Uganda, a one-party state? Big joke!

______________

OPINION

By Faruk Kirunda

Following the article headlined: “Opposition and the fulfilment of President Museveni’s 1988 prediction”, I got another challenge to address. In the article, I had noted that the rate at which opposition members (and fence sitters) are willing to work with the National Resistance Movement (NRM) Government suggests a major political shift in the making, and that there would be no opposition to talk of by 2029 at that rate.

Together, with the fact that there is nothing significant happening in opposition politics, no plan for reasonably securing change or advancing any ground-breaking ideas that could justify them to the population that is long tired of political sportsmanship, the question I was challenged with is if President Yoweri Museveni is not building a one-party state and systematically moving away from any democratic “pretences” that were, apparently, imposed on him when multi-partism was pushed into his face. In essence, NRM is being accused of planning to constitute itself into a one-party state.

Being classified as a “one-party state” is not a compliment, within the understanding of the liberal democratic structure. It’s another way to call a system autocratic, authoritarian and worth including among pariah states of the world. For being a dominant political party among many, NRM is being ranked among juntas that are constitutionally granted single-party status, which it is not. Definitely, NRM isn’t about to operate a system as in the Soviet Union and the other contemporary examples. It would be a big joke to suggest that!

What’s prevailing in Uganda is a season of political certainty following decades of fully participatory democracy, which was starting to stir uncertainty as the radical groups made false claims to the hearts of the majority of Ugandans. Liberal democracy is considered the best political system, but in a situation where the competing sides are constantly sizing up, it threatens the balance of power. There is always a small step before political disintegration and anarchy sets in.

Starting in 2001, Uganda has been on test, with opposition groups that, despite back-to-back losses to President Museveni’s side, could not accept their place and, with a lot of heat, kept claiming undue supremacy. This charade has threatened to destroy national stability and cohesion since, until this year, when a decisive victory by NRM sealed their fate. The contest outside the formal political contest was brought to an end by NRM cementing its position is the most preferred side in politics. This isn’t imposed “one-party state” status. It’s the voice of Ugandans rendering their full authority to the group that best meets their aspirations. Isn’t that what democracy is about?

There is absolutely no disgrace in a political party winning a commanding mandate and forming a government. If there was, then we would hear of places where there is an upper limit to how many votes or percentage votes that a side can win. Popularity cannot be apportioned. It is won. If NRM’s rivals cannot convince Ugandans that they have a better political programme than that of the ruling party, then they get exactly what they are worth. No citizen can be forced to back the opposition even when there are challenges that affect them, in the economy or otherwise. Not every displeasure translates to animosity towards the ruling party. That’s the mistake many observers make-thinking that if there are challenges in the jobs market or service delivery or in the fight against corruption, for example, that it automatically means that people cannot vote NRM.

Furthermore, there is no policy coercing anyone to belong to or support NRM unlike in some countries that I won’t name (because that is their own model, which outsiders shouldn’t interfere with). Political plurality is still guaranteed, but NRM faces an increasingly weak side that has little to offer other than abusing President Museveni, wishing him and his family doom and attacking NRM members. In a way, it is the opposition running an authoritarian “regime”. What with gross intolerance, violent outbursts and underhand games in elections. Yet they are always looked as the victims and NRM as the oppressor.

A strong ruling party guarantees unity, efficiency, stability and as a model for fully representative democracy. If NRM has majority MPs, meaning that every part of the country has a representative close to the seat of power, why should that be a bad thing? This is where politics of interests matters more than merely being seen posing as dissenters. What is there to dissent about the need for constant peace and security, wealth creation, unity, zero corruption and East African federation/Integration? We have spent much time putting up a show for donors and political actors when Ugandans know precisely what they want. Now is the time to cohere as a nation that has direction and where citizens know what they want.

President Museveni was never forced to accept multi-party democracy as it is always claimed.

His stance on multi-partism was well informed by our difficult history. But when general consensus was that political space be opened up to pluralism from the Movement system, he came fully on board. It is not his problem that he has dominated that space to, unless someone wants to blame Ugandans-to whom power belongs!

The author is the Special Presidential Assistant-Press & Mobilisation/Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Email: faruk.kirunda@statehouse. go.ug