By Dr Kizza Besigye
June 3, 2004
|
When I wrote about the nature and character of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) in 1999, my intention was not to stir the controversy that followed but rather to warn Ugandans that the planned referendum on political systems would intensify a brewing political and constitutional crisis. The Movement and government organs, including the Parliament; were ordered by the President not to discuss the issues raised, on the flimsy and incorrect basis that the document was written in violation of military laws. The government went ahead and forced a referendum law through Parliament at a sitting that lacked the required quorum and also in contravention of the constitution as the Supreme Court subsequently ruled.
The referendum was organised at a huge cost to our poverty-stricken nation, which enjoys a prominent position among the highly indebted poor countries of the world. �Opposition� parties called for a boycott of that referendum, and eventually less than half of the registered voters turned up to cast their vote in the illegal referendum. Three years later, the �Movement� organs were summoned to pass a resolution allowing for a change of political system from a Movement to Multi-party system. The same organs also resolved that the constitution should be amended to remove term limits on the office of the President. Many valid arguments have been ably articulated as to why a referendum on either the political system or the presidential term limits would be politically and/or, legally unjustifiable, imprudent and wasteful. What is disturbing, albeit characteristic, is the intransigent persistence of President Museveni, amply echoed by his close associate; to steer the country deeper into constitutional and political crises. Further to the valid and efficacious arguments already made on these crucial subjects, I would like to add emphasis why the proposed referenda would serve to intensify a constitutional crisis. It must be clear to most people by now that the Movement system as described in the constitution or as envisaged by the NRM in 1986 does not exist in Uganda. The Constitutional Court ruled that the �Movement� was for all intents and purposes functioning as a political party. Elections are not conducted on the basis of �individual merit�, the government is neither �broad-based� nor is it �all- inclusive� as required by the constitution under a Movement system. In fact, the �Movement� has gone ahead to engage in political party activities that are proscribed during the operation of a Movement political system; like the use of party symbols and slogans, offering a platform and campaigning for candidates during elections. The fact that the �Movement� government was not �broad-based� and �all-inclusive� was vividly demonstrated after the �Movement� registered itself as a political party (NRMO). All the members of the government and the Movement Secretariat subscribed to the NRMO, and those in government who had minor dissensions were promptly purged. My argument has been that any attempt at having a Movement political system was strangled during the 1994 Constituent Assembly elections when the Movement Secretariat appointed secret committees in districts to vet and recommend candidates. The infamous statement that the �Movement had won� crowned all this after the election results were announced. From then, the �Movement� has been engaged in scandalous duplicity- saying one thing and doing another. The reality is that what exists in Uganda today is a one-party system, which is specifically prohibited by the constitution. The challenge for the country therefore, is to return to constitutional rule, and not a change of the political system. The Movement political system, by its very nature (broad-based, all-inclusive, and following a minimum programme) could only have been a transitional arrangement. It is not conceivable that a minimum political programme can be the basis of a permanent political arrangement. What we must realise now is that the transition did in fact happen although it was not done in accordance with the constitution but rather in violation of it. It is therefore preposterous and fraudulent to organise a referendum to determine a change of political system that has already occurred de facto albeit not de jure. This is the very reason why the group of seven �opposition� parties and organisations (G7) has been advising that the best way forward, in the circumstances, is to organise a politically acceptable National Convention that would, among other things, draw an acceptable road map for the return to constitutional rule and a transition to democracy. Unfortunately, the government, shunned any meaningful dialogue with the G7, and instead preferred to engage in political gimmicks with obscure and dubious groups. Further manipulation of the political process can only serve to complicate the situation even more, and certainly perpetuate political and constitutional instability. The proposed referendum on presidential term limits is even more outrageous. It would appear that everyone with the exception of the President is agreed that such a referendum cannot effect an amendment of the constitution. What Museveni seems to conveniently ignore is that Parliament was empowered to amend Article 105(2) by the same people (mainly peasants) to whom he is determined to refer the matter of his post 2006 fate. One wonders why or how Mr Museveni or anyone else would pre-judge that any proposed amendment of the said article cannot be handled by Parliament to the satisfaction of the �people�. If any referendum was to be of any merit at all, it would be after it was determined that Parliament had decided on a proposed amendment in a manner that caused gross national dissatisfaction. Calling a referendum before the body empowered to handle the issue has done its part is to put the cart before the horse. What would be the consequence of such a referendum, if the majority decided one way, and Parliament subsequently decided a different way? This would be a recipe for further constitutional crisis. Contrary to what has been touted by the President and his aides, opposition to a referendum on presidential term limits is not due to fear of consulting the �people� but rather from fear that apart from being unconstitutional, any election or referendum organised under the current circumstances would be rigged. Both our Parliament and the highest courts have expressed dismay at the level and manner of election violence and rigging. The Supreme Court of Uganda ruled unanimously, among other things, that the election of President Museveni in 2001 was not conducted in accordance with the law, and that there was cheating in a significant number of polling stations. What needs to be done is for the pro-reform legal gurus to start preparing formal legal challenges against the perpetuation of constitutional violations. If these processes are also violated or otherwise obliterated, then the abrogation of the constitution would have been completed, in which case other avenues of returning the country to the rule of law would have to be explored. On the political front, the pro-reform association must intensify coordination and collaboration, and steadfastly demand for the kind of dialogue that can result in a credible transition to a democratic dispensation. Encouragingly, the international community is becoming increasingly aware of the untenable position of the fraudulent �Movement� system and government. The obstacles ahead are still great, but together we shall surmount them and deliver democracy, good governance and development for all. Finally, I join all Ugandans in mourning the tragic death of Attorney General Francis Ayume. My heartfelt condolences go to his family and relatives, the people of Koboko, Arua and the entire country. God bless Uganda. Retired colonel Dr Kizza Besigye is chairperson of the Reform Agenda political pressure group. He is living in exile in South Africa. |
� 2004 The Monitor Publications
Chat instantly with your online friends?
Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger
