By Ssemujju Ibrahim Nganda
Jan 28 - Feb 3, 2004
|
The Odoki Constitutional Commission wrote a report outlining the merits and demerits of the Movement political system. SSEMUJJU IBRAHIM NGANDA reproduces what the commission reported. MERITS: The principle of participatory democracy is given its highest _expression_ by the Movement system: It is argued that this system is based on the principle that politics should be inclusive, as opposed to the past experience of political parties where those in or seeking power [practice] the �winner take all� syndrome. The freedom of the people to select their representatives on the basis of evaluation of their personal characteristics is also more democratic than selection based mainly on party affiliation. National unity and reconciliation are best served by the Movement system: Most of Uganda�s past sufferings are seen as caused by the weak nation-building process which has resulted in conflicts which tend to be tribal and regional and serious enough to disrupt the stability and unity of the nation. Ugandans need reconciliation after 30 years of killing one another and oppression of large groups. The manner in which the NRM system has worked since its introduction in 1986 has proved that it can protect and promote democracy and stability. Past experience has shown gross discrimination in development, the party in power or the military regime choosing to reward its supporters while neglecting areas and sections of its conceived �enemies� Since NRM came to power the policy of reconciliation has been consistently followed and with success. General amnesties have been honestly conformed to, which has allowed exiles to return home and fighting groups to surrender and be absorbed in society�s development process. DEMERITS: The system was intended as a combining of social forces committed to resolution of a crisis and so is by its nature temporary. Those who subscribe to this view use the example of UNLF (Uganda National Liberation Front) which was formed in Moshi, Tanzania, in early 1979 to remove Idi Amin�s regime. The numerous groups, which made up the Front were fragmented, holding divergent views on the future of the country. What they shared in common was determination to remove the Amin regime. Soon after that goal was achieved the front started to disintegrate and in doing so caused many deaths and much suffering. The Front did not share a united commitment to establishing democracy in Uganda. The conflicts were so fundamental that factions began to plot to eliminate their opponents. Those who share this view compare what happened under the UNLF to the present NRA/NRM system. They see the alliance forged in 1986 as temporary. They further argue that once a national crisis has been overcome the Movement no longer has a justification for remaining as the political system of government. Constitutional longevity Besides, a Movement, even if it continued for a few more years, cannot condition the future development nor can it foresee future trends. To entrench it in a constitution that is meant to last is to offend the cardinal principle that only those principles and systems which have the likelihood of being long lasting should find a place in a national constitution. A Movement system operates like a political party; it has founders, core members, insiders and outsiders. Like a political party, its inner mechanisms are exclusionary. Many views from party activists have been submitted to support the above. They argue that the NRM is only buying time before it can declare itself a political party, having taken advantage of the suspension of political activities of other parties to wield popular influence in the country. They point to the privileged position of the �historical� members, the role played by the NRM Secretariat, the influence exerted over the young by the political schools, the Ten Point programme, the resistance council system as the special characteristics of a political party which uses the guise of the Movement to cloak its fear of democratic opposition. It becomes difficult for people to really know where to lay blame for an action of a minister or public servant within the Movement. This system is not as accountable as a party system where opposition parties tend to keep the government under close scrutiny. What those who oppose it fear most is the absence of a clear and new alternative to such a system once that system no longer serves the interests of the people. The best that can happen is to change a leader here and there but without providing a real alternative. The Movement gradually becomes monolithic under the common programme agreed upon. What happens when people want a completely new programme? If real change is needed, people will not be satisfied merely with new faces. Rather they will want new policies and new vision. This, they agree, is the main function of a multi-party system. Until people are provided with real and clear alternative visions, policies and leadership, democracy cannot be safeguarded. Those opposed to government policies must be able to have a political front to amass support for their alternative policies. Government by general consensus on every issue may be idealistic but is not a realistic long-term option in today�s world of pluralistic thinking. Views were advanced to show how a Movement can also be too rigid. They asked why the NRM Secretariat cannot utilise a range of different political approaches in political education courses; approaches which fulfil the aspirations of the various groups and communities in the country? It is only, they conclude, when a nation has alternative programmes, which promote democracy that it has the democratic right to choose what they consider best at that time and in those circumstances. A Movement has no clear manifesto, a factor which can facilitate tendencies towards policies that the people do not support. The Ten Point Programme is considered by some views as too broad, basic and non-specific. The Movement system in Uganda started in a particular locality and spread in a particular region, and so has little chance of being fully accepted throughout the country, especially in those parts where it has met ongoing �military� resistance. Many of the views from the areas which have been disturbed and unstable since 1987 tend to prefer a multiparty political system because of the confrontation they have had with the NRA, the military wing of the Movement. Fears of despotism While the present leadership of the NRM may be enlightened, a Movement system is too open to usurpation of power by narrow groups and the emergence of dictatorship. Many have argued that the presence of a charismatic and honest leader today should not blind people into thinking that there will always be impressive leaders. Once a system is set in place care must be taken to envisage all the possible abuses that may emerge should selfish leaders usurp leadership positions. It is at such times that a Movement may become fully dictatorial and anti-people. There is a need for a system which provides checks and balances, rather than relying on the dangerous fragility of a system based on a few leading personalities. The Movement system is too closely related to the phenomenon of one-party states, whereas political parties are part and parcel of the new era of African liberation from militarism and one party states. Most countries of Africa, which started with a multiparty system soon became one-party states. But now, in this era of the �Second Independence� of Africa, such countries are returning to multiparty systems. It would be a misreading of the signs of the times to adopt a Movement political system, which is in most aspects similar to a one-party system. Uganda cannot afford to live in isolation from trends in the world around it. |
� 2004 The Monitor Publications
Help STOP spam with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
