Museveni still same
AS President Yoweri Museveni marked the third year of his second five-year popular mandate, on Wednesday, his detractors continued to hurl mud at him with abandon. One theme that runs through most the criticism is that the President has changed.
AS President Yoweri Museveni marked the third year of his second five-year popular mandate, on Wednesday, his detractors continued to hurl mud at him with abandon. One theme that runs through most the criticism is that the President has changed.
Spoilers in groups such as Reform Agenda, PAFO and the old parties are desperately struggling to convince Ugandans that the Museveni they enthusiastically welcomed in 1986 and overwhelmingly elected in 1996 and 2001 is not the same at State House now.
The President’s critics though are becoming a frustrated lot each passing day. They must be lost as to why ordinary folks across the country can not make the head and tail of their case.
The wild fire nature that the demand for the President to stay in office after 2006 is taking must be baffling them most.
Yet to an honest and critical observer — whether you are “eating†or not— it is straight and simple. Ugandans know their President very well. They know that he has been the most consistent politician of independent Uganda so far. He is bluntly honest to them. He says and does what his conviction tells him — and has largely been vindicated by time.
“I don’t go for populist but misguided positions,†he said to the Bunyoro Parliamentary Group recently.
Throughout his presidency, however, Museveni has made a very clear distinction between strategic and tactical approaches to the country’s problems.
On the strategic goal of turning Uganda into a united, peaceful, developed and modern (industrialised) country, the President has neither changed nor wavered. But like any prudent manager he has kept employing different tactics as dictated by situations.
The falsehood about Museveni becoming a political chameleon does not fly. The defining moment in his honesty was when candidate Museveni of the 1980 elections said he would go to the bush if the polls were tinkered with. The rest is history.
Today opponents are accusing the President of seeking refuge in peasants to secure the removal of term limits. They purport that the President — since he wants peasants transformed — is manipulating a group he despises. The truth is Museveni has been very consistent in his faith in peasants, having successfully mobilised them to defeat the Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) dictatorship.
On the more poignant issue of “third term,†the President is being unfairly maligned. The President’s opponents — would they say otherwise? — are messed up on two facts.
One, they have no evidence, written or spoken, that the President at this point actually plans to run in 2006 should the constitution be amended. It’s a classic case of mob justice against the President.
Two, in case the constitution is democratically amended and candidate Museveni gets on the ballot paper in 2006, his opponents want us to believe that he will have breached his word. They rush to the declaration in the president’s 2001 manifesto to the effect that this would be his last term. They, however, do not note the operative word “last†in that statement was dictated by the constitution. Apart from complying with the dictates of the constitution, no where in his manifesto did Museveni say he would no longer be “interested†in the Presidency after 2006.
Surely, if the constitution were changed and the President followed it, how would any one say Museveni has changed? That is why, at this point, despite the massive encouragement, he has not dared say he will run because he would breach his word. He would not be the Museveni we know.
One thing to note is that whenever Museveni has made tactical change, it has not been his individual decision but one arrived at after discussion within the Movement, and sometimes in consultation with the people.
For example, how can one say Museveni has changed simply because he wants Ugandans consulted on whether we should change over to multi-party and remove limits on the presidential terms?
This has always been the President’s approach to arriving at consensus in the country, right from the time of the Odoki Constitutional Commission in the early 90s.
Clearly, as he starts his fourth year of the constitutional second term, Museveni has not changed. If anything, it is his buddies of yesterday who are now engaged in political gymnastics. The most telling dishonesty in Movement fat cats of yesterday, now turned Museveni critics, is the very fact that they have basically disowned him.
For record, the President may have relieved X, Y of their privileged positions in government, but he has not disowned any of them. On the other hand, people who gave us the impression that they were sworn allies of the President are busy trashing him.
Well, if Ugandans needed any more pointer as to who to trust in 2006, they now know. If they can desert Museveni, what about the ordinary you?
Ends
Spoilers in groups such as Reform Agenda, PAFO and the old parties are desperately struggling to convince Ugandans that the Museveni they enthusiastically welcomed in 1986 and overwhelmingly elected in 1996 and 2001 is not the same at State House now.
The President’s critics though are becoming a frustrated lot each passing day. They must be lost as to why ordinary folks across the country can not make the head and tail of their case.
The wild fire nature that the demand for the President to stay in office after 2006 is taking must be baffling them most.
Yet to an honest and critical observer — whether you are “eating†or not— it is straight and simple. Ugandans know their President very well. They know that he has been the most consistent politician of independent Uganda so far. He is bluntly honest to them. He says and does what his conviction tells him — and has largely been vindicated by time.
“I don’t go for populist but misguided positions,†he said to the Bunyoro Parliamentary Group recently.
Throughout his presidency, however, Museveni has made a very clear distinction between strategic and tactical approaches to the country’s problems.
On the strategic goal of turning Uganda into a united, peaceful, developed and modern (industrialised) country, the President has neither changed nor wavered. But like any prudent manager he has kept employing different tactics as dictated by situations.
The falsehood about Museveni becoming a political chameleon does not fly. The defining moment in his honesty was when candidate Museveni of the 1980 elections said he would go to the bush if the polls were tinkered with. The rest is history.
Today opponents are accusing the President of seeking refuge in peasants to secure the removal of term limits. They purport that the President — since he wants peasants transformed — is manipulating a group he despises. The truth is Museveni has been very consistent in his faith in peasants, having successfully mobilised them to defeat the Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) dictatorship.
On the more poignant issue of “third term,†the President is being unfairly maligned. The President’s opponents — would they say otherwise? — are messed up on two facts.
One, they have no evidence, written or spoken, that the President at this point actually plans to run in 2006 should the constitution be amended. It’s a classic case of mob justice against the President.
Two, in case the constitution is democratically amended and candidate Museveni gets on the ballot paper in 2006, his opponents want us to believe that he will have breached his word. They rush to the declaration in the president’s 2001 manifesto to the effect that this would be his last term. They, however, do not note the operative word “last†in that statement was dictated by the constitution. Apart from complying with the dictates of the constitution, no where in his manifesto did Museveni say he would no longer be “interested†in the Presidency after 2006.
Surely, if the constitution were changed and the President followed it, how would any one say Museveni has changed? That is why, at this point, despite the massive encouragement, he has not dared say he will run because he would breach his word. He would not be the Museveni we know.
One thing to note is that whenever Museveni has made tactical change, it has not been his individual decision but one arrived at after discussion within the Movement, and sometimes in consultation with the people.
For example, how can one say Museveni has changed simply because he wants Ugandans consulted on whether we should change over to multi-party and remove limits on the presidential terms?
This has always been the President’s approach to arriving at consensus in the country, right from the time of the Odoki Constitutional Commission in the early 90s.
Clearly, as he starts his fourth year of the constitutional second term, Museveni has not changed. If anything, it is his buddies of yesterday who are now engaged in political gymnastics. The most telling dishonesty in Movement fat cats of yesterday, now turned Museveni critics, is the very fact that they have basically disowned him.
For record, the President may have relieved X, Y of their privileged positions in government, but he has not disowned any of them. On the other hand, people who gave us the impression that they were sworn allies of the President are busy trashing him.
Well, if Ugandans needed any more pointer as to who to trust in 2006, they now know. If they can desert Museveni, what about the ordinary you?
Ends