Walk out by opposition MPs not good for multiparty politics
Jun 12, 2011
THE recent walk out by opposition MPs when the President was delivering the state of the nation speech as well as the opposition’s continued stand off with the Police are not good omens for our multiparty democracy and they must be condemned.
Peter Mulira
THE recent walk out by opposition MPs when the President was delivering the state of the nation speech as well as the opposition’s continued stand off with the Police are not good omens for our multiparty democracy and they must be condemned.
The walk out on the President while he was performing a constitutional function was misguided in the extreme. The Presidency is both an institutional and a human person.
As an institution the presidency is the ceremonial and symbolic head of state, a role created by the Constitution.
In this sense the sanctity of presidency is at par with that of the national anthem, the national flag and the national emblem.
Nobody will interrupt with impunity the singing of the national anthem or be allowed to desecrate the national flag without criminal proceedings being levelled against him. In the same vein nobody should act in disrespectful manner towards the presidency.
At an individual level the President is head of government as the official who presides over the executive, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and chief diplomat among other roles.
Acting in these roles the President may be treated as a politician and subjected to reproach within the contours of good manners.
Although the Constitution does not specifically say so it is part of the political process the world over that when a President is delivering a State of the Nation speech he is above reproach and can only be interrupted by applause.
When the cameras caught a Republican member of the American Congress typing away on his Blackberry when US President Barack Obama was delivering the State of the Union speech there was a national outcry against him even from members of his party and he was forced to apologise to the President and the nation at large.
It is not too much to expect the leader of the opposition to offer a similar apology for the affront which was directed at a national symbol by the walk out.
Similarly the opposition parties were amiss when they announced last week that they had stopped any interaction with the Police regarding the venue of their proposed rally.
In its basic meaning politics is a process that takes place through communication. Such communication involves identification of a problem in society, proposing a solution, debating the need for a solution, arguing the relative merits of one solution over others and explaining the results to the citizens. Any alternative approach such as ignoring other players in this process will lead to anarchy.
This is not to say that the opposition is not right in fighting for its political rights in any way it sees fit. However, every political issue is essentially a question of freedom and order.
The freedom side of the equation involves something we thing we have a right to do such as holding a political rally at Nsambya playgrounds.
The order side on the other hand involves the possible harm to which the exercise of that freedom may lead. It is the duty of the Government through the Police to limit the exercise of the freedom in question in order to protect society from the likely harm.
How this freedom is curtailed is the functions of the Constitution and other laws while the freedoms we enjoy are contained in the Bill of Rights and international conventions. It is as well to remember that politics arises from disagreements and conflicting interests which arise from a number of sources. For example the purchase of military hardware may only be possible at the expense of social programmes such as education, health or housing.
How we fight or not fight corruption may be a source of emotional contention since it adversely affects the majority for the benefit of a few. An ambitious road programme may lead to increased taxation.
One of the main functions of political parties is that of unifying and stabilising the political process by bringing together sectional interests, overcome distances and provide coherence to the way we are governed. We seem to be losing these noble ideals.
How we handle the political choices and conflicts will have an important bearing on the health of our democracy.
Fortunately, the Constitution and the political processes provide a framework within which conflict may be channelled and decisions made.
An election decides which party will form the government. A debate in Parliament or parliamentary committee allows different views to be expressed and provide an opportunity to defeat an unwelcome programme.
A constitutional court may declare certain government actions unconstitutional.
Direct action such as we are seeing these days should only be resorted to if some groups are prevented from participating in the constitutional processes. Nobody has been so prevented and as such the walk-to-work campaigns, hooting, embarrassing the presidency and suchlike actions are uncalled for.
The writer is a city advocate
THE recent walk out by opposition MPs when the President was delivering the state of the nation speech as well as the opposition’s continued stand off with the Police are not good omens for our multiparty democracy and they must be condemned.
The walk out on the President while he was performing a constitutional function was misguided in the extreme. The Presidency is both an institutional and a human person.
As an institution the presidency is the ceremonial and symbolic head of state, a role created by the Constitution.
In this sense the sanctity of presidency is at par with that of the national anthem, the national flag and the national emblem.
Nobody will interrupt with impunity the singing of the national anthem or be allowed to desecrate the national flag without criminal proceedings being levelled against him. In the same vein nobody should act in disrespectful manner towards the presidency.
At an individual level the President is head of government as the official who presides over the executive, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and chief diplomat among other roles.
Acting in these roles the President may be treated as a politician and subjected to reproach within the contours of good manners.
Although the Constitution does not specifically say so it is part of the political process the world over that when a President is delivering a State of the Nation speech he is above reproach and can only be interrupted by applause.
When the cameras caught a Republican member of the American Congress typing away on his Blackberry when US President Barack Obama was delivering the State of the Union speech there was a national outcry against him even from members of his party and he was forced to apologise to the President and the nation at large.
It is not too much to expect the leader of the opposition to offer a similar apology for the affront which was directed at a national symbol by the walk out.
Similarly the opposition parties were amiss when they announced last week that they had stopped any interaction with the Police regarding the venue of their proposed rally.
In its basic meaning politics is a process that takes place through communication. Such communication involves identification of a problem in society, proposing a solution, debating the need for a solution, arguing the relative merits of one solution over others and explaining the results to the citizens. Any alternative approach such as ignoring other players in this process will lead to anarchy.
This is not to say that the opposition is not right in fighting for its political rights in any way it sees fit. However, every political issue is essentially a question of freedom and order.
The freedom side of the equation involves something we thing we have a right to do such as holding a political rally at Nsambya playgrounds.
The order side on the other hand involves the possible harm to which the exercise of that freedom may lead. It is the duty of the Government through the Police to limit the exercise of the freedom in question in order to protect society from the likely harm.
How this freedom is curtailed is the functions of the Constitution and other laws while the freedoms we enjoy are contained in the Bill of Rights and international conventions. It is as well to remember that politics arises from disagreements and conflicting interests which arise from a number of sources. For example the purchase of military hardware may only be possible at the expense of social programmes such as education, health or housing.
How we fight or not fight corruption may be a source of emotional contention since it adversely affects the majority for the benefit of a few. An ambitious road programme may lead to increased taxation.
One of the main functions of political parties is that of unifying and stabilising the political process by bringing together sectional interests, overcome distances and provide coherence to the way we are governed. We seem to be losing these noble ideals.
How we handle the political choices and conflicts will have an important bearing on the health of our democracy.
Fortunately, the Constitution and the political processes provide a framework within which conflict may be channelled and decisions made.
An election decides which party will form the government. A debate in Parliament or parliamentary committee allows different views to be expressed and provide an opportunity to defeat an unwelcome programme.
A constitutional court may declare certain government actions unconstitutional.
Direct action such as we are seeing these days should only be resorted to if some groups are prevented from participating in the constitutional processes. Nobody has been so prevented and as such the walk-to-work campaigns, hooting, embarrassing the presidency and suchlike actions are uncalled for.
The writer is a city advocate