Open voting cannot make army partisan
May 04, 2005
In Roll-call Voting Tricky for Army MPs, (The New Vision, May 2), Eriya Kategaya argues that the army MPs should not take part in open voting on controversial issues in Parliament because this will make them partisan and incapable of protecting all Ugandans equally.
In Roll-call Voting Tricky for Army MPs, (The New Vision, May 2), Eriya Kategaya argues that the army MPs should not take part in open voting on controversial issues in Parliament because this will make them partisan and incapable of protecting all Ugandans equally. He further argues it will entitle other army officers to also express their views openly thereby causing division in the army. Kategaya seems to suggest that if the army MPs are to vote on controversial issues, the should do do so by secret ballot.
I disagree with him. Army officers, like any other citizens, hold political views to which they are entitled and may, in the discharge of their official duties, be influenced by those views whether they express them openly or not. One does not need to first express his view openly in order to be influenced by that view in his actions. A person will still be compromised by his private views while in a public position and whether those views are overt or covert is immaterial.
Therefore, an army officer like anybody else, cannot be neutral in the real sense of the term unless he does not hold his own views on matters of national interest; more so in Uganda where we have well-schooled and brilliant army officers with levels of political consciousness and activism so high that many of them previously took to the bush to remove bad governments. Such officers will no doubt have their own political ideas and interpretations of the political climate even if they are not in Parliament and this will not stop any of them from acting according to their views if they choose to.
The question is whether people with independent ideas and therefore not neutral, be they in Parliament or not, are capable of taking neutral actions while doing public jobs. This is more about one’s conscience, professionalism and the political environment in which one operates. The environment has a great bearing on an army officer or any other person’s behaviour and actions during a period of political transition like we are in now.
For instance, in situations where change of regimes take a peaceful and democratic course through elections, soldiers have no motivation for anything else beyond casting their votes and waiting to serve the new government. Such an environment makes it possible for the army to be loyal to all governments as they peacefully come and go. It is their allegiance to the people’s legitimate aspirations and their harmonious relations with the public, not concealment of their personal political opinions, that endear them to the population.
Such an operating environment conducive for a soldier to be impartial is created more by the political class. However, our situation here is different. Even at the beginning of a political transition, we already have rebel groups linked to certain political parties seeking to wage war albeit with difficulty. We have a 19-year-old senseless rebellion that still has sympathisers among the political elite. Such a situation is likely to overstretch the impartiality of a soldier, whether he sits in Parliament or not, than the mere act of voting openly would.. I find the argument that roll call voting will make the army partisan simplistic.
The writer is a public policy analyst
I disagree with him. Army officers, like any other citizens, hold political views to which they are entitled and may, in the discharge of their official duties, be influenced by those views whether they express them openly or not. One does not need to first express his view openly in order to be influenced by that view in his actions. A person will still be compromised by his private views while in a public position and whether those views are overt or covert is immaterial.
Therefore, an army officer like anybody else, cannot be neutral in the real sense of the term unless he does not hold his own views on matters of national interest; more so in Uganda where we have well-schooled and brilliant army officers with levels of political consciousness and activism so high that many of them previously took to the bush to remove bad governments. Such officers will no doubt have their own political ideas and interpretations of the political climate even if they are not in Parliament and this will not stop any of them from acting according to their views if they choose to.
The question is whether people with independent ideas and therefore not neutral, be they in Parliament or not, are capable of taking neutral actions while doing public jobs. This is more about one’s conscience, professionalism and the political environment in which one operates. The environment has a great bearing on an army officer or any other person’s behaviour and actions during a period of political transition like we are in now.
For instance, in situations where change of regimes take a peaceful and democratic course through elections, soldiers have no motivation for anything else beyond casting their votes and waiting to serve the new government. Such an environment makes it possible for the army to be loyal to all governments as they peacefully come and go. It is their allegiance to the people’s legitimate aspirations and their harmonious relations with the public, not concealment of their personal political opinions, that endear them to the population.
Such an operating environment conducive for a soldier to be impartial is created more by the political class. However, our situation here is different. Even at the beginning of a political transition, we already have rebel groups linked to certain political parties seeking to wage war albeit with difficulty. We have a 19-year-old senseless rebellion that still has sympathisers among the political elite. Such a situation is likely to overstretch the impartiality of a soldier, whether he sits in Parliament or not, than the mere act of voting openly would.. I find the argument that roll call voting will make the army partisan simplistic.
The writer is a public policy analyst