Uganda needs overall king, two Parliaments
Feb 25, 2007
UGANDA now has political parties, like in Britain. Uganda now has a President who can stand for election as many times as he wants, like the British Prime Minister. Will Uganda now also have a House of Lords? Will Uganda have a King? These are questions which may seem strange, but which Ugandans sho
By Roger Harper
UGANDA now has political parties, like in Britain. Uganda now has a President who can stand for election as many times as he wants, like the British Prime Minister. Will Uganda now also have a House of Lords? Will Uganda have a King? These are questions which may seem strange, but which Ugandans should consider carefully.
I am an Englishman, with my own place in Uganda. My place is a seat in the Cathedral at Bweranyangi, the centre of the Church of Uganda Diocese of West Ankole. I am a Canon there — which in some way makes local politics my business. As a Ugandan Canon who lives in the English Midlands, I have an unusual point of view.
The end of the Ugandan ‘no party’ experiment has saddened me. Uganda was trying the most creative development in world democracy in the last 200 years – democracy with no political parties. I very much wanted the experiment to succeed and I wrote to the UK government asking them to stop insisting that Uganda go back to divisive political parties. But the UK leaders, like all people in government, are successful leaders of political parties and cannot imagine that it is possible to do without parties. ‘No party democracy’ was perhaps ahead of its time. I certainly expect that other people will see the obvious failings of political parties and one day try again to build something different. If Paul in his letters lists ‘party spirit’ – the tendency to break down into opposing groups – as one of the works of the evil one, why do we think it is such a good part of our national life?
If you do have political parties there need to be checks set over them. In Britain, over the House of Commons we have the House of Lords and the King or Queen. Both of these in different ways provide some checking of the political parties in the Commons. Uganda needs to find a way of ensuring the same element of checking of its political parties.
The House of Lords checks the House of Commons in 2 ways. They can go through the detail of any proposed law and make amendments. They can check, and correct if necessary, particular elements of what the Commons propose. If they think a proposed Law is not just imperfect in some way but wholly wrong, the Lords can also send it back to the Commons telling them to think again. They check the Commons in the sense of telling them to stop and reconsider. The Commons then looks at what the Lords have said. They can accept the amendments or not. They can think again and decide they do want to go ahead with their original proposal. They have the power always to go against the House of Lords – but at least they will have been made to think again, they will have been checked.
The Monarch checks the House Commons in a different way, by preventing the Prime Minister from becoming the only focus of national loyalty. A President needs to be a good political leader – of his or her own party. A President needs to be able to introduce improvements into the life of the nation. But without a King, this political leader can be treated too highly, as ‘Father of the Nation’ or some such emotional symbolic leader. This makes it difficult for other parties and leaders to disagree with the President without appearing to be a traitor to the nation. In Britain it is the Monarch to whom the people give their national loyalty, which makes them free to criticise all political leaders, whether in power or not. The main party which is not in power is known as ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition.’ Having a Monarch stops opposition parties from being accused of disloyalty. A Monarch checks the tendency to make too much of a successful political leader. Both the Lords and the Monarch are not out of date ceremonial institutions. They are minor but key elements in the British political system.
How could Uganda learn from the full British system and develop something appropriate? It would be good to have a ‘second chamber’ who would check the Parliament in a way similar to the Lords. This second chamber needs people with particular experience and expertise in one aspect of national life who can look at the detail of proposed laws in case there is something the political parties have overlooked. A leader of the Coffee Growers Association, or the Sikh Council, or the Football Association, or the Mothers’ Union, would be in a good position to do this. The second chamber would be built around these people. The Ugandan ‘House of Lords’ would be made up of representatives of Ugandan organisations with a substantial membership. These organisations together are sometimes called ‘civil society.’ They are a vital part of national life and need to be represented.
Such a second chamber would be democratic in the sense that each person represents not themselves but a particular section of society. Political parties would not be needed. Indeed keeping parties out of the second chamber would be a distinct improvement on the British model, which maybe only Ugandans can see.
Deciding which organisations were represented could be complicated. Here again taking the British model and adapting it slightly would be possible. In Britain the Monarch appoints people to the House of Lords. Could Uganda consider a modern Monarchy both to appoint people to the Second Chamber and to be the focus of national unity and identity?
There are ways of achieving a united leadership. For example, the Presidency of the European Union. In Europe each member country takes it in turn to exercise the role of President. Rotating leadership is also used in Malaysia. Could the traditional Kings of Buganda, Bunyoro, Ankole, Toro and Acholi take the seat of overall monarch in turns to exercise the national Monarchy? These United Monarchs of Uganda would then be responsible for appointing people to the Second Chamber. They would decide which organisations had representatives according to the size of their membership and the Monarchs’ assessment of the importance of each organisation. The Parliament would have to ratify the list each year, and they could send the whole list back to the Monarchs for them to think again. But the responsibility and power of appointment would be mostly with the Monarchs. This would safeguard the freedom of the Second Chamber from the undue influence of the political parties.
This system would give the Monarchs a definite political role in the nation as well as a symbolic one. The Monarchs would have to know, understand and assess the various member groups in the nation. Some quirks would arise. If, for instance, one King was a keen cricket player he might make sure there was a cricket member of the Second Chamber. But the Parliament would monitor such quirks to make sure they were not excessive. All in all it is possible to envisage a Ugandan development and improvement of the British system, including the House of Lords and the Monarchy.
Being British myself I have tried to suggest something similar in Britain, writing to the various committees looking at the reform of the House of Lords. It would be better for the House of Lords itself to be made up of representatives of civil society. We have Bishops who represent one part of England. Why not widen this out to include many other parts of our nation? Yet so far the British have not been able to welcome this way forward.
Now that I have a place in Uganda as well, it seems right to suggest this also in Uganda. You know that having political parties is in some ways dangerous. You know that it can be difficult for opposition politicians to be seen as fully loyal. Having your own version of the House of Lords and the Monarchy would be a good way of ensuring that democracy in Uganda has all the necessary checks and balances to enable the country to flourish.
The writer is a Canon in West Ankole Diocese
UGANDA now has political parties, like in Britain. Uganda now has a President who can stand for election as many times as he wants, like the British Prime Minister. Will Uganda now also have a House of Lords? Will Uganda have a King? These are questions which may seem strange, but which Ugandans should consider carefully.
I am an Englishman, with my own place in Uganda. My place is a seat in the Cathedral at Bweranyangi, the centre of the Church of Uganda Diocese of West Ankole. I am a Canon there — which in some way makes local politics my business. As a Ugandan Canon who lives in the English Midlands, I have an unusual point of view.
The end of the Ugandan ‘no party’ experiment has saddened me. Uganda was trying the most creative development in world democracy in the last 200 years – democracy with no political parties. I very much wanted the experiment to succeed and I wrote to the UK government asking them to stop insisting that Uganda go back to divisive political parties. But the UK leaders, like all people in government, are successful leaders of political parties and cannot imagine that it is possible to do without parties. ‘No party democracy’ was perhaps ahead of its time. I certainly expect that other people will see the obvious failings of political parties and one day try again to build something different. If Paul in his letters lists ‘party spirit’ – the tendency to break down into opposing groups – as one of the works of the evil one, why do we think it is such a good part of our national life?
If you do have political parties there need to be checks set over them. In Britain, over the House of Commons we have the House of Lords and the King or Queen. Both of these in different ways provide some checking of the political parties in the Commons. Uganda needs to find a way of ensuring the same element of checking of its political parties.
The House of Lords checks the House of Commons in 2 ways. They can go through the detail of any proposed law and make amendments. They can check, and correct if necessary, particular elements of what the Commons propose. If they think a proposed Law is not just imperfect in some way but wholly wrong, the Lords can also send it back to the Commons telling them to think again. They check the Commons in the sense of telling them to stop and reconsider. The Commons then looks at what the Lords have said. They can accept the amendments or not. They can think again and decide they do want to go ahead with their original proposal. They have the power always to go against the House of Lords – but at least they will have been made to think again, they will have been checked.
The Monarch checks the House Commons in a different way, by preventing the Prime Minister from becoming the only focus of national loyalty. A President needs to be a good political leader – of his or her own party. A President needs to be able to introduce improvements into the life of the nation. But without a King, this political leader can be treated too highly, as ‘Father of the Nation’ or some such emotional symbolic leader. This makes it difficult for other parties and leaders to disagree with the President without appearing to be a traitor to the nation. In Britain it is the Monarch to whom the people give their national loyalty, which makes them free to criticise all political leaders, whether in power or not. The main party which is not in power is known as ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition.’ Having a Monarch stops opposition parties from being accused of disloyalty. A Monarch checks the tendency to make too much of a successful political leader. Both the Lords and the Monarch are not out of date ceremonial institutions. They are minor but key elements in the British political system.
How could Uganda learn from the full British system and develop something appropriate? It would be good to have a ‘second chamber’ who would check the Parliament in a way similar to the Lords. This second chamber needs people with particular experience and expertise in one aspect of national life who can look at the detail of proposed laws in case there is something the political parties have overlooked. A leader of the Coffee Growers Association, or the Sikh Council, or the Football Association, or the Mothers’ Union, would be in a good position to do this. The second chamber would be built around these people. The Ugandan ‘House of Lords’ would be made up of representatives of Ugandan organisations with a substantial membership. These organisations together are sometimes called ‘civil society.’ They are a vital part of national life and need to be represented.
Such a second chamber would be democratic in the sense that each person represents not themselves but a particular section of society. Political parties would not be needed. Indeed keeping parties out of the second chamber would be a distinct improvement on the British model, which maybe only Ugandans can see.
Deciding which organisations were represented could be complicated. Here again taking the British model and adapting it slightly would be possible. In Britain the Monarch appoints people to the House of Lords. Could Uganda consider a modern Monarchy both to appoint people to the Second Chamber and to be the focus of national unity and identity?
There are ways of achieving a united leadership. For example, the Presidency of the European Union. In Europe each member country takes it in turn to exercise the role of President. Rotating leadership is also used in Malaysia. Could the traditional Kings of Buganda, Bunyoro, Ankole, Toro and Acholi take the seat of overall monarch in turns to exercise the national Monarchy? These United Monarchs of Uganda would then be responsible for appointing people to the Second Chamber. They would decide which organisations had representatives according to the size of their membership and the Monarchs’ assessment of the importance of each organisation. The Parliament would have to ratify the list each year, and they could send the whole list back to the Monarchs for them to think again. But the responsibility and power of appointment would be mostly with the Monarchs. This would safeguard the freedom of the Second Chamber from the undue influence of the political parties.
This system would give the Monarchs a definite political role in the nation as well as a symbolic one. The Monarchs would have to know, understand and assess the various member groups in the nation. Some quirks would arise. If, for instance, one King was a keen cricket player he might make sure there was a cricket member of the Second Chamber. But the Parliament would monitor such quirks to make sure they were not excessive. All in all it is possible to envisage a Ugandan development and improvement of the British system, including the House of Lords and the Monarchy.
Being British myself I have tried to suggest something similar in Britain, writing to the various committees looking at the reform of the House of Lords. It would be better for the House of Lords itself to be made up of representatives of civil society. We have Bishops who represent one part of England. Why not widen this out to include many other parts of our nation? Yet so far the British have not been able to welcome this way forward.
Now that I have a place in Uganda as well, it seems right to suggest this also in Uganda. You know that having political parties is in some ways dangerous. You know that it can be difficult for opposition politicians to be seen as fully loyal. Having your own version of the House of Lords and the Monarchy would be a good way of ensuring that democracy in Uganda has all the necessary checks and balances to enable the country to flourish.
The writer is a Canon in West Ankole Diocese