Scrap army representatives
Jul 05, 2005
ARMY Commander Lt. Gen. Aronda Nyakairima has threatened action against UPDF MP Col. Fred Bogere. Bogere was the only MP who abstained during the vote on the Bill that proposes lifting of presidential term limits.
ARMY Commander Lt. Gen. Aronda Nyakairima has threatened action against UPDF MP Col. Fred Bogere. Bogere was the only MP who abstained during the vote on the Bill that proposes lifting of presidential term limits.
Those calling him a hero argue that he upheld the Constitution, which requires the army to be non-partisan. Those condemning him say he deviated from the official position to support the Bill.
Currently army MPs have instructions not to participate in controversial debates. It would be better if they were also barred from voting on controversial matters.
The situation will be more complicated in a multiparty parliament. For example, MPs from the ruling party will sit on one side and opposition MPs on the opposite side. On which side will UPDF MPs sit?
Under the Movement system, Parliament was elected in accordance with the principle of individual merit. How will army MPs be elected under multiparty system where parties will sponsor candidates? Will parties field candidates in the army as will be the case in other interest groups like workers, youth and people with disabilities? Will the president continue to nominate candidates for the Army Council to select the 10 MPs? This method may not be viable where a president represents a ruling party.
The Constitution Review Commission (CRC) recommended that a partisan (multiparty) parliament should not have army MPs but the Government rejected the proposal. This is the time to think about it again.
Soldiers who want to become politically active are being retired so that they can go and compete for constituency seats. This is a good policy that should not be contradicted by continued representation of UPDF in a partisan parliament.
Bogere should not be condemned because his decision to withhold his vote may help to right any inconsistencies. Therefore, the issue should not be whether or not to punish Bogere. The question is whether the army was right to take a position on the Bill and whether it should be represented in future parliaments.
Those calling him a hero argue that he upheld the Constitution, which requires the army to be non-partisan. Those condemning him say he deviated from the official position to support the Bill.
Currently army MPs have instructions not to participate in controversial debates. It would be better if they were also barred from voting on controversial matters.
The situation will be more complicated in a multiparty parliament. For example, MPs from the ruling party will sit on one side and opposition MPs on the opposite side. On which side will UPDF MPs sit?
Under the Movement system, Parliament was elected in accordance with the principle of individual merit. How will army MPs be elected under multiparty system where parties will sponsor candidates? Will parties field candidates in the army as will be the case in other interest groups like workers, youth and people with disabilities? Will the president continue to nominate candidates for the Army Council to select the 10 MPs? This method may not be viable where a president represents a ruling party.
The Constitution Review Commission (CRC) recommended that a partisan (multiparty) parliament should not have army MPs but the Government rejected the proposal. This is the time to think about it again.
Soldiers who want to become politically active are being retired so that they can go and compete for constituency seats. This is a good policy that should not be contradicted by continued representation of UPDF in a partisan parliament.
Bogere should not be condemned because his decision to withhold his vote may help to right any inconsistencies. Therefore, the issue should not be whether or not to punish Bogere. The question is whether the army was right to take a position on the Bill and whether it should be represented in future parliaments.