr.
Kategaya;
(6) "He does not believe that one man can have a vision for a country as
Museveni claims", says Mr Kategaya;
(7) "A one-man's vision is not a vision; I don't believe him. A vision must be
shared. I think it should be a Movement Vision";
(8) Somewhere else, Mr. Kategaya is quoted as saying he will oppose the "third
term" proposal in a referendum;
(9) He would accept the results of a referendum whatever the decision.
I have no problem with Mr Kategaya's last statement (9) saying that he would
accept the results of the referendum. That is, obviously, sensible and responsible.
That is what the Movement fought for - the ultimate sovereign authority of the
people of Uganda through elections or referenda by universal adult suffrage and secret
ballot.
Regarding Mr Kategaya's point No.8, opposing whatever position Museveni would be
taking in a referendum, that would be sad but not new or disastrous.
Many of the leaders of the Movement that came to be known as historicals after
the great victory of 1986 had not always worked together all the time.
There was always a "struggle between the two lines" as the Chinese
Revolutionaries used to call it: the struggle between the correct line and the
erroneous line at each junction of the march of historical events.
Therefore, there would be nothing new if Mr Kategaya took a line different from
the one I would take irrespective of my original opinion. I, however, call such a
development "sad" because Museveni will only take the line of the Movement - nothing
else.
If the Movement decided this or that way, that would be the line that Museveni
would take.
Therefore, if Mr Kategaya opposed the line Museveni would have taken, he would
be opposing the line of the Movement because I will not do anything that the Movement
would not have supported.
Indeed, by the interviews like this very one, which is said to have been given
to Mr Andrew Mwenda [on Monitor FM], Mr Kategaya is opposing the Movement decisions of
Kyankwanzi (National Executive Committee) of 26th - 28th March 2003 as well as those
of the International Conference Centre of 30th -31st of March 2003 (4th National
Conference).
This is "sad"! Nevertheless, the Movement, I am sure, will, at the appropriate
moment, deal with this error on Mr Kategaya's part and that of others that have been
following the same path.
Some people that were elected on the Movement ticket in the previous elections
have made it a habit to oppose Movement positions in Parliament or public fora.
They have been using the laxity of the present Constitutional arrangement. I am
sure with the registration of the Movement Organisation, that indiscipline will end.
Although I am still a serving Army officer and cannot, therefore, play a role in
the new NRM Organisation, I hope the new organisation will attempt not to squander the
massive Movement support by tolerating the indiscipline of some leaders.
Apart from that, there will be nothing new or disastrous in Mr Kategaya opposing
a position I would have taken.
Having disposed of points No.9 and 8, let us deal with Mr. Kategaya's other
points one by one:
Mr. Kategaya has got "circumstantial evidence" that Museveni secretly initiated
the agitation for Third Term although he (Museveni) has never said anything about it
in public. This is an insult to me from Mr. Kategaya. Since when have I ever feared to
state in Public what I felt?
I did not initiate the agitation for what has been, inappropriately, called
Third Term". By this, is meant, in fact, opening Article 105
(2) of the Constitution that limits the Presidential Terms to two. The main
reason I could not have initiated this was that I was too busy fighting the
terrorists.
It is the elements in the public that started agitating for the opening of the
Presidential Term and they were always giving their reasons.
Some of them were doing so in response to the Sempebwa Committee for the review
for the Constitution that was appointed by the Cabinet when Mr Kategaya was a member
of that body; while others were making statements at public meetings spontaneously.
Also many Movement supporters approached me directly. I decided to guide Prof.
Bukenya (Minister for the Presidency at that time) on my personal views on the
Constitutional Reforms.
I put my views in a confidential letter to Prof. Bukenya so that he could guide
our supporters.
On the 105 (2) - the so-called Third Term - I told Prof. Bukenya to encourage
the people to state their views without biasing them one way or the other.
What I could not do, however, was to take the thoroughly unreasonable and
suspect position to the effect that the Public were supposed to submit proposals for
Constitutional reforms on all other matters except the one on the lifting of the
Presidential Term. Why?
This is precisely what Mr Kategaya and his colleagues tried, unsuccessfully, to
put forward. This was amazing and portrayed the unholy motives of those pushing that
line. What is the logic?
The public could submit proposals on issues such as "Federo", authorizing the
full operationalisation of multi-partyism, changing the Presidential, Parliamentary
and Local Government terms by having Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government
elections at the same time (very different from the present arrangement), etc.; but
they must not mention the lifting of the Presidential term limits because this would
mean " dictatorship", it would mean changing "goal posts", it would mean selfishness,
etc!!
This position was, of course, not only erroneous but it, possibly, shed more
light on the motives of those taking that position than on the Constitutional issue
itself.
In a few of the confidential meetings that I have been involved in, where this
discussion has been generated, I pointed out the erroneousness of that biased
pre-judging of the issue.
When the anti-third term agitators were, initially, putting forward their
biased, unresearched, unreasoned position, many of us had never studied this issue.
At Kyankwanzi I proposed that we appoint a committee to study this issue but
take note of the overwhelming majority of the delegates in favour of limiting the
Presidential term. This, in fact, was agreed.
However, when we came to the bigger meeting at the Conference Centre, the
delegates rejected this and voted overwhelmingly to recommend to Sempebwa's Committee
that the Presidential term limit be lifted.
Nevertheless, I went ahead and commissioned Prof. Semakula Kiwanuka to study
this issue (the whys and the why nots) and report to me in writing. Prof. Kiwanuka
produced this report after thorough research.
I never had time to read this report until when I was on the plane to meet
President [George] Bush on June 10, 2003. The report was interesting. We used it in
the subsequent Cabinet discussion.
At this juncture, I would not like to go into the details of that here.
What I want to bring out here, is to reject the repeated statements by Mr
Kategaya that the active agitation for amending Article 105 (2) of the Constitution
was initiated by Museveni.
I would also like to question the motives of those who have been saying that it
is taboo to discuss this issue while all other articles of the Constitution can be
reviewed and, even, go to the extent of opposing, in public, a previous Movement
Organ's decisions. This is not acceptable!
"Museveni intended to manipulate the Constitution for selfish interests". The
Constitutional Review Commission was appointed by the Cabinet when Mr Kategaya was a
member of that body.
I do not remember that I even played an active role in appointing that
Committee. Why did Mr Kategaya expect all articles of the Constitution to be subject
to the review except this wonderful 105 (2)?
Who is "manipulating" the Constitutional Review process - Museveni or Mr
Kategaya?
A Constitutional Review meant a review - all articles of the Constitution were
subject to the review. Since Mr Kategaya was a member of the Cabinet, member of NEC,
member of the National Conference, he should have waited for an opportunity to
rationally discuss the merits or demerits of any of the proposals coming out of the
Review process.
Instead, he launched a media attempt to intimidate the Public with biased
positions. Who was manipulating the process and for what interest - altruistic,
rational or selfish?
"At times when people sing so many praises for you, you may think that you are
indispensable".
If Mr Kategaya means that Museveni has been the target of those "songs of
praise" from the public, then, possibly, they have their own reasons for showering
those praises.
I hope Mr Kategaya will not next time accuse Museveni of "manipulating" the
praises, or initiating those praises, as he now stands accused for "initiating" the
"Third Term" agitation.
About being "indispensable", although Mr Kategaya has never been in direct
combat with me (having been in the Political wing), he should have heard that, where
it was necessary, I would not hesitate to assault the enemy machine guns.
Those who think of themselves as indispensable, normally, preserve themselves
out of danger so that they survive to play their "indispensable" roles when victory is
attained. This is a point that we shall exhaust later, in future.
(4) "The leadership in the past has never been trusted. If Museveni amends the
Constitution, it will be the same old cycle". Museveni has no power to amend the
Constitution. If Museveni could amend the Constitution by decree, I would have long
amended the provisions dealing with investment and environment.
Up to now, I am asking the system to empower the President to enable
industrialisation to move faster and to also protect the environment. It is only the
people that can amend the Constitution.
"Political turmoil is a result of lack of long strategic planning".
We have been engaged in protracted battles with ADF in the Rwenzori and Congo;
we have been in a protracted struggle with Kony and those who were backing him in the
North. Was this because of lack of strategic planning? If it was so, why did Mr
Kategaya not guide the Movement about this strategic planning all these years?
Some of the struggles are part of history of colonialism or other forms of
historical distortions. The work of a revolutionary in the face of such distortions is
to sustain the protracted struggle.
The dangers to such a protracted struggle are the arrivists who think the
protracted struggle is terminated by achieving a certain phase.
Such arrivists removed the word "Resistance" from the former RCs, saying that
there is no more need for Resistance. Yet we have underdevelopment, fascism,
terrorism, HIV/AIDS, etc. to resist against. Strategic planning involves sustaining a
protracted struggle.
(6) Mr Kategaya does not believe that one man can have a Vision for the country.
"A one-man Vision is not a Vision". Unfortunately, this is, again false.
Jesus crystallized a Vision of life on earth and after life and passed it on to
his disciples. Mohammend, Bhudha, Marx, Adam Smith, Keynes, Mao Tse Tung, etc.
All these are individuals that crystallized different Visions, initially. In a
very modest way some individuals in the Movement have been responsible for certain
aspects of the Movement Resistance Vision.
There are some individuals that were responsible for the protracted military
struggle against the dictatorship without a rear base that resulted into the victory
of NRM; there are individuals that conceived the post victory recovery, etc.
These Visions were always passed down to a very large number of people; that is
why they succeeded.
Mr Kategaya would like us to believe that the Vision for the future in Africa is
so abundant and, therefore, it is not an issue. If this is so, why is it that Africa,
40 years after independence, has not had one country transition from Third World to
First World? This is not accidental.
The Movement, using the draft I made in 1974, evolved The 10-points-Programme.
That Vision has helped the country to recover and even grow. The GDP has doubled in
the last 18 years. Even, I notice, the social indicators, which were disastrous, have
started improving.
For example, Average life expectancy has improved from 42 years to 49 years -
not dramatic but better. Unfortunately, however, various Movement leaders responsible
for various sectors never try to push for implementation of this Vision.
What is this? Is it negligence, betrayal, or lack of seriousness? Consequently,
we lose so many opportunities such as the complete death of Uganda Airlines, which we
could have successfully privatized.
This piece is not exhaustive because I am still very hesitant to discuss
unresolved Movement issues in public. Yet I cannot, indefinitely, keep quiet in face
of such sustained indiscipline by some Movement leaders.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lt. Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is the President of Uganda.
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
**********Keep Hope Alive!!!*************
Win upto =N=150,000.00 ... Essay Competition 'HOPE PROJECT" ...see the ===>>>
http://www.iseehope.org
Nigeria arise to rebuild Hope
++++++++++++++
Nigerians for Nigeria, rebuilding a Country where No man is oppressed.
- ---
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********Keep Hope Alive!!!*************
****Internet Solution****
A one stop solution for your web site. It is fully Nigerian, with Hausa, Yorub and
Ibo Alphabets and so many resources easy to use and a 24/7 support access. Why go
further when a Nigerian, try this one you wont go elsewhere. I ve my signsture to
it... PJ Adamz Abuja Nigeria.
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abujaNig/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------
This service is hosted on the Infocom network
http://www.infocom.co.ug
