Cost excuse not honest
After Parliament passed the referendum motion, the multipartists are again at their usual game, threatening to squander this great opportunity which they should instead grab to prove to the world that the party politics they have always acclaimed are the preference of most Ugandans.
Julius Nkeramihigo
After Parliament passed the referendum motion, the multipartists are again at their usual game, threatening to squander this great opportunity which they should instead grab to prove to the world that the party politics they have always acclaimed are the preference of most Ugandans.
They argue, among other things, that it will be wasteful to spend sh30b on the referendum because to them, the national consensus to go multiparty has already been reached.
Some of them also contend in contempt of the people that the question “whether to go multiparty or remain movement†is too sophisticated for our largely peasant population to decide. They would rather have this matter disposed by Parliament alone or at most involving only the district councils.
This is quite misleading. For instance, there is no consensus yet to return to multi- partism. In Parliament itself, since MPs are people’s elected representatives, if we take all or most of the members who voted for the referendum to be pro-movement as the opposition wants us to believe, it remains clear that no consensus in favour of multipartism has been reached.
Even on the first day of voting when the pro-referendum MPs lost the motion, it was just on shear procedural technicality but still a mere 18 votes against, compared to over 140 in favour of the referendum would by no means indicate that Ugandans have already opted to go multi- party.
The same situation applies to the rest of Ugandan society in general. Political debate today, even at village level, is dominated by contention over Movement, multipartism, and presidential term limits and it is indeed necessary to ascertain how many Ugandans prefer what.
Therefore, the multipartists and some of our donor friends are only fearing the impending “moment of truth†when Ugandans might democratically state that, multiparty political activity, which has for long been falsely peddled as the “sine quo non†for democracy is not their preference.
It is also evident the opposition strategically wants to see the decision to remain under the Movement or return to parties taken in Kampala to the exclusion of the majority so that any backfire is later on squarely blamed on the Movement government for being undemocratic.
That is why the multipartists, with enlightened self-interest, front the excuse of costs to fail the referendum and cause a change of political system by short-cut.
They know this would in future provide good political ammunition for them to accuse the Government of propagating a conspiracy of the elite against the masses.
Cost-saving is, therefore, not their honest motive for opposing the referendum. Otherwise, why have they never taken as much interest in, for example, the sh36b spent on Parliament annually? Whenever the issue of exorbitant spending on Parliament is raised, it is said to be a genuine price of democracy that must be paid.
But how less democratic is a process of asking a population how they want to govern themselves? Indeed, it is a good moot question as to how much value for money the country derives from spending sh36b every year on the House, with a section specialised in occasionally obstructing or delaying even developmental programmes, compared to the value that would derive from sh30b one off expenditure on consulting citizens on their destiny.
It must hence be put to the opposition that their real problem with the referendum is actually not its cost. They are only certain that their strength on the ground is wanting and by no means would they win the poll. But, of course, they cannot advance this weakness on their part as a good reason for opposing the referendum. It is not convincing.
Instead, the argument about cost is smart. It sounds a reasonable, frugal, and patriotic argument at the face of it but in reality it is a dishonest excuse.
The writer is a public policy analyst
After Parliament passed the referendum motion, the multipartists are again at their usual game, threatening to squander this great opportunity which they should instead grab to prove to the world that the party politics they have always acclaimed are the preference of most Ugandans.
They argue, among other things, that it will be wasteful to spend sh30b on the referendum because to them, the national consensus to go multiparty has already been reached.
Some of them also contend in contempt of the people that the question “whether to go multiparty or remain movement†is too sophisticated for our largely peasant population to decide. They would rather have this matter disposed by Parliament alone or at most involving only the district councils.
This is quite misleading. For instance, there is no consensus yet to return to multi- partism. In Parliament itself, since MPs are people’s elected representatives, if we take all or most of the members who voted for the referendum to be pro-movement as the opposition wants us to believe, it remains clear that no consensus in favour of multipartism has been reached.
Even on the first day of voting when the pro-referendum MPs lost the motion, it was just on shear procedural technicality but still a mere 18 votes against, compared to over 140 in favour of the referendum would by no means indicate that Ugandans have already opted to go multi- party.
The same situation applies to the rest of Ugandan society in general. Political debate today, even at village level, is dominated by contention over Movement, multipartism, and presidential term limits and it is indeed necessary to ascertain how many Ugandans prefer what.
Therefore, the multipartists and some of our donor friends are only fearing the impending “moment of truth†when Ugandans might democratically state that, multiparty political activity, which has for long been falsely peddled as the “sine quo non†for democracy is not their preference.
It is also evident the opposition strategically wants to see the decision to remain under the Movement or return to parties taken in Kampala to the exclusion of the majority so that any backfire is later on squarely blamed on the Movement government for being undemocratic.
That is why the multipartists, with enlightened self-interest, front the excuse of costs to fail the referendum and cause a change of political system by short-cut.
They know this would in future provide good political ammunition for them to accuse the Government of propagating a conspiracy of the elite against the masses.
Cost-saving is, therefore, not their honest motive for opposing the referendum. Otherwise, why have they never taken as much interest in, for example, the sh36b spent on Parliament annually? Whenever the issue of exorbitant spending on Parliament is raised, it is said to be a genuine price of democracy that must be paid.
But how less democratic is a process of asking a population how they want to govern themselves? Indeed, it is a good moot question as to how much value for money the country derives from spending sh36b every year on the House, with a section specialised in occasionally obstructing or delaying even developmental programmes, compared to the value that would derive from sh30b one off expenditure on consulting citizens on their destiny.
It must hence be put to the opposition that their real problem with the referendum is actually not its cost. They are only certain that their strength on the ground is wanting and by no means would they win the poll. But, of course, they cannot advance this weakness on their part as a good reason for opposing the referendum. It is not convincing.
Instead, the argument about cost is smart. It sounds a reasonable, frugal, and patriotic argument at the face of it but in reality it is a dishonest excuse.
The writer is a public policy analyst