|
After the kisanja vote in parliament, nobody was left in any doubt that numbers are paramount. It does not matter how many brilliant arguments you have.
As long as you do not have the numbers, you may as well save your energy rather than debate to convince people whose minds are already made up. Making arguments for the record is only good in the academic arena. The best the opposition can do at the moment is to write nice papers about constitutional presidential term limits and circulate them for future reference. The frustration of watching the empty pro-kisanja seats throughout the debate, getting magically filled to overflowing on the day of the vote, must have been a rude awakening for the opposition.
Of the numbers in Parliament, there is a block of 10 votes occupied by the army. These are the representatives of the UPDF, who still have several months to go in the House, during which their vote will affect important decisions including amendments to the Constitution. The issue of the army votes is one of those anomalies that Ugandans keep pretending not to see. While nobody is disputing the presence of the army officers in Parliament the Constitution provides for it - using them to achieve partisan ends is an unfortunate reality.
When the army officers are compelled to take a partisan position on a divisive issue, over which they are not even allowed to have an opinion, then the question arises. Why all 10 and not one? If they are required to speak with one voice, then how many people are required to deliver the army's position?
Since UPDF is a national army, Ugandans would also like to know how the armys position, which is delivered by 10 men, is arrived at? Is there an opinion poll conducted on the issue in all units before they bring the army position to the House? If political issues are not debatable in the army, then why occupy 10 seats in an already crowded chamber? Can't one soldier be sent with the army's position and his vote be multiplied by 10? If this is a poor country, why do you facilitate 10 people to do the job of one?
There is an added advantage to sending one soldier instead of 10 to Parliament. The possibility of open disagreement amongst the officers would not arise. We have seen Brig. Henry Tumukunde disagreeing with colleagues yet they are supposed to have one voice. This tends to worry the population, which would like to believe that the army is stable and has worked out ways to communicate its position before coming to the public. And now there is Col. Fred Bogere who says he does not want to take a partisan position since he belongs to a national army.
The army should urgently work out a way of arriving at positions, which will not be disapproved by its own representatives in parliament, or allow individual soldiers to have their own political opinions.
| 
