Kanyeihamba, let’s consider Museveni’s ideas, not his age

Jun 09, 2009

I am greatly disappointed in Judge George Kanyeihamba for his misleading and obviously very subjective views in his article “Justice Kanyeihamba: President Museveni is Tired, Should Give Way”, that appeared in the press on June 3.

By David Mafabi

I am greatly disappointed in Judge George Kanyeihamba for his misleading and obviously very subjective views in his article “Justice Kanyeihamba: President Museveni is Tired, Should Give Way”, that appeared in the press on June 3.

That piece makes one wonder who, between Prof. Kanyeihamba and President Yoweri Museveni, is actually (in Kanyeihamba parlance) “exhausted’. We are left wondering who between the two men, in Prof. Kanyeihamba’s rendition of Prof. Oloka Onyango, has reached their “academic political ceiling”.

We wonder again what the actual source is of all the spleen in the good judge’s interview spanning three days in a national newspaper. Does he not betray himself in this? Consider: “Instead, we have concentrated on personalities to the extent that if one of us like Kanyeihamba is required by the international community to be president of the African Court of Human Rights or the chief justice of the Seychelles, we say no because one day he slanted (sic) me or didn’t judge for me.

That is victimisation and a primitive kind governance in society”.

That is our good judge’s real beef, and I am sure those who would know, will quickly correct this skewed presentation of facts.

But, Judge Kanyeihamba has done one very good thing. His comments about the supposed ‘exhaustion’ of President Museveni dovetail into an earlier discussion sparked off by comments by Mzee John Nagenda regarding the need to prepare for a post-Museveni Uganda (my words). This provides yet another opportunity for others like myself to have our say.

First, about “exhaustion”. There is no doubt that everybody grows older with each passing day, including President Museveni, and nobody is getting into a false debate regarding that. Our good judge and all the others need to pause again and think about the category “vision”.

Let us put it this way. Truth is concrete and objective. A truth one day old shall remain true 3,000 years later. Some truths have remained true since the start of time. They shall remain so into infinity.

It is possible, of course, that when the laws that govern the emergence, existence and development of all processes, nature, society and human thought change, a truth could change, cease being true or cease to exist altogether. It is also possible naturally, that when a qualitative change occurs in the totality of circumstances under which a truth exists, what we hold to be true may cease to be so. Such change would be discernable, verifiable and measurable.

So in discussing President Museveni’s vision, the point cannot possibly be the President’s age, his supposed ‘exhaustion’ when in fact, we ask whether Prof. Kanyeihamba is not himself “exhausted”, what we are talking about are his thoughts and ideas, not his age.

The issue must be testing ideas and vision in practice: Are the ideas accurate; do they reflect the needs, the demands of the times. In other words, is the “vision”, a living “vision”?

Most important, Prof. Kanyeihamba and company ignore, at the risk of rendering themselves permanently irrelevant to this country’s basic development processes, the fact of existence of hundreds of thousands of particularly young people who are inspired and mobilised by the ideas and vision of President Museveni. Instead of fading away, the adherents to Museveni’s ideas and vision can only multiply and grow — in the like of a mustard tree.

Once that has happened as, indeed, it has, then Museveni’s ideas and vision become the ideas and vision of generations and are thereby immortalised. Those who hate Museveni’s ideas and vision shall still have to live and contend with them for a very long time.

Second, on the question of “appointment” or otherwise, of a successor to President Museveni, I agree with those who have stated that the NRM has a democratic constitution, and that it is not a monarchy.

We must understand, however, that much as the NRM is a democratic organisation, it is a national liberation movement. Let me put it this way. In which forum was the very first leadership of FRONASA elected? In which forum was the very first leadership of the Popular Resistance Army — the forerunner of the NRA — elected? After which campaign, nominations, etc?

At which elections was it decided on who would lead the first attacks? At which election was it decided on who would hide the guns and ammunition? Put differently, at which election was it voted on, who would volunteer to be ready to die first in the name of national liberation, i.e. to pay the supreme sacrifice?

The point is, while leadership of an organisation can and should be elected, the leadership of liberation movements emerges. It is the perfect situation of the man matching the hour, the moment, the concrete needs of leadership.

Meaning that when Museveni and the NRM mutually agree one day that there should be a new team leader, Museveni shall have no choice but to closely guide the democratic process. This is to ensure continuity.

But such a debate today is sterile and futile. It could be more meaningfully resumed in 2016 or better still in 2023. In the meantime, NRM cadres and all Ugandans of good will must close ranks and give one unequivocal assurance to the country: Yoweri Museveni is going nowhere, and must run again in 2011.

He must run to entrench implementation of the vision to unity, prosperity, the nuclear and space age.

The writer is the private secretary/political affairs, State House

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