By Anne Mugisa

 What was the dream at independence and what type of government did you envisage as we prepared for self-rule?

We hoped to adapt a West Minster type of government. That is where you have a Parliament as the legislature, with a government composed of ministers drawn from Parliament.

Then you have the prime minister as the head of government. So the Executive (Cabinet) is answerable to Parliament. Then Parliament could, if necessary, move a motion of no confidence to remove the government. That form of government functioned for the first four years of independence.

At first, there was a head of state who was a governor general representing the Queen. In 1963, we changed that. The governor general was replaced by an elected president, elected by Parliament. Parliament served as an electoral college. Sir Edward Mutesa was elected the first president.
Who were the majority in Parliament?

The majority were UPC and KY. DP was the opposition with Basil Bataringaya as the head of opposition, immediately after independence. This went on until the 1966 crisis.

Then we had an interim Constitution, which has come to be called the pigeon hole Constitution. The reason it was called pigeon hole is because it was not circulated to members to read.

Was Uganda ready for independence then? Were we sure of the way we wanted to go or we just did something whose implications we did not know?

The form of government was not defined by Ugandans. It was largely a Constitution drawn by the British government. It was a sort of a compromise document. We had kingdoms of Ankole, Buganda, Toro,Bunyoro and Busoga, while other parts of the country did not have.

For uniformity, there were chieftaincies that had been created. So we got a compromise, which was a quasi-federal element, especially for Buganda and others. In the eastern and northern regions, the system was different. So for uniformity, the Government of the day created ceremonial heads.
So what we got was actually a creation of the British and not Ugandans?

The 1962 Constitution was definitely a creation of the British. It was not a people’s Constitution. I think Ugandans had the opportunity to define their future in 1995, but unfortunately,we were under a one party system — the Movement.

So people had no way to participate. Much as the present government may claim it was democratic, most of the views were not embedded in the Constitution. Political parties were not allowed to function.

Ugandans have not had time or a programme to say how they should be governed. That is why there are fights in Parliament.

But people had their representatives to the Constituent Assembly that debated the current Constitution?

But how were they elected? As a party, we did not participate in campaigning for the type of Constitution we wanted.

On the other hand, the Movement was in government and campaigned through the Local Council (LC) structures to present their views. Eventually they got the document they wanted.

So given the circumstances of independence you talked about,would we have adapted and developed?

If the 1971 coup had not taken place, Uganda would have been a different place. It was a setback for the country, just as much as the bush war (1981-86). After independence,Uganda ranked highly within East Africa. Our economy was sound, our education system was admirable and everybody was looking to a bright future?

Our neighbours like Kenya did not have the turbulence we had, are they much better than us?

Kenya has done well because they had a firm foundation for their economy.

What happened in the 1960s that brought about the crisis?
Political ambitions of certain groups, foreign interference and many other things. These led to the 1971 coup and the economic war, then the 1979 war and eventually the bush war. People died and property was destroyed. In the 1960s, there was conspiracy against UPC.

There was division within UPC and KY. That is how the crisis came about. Someone wanted to topple the Government, but they did not succeed. However, that is how the 1971 coup came about.

What do you think politicians are doing right or wrong today?
 It is dangerous to use loose terms such as ‘politician’. We are all political animals. But people in government do things that affect every one.

Are all the problems that Uganda is facing attributable to the current political leadership?
Whatever weaknesses that may be attributed to political leaders in the 1960s, there was no corruption. We had an efficient public service and service delivery was excellent.

The government was able to build over 20 hospitals. They are still there up to today, only that they were well equipped and well-staffed, which is no longer the case. In the education sector, most schools were built. Makerere University was the pride of Ugandans. Mulago, as a national referral hospital, was efficient, but what is happening there now? The economy was okay.

How was the world economy? Was it turbulent then

No.

Is it affecting us?

I don’t want to use it as a scapegoat. We are responsible for our own economy. We can’t blame others.

But we are part of the world.

Our economy base was narrow and we depended on a cash economy, but we were managing. We had the East African Community. I understand they are trying to revive it. There were common services like the railway, do you see any now.

Was Uganda responsible for the break-up of the EAC?
I can’t blame anyone. There was communism, capitalism and the cold war. The world was divided into two.

You either belonged to one side or the other. But in EAC, we were doing very well. Most of the East Africans trained at Makerere University.

Can what is happening in Uganda be blamed entirely on political leadership?

It is governance. Look at the roads, education and health. This isn’t politics, this is governance. It is a larger issue, it is government ineptitude.

There are certain things civil society can do, but there are things that government should do. So it is governance or lack of it.

What do you think could be done to rectify what went wrong?
The media has also done this country a great disservice. You have seen this hyped thing; the Museveni- Besigye talks.

The media tends to spend time on trivial matters. I don’t see why they should spend time discussing talks between two individuals. If it was a national conference, I can understand. That is what we need.

Could MPs do better?

There are procedures. A motion comes, you discuss issues, you don’t discuss personalities. Even the Speaker is put into problems. You hear her being accused of bias, but she is doing her duty.

Give us an overview of Parlaiment immediately after independence.

It was small, between 82 to 92 members. Humble men and women, 80% of them were school teachers, but very patriotic and honest and were conscious of what was happening in the country.

There was a sense of nationalism. If we had remained like that, tribalism would not be an issue. We had accepted our diversity and people thought in terms of collective destiny.

Money was not important, but now everything is monetized and that is why we have problems. I have a feeling most people go to Parliament because of the lure of money