Keep special interest groups in Parliament

Nov 10, 2010

PARLIAMENT is debating whether or not to retain representatives of special interest groups, namely, the youth, women, people with disabilities and the army.

Maj Grace Kyomugisha

PARLIAMENT is debating whether or not to retain representatives of special interest groups, namely, the youth, women, people with disabilities and the army.

This, in parliamentary speak, is the review of article 78(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; which article gives the Parliament the mandate to ‘retain, increase or abolish’ such representation every five years from 2005.

By this review, Parliament is acting in accordance with the Constitution, granted. However, as the debate rages, my belief is that we should all be guided by the historical circumstances that necessitated the inclusion of such groups as the women, the youth, persons with disabilities and the army in legislative business.

Secondly, we should ask ourselves questions like what political malaise the constitutional makers wanted to cure by, for example, having the army or even women represented in the manner they are, in Parliament. I will start with the latter.

Women were regarded as second class citizens, unable to take part in any decision making process, never mind that almost all decisions have a direct and many times, negative effects on our wellbeing and survival. As part of the wider affirmative action, the framers of our Constitution thought it wise to include special representation of women in Parliament.

This is by no means sufficient, but is certainly better than what was before. The same marginalisation, though taking different outlooks, bedevilled other social groupings like the youth and people with disabilities. And the solution was more or less similar, that is representation in the law making process.

Taking into account our political history, characterised by political and constitutional instability, as is briefly put in the preamble to the Constitution, the framers of the constitution also thought it wise, to have the army included on the roll of special interest groups and as such be represented in the law making process.

It is no secret that the army was a key player in occasioning such political, social and economic instability that characterised this country in the first 24 years of independence. The army was used by post colonial governments to commit terror against the citizens it was supposed to protect.

It was common place in this country for the military to topple constitutions. This was so because it had no clue whatsoever about the sacred nature of the law, a virtue one can only appreciate and uphold if they have participated in the legislative process.

A military in this part of the world and at our level of political development void of this virtue, will view its arsenal as the source of power.

This is certainly not in conformity with the constitutional provision that power belongs to the people. There has not been a better way for the military to appreciate this than to be involved in the constitution making process and then legislation.

Therefore, this smart partnership, involving the army in making the laws that govern this country, was a strategic undertaking to guarantee security of life and property and take this country to greater heights.

It should also be noted that the progress Uganda is making, for example: graduating from a low developing country to a medium developing country is partly attributed to the involvement of the various groups involved in our decision making and our legislative process.

By now choosing to relegate the army back to the barracks is to short change Uganda’s political and economic progress as it would in relegating women to the kitchen. Let us face it, the army is now an integral part of our peculiar body politique and efforts to muzzle its contribution in nation building through legislation is plain disenfranchisement.

Author is UPDF Member of Parliament

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});