Why Ugandans must abandon term limits
<b>Amama Mbabazi</b><br><br>On May 26, there was a debate to discuss the Uaganda constitutional amendment to remove presidential term limits. The debate in London, was organised by Richard Dowden, the director of Royal African Society. Minister of Defence and chairman of the NRM Promoters Constituti
Amama Mbabazi
On May 26, there was a debate to discuss the Uaganda constitutional amendment to remove presidential term limits. The debate in London, was organised by Richard Dowden, the director of Royal African Society. Minister of Defence and chairman of the NRM Promoters Constitutional Committee, Amama Mbabazi made a presentation:
The debate in Uganda is not so new. The matter was debated during the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution and the proponents of limiting the term of the president won with a strong majority.
I, however, with some other colleague delegates to the Constituent Assembly (CA), opposed the idea then. As the chairman of the Movement Caucus, having lost the debate in the caucus meeting, I accepted defeat gracefully and decided to bide my time.
Later on, the NRM Constitutional Committee carefully examined and considered the concept of term limits for political leaders in Uganda. It looked at both the advantages and disadvantages of term limits as a principle. I would like to make it absolutely clear that both in the CA and this time round the debate was not about the individual called Mr Yoweri Museveni.
Of course, in the current debate, the obvious assumption is that the two are connected. In discussing Mr Museveni as the subject of the debate, however, one must remember that as the Constitution of Uganda stands today, there is no third term for anyone. In fact as I keep reminding those that have made Museveni the central theme of their arguments, they should support the opening of term limits first and then we can debate the merits of the individuals that may offer themselves as candidates for the presidency in the forthcoming elections.
Should Mr Museveni offer himself, which he has so far not done, then we can discuss his candidature. Otherwise, right now the argument is purely hypothetical.
In my presentation today, therefore, I will mainly consider the idea of term limit — whether it is good for Uganda or not. Since I may not have the opportunity to debate the issue again in London before the presidential elections in March 2006, and since I know that, unlike in the CA in 1994, those who share my views that we should have no term limits in our constitution are now the vast majority, then I will join the opponents of President Museveni to consider the merits of Museveni as candidate for President of Uganda for the third time when the Constitution is amended.
Whereas the debate over term limits in Uganda is quite new, it is as old as democracy in America. The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the concept of term limits.
They rejected it. George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms as president, a tradition that continued until Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only president to serve longer; the 22nd amendment passed in 1951 made sure that never happened again. Since the subject was debated at the first Constitutional Convention, and subsequently elsewhere in the world, the arguments for and against term limits have remained generally the same.
- The pro term limit arguments
Proponents argue term limits can bring fresh views and opinions to government, make representatives more responsive to the people, help eliminate abuses that come with an unlimited tenure, overcome the insurmountable advantages of incumbency and make elections more competitive.
Arguments against term limits and the democratic merits of indefinite eligibility.
- Right of choice
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 72: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection [than term limits]...â€
Quoting one of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention which framed the American Constitution in 1787, term limits were extensively debated but were rejected because: “Elections are for getting rid of politicians who are not performing up to people’s expectations. Term limits on the other hand are for eliminating politicians who are performingâ€.
If you believe a politician should be removed from office, do it the way democracies do it, with facts, ideas and the voting booth. In other words, elections do have an inbuilt mechanism to bring bad or poor leadership to an end.
Our struggle in Uganda was to restore the sovereignty of the population in decision-making. This was captured by the 1995 Constitution in Article 1, which provides that “All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with [the] Constitution†and who “shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives or through referendaâ€.
It was John Adams, in opposition to the inclusion of term limits in the American constitution that stated that “There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best [leaders], and that men [and women] of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice…†This simply put means that the right of the people to choose must not be curtailed or fettered!
Most Western democracies, except the USA recently,have been buttressed by this compelling logic not to have constitutional ineligibility provisions, i.e. term limits.
- Experience
As developing nations we need to grasp the idea that if we are to achieve the level of statecraft and good governance necessary to catch up with the rest of the world, we must design and adopt systems that enable us to build a cumulative base of knowledge and experience that will enhance our countries’ performances in pursuit of this noble objective. Long experience in democratic governance helps to build a young nation. Good leaders should, therefore, not be barred from serving their people.
Two term limit clauses provide for a weakened and shackled presidency because focus shifts from the policies and legislative programmes of the incumbent to the campaign pledges and plans of presidential candidates.
- Lame duck: Two term limits turn incumbent presidents into “Lame Ducks†because they cease to be the central figures in the governance of the state, during a second term.
v) Elections have an inbuilt mechanism to provide the equivalent of term limits to remove bad or poor and incompetent leadership. What those who are attracted by the concept of term limits generally fail to understand is that the promoters seek, not specific term limits, but general term limits, i.e. ones imposed by law, which would restrict the voter franchise, i.e. the legal right to vote and emasculate i.e. weaken the power of the ballot. The goal — ridding our government of the bad while keeping the top performers — would be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
- Manipulation: Tyranny and dictatorships do not need third, fourth terms, etc,. to manifest themselves. There are numerous examples including Uganda to prove this. The fear of manipulation by incumbents is a weak argument. If manipulation is the issue, it does not have to wait for the Third Term.
The historical quest to build durable institutions of democratic governance is to trust the people from whom all power emanates. If you are prepared to trust their integrity as electors for a term or two, why do you assume that their integrity disappears when you come to subsequent terms?
The whole argument behind term limits is a disguise for personal ambitions. The cloak of democracy, which pro-term limits wrap around themselves wears very thin when you examine it closely. The unstated objective is not the defence of democracy, but a desire to get into government and share in the so-called spoils of office. The Republican-controlled Congress of 1947-51 was no different from the Ugandans agitating for term limits today. They wanted power in order to control the resources of government. But that control does not guarantee good governance as the out come.
The effect of limiting presidential terms is to cede power to bureaucrats, because new presidents have to depend heavily on bureaucrats for at least the first term. These bureaucrats are not controlled and may not necessarily be answerable to the people. In Uganda, where you still have a weak bureaucracy, it is not prudent to so heavily depend on them to manage the presidency.
When the term limits concept was rejected by the delegates in the US, they instead provided for short terms of office — two years for the House of Representatives, four years for the presidency, and six years for the Senate.
James Madison, who opposed term limits at the Constitutional Convention, recorded in his notes the words of a fellow delegate, Roger Sherman: “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behaviour of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behaviour, because it ensures their re-election.â€
They recognised that frequent elections are the best way to keep politicians responsive, and they made the elections most frequent for that part of the federal government, which is closest to the people — the House of Representatives. They fully understood that the greatest restraint on any public official is the realisation that he must face the voters for re-election, and be judged on his performance in office.
l Careful ground work has been done in Uganda and elsewhere, to mold and manipulate public opinion into the belief that the only way to dislodge entrenched politicians is with mandated term limits. After the unprecedented three-term Franklin Roosevelt Administration, the US Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting a president to two full terms. The amendment was ratified by the states and became a part of the constitution on February 27, 1951.
Evaluation of the presidents who have followed ratification of that amendment reveals that they have been no more competent, no more honourable, and — most important — no more faithful to the Constitution than presidents who preceded the 22nd Amendment. There is simply no substitute for well-informed voters who see through hollow promises and who demand that elected representatives adhere strictly to the Constitution.
All over the world there is now debate on the issue of term limits for elective offices. In the United States alone, there have been referenda in the states of California and Ohio over this issue. It is not out of step for Uganda to subject this matter to reconsideration.
Conclusion
Clearly there is an overwhelming case against term limitation. The presidential term limit in Uganda, therefore, should be lifted. Since the people have absolute power to elect or not elect their presidents in free and fair elections at regular intervals, term limitation serves no useful purpose. It imposes strains on governance for no clear advantage to the country.
There were no term limits imposed on all the other elective and political offices in the 1995 Constitution. This is a correct position. Why then single out the presidency?
On May 26, there was a debate to discuss the Uaganda constitutional amendment to remove presidential term limits. The debate in London, was organised by Richard Dowden, the director of Royal African Society. Minister of Defence and chairman of the NRM Promoters Constitutional Committee, Amama Mbabazi made a presentation:
The debate in Uganda is not so new. The matter was debated during the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution and the proponents of limiting the term of the president won with a strong majority.
I, however, with some other colleague delegates to the Constituent Assembly (CA), opposed the idea then. As the chairman of the Movement Caucus, having lost the debate in the caucus meeting, I accepted defeat gracefully and decided to bide my time.
Later on, the NRM Constitutional Committee carefully examined and considered the concept of term limits for political leaders in Uganda. It looked at both the advantages and disadvantages of term limits as a principle. I would like to make it absolutely clear that both in the CA and this time round the debate was not about the individual called Mr Yoweri Museveni.
Of course, in the current debate, the obvious assumption is that the two are connected. In discussing Mr Museveni as the subject of the debate, however, one must remember that as the Constitution of Uganda stands today, there is no third term for anyone. In fact as I keep reminding those that have made Museveni the central theme of their arguments, they should support the opening of term limits first and then we can debate the merits of the individuals that may offer themselves as candidates for the presidency in the forthcoming elections.
Should Mr Museveni offer himself, which he has so far not done, then we can discuss his candidature. Otherwise, right now the argument is purely hypothetical.
In my presentation today, therefore, I will mainly consider the idea of term limit — whether it is good for Uganda or not. Since I may not have the opportunity to debate the issue again in London before the presidential elections in March 2006, and since I know that, unlike in the CA in 1994, those who share my views that we should have no term limits in our constitution are now the vast majority, then I will join the opponents of President Museveni to consider the merits of Museveni as candidate for President of Uganda for the third time when the Constitution is amended.
Whereas the debate over term limits in Uganda is quite new, it is as old as democracy in America. The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the concept of term limits.
They rejected it. George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms as president, a tradition that continued until Franklin D. Roosevelt, the only president to serve longer; the 22nd amendment passed in 1951 made sure that never happened again. Since the subject was debated at the first Constitutional Convention, and subsequently elsewhere in the world, the arguments for and against term limits have remained generally the same.
- The pro term limit arguments
Proponents argue term limits can bring fresh views and opinions to government, make representatives more responsive to the people, help eliminate abuses that come with an unlimited tenure, overcome the insurmountable advantages of incumbency and make elections more competitive.
Arguments against term limits and the democratic merits of indefinite eligibility.
- Right of choice
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 72: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection [than term limits]...â€
Quoting one of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention which framed the American Constitution in 1787, term limits were extensively debated but were rejected because: “Elections are for getting rid of politicians who are not performing up to people’s expectations. Term limits on the other hand are for eliminating politicians who are performingâ€.
If you believe a politician should be removed from office, do it the way democracies do it, with facts, ideas and the voting booth. In other words, elections do have an inbuilt mechanism to bring bad or poor leadership to an end.
Our struggle in Uganda was to restore the sovereignty of the population in decision-making. This was captured by the 1995 Constitution in Article 1, which provides that “All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with [the] Constitution†and who “shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives or through referendaâ€.
It was John Adams, in opposition to the inclusion of term limits in the American constitution that stated that “There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best [leaders], and that men [and women] of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice…†This simply put means that the right of the people to choose must not be curtailed or fettered!
Most Western democracies, except the USA recently,have been buttressed by this compelling logic not to have constitutional ineligibility provisions, i.e. term limits.
- Experience
As developing nations we need to grasp the idea that if we are to achieve the level of statecraft and good governance necessary to catch up with the rest of the world, we must design and adopt systems that enable us to build a cumulative base of knowledge and experience that will enhance our countries’ performances in pursuit of this noble objective. Long experience in democratic governance helps to build a young nation. Good leaders should, therefore, not be barred from serving their people.
Two term limit clauses provide for a weakened and shackled presidency because focus shifts from the policies and legislative programmes of the incumbent to the campaign pledges and plans of presidential candidates.
- Lame duck: Two term limits turn incumbent presidents into “Lame Ducks†because they cease to be the central figures in the governance of the state, during a second term.
v) Elections have an inbuilt mechanism to provide the equivalent of term limits to remove bad or poor and incompetent leadership. What those who are attracted by the concept of term limits generally fail to understand is that the promoters seek, not specific term limits, but general term limits, i.e. ones imposed by law, which would restrict the voter franchise, i.e. the legal right to vote and emasculate i.e. weaken the power of the ballot. The goal — ridding our government of the bad while keeping the top performers — would be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
- Manipulation: Tyranny and dictatorships do not need third, fourth terms, etc,. to manifest themselves. There are numerous examples including Uganda to prove this. The fear of manipulation by incumbents is a weak argument. If manipulation is the issue, it does not have to wait for the Third Term.
The historical quest to build durable institutions of democratic governance is to trust the people from whom all power emanates. If you are prepared to trust their integrity as electors for a term or two, why do you assume that their integrity disappears when you come to subsequent terms?
The whole argument behind term limits is a disguise for personal ambitions. The cloak of democracy, which pro-term limits wrap around themselves wears very thin when you examine it closely. The unstated objective is not the defence of democracy, but a desire to get into government and share in the so-called spoils of office. The Republican-controlled Congress of 1947-51 was no different from the Ugandans agitating for term limits today. They wanted power in order to control the resources of government. But that control does not guarantee good governance as the out come.
The effect of limiting presidential terms is to cede power to bureaucrats, because new presidents have to depend heavily on bureaucrats for at least the first term. These bureaucrats are not controlled and may not necessarily be answerable to the people. In Uganda, where you still have a weak bureaucracy, it is not prudent to so heavily depend on them to manage the presidency.
When the term limits concept was rejected by the delegates in the US, they instead provided for short terms of office — two years for the House of Representatives, four years for the presidency, and six years for the Senate.
James Madison, who opposed term limits at the Constitutional Convention, recorded in his notes the words of a fellow delegate, Roger Sherman: “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behaviour of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behaviour, because it ensures their re-election.â€
They recognised that frequent elections are the best way to keep politicians responsive, and they made the elections most frequent for that part of the federal government, which is closest to the people — the House of Representatives. They fully understood that the greatest restraint on any public official is the realisation that he must face the voters for re-election, and be judged on his performance in office.
l Careful ground work has been done in Uganda and elsewhere, to mold and manipulate public opinion into the belief that the only way to dislodge entrenched politicians is with mandated term limits. After the unprecedented three-term Franklin Roosevelt Administration, the US Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting a president to two full terms. The amendment was ratified by the states and became a part of the constitution on February 27, 1951.
Evaluation of the presidents who have followed ratification of that amendment reveals that they have been no more competent, no more honourable, and — most important — no more faithful to the Constitution than presidents who preceded the 22nd Amendment. There is simply no substitute for well-informed voters who see through hollow promises and who demand that elected representatives adhere strictly to the Constitution.
All over the world there is now debate on the issue of term limits for elective offices. In the United States alone, there have been referenda in the states of California and Ohio over this issue. It is not out of step for Uganda to subject this matter to reconsideration.
Conclusion
Clearly there is an overwhelming case against term limitation. The presidential term limit in Uganda, therefore, should be lifted. Since the people have absolute power to elect or not elect their presidents in free and fair elections at regular intervals, term limitation serves no useful purpose. It imposes strains on governance for no clear advantage to the country.
There were no term limits imposed on all the other elective and political offices in the 1995 Constitution. This is a correct position. Why then single out the presidency?