Challenges of opening the political space in Uganda

Jun 22, 2004

Message of the national political commissar, <b>Dr Chrispus Kiyonga</b> at the close of the first workshop on closing the gap between political actors and the academia on June 13, 2004 in Jinja.

The Movement leadership through the highest policy making organ, the National Conference, has made a decision to open up political space. There are strategic and tactical challenges to meet as the country changes from the Movement political system to the multiparty system
The Movement is still popular. The Sempebwa commission has reported that of the people interviewed country wide, over 70% still want the movement to continue.

Background
The country still has structural problems, which can be summarised as:
Underdeveloped economy with structural regional imbalances; a young population and high rates of unemployment; the military power and security capability still faces significant challenges; a high degree of superstition; potential of infectious diseases, and a high degree of dependence on grants and loans from abroad.
As the political space opens, the capacity to handle competitive politics will require careful gauging. Clear rules for the competition need to be developed and capacity for enforcement put in place.
It is a national imperative that the following be done:
Construct an effective security machinery and capability; carry out reforms to ensure equity, development and sustainability; re-visit Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive to reflect a social construct that ensures stability and sets the country on a sustainable development and transformation.

The violence
lElections in the country have been associated with some degree of violence. Each country ought to gauge the degree of excitement likely to take place and put measures to minimise it. This should include a decision on the type of manageable electoral system.
The police is inadequate and has not yet fully developed to handle the complicated internal security. They do not have adequate transport and other basic equipment. Two points are worth noting here: that the budgetary constraints cannot allow immediate and adequate funding of the police; even if there was enough money now, it still requires some time to build an efficient police. The ratio of population to police officers should be 600:1. Thus, Uganda should have about 40,000 strong police. Currently we have around 15,000, leaving a deficit of 25,000. even if you trained 5,000 a year, you will take at least five years to complete.
Sections of our society like the Karimojong hold arms illegally; superstition is still used to fun violence. Lakwena organised an army on the basis of superstition, and so were the Rwenzururu Movement. NALU and ADF used witch doctors. Given the high rates of unemployed youth, it has been easy for insurgents to recruit young people.

Popularity of the Movement:
The Movement is popular because the people have seen changes in security, economy and democracy. The Odoki Commission (1989 to 1993), found that over 75% of the population wanted the Movement. Sempebwa’s commission (2001 to 2003) also found that 70% of the people wanted the Movement.
It is illustrative to look at the results of the Presidential elections in 1996 and 2001.Candidate President Yoweri Museveni who was the chief proponent of the Movement polled about 75% in 1996 and nearly 70% in 2001. In the referendum of June 2000, 51% of the electorate voted and nearly 92% of them voted for the Movement. Some people claim that this referendum was boycotted by the population. But let us compare the turn up for presidential and parliamentary elections and the referendum in order to see the trends and make informed deductions:
Presidential elections 2001 and 1996 attracted over 70% of the registered voters. Parliamentary elections in the same period attracted a turn up of 55%. The referendum recorded 51%.
The difference of 15% between the presidential and parliamentary elections is not explained by boycott.

In moving to change the political system, it is essential to move along with the population and not to take them for granted. Different views have been expressed on this subject:
The argument that since the NC opened political space, why waste money to ask the people in a referendum. While it is important to save money, we should also note the following: If the people feel betrayed in taking key decisions, this can be a basis for future instability. The NC decided that changing the political system be put to the population in a referendum. The constitution does provide in Article 74(1) that one way to change the political system is by referendum. There are other people saying it will be risky to ask the population in a referendum whether or not they want to change to multiparty. The thinking is that the people may decide wrongly. But it is dangerous to hide from the people because we fear that they will take a decision we do not support. We should convince the population to see the rationality of our position.

The Regional situation
Tanzania was under a one party regime for a long time. Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) is now a strong party. And since the re-introduction of multipartysm, they have won two elections with landslides both at the presidential and parliamentary level.
l The unity of the country, the effective security system and stability are facilitating factors in effecting changes and moving forward in Tanzania. A commission was set up to investigate the readiness of the population to change from a one party system to the multiparty arrangement. Nearly 80% of the people interviewed indicated they wanted to maintain the one party system. The leadership decided to go multiparty. They explained this position but they found resistance. Unlike Uganda, Tanzania did not have constitutional provisions that defined how the change from one system to another would follow.
l Kenya has had stability since independence in 1963. President Mwai Kibaki is the third president. In Uganda, Museveni is the nineth president.
l Kenya also had a one party state under KANU for a long time.
l The DR Congo and the Sudan have had instability for a long time.
l Burundi’s case has had a pattern that need to be looked into. The country has been ethnically divided. Under pressure from donors, they opened political space without considering possible complications. This almost plunged the country into a crisis.
l Rwanda suffered genocide in 1994 and is yet to recover from it.

The Road Map to 2006
The Government appointed a Constitutional review Commission in early 2001.This commission presented its findings to the Minister of Constitutional Affairs in December 2003. The findings will form the basis for the constitutional amendments that the country intends to carry out. l In December 2001, the National Executive committee of the Movement appointed an adhoc committee under my chair to investigate the political future of the country. The committee recommended to NEC that political space be opened. This recommendation was adopted by the national conference in March 2003. The conference also recommended talks with those opposed to the Movement.
l In October 2003, the President appointed a government committee to hold consultations with political forces in the country. The basic mission of this committee is to develop consensus with the political forces on key elements of the country’s politics. This was in view of the intended change from the movement to multiparty democracy.
l Initially, I worked with Sam Njuba of the reform agenda (RA) to define which specific entities would be involved in the talks. The choice of Njuba was dictated by the fact that the rA had had a meeting with the President and requested for talks with the Government. Njuba and I agreed on political groups he would contact and those I would contact.
Subsequently, Njuba wrote to us indicating that the following groups had agreed to act jointly and would from then communicate with us through one channel via Njuba:
The Conservative Party of Nsambu,
Democratic Party of Dr. Paul Semwogerere,
Justice Forum of Dr. Kibirige Mayanja, National Democratic Forum (NDF)of Chapa Karuhanga, Reform Agenda (RA)of Dr. Kizza Besigye, The Free Movement of Prof. Juuko, and Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) of Dr. James Rwanyarare.
This is what is the group of seven or the g7. In the course of consultations, we received presentations that Francis Bwegye, Joash Mayanja Nkangi and Nelson Ocheger were being excluded from the groups that would coordinate under Njuba. They made their case for participation in the consultations and they were admitted to the consultations.
In the meantime, other groups emerged that also wanted to participate in the talks. These were essentially new political formations. These new groups were 53. We decided that for any of these groups to be admitted, they had to show that they had submitted their applications for registration as political parties or organisations to the registrar general. This implied that they had obtained support from at least 19 districts. On this basis, the following 12 groups qualified:
Action Party, Conservative Party, Democratic Party, Farmers Party of Uganda, Movement for democratic Change, National convention for Democracy, National Peasants Party, National Peoples organisation, National Unity, reconciliation and development Party; Peoples Independent Party, Republican Women and Youth Party, Uganda Mandate Party.

I will now detail the groups with whom we held consultations:


The Group of Seven (g7):
In accepting to participate in the talks, this grouping wrote to me a document on December 22, 2004.
They set pre-conditions for the talks. Examples of these are: The Government must put an end to imprisonment, intimidation, arbitrary arrests and torture of Ugandans; Chaka-Mchaka courses conducted by the Government should be stopped; Government should withdraw the referendum and other provisions bill (2003) from further debate in Parliament. (See article 255); agree on a programme for the return of political exiles; that the parties in the preparatory talks and dialogue are the Government and the seven opposition parties/organisations i.e. the G7. They further made the following assertions: That the transition to multiparty be managed under an executive interim body; that a national conference be convened; that the movement is authoritarian, militaristic and exclusive; that the wars being waged by neocolonial forces are a result of the Movement political system; that the Movement is the same as the National Resistance Movement; that only the seven political forces who signed the letter written to me on December 22, 2003 be the only ones to consult with the Government.
They also wanted talks in three phases: Preparatory talks; dialogue and a national conference; they wanted the dialogue in a neutral venue and to be chaired by either the African Union or NEPAD. They also wanted observers to the dialogue and the national conference; having a dialogue and not consultations, and that decisions in the dialogue be binding.
The document reflect the following thinking on the part of the authors:
That there is a crisis in the country; that they do not recognise the present constitutional order; they do not think anything positive has come out of the NRM; that the NRM revolution is the cause of the war in the north; and that everything possible be done to reverse whatever the movement has done; that they were the only political groups in the country qualified to hold talks with the Government.
Did the Government meet some of the demands of the g7? What compromises did we make?
The Sempebwa Commission notwithstanding, the Government decided to carry out consultations with the political forces in the country.
We did not demand that the g7 first applies for registration before we could talk; on the g7 demand, we allowed the g7 to have a co-secretary.
Regarding the value of the consultations, we undertook to use our influence in Parliament and the population to sell views agreed on in the consultative forum.
As of May 11, 2004, we had held 25 plenary meetings with these groups. It is from these meetings that we made the following recommendations: Make an act of Parliament, a code of conduct for political parties and organisations; put in the Constitution a basic economic doctrine for the country; create a national political consultative forum to bring together on a regular basis leaders of all political parties; and put in the Constitution elements of common good for Uganda.
The Government has been engaged in talks with political forces in the country since October 2003. In the end, the political forces divided into two groups. One which wanted talks and fully participated, while the other group placed obstacles in the way and did not fully engage with the Government. The talks have brought new initiatives and proposals, including:. A national political consultative forum; a code of conduct for political parties; defining the common good; an economic doctrine; elements of a defense doctrine, accepted principle of reserve force and a politically conscious army.

Other key elements of the road map
Amendment of the PPOA; Registration of parties and holding of national conferences; CRC report and the white paper; decision on political systems; holding of referenda.
In deciding whether or not to hold referenda, the Government willl consider the following articles of the Constitution:
Article 1, Article 74, Article 259, Article 260, Article 261 and Article 255.
The Government will also balance the financial and political considerations. The plan is to hold one referendum, but answer as many questions as necessary on the same occasion.

Conclusion
Political change in the country should move on a broad front of the population to avoid a conflict between the elite and the majority of the people. Efforts must be made to increase the sense of responsibility among the political actors.
Our definition of politics should be in harmony with the thinking that, “Politics at its best is an exchange of ideas; an honest debate on the problems and solutions of the time.” There is enough time between now and 2006 to complete the change from the Movement to multipartysm. We have to work with a higher sense of patriotism. Parliament particularly will be the rate limiting step and special effort will be required of us to fulfill our role; informed political actors should be improved by creation of a mechanism that increases institutional collaboration between politicians and the academia in the country in order to effectively address our development challenges.
I see greater opportunities to generate more consensuses and more cohesion as we tackle the challenges facing us today.
Ends

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});