Party dissidents must stick to rules
Oct 13, 2008
The NRM Caucus last week agreed that none of its members would comment in public on the NSSF saga before the committee had completed its report.
The NRM Caucus last week agreed that none of its members would comment in public on the NSSF saga before the committee had completed its report.
As soon as the members left the meeting, dissidents were already violating their own resolutions.
It has become a familiar but disturbing trend in Ugandan politics.
When parties agree on one thing, some members run to the media to say another thing.
The lack of party discipline, some argue, is a result of the Movement system of the past. Before multi-party politics were introduced, MPs were elected on individual merit.
They could say whatever they liked, even when their statements were manifestly untrue or went against the Movement principles.
The tendency towards anarchy, others argue, is also a result of the fact that the majority of Ugandans have always been subsistence farmers.
They are self-reliant, their own bosses, and find it difficult to subject themselves to any authority.
Whatever the cause, party ‘rebels’ may score points with a certain class of society, their attitude is fundamentally undemocratic and short-sighted.
It is undemocratic because they refuse to accept resolutions agreed upon by the majority.
It is short-sighted because it undermines the party, and ultimately their own future, and sets a bad example to the millions of young Ugandans who might get inspired to rebel, strike or burn down schools.
Let the dissidents decide where they want to belong.
Either they choose to remain in the party, enjoying its benefits while abiding by its rules, or they leave and form - or join another party with another political programme.
There should be nothing in between.
As soon as the members left the meeting, dissidents were already violating their own resolutions.
It has become a familiar but disturbing trend in Ugandan politics.
When parties agree on one thing, some members run to the media to say another thing.
The lack of party discipline, some argue, is a result of the Movement system of the past. Before multi-party politics were introduced, MPs were elected on individual merit.
They could say whatever they liked, even when their statements were manifestly untrue or went against the Movement principles.
The tendency towards anarchy, others argue, is also a result of the fact that the majority of Ugandans have always been subsistence farmers.
They are self-reliant, their own bosses, and find it difficult to subject themselves to any authority.
Whatever the cause, party ‘rebels’ may score points with a certain class of society, their attitude is fundamentally undemocratic and short-sighted.
It is undemocratic because they refuse to accept resolutions agreed upon by the majority.
It is short-sighted because it undermines the party, and ultimately their own future, and sets a bad example to the millions of young Ugandans who might get inspired to rebel, strike or burn down schools.
Let the dissidents decide where they want to belong.
Either they choose to remain in the party, enjoying its benefits while abiding by its rules, or they leave and form - or join another party with another political programme.
There should be nothing in between.