|
No-Holds-Barred
By Peter G. Mwesige |
Which side will our MPs be on in 2004?
Jan 1, 2004
|
It has been a year of political bombshells. But more than any other issue it has been the year of the Third Term. When it was revealed in February that President Yoweri Museveni had recommended that the country should open up to multi-party politics after all, it was a shocker to many Movement supporters. The Constitutional Court was soon to add spices to the mix when it ruled in March that sections of the Political Parties and Organisations statute that barred political parties from opening branches, campaigning for candidates in elections, holding public rallies and holding delegates conferences, among others, were in fact unconstitutional. However, this landmark ruling and what appeared to be Museveni�s most magnanimous move on political parties were soon eclipsed by the agitation for him to get a third term, couched under some inexplicable new love for no presidential term limits. Museveni has thus far refused to come clear on whether he will renege on his 2001 campaign promise to leave power after his current and last constitutional term ends in 2006. He has argued in speeches, missives and interviews that he will make his position clear at the �right time� and in the �right forum.� In his most recent missive in response to former Deputy Premier Eriya Kategaya, Museveni denied having initiated the agitation for Third Term and put the responsibility on �elements in the public.� A few days earlier, he had been quoted as saying in an interview with the BBC�s retiring Mr Robin White that he was �not insisting on staying in power� but �insisting on� the vision.� When White pushed him further, Museveni invoked what has now become his standard argument: �Changes are supposed to be done by the people.� He added that the constitution was under review �and will have to be realigned in a number of areas. Which particular areas will be realigned is not my business. At the right time I will have my views and I will express [them]. But I am not the one who is pushing for the changes. Everybody knows what we need and we can discuss it all. Our people will decide what they want at the right time.� So you are not prepared to say here and now that you will not stand for another term of office? White asked. �No, I will not say that because this is not the right time and place to sort that issue out.� While Museveni and other Ugandans who are pushing for the removal of term limits and those opposing the move have every right to do so, the President�s handling of this matter is at the very best a contradiction and at worst political fraud. To limit the argument to the notion that the power to change the constitution lies with the people not only ignores the place of leadership in political transition, it also suggests an expedient abdication of responsibility. After all, when Museveni decided to recommend the return to multiparty politics, many Movement supporters both in the government and the population at large still wanted �no change.� But the President wisely thought the Movement should be firmly in charge of the inevitable transition to multi-party democracy. Dismissing the recommendation of the [Dr Crispus] Kiyonga ad hoc committee, which had supported the continuation of the Movement system, Museveni said allowing the return to multi-party democracy would protect investment in Uganda, appease foreign donors, and also rid (�okubegyako�) the Movement of people who were undermining it from within. This is the same position that the President repeated to Movement�s National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Conference meetings in March. Even if we are to give Museveni the benefit of the doubt and concede that he did not initiate the third term project that could easily give him a life presidency, it does not absolve him of complicity in this matter. If Museveni had found any merit in continuing with the current constitutional provisions that limit presidential terms to two, he would have advised the NEC and National Conference delegates accordingly. Given his continuing popularity among Movement supporters (we cannot deny the man this credit), the agitation for a third term would now probably be history. That he has refused to come out in black and white on this matter suggests the proverbial allure of the chair has gotten to him. The President�s argument that �which particular areas [of the constitution] will be realigned is not my business� is outright dishonesty. Both the Movement�s and cabinet�s recommendations to the Constitutional Review Commission are filled with Museveni�s thinking. The underlying philosophy behind most of those recommendations is the entrenchment of constitutional despotism. And the Third Term Project should be seen in that light. It is part of a bigger project that will undermine constitutional checks on executive power. While the political playing field continues to be heavily tilted in the Movement�s favour, the current Parliament has a historical opportunity to rise up in defence of constitutionalism. At the end of the day, no constitutional amendment will be possible without the approval of our MPs. Which side will they be on? That should be one of the major questions of 2004. Enjoy the New Year! [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
� 2003 The Monitor Publications
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
