There’s more to the White
Sep 29, 2004
Enough hullabaloo has been raised over the proposal, in the White Paper, to oust cultural leaders by the Parliament should they involve themselves in politics.
By Chibita wa Duallo
Enough hullabaloo has been raised over the proposal, in the White Paper, to oust cultural leaders by the Parliament should they involve themselves in politics. The issues of contention have centred around whether this was a Cabinet position or not, whether it is comprehensible for the Parliament to determine the fate of cultural leaders or not and whether the matter should have been included in the White Paper at all, or not.
Listening to, and reading about, the reaction to the presentation of the White Paper, to the Parliament, one would be forgiven for thinking that a final decision had been taken on the matter. That it is now a constitutional provision that any cultural leader who involves himself in politics will be ousted by Parliament!
One would also be forgiven for thinking the White Paper contains only that one provision; the one relating to removal of cultural leaders by the Parliament.
As a matter of fact, the Paper is a summary of proposals that the Government, is tabling before the Parliament for thorough debate, filtering and finally inclusion into the Constitution by way of amendment. All the proposals in the White Paper have to be subjected to rigorous debate and cannot be included into the law unless the Parliament has passed them.
The White Paper then is a distilled version, from the Government’s perspective, of the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Commission. As indicated earlier, Cabinet can best deal with the issue as to whether the White Paper is a true record of what transpired in Cabinet.
The Cabinet must have ample internal mechanisms to address what some have called ‘uncoordinated movement of troops’. We have been used to harmony in Cabinet so much that the one time this harmony seems to have publicly eluded the Institution has elicited plenty of negative reaction.
The White Paper actually contains some revolutionary, if overdue, proposals. Foremost of which, is the proposal to adopt the Dual Citizenship regime in the Ugandan Constitution. Revolutionary, because not many countries in the world have this provision allowing its citizens to acquire another citizenship apart from that of their country of birth. Unless, of course, they agree to renounce one or the other.
Also many Ugandans, especially in the diaspora, have been lobbying for the inclusion of this particular provision in the Constitution. Ugandans have moved to different parts of the world over time for mostly political and economic reasons. Many have acquired, or are toying with the idea of acquiring, citizenship wherever they are.
This decision, however, is always complicated by the fact that “East, west, home is bestâ€. Yet acquiring a new citizenship involves renouncing the ‘home’ citizenship. Dual citizenship then becomes the perfect solution for these people’s dilemma.
The fact that Cabinet is open to the idea of dual citizenship, therefore, is a recognition of the fact that the world has become a global village and many of our people are caught up in the uncertainty of whether or not to acquire new citizenship and thereby renounce the Ugandan one.
One of the strangest happenings in this regard involves one such ‘Ugandan who acquired citizenship of another country. His parents live in Uganda as do the rest of his clan. He therefore makes regular visits to Uganda, for which he has to get a visa. One time he overstayed his visa and had to seek to have it extended or be deported from here!
The White Paper also put to rest fears that a referendum on lifting term limits was going to be held despite the acrimonious debate that had surrounded the proposal. The fact that this issue is now to debated and decided by the Parliament seems to have been lost on many discussants of the White Paper.
The other issue of public interest is the one of holding the election of the President, members of parliament and local government officials on the same day. Prior to this matter being included in the White Paper, a lot of people had shouted themselves hoarse trying to sell its merits.
It was interesting to hear people complaining of voter fatigue. There was an argument that in an election year one voter would have to go and vote for the President one day. A few weeks later he would go and vote for his member of parliament. Thereafter he would have to go and vote for his local council Five chairman and many other special interest group representative.
Ends
Enough hullabaloo has been raised over the proposal, in the White Paper, to oust cultural leaders by the Parliament should they involve themselves in politics. The issues of contention have centred around whether this was a Cabinet position or not, whether it is comprehensible for the Parliament to determine the fate of cultural leaders or not and whether the matter should have been included in the White Paper at all, or not.
Listening to, and reading about, the reaction to the presentation of the White Paper, to the Parliament, one would be forgiven for thinking that a final decision had been taken on the matter. That it is now a constitutional provision that any cultural leader who involves himself in politics will be ousted by Parliament!
One would also be forgiven for thinking the White Paper contains only that one provision; the one relating to removal of cultural leaders by the Parliament.
As a matter of fact, the Paper is a summary of proposals that the Government, is tabling before the Parliament for thorough debate, filtering and finally inclusion into the Constitution by way of amendment. All the proposals in the White Paper have to be subjected to rigorous debate and cannot be included into the law unless the Parliament has passed them.
The White Paper then is a distilled version, from the Government’s perspective, of the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Commission. As indicated earlier, Cabinet can best deal with the issue as to whether the White Paper is a true record of what transpired in Cabinet.
The Cabinet must have ample internal mechanisms to address what some have called ‘uncoordinated movement of troops’. We have been used to harmony in Cabinet so much that the one time this harmony seems to have publicly eluded the Institution has elicited plenty of negative reaction.
The White Paper actually contains some revolutionary, if overdue, proposals. Foremost of which, is the proposal to adopt the Dual Citizenship regime in the Ugandan Constitution. Revolutionary, because not many countries in the world have this provision allowing its citizens to acquire another citizenship apart from that of their country of birth. Unless, of course, they agree to renounce one or the other.
Also many Ugandans, especially in the diaspora, have been lobbying for the inclusion of this particular provision in the Constitution. Ugandans have moved to different parts of the world over time for mostly political and economic reasons. Many have acquired, or are toying with the idea of acquiring, citizenship wherever they are.
This decision, however, is always complicated by the fact that “East, west, home is bestâ€. Yet acquiring a new citizenship involves renouncing the ‘home’ citizenship. Dual citizenship then becomes the perfect solution for these people’s dilemma.
The fact that Cabinet is open to the idea of dual citizenship, therefore, is a recognition of the fact that the world has become a global village and many of our people are caught up in the uncertainty of whether or not to acquire new citizenship and thereby renounce the Ugandan one.
One of the strangest happenings in this regard involves one such ‘Ugandan who acquired citizenship of another country. His parents live in Uganda as do the rest of his clan. He therefore makes regular visits to Uganda, for which he has to get a visa. One time he overstayed his visa and had to seek to have it extended or be deported from here!
The White Paper also put to rest fears that a referendum on lifting term limits was going to be held despite the acrimonious debate that had surrounded the proposal. The fact that this issue is now to debated and decided by the Parliament seems to have been lost on many discussants of the White Paper.
The other issue of public interest is the one of holding the election of the President, members of parliament and local government officials on the same day. Prior to this matter being included in the White Paper, a lot of people had shouted themselves hoarse trying to sell its merits.
It was interesting to hear people complaining of voter fatigue. There was an argument that in an election year one voter would have to go and vote for the President one day. A few weeks later he would go and vote for his member of parliament. Thereafter he would have to go and vote for his local council Five chairman and many other special interest group representative.
Ends