Firstly the issues at play in a democratic system vary from region to region and even from country to country, that is why their are political parties which are supposed to reflect the array of issues in a given political state. In fact a prominent politician in America once said that "all politics is local". Even in America it is well known and understood by the political class, that domestic issues takes presidence over foreign issues during elections (recall Clintons phrase "it's the economy stupid"), that is why, despite Bush's dismal showing and failure on the international scene, he is still a strong candidate and can very well win the upcoming elections, why? because he is apparently taking care of bussiness at home.
Now, using the writers logic below, we (non-Americans) should be condeming American democracy (and politicians) for not pointing out to the American electorate, the importance of American foreign policy to the rest of the world...that is utter nonsense, an average American voter is going to pick a candidate who can gurantee puting food on his table, a job and safety within his/her immediate environment, full stop. All the mombo jumbo and intricacies concerned with foreign policy and the need to assist Africa by giving aid (his taxes), which on the long run will benefit America does not make sense if the voter has no job, can't feed his/her family, even though the argument my be true.
Secondly, the writer is wrong in assuming that the whole rural class in Uganda supports government. If it were so then parliament would be 100% NRM...or is the writer trying to say that the rural electorate where the opposition has support are more enlightened w.r.t democratic principles, human rights, etc., than the rural electrorate which supports government? and would the writer still have same view if the opposition were in power. It is also erronous for the writer to assume that the whole urban class in Uganda supports the opposition, that argument is definetly false, based on callibre of poeple who support government.
Thirdly, the article is very shallow because it fails to mention the "two ten pound gorrillas in the room" so to speak, which are the fulcrums upon which Ugandan (and African) politics revolve, which are ethnicity and religion. Most political parties in Uganda (and Africa) are hinged on religion and ethnicity, and voting patterns portray this bias, that is why UPC will do better in the north than in the south and NRM will do better in the south than in the north etc. In addition to that, a peoples experience under a certain political party, influences there subsequent voting pattern. This is evident, for example, in Buganda, where UPC was strong in the 60's, but is now very weak, because of the negative rule of UPC, particularly in the 80's. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the electorate in one region being more enlightened about democratic principles and human rights than the other.
In conclusion, it should be understood that democracy is a double edged sword, which on the one hand gives the electorate the freedom to elect candidates who best represent there interest, whilst on the other hand as the writer is displaying, the poeples choice may not necessarily be your choice and that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. You just have to take the good with the bad.
From: "gook makanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ugnet_: Peasants trapped in politics of greed Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:38:09 +0000
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- Begin Message ---Peasants trapped in politics of greed
By Odoi Erisa Yoga
April 29, 2004
It is not uncommon and in fact real, for political organisations to draw the bulk of their political support from the rural masses as they ignore the often strong and critical opposition from the �minority urban elite�.
This seemingly massive political support from the rural masses may not be taken as misconstrued by political as endorsement of their political programme and goodwill per se.
The social setting in an African rural countryside does not permit the majority of the residents to view issues in more than one dimension, be they social, economic or political, and be able to analyse them beyond the dictates of their social confinement.
Human nature is such that it will limit people�s behaviour and attitudes according to certain principles based on their needs. The needs of the majority of people in the rural countryside are circumstantially basic and for survival.
These needs such as food, water, shelter, security and belonging are so basic that if they are not realised, they form a ghetto out of which a human being cannot appreciate any other needs or values.
It follows that such category of people will simply not be able to pay attention to any concerns outside this horizon, which defines their level of motivation.
This explains why it has not been possible to draw the attention of the rural masses to crucial political issues of democracy and its tenets. Their concern is limited to their survival needs of security, what they will eat and whether they will be able to sleep.
They do not have a future to plan for and work towards, and it is why anything a politician or political group will do that takes care of their needs will motivate them but the same cannot be said for something seemingly as abstract as democracy, social justice or good governance.
Politicians have taken advantage of this unfortunate reality to garner populist support from the vast unsuspecting and unconscious rural catchment area.
This unconscious offer of support can never be a true demonstration of endorsement of political programmes and goodwill as portrayed by the politicians but rather a manifestation of apathy.
Governments faced with the tough demands for genuine democratisation by the urban elite therefore find sanctuary in developing programmes that will motivate the rural masses at their level for the main purpose of using them to entrench themselves in power. They do not have a real genuine desire to improve the lot of rural peoples. An example of this can be found in the decentralisation programme in Uganda.
Decentralisation�s appeal to the rural masses came by way of devolving power and decision making to them. This programme was intended to make the Movement government a darling to the rural masses, to be translated into political support and hence subdue the vocal and pragmatic urban elite.
The low esteem in which the game of politics is held today, resulting from the loss of integrity by the political actors through greed, dictatorship and double standards in the face of the voting masses has bred more apathy.
Many people will just not bother with politics or voting, knowing that their efforts and views will not be respected.
Apathy is a very dangerous trend in any culture as it is indicative of a backward society that cannot appreciate higher values.
It is also symptomatic of a bad underhand political culture that does not inspire but suppresses the political growth of the society.
While denial of basic needs will work to suppress the emotional spirit of a society yielding apathy, denial of higher needs will breed a conscious search for the same.
This conscious search, otherwise a healthy political activity, sometimes turns out in very ugly forms. Civil strife and rebellions are desperate conscious searches for unmet higher needs.
A society which has met its basic needs will naturally strive for higher unmet needs and values irrespective of the constraints that they may be in place because their consciousness is activated.
It has been said of some government leaders that keeping the population in a situation that will not inspire them to demand higher values of democracy, rights, freedoms and justice but keep them satisfied at their level, providing the passive electorate is easy to manipulate, is their undeclared operative policy.
If this is anything to go by anywhere, it would be most unfortunate that in this otherwise celebrated era of modernisation and democratisation around the world that the Movement government is taking a backward step.
Politicians and their groups should be considerate and courageous enough to meaningfully address the pertinent political questions of the day which tie around the needs of the population but not defer and relegate them to lower rungs in the leadership ladder.
� 2004 The Monitor Publications
Gook"Rang guthe agithi marapu!" A karamonjong word of wisdom
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.-------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
--- End Message ---
