Negotiated political transition surpasses an election in securing peaceful power transfer

__________________

OPINION

By Stephen Amanu Acakara Egemu

Political transition is the process through which a political regime changes from one system of governance to another, it entails the alterations in political structures, leadership and policies. Uganda is a candidate of political transition like South Africa then was. South Africa, unlike Uganda, exited the crisis through bilateral and multiparty negotiations, which led to a caesarean birth to democracy.

The consequences of a failed peaceful political transition resulting from the absence of a political legatee are grave. It is important to remember Uganda's political redolent history while solving the transition question.

Although an election is one of the most important means for a political transition, it triggers violence. Election and violence are antipodes, they sojourn together. In 1981, a military confrontation took place in Luwero to adjudicate the election dispute. The copious evidence of the human skeletons in Luwero is a testament of the rueful nature of war linked to election disagreement.

The election as a democratic element is not immune to change but can be replaced by a legal imprimatur if it's poised to plunge the country into anarchy.

The 2026 general elections are likely to brew tensions and violence orchestrated by either the electorally vulnerable candidates or those seeking to harvest a bumper crop of votes. Uganda's elections are defined by provocation and confrontation. Some of the presidential hopefuls are sworn enemies and purveyors of tribal politics as if they are carpetbaggers. The negotiated transition is an ideal political solution for Uganda because elections have become a twist of faith.

The Government of National Unity is perfect for Uganda.

A collective government predicated on compromises and concessions can neutralize political extremists. The 2026 elections may not unify but divide the people. The negotiated form of government is immaculate than the elected one. Electing a President under article 103 (1) of the 1995 constitution is a risk and threat.

In fact, the article is obsolete, its proof of life has expired.

A peaceful political transition is possible if the opposition stops making inflammatory statements against President Museveni. Just like some Judges who wear judicial robes but dispense justice blindly, he isn't flawless but remains an essential cog in Uganda's politics, he cannot be reckoned without. Mutinous sentiments and statements have irrevocably hardened his softer edges.

NRM is tenaciously holding the reins of power till she surrenders them. It's an imperious mien to ideate that the oar of power can be wrested in an election rather than by negotiations. Mr Museveni has sunk his teeth deep into the electoral pie, it proves his genius psych.

The crux of the political transition crisis in Uganda might be the absence of the retirement plan for the head of state. President Museveni's predecessors had no plan to retire except to consolidate an ethnic centred government.

Julius Nyerere had to use the powder keg to retire Idi Amin. I think Parliament should consider widening the scope of the Emoluments and Benefits of the President, Vice President and Prime Minister Act to make retirement attractive, perhaps that might act as allure and grandeur for the emerging heads of state to plan retirement and as well admit not to go past the mark they aimed for; in victory, it's eminent to know when to stop.

Pursuant to that, it is my humble opinion that Col Kizza Besigye, though loved, should learn when to stop in order for the President to benignly invoke his presidential prerogative to pardon him in the same way Jesus pardoned a paralytic and another; "...your sins are forgiven, sin no more".

Men at the age of 60 years are frail and susceptible to chronic ailments. It's good to transfer him from jail to his house and perhaps restrict his movement if the cause of action exists. His restriction would be the caricature of the sanction currently imposed on the former French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, for corruption.

Besigye's trial in the military court was an act of state. However, in prema facie cases like his, the top criminal silks or mercurial lawyers have unsuccessfully secured their client's freedom in trials of that pedigree.

Besigye's freedom can be redeemed through talks; talking to the state. Involving Mzee Amanya Mushega and Rukingiri elders in the talks with the state on behalf of the iron-willed Besigye is a panacea. Arbitration is a better option for some matters than litigation.

The suspect should be advised against taking a nuclear option: the hunger strike, unless it's a lenten undertaking. In 1981, the former British PM; Margaret Thatcher, was chided for refusing the demands of a prisoner called Bobby Sands who went on a hunger strike. He died of starvation and was ominously rated a martyr and Thatcher as a murderer.

Prisoners of war have an obligation to escape, however, Col Kizza Besigye shouldn't opt to starve. Hunger strike isn't an inalienable right but suicide.

The peaceful transition will not arrive in 2026; it cannot be through a ballot box but dialogue, there is no other verbiage than this.