By Alex B. Atuhaire
Feb 22 - 29, 2004
|
Mr Peter Walubiri is a member of the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) Presidential Policy Commission and deputy leader of the opposition group, which has been named the G-7. Sunday Monitor's Alex B. Atuhaire asked him to explain what the opposition hopes to come out of the talks with government. Experts. QN: The talks seem to be hitting a snag? Should the public expect anything useful out of this?
The public should pray that government becomes serious with these talks because there is no other peaceful option to sort out the gigantic constitutional, legal and economic problems facing the country other than meaningful dialogue between government and the opposition which is constituted by the seven political parties and groups. Government seems not to be serious over this. QN: What is the source of this lack of seriousness? Government doesn't seem to be committed to the outcome of these talks being binding and being the basis of the way forward for this country. They seem to be interested in using the talks as a public relations gimmick to show the world that they respect the opposition. QN: There is the question of who you are talking to? Is it the state or Movement party leaders? The Movement we understand is the organisation running the state. It is the organisation with mandate to introduce legislative and constitutional amendments. What we would wish to see is [Dr. Crispus] Kiyonga and his team to come out and unequivocally state that they have the full mandate of government - the executive of this country. That is the president and his cabinet so that whatever we agree on becomes binding and will be implemented by the president and his cabinet. QN: The government team says your demands are prohibitive for the talks to continue?
We made a number of demands, over ten of them. But over time, we have reduced them to a minimum of four, which demands we consider very reasonable. The first: We need a neutral chairperson other than the leader of the government delegation such that the talks can be respected. We also need a neutral secretary or if we can't get this, we get a co-chairperson and co-secretary. That is not an unreasonable demand. In all negotiations you try to look for a neutral chairperson. Secondly, given the history of opposition in this country, in the first phase, we wanted to talk as a group and government. But government wants to force us to a negotiating position with other groups with which we have no history of working together. Groups that we suspect and with whom we have no common agenda. People like Nelson Ocheger who then legitimised the referendum of 2000. People like Francis Bwengye, who is on record having sworn an affidavit supporting the Movement in the rigged elections of 2001. People like Kamulegeya! We can't have them on board. Thirdly: We represent and talk for millions of Ugandans. These Ugandans should not be left in the dark about these negotiations. The only way they can be involved is if we are free as leaders of these parties to access them in all public fora, like seminars, rallies such that we consult them. The last demand is that the outcome of these talks be binding to all parties. QN: Has government agreed to any of your four demands? They have not accepted any. We sense some movement to accept perhaps the idea that results are binding. The only way we can be sure that they have accepted is if they do this in writing. QN: Where do we go from here? We are trying to arrange another meeting with government on these four issues and hopefully we reach some consensus. You people in the opposition have neither held elections nor renewed your membership since 1980, some people ask, whom are you representing? It's not our fault. We are captives of an autocratic system but in informal contacts, whenever we have had an opportunity, we have been able to gauge our support. If government 'thinks' that we do not have support, let them test this by allowing us to go out there and call public meetings and see if we are ignored by the public. QN: Then why shouldn't government talk to the other groups you call suspicious? They also have been captives of an autocratic system? You see we are not working from utopia. We are working from history and experience. We know who Nelson Ocheger is. In 2000 he just surfaced all of a sudden and said he was a multipartyist. We know what Mayanja Nkangi has been up to. He is the one who drafted the referendum laws. These are discredited individuals. In fact let them also be allowed to call public gatherings and we gauge their support. QN: What drives the G-7? It is our common belief in democratic values; namely multiparty governance based on respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and rule of law. That is the minimum position. That's what unites us, that is what drives us. QN: What are the G-7 plans for 2006 elections? There are reports that you have formalised a coalition? That is again reported out of context. We had a retreat in Jinja and recommended to the leaders of the seven political parties and groups to formalise our coalition, which has been going on for a number of years not essentially for purposes of electioneering but for purposes of working together to dismantle dictatorship in Uganda. When the time comes we shall decide whether all of us field one candidate but that question is still on the table. QN: President Museveni says you people have no vision to lead this country? Of course he doesn't believe that himself. He knows that we have a vision. The parties that existed before independence namely DP and UPC had clear vision about independence, self-governance, Africanisation, export-led growth, quality education, quality health care and so on. When these parties have had chance to participate in elections, they have presented elaborate manifestos. Even new parties have a vision. It is arrogance of the highest mark on his part to denigrate the opposition. Eighteen years down the road, his vision has not born fruit. Peasants are still dying of curable diseases like malaria, poverty is increasing, and our economy is increasing donor dependence, our country is embroiled in war. Is that the fruit of his vision? May be it's a vision of destruction. QN: I am reliably told that you will be among the proposed UPC presidential candidate's come 2006. Is that true? The party does not propose candidates in cavalier or ad hoc fashion. We have a constitution. The issue of candidates can only arise when the party is free to contest under a multiparty arrangement and when the party has organised itself and has structures. There are no plans to hold a delegate's conference because we are not allowed to hold one. QN: What is the strength of your politics? My focus now is to participate in the democratic struggle to free all political parties in the country. I am chairman of the UPC National Organising Committee. My focus is to work tirelessly to re-organise the structures of the party. We are busy working to ensure that our branches and constituency branches are working. Once this is finished, I will gauge what role I can play in the party and in the country. |
� 2004 The Monitor Publications
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
