Lessons for Uganda from the UK general election

By Patrick Igulot

The UK has just had a general election in which Prime Minister David Cameron led his Conservative Party to a re-election victory, defeating the Labour party by 331 seats to 232 of the 650 seat parliament.

According to the UK Laws, a party must get at least 326 seats, half of the size of parliament to form a majority government. If no party secures 326, a party with the most seats has to govern in coalition with other parties, as was the case with the last government. There are many lessons that Uganda can learn from this election to improve its democracy.

The first is policy based election. The UK election was characterised by distinct policy positions on which parties vied. For the ruling Conservative party, its main policies were having a strong economy as a basis for a prosperous country while the opposition Labour party’s policies hinged around increased expenditure on public services as a basis for socio-economic progress.

These policies were rooted in clear ideological traditions with the Conservative’s policies being rooted in free market economics and Labour’s policies on welfare economics. Uganda’s democracy would benefit if parties have distinct ideological positions upon which their policies are anchored.

Meaningful voting depends on an informed electorate and to achieve this, a series of live TV debates where conducted. These were organised by UK’s leading broadcasters: the BBC; ITV; Channel 4; and Sky. Sky News and Channel 4 organised a debate between the 2 leading contenders, David Cameron and Ed Miliband.

Then ITV organised a debate between 7 leaders of the largest parties and the BBC organised a debate between the 5 leaders of the main opposition parties. Uganda’s media houses would make a huge civic contribution by organising such debates to enlighten the electorate.

In addition to the debates by the leaders of parties, the BBC organised regional debates across 12 regions of England. These debates involved local party politicians articulating the policies of their parties before a public audience.

The debates were chaired by a seasoned moderator assisted by an experienced BBC journalist who would keep politicians in check.

These interactional regional debates helped to link the election policies to local regional concerns and increased political participation. In our February 2016 elections, it would be good to see these debates take place in all regions of the country. 

The BBC also organised debates to scrutinize specific policy proposals. Some of the key issues discussed were: the economy, defense, education, health, and foreign affairs.

The others were the environment, welfare, and internal affairs, among others. Party officials, mainly ministers and shadow ministers debated these issues live on TV with the moderation of a seasoned journalist who was assisted by a journalist specializing in the topic being debated. In this way, parties break down their policies for the electorate but without lying.  In Uganda’s case, media houses could devote a modified version of their talk shows to debate party manifestos in the run up to voting. 

The promises politicians make are subject to scrutiny by public institutions, think tanks, academics, and civil society organisations. For example, when the Conservatives proposed to cut £12 billion from welfare benefits or when they proposed to inject £8 billion into the National Health Service, the implications of these policies were analysed by relevant institutions such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

In Uganda, the electorate would be spared the outrageous promises our politicians often make if public institutions such as Uganda Revenue Authority, Uganda Human Rights Commission, Economic Policy and Research Centre, Labour Unions, universities, and all other government and non-government bodies contribute to scrutinising election policies.  

In terms of the process and spirit, UK’s election was conducted in a civil manner, with no violence, let alone personal attacks. Candidates debated issues, agreeing and disagreeing on principles.

No one was immune from challenge including the Prime Minister who was challenged by 11 other candidates for his Witney seat. The election was so transparent that with 3,971 candidates, there was no petition.

In a few constituencies were candidates were aggrieved, recounts were conducted immediately and within 8 hours all results had been declared.

A few hours after winning, the Prime Minister announced his core cabinet (Chancellor of Exchequer, Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Defense) and within a week, all minsters had been appointed and the government was back to work.

As much as political parties are the main actors in an election, there is a lot that civil society, government bodies, universities, the media, and citizens can do to develop our democracy.

The writer is a PhD Candidate in the UK, igulotpat@yahoo.com