Blogs
Dialogue in Uganda: What is there to talk about?
Dialogue can only succeed if both sides speak candidly. If the opposition maintains that no such plot existed, the Government would have to account for its actions. Equally, those accused must be willing to explain their actions, writes David Mukholi
David Mukholi. (File)
By: David Mukholi, Journalist @New Vision
_______________
OPINION
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about dialogue in Uganda. The word has several meanings. Generally, it refers to a conversation in which people exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions. In conflict resolution, dialogue refers to discussions between opposing groups aimed at reaching an agreement.
Over the years, there have been calls for dialogue to resolve political conflicts. Tensions rise in the run-up to elections, while the aftermath often leaves disgruntlement and divisions requiring engagement between opposing sides.
Now, the subject has resurfaced. A new initiative appears to be taking shape, led by Gen. Salim Saleh, with discussions revolving around the concept of consociational democracy.
Dialogue is desirable, particularly in emerging democracies, where people and institutions must learn to accommodate divergent ideas and opinions and co-exist peacefully.
This time around, at the centre of the current discussion is Kizza Besigye, who was the face of the opposition until 2020, when he was overtaken by Robert Kyagulanyi, the musician-turned-politician who leads the National Unity Platform (NUP).
Besigye is currently on trial for treason. His supporters and the wider opposition regard him as a political prisoner, arguing that he is being persecuted. The state, on the other hand, says it has evidence that he was involved in plans to assassinate President Yoweri Museveni, subvert the Government and eventually overthrow the National Resistance Movement (NRM) administration.
This is not the first attempt to bring Museveni and Besigye to the negotiating table. In 2011, media personalities Conrad Nkutu and Andrew Mwenda tried to broker talks between the two. However, their efforts collapsed after Besigye set conditions. He believed he had won the elections and was unwilling to negotiate with Museveni, whom he accused of stealing his victory. Besigye had petitioned the court over the results and lost but continued to demand an audit.
The current call for dialogue, coming while Besigye is facing trial, raises difficult questions. If the talks succeed and the trial is terminated, would this not be interpreted to mean that the charges were politically motivated and part of a government scheme? Already, there is speculation within opposition circles that the state’s alleged failure to secure sufficient evidence against him has prompted the renewed push for dialogue.
Dialogue, however, must be a two-way process. For it to work, both sides must be open and honest. If it is true that there was a plot against the state, could Besigye and the opposition acknowledge it and explain their actions? In turn, could the Government explain that its actions were informed by intelligence about the alleged plans? Alternatively, if the opposition maintains that no such plot existed, the Government would have to account for its actions. But should dialogue proceed while the case is before court, or should it wait until the trial is concluded?
The discussions are also likely to extend to wider political issues. Is the opposition prepared to recognise that there is an elected government, even if it disagrees with it? Such recognition could break the political deadlock and create room for engagement. Some opposition supporters believe the Government lacks a legal and popular mandate and are unwilling to engage with it, preferring its removal by force.
NUP, the leading opposition party, is also part of the dialogue equation. It says several of its supporters are in prison. Would the party use dialogue to present its concerns and seek answers? Would the Government explain the circumstances surrounding their arrests?
This is not the first attempt to bring Museveni and Besigye to the negotiating table. In 2011, media personalities Conrad Nkutu and Andrew Mwenda tried to broker talks between the two. However, their efforts collapsed after Besigye set conditions. He believed he had won the elections and was unwilling to negotiate with Museveni, whom he accused of stealing his victory. Besigye had petitioned the court over the results and lost but continued to demand an audit.
The current call for dialogue, coming while Besigye is facing trial, raises difficult questions. If the talks succeed and the trial is terminated, would this not be interpreted to mean that the charges were politically motivated and part of a government scheme? Already, there is speculation within opposition circles that the state’s alleged failure to secure sufficient evidence against him has prompted the renewed push for dialogue.
Dialogue, however, must be a two-way process. For it to work, both sides must be open and honest. If it is true that there was a plot against the state, could Besigye and the opposition acknowledge it and explain their actions? In turn, could the Government explain that its actions were informed by intelligence about the alleged plans? Alternatively, if the opposition maintains that no such plot existed, the Government would have to account for its actions. But should dialogue proceed while the case is before court, or should it wait until the trial is concluded?
The discussions are also likely to extend to wider political issues. Is the opposition prepared to recognise that there is an elected government, even if it disagrees with it? Such recognition could break the political deadlock and create room for engagement. Some opposition supporters believe the Government lacks a legal and popular mandate and are unwilling to engage with it, preferring its removal by force.
NUP, the leading opposition party, is also part of the dialogue equation. It says several of its supporters are in prison. Would the party use dialogue to present its concerns and seek answers? Would the Government explain the circumstances surrounding their arrests?
No government anywhere would simply sit back if it received credible information about plans to overthrow it. If such plots existed in Uganda, would those involved acknowledge them and participate in an open discussion? Equally, would the Government engage openly and account for its actions? Dialogue can only succeed if both sides speak candidly.
In any political system, there is a ruling party and an opposition. They do not have to agree on everything, but they should coexist peacefully in the country’s interests. The situation becomes ugly when the opposition is accused of plotting to overthrow the Government. It also becomes problematic when the Government responds heavy-handedly. The Government may argue that it is acting to protect itself and preserve national stability. But is the opposition justified in plotting to overthrow it?
These are questions that must be asked. What should the Government do when it feels threatened by political opponents using violence? How can it deal with them without creating the impression that it is persecuting its critics? Could some opposition elements be involved in attempts to topple the Government and, when arrested, claim political persecution? Could this sometimes serve as a convenient cover?
Another issue consistently raised by the opposition is freedom of assembly. Opposition parties want to hold demonstrations and protests. Some also openly declare their intention to overthrow the Government. Should the Government allow such activities without restriction when it believes they threaten its existence? Where should the line be drawn between protecting political freedoms and safeguarding the state? Dialogue could also explore other possibilities. Could it create an environment in which the ruling party and opposition work together on matters of national interest? Could the Government accommodate more opposition leaders in Cabinet? Such an arrangement, however, could attract accusations that opposition leaders have been bought off or bribed. How can political co-operation be achieved without undermining their independence and credibility?
As discussions continue, it is important not to overlook existing mechanisms for political engagement. One is the Interparty Organisation for Dialogue, established in 2009 to bring together political parties represented in Parliament. With support from the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, it was intended to strengthen multiparty democracy, promote consensus-building and provide a platform for dialogue. There is also the National Consultative Forum, a statutory body bringing together political parties to facilitate dialogue, mediation and the exchange of ideas. But a more fundamental question remains: why do Ugandans seem to expect everyone to agree or reach consensus on every political issue? Can people not hold different positions, respect one another’s views and simply agree to operate within the law?
Walk into any marketplace in Uganda, and you will find people mingling, trading and working together regardless of their political affiliations, tribes or religious beliefs. They may disagree on politics, but that does not stop them from doing business or living alongside one another.
Why can political leaders not emulate this?
X @dmukholi1 dmukholi@gmail.com
In any political system, there is a ruling party and an opposition. They do not have to agree on everything, but they should coexist peacefully in the country’s interests. The situation becomes ugly when the opposition is accused of plotting to overthrow the Government. It also becomes problematic when the Government responds heavy-handedly. The Government may argue that it is acting to protect itself and preserve national stability. But is the opposition justified in plotting to overthrow it?
These are questions that must be asked. What should the Government do when it feels threatened by political opponents using violence? How can it deal with them without creating the impression that it is persecuting its critics? Could some opposition elements be involved in attempts to topple the Government and, when arrested, claim political persecution? Could this sometimes serve as a convenient cover?
Another issue consistently raised by the opposition is freedom of assembly. Opposition parties want to hold demonstrations and protests. Some also openly declare their intention to overthrow the Government. Should the Government allow such activities without restriction when it believes they threaten its existence? Where should the line be drawn between protecting political freedoms and safeguarding the state? Dialogue could also explore other possibilities. Could it create an environment in which the ruling party and opposition work together on matters of national interest? Could the Government accommodate more opposition leaders in Cabinet? Such an arrangement, however, could attract accusations that opposition leaders have been bought off or bribed. How can political co-operation be achieved without undermining their independence and credibility?
As discussions continue, it is important not to overlook existing mechanisms for political engagement. One is the Interparty Organisation for Dialogue, established in 2009 to bring together political parties represented in Parliament. With support from the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, it was intended to strengthen multiparty democracy, promote consensus-building and provide a platform for dialogue. There is also the National Consultative Forum, a statutory body bringing together political parties to facilitate dialogue, mediation and the exchange of ideas. But a more fundamental question remains: why do Ugandans seem to expect everyone to agree or reach consensus on every political issue? Can people not hold different positions, respect one another’s views and simply agree to operate within the law?
Walk into any marketplace in Uganda, and you will find people mingling, trading and working together regardless of their political affiliations, tribes or religious beliefs. They may disagree on politics, but that does not stop them from doing business or living alongside one another.
Why can political leaders not emulate this?
X @dmukholi1 dmukholi@gmail.com