FDC, rhetoric and threats will not do!
Oct 18, 2004
SIR— I respond to Agago MP Morris Ogenga-Latigo’s opinion in some sections of the press last Friday
SIR— I respond to Agago MP Morris Ogenga-Latigo’s opinion in some sections of the press last Friday.
He identifies three questions often raised by the public about the FDC Party. One, what FDC is all about. Two, whether it is not a party of the disgruntled. Three, whether it has the capacity to dislodge the Movement.
Right from the beginning, Prof Ogenga does not identify and answer the most fundamental question about the FDC.
In response to the three questions he identifies, Ogenga-Latigo outlines the composition of the FDC, its colours and symbols. He adds that it is is founded on the desire for unity, love, political competition, common purpose, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms, clean leadership, constitutionalism, true democracy, fairness, justice and equality, among other ideals.
These are very common words in the register of every politician. He goes on to provide a list of 30 or so ladies and gentlemen championing that cause. None of these people is new on our political scene.
Whereas Ogenga puts what the FDC stands for in pious and high-sounding words, he does not explain how these conditions will be achieved and sustained if they do not exist today.
An answer to this important question would show how better the FDC would perform as a government compared to the NRM. The conditions that the FDC purports to strive for are a totality of the human relations, ideological dispositions, methods, systems, controls, state structures, forms of organisation and governance.
These neither emerge out of the blue nor are guaranteed by mere regime change. They are features of society which are scientifically determined by and are ultimately an expression of the mode of production, which is itself a composite of the means, forces and relations of production obtaining in a society. They are a set of ideas, situations and institutions of society which cannot be mechanically constructed but are of necessity a product of the economics of that society, in this case, Uganda.
The bigger question FDC needs to answer, therefore, has many parts. How will they practically do better than the sitting government? How will they organise, tap and harness the country’s means of production? How will they reconfigure and redirect its production relations? How will they develop, apply and regulate the requisite forces of production to construct a sound economic base on which the elements of unity, love, democracy, the rule of law, etc, will flourish?
If the FDC fulfils these, it will demonstrate that what it purports to stand for is not sheer verbiage. It will thereby dispel the view that its members and founders could be a disgruntled group.
At that point, the question whether they have the capacity to dislodge the NRM will be easily answered because then it will be possible for them to win a popular election.
Otherwise, by just providing a list of men and women at the helm of a party, you do not necessarily demonstrate the means to deliver the country to greater heights. One could as well draw endless lists of equally and even more eminent personalities but such lists and good leadership do not mean the same thing.
Recent Public Policy Research findings have indicated that many Ugandans are no longer swayed by mere rhetoric. Many do not believe that matters of governance should be run like “relay racesâ€.
Taking turns at leadership or change for its sake does not appeal to many, and western political science aside, most think it is risky to venture into the unknown just in the name of change. They want to see prior proof that the change will be more for the better than for the worse before they switch leaders.
The good leadership the FDC pledges must hence demonstrate that it can create the conditions necessary to bring about a better Uganda. Short of this, many Ugandans may continue to believe that the FDC lacks serious agenda.
Efforts should also be made to improve FDC’s public image. Many FDCs promise to cause chaos in case their party does not take power in 2006. Neither by rhetoric nor by intimidation can you endear people to your cause. Good luck.
Julius Nkeramihigo
Kampala
He identifies three questions often raised by the public about the FDC Party. One, what FDC is all about. Two, whether it is not a party of the disgruntled. Three, whether it has the capacity to dislodge the Movement.
Right from the beginning, Prof Ogenga does not identify and answer the most fundamental question about the FDC.
In response to the three questions he identifies, Ogenga-Latigo outlines the composition of the FDC, its colours and symbols. He adds that it is is founded on the desire for unity, love, political competition, common purpose, the rule of law, human rights and freedoms, clean leadership, constitutionalism, true democracy, fairness, justice and equality, among other ideals.
These are very common words in the register of every politician. He goes on to provide a list of 30 or so ladies and gentlemen championing that cause. None of these people is new on our political scene.
Whereas Ogenga puts what the FDC stands for in pious and high-sounding words, he does not explain how these conditions will be achieved and sustained if they do not exist today.
An answer to this important question would show how better the FDC would perform as a government compared to the NRM. The conditions that the FDC purports to strive for are a totality of the human relations, ideological dispositions, methods, systems, controls, state structures, forms of organisation and governance.
These neither emerge out of the blue nor are guaranteed by mere regime change. They are features of society which are scientifically determined by and are ultimately an expression of the mode of production, which is itself a composite of the means, forces and relations of production obtaining in a society. They are a set of ideas, situations and institutions of society which cannot be mechanically constructed but are of necessity a product of the economics of that society, in this case, Uganda.
The bigger question FDC needs to answer, therefore, has many parts. How will they practically do better than the sitting government? How will they organise, tap and harness the country’s means of production? How will they reconfigure and redirect its production relations? How will they develop, apply and regulate the requisite forces of production to construct a sound economic base on which the elements of unity, love, democracy, the rule of law, etc, will flourish?
If the FDC fulfils these, it will demonstrate that what it purports to stand for is not sheer verbiage. It will thereby dispel the view that its members and founders could be a disgruntled group.
At that point, the question whether they have the capacity to dislodge the NRM will be easily answered because then it will be possible for them to win a popular election.
Otherwise, by just providing a list of men and women at the helm of a party, you do not necessarily demonstrate the means to deliver the country to greater heights. One could as well draw endless lists of equally and even more eminent personalities but such lists and good leadership do not mean the same thing.
Recent Public Policy Research findings have indicated that many Ugandans are no longer swayed by mere rhetoric. Many do not believe that matters of governance should be run like “relay racesâ€.
Taking turns at leadership or change for its sake does not appeal to many, and western political science aside, most think it is risky to venture into the unknown just in the name of change. They want to see prior proof that the change will be more for the better than for the worse before they switch leaders.
The good leadership the FDC pledges must hence demonstrate that it can create the conditions necessary to bring about a better Uganda. Short of this, many Ugandans may continue to believe that the FDC lacks serious agenda.
Efforts should also be made to improve FDC’s public image. Many FDCs promise to cause chaos in case their party does not take power in 2006. Neither by rhetoric nor by intimidation can you endear people to your cause. Good luck.
Julius Nkeramihigo
Kampala