'Why NRM should prepare to hold consensus meetings after internal party nominations'

__________________

OPINION

By Mary Karooro Okurut

In a democracy, everyone interested in contesting should be given a chance to present his/her qualities, and the electorate becomes the arbitrator.

Indeed, this is always the case in the NRM party, except in some cases where opponents are brought to a round table and consensus reached on who should remain in the race. This is usually done in an area where the leaders sense party cohesion being threatened. It is done so that the party does not fall into an abyss in that particular area.

Examples abound of where, in past elections, aspirants who have already shown interest in contesting for certain elective positions, even though not yet nominated, are brought to a round table.

After, through “peace” talks with the aspirants and their supporters, some agreed to step down for the good of the party. Of course, others who maybe requested to step down may not be convinced and decide to remain in the race.

The decision to stay in the race rests purely on the aspirant(s) concerned.

The choice is purely theirs. No cohesion or intimidation. In the long run, it is a question of the consensus of the “willing”.

Stepping down when convinced (not compromised), for the sake of party cohesion, is not an act of weakness.

Looking at the recently held DP delegates’ conference in Ruti, Mbarara, which ended in chaos with some of the aspirants for the party job accusing the party electoral body of rigging the election in favour of Norbert Mao, there is a lesson for even a mighty party like NRM to pick.

Apart from Nobert Mao, the two other contestants for the party presidency were Member of Parliament, Michael Phillip Lulume Bayigga and Eng. Richard Sebamala.

The two have since vowed never to acknowledge Norbert Mao as the leader of one of the oldest parties in the country.

This means DP has once again degenerated into factionalism, like the case was during the days of Paul Kawanga Semwogerere, when lawyer Francis Bwengye challenged his leadership.

The DP chaos occurred against the backdrop of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) Party having developed similar splits following the re-election of Patrick Amuriat Oboi as the FDC leader for a second term.

This caused Kizza Besigye and his followers, like Erias Lukwago, Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda and Ingrid Turinawe, among others, to register their own party; People’s Front for Freedom (PFF).

Now that NRM is yet to hold its national delegates’ conference, we must do everything possible to avoid such a mess like happened in DP and FDC to manifest.

One may argue that NRM is very different in handling its internal democracy and no such scenario can happen. However, NRM is not made of stone; human beings are human beings and are capable of springing surprises, which can turn out to be negative. Of course, the NRM national central executive committee (CEC) is rightly a secure position.

The first national vice-chairman has been Haji Moses Kigongo and by virtue of his historical role in the NRM struggle, he should and we believe he will remain so.

The second national vice-chair position is designated for a female and is currently held by Rebecca Kadaga.

The Speaker of Parliament, Anita Annet Among, is now in the race for this chair.

On CEC still, there are five special nominees by the national chairman. At CEC level are also representatives of seven leagues: women’s, youth, entrepreneurs, older persons, veterans, workers and people with disabilities.

The regional vice-chairpersons are five: northern, eastern, western, central and Kampala regions. Like stated above, whereas it is right and proper for people to be free to contest for whatever position they desire, still if possible, if the party sees room where consensus can be arrived at even before the election takes place, there is no harm in calling the opponents for “peace talks” if this will bring harmony to the party in case the option of an open contest is going to rip the party apart.

There are instances in the past where, even at the parliamentary or district level, aspirants are brought to a round table, discussions held, and for the sake of party cohesion, some of the aspirants give way.

Already, not just in NRM, but in other political parties, aspirants have printed campaign posters, are on FM stations and in full “kakuyege” mode everywhere.

This is an election year. NRM supporters by now know where the thin lines lie, where the situation, if not well handle, can erupt into a volcano of sorts. It is not only at the CEC level where things are already hot: at every level, the temperatures are high.

Therefore, the possibility of holding consensus meetings (where and if necessary), should not be at the CEC level only.

I stress that, where consensus rather than open contest may play a big role in maintaining party cohesion. All these proposals are food for thought. The saying that a “stich in time saves nine “ applies to several of these NRM elective offices.

This proposal, if it holds any merit, can be considered at any level of elections, parliamentary or otherwise, in the NRM party.

As long as it does not stifle internal party democracy and step on anybody’s freedom to contest.

Again, I stress that it is for the “coalition of the willing”. As long as at the end of the day, the credibility of the party’s internal democracy is not compromised. I recall at one time our party chairman stating that “there are many rooms” in the NRM house.

In other words, not winning any of the seats is not the end of the road for any aspirant.

If consensus can foster unity and cohesion among party members, reduce internal conflicts and promote a strong cohesive front, then it should be given a chance sooner than later.

This does not in any way rule out aggrieved party members, but at the end of the day, the bigger picture is what is crucial.