Why Museveni victory on February 18 is a sure deal

Feb 16, 2016

Candidate debates are not a legal imperative per se; but it is now considered a de facto election process. The debates are targeted mainly at undecided voters; those who tend not to be partial to any political ideology or party.



By Mary Karooro Okurut

Talking about the recently concluded second presidential debate, I will be completely frank with you about this: I was one of those who did not want President Yoweri Museveni to attend the presidential debates….and I was not shy to put it on the table. It was not for nothing; for I had good reason.

First, I hold the view that presidential debates are a largely foreign import that should not necessarily be imposed on us here. In the United States it has become customary for the main candidates (almost always the candidates of the two largest parties, the Democrats and the Republicans) to engage in a debate, which in modern days is broadcast live on radio and television. The topics discussed in the debate are often the most controversial issues of the time and on a number of occasions, elections have been nearly decided by these debates (just look at the 1960 Richard Nixon vs. J.F. Kennedy debates).

Candidate debates are not a legal imperative per se; but it is now considered a de facto election process. The debates are targeted mainly at undecided voters; those who tend not to be partial to any political ideology or party.

resident oweri useveni during his campaign trail hotoile President Yoweri Museveni during his campaign trail. Photo/File

 



They are held late in the election cycle, after the political parties have nominated their candidates. The candidates meet in a large hall, often at a university, before an audience of citizens. Usually the debates are moderated by reputable journalists acceptable to all sides.

As early as 1858, the Americans were already familiar with candidate debates, with Abraham Lincoln squaring off with Stephen Douglas in the race for the US Senate. But it was not until 1960 that the first proper presidential debate (complete with live television coverage) was held - between Senator J.F Kennedy the Democratic nominee and Vice President, Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee in the studio of CBS' WBBM-TV on September 26, 1960. Today the whole world takes active interest in the US Presidential debates.

Africans do not have presidential debates in their governance or electoral tradition, but I argue that that should not be seen as a weakness or backwardness on our part.

It should be perfectly okay, I thought (and still do) for Africans to be different and to think and act so. Nothing wrong with that. So I had no complaints when the President declined to attend the very first presidential debate in 2006 at the Sheraton Hotel (neither did Forum for Democratic Change FDC's Dr. Kizza Besigye by the way).

And President Museveni's refusal to attend the debate in 2006 and the first of two debates 10 years later should not be seen as a weakness on his part - candidates have the right to decline. Republican candidate Wendell Willkie challenged President Franklin D. Roosevelt to a debate in 1940, but Roosevelt refused. The United Kingdom (UK) obviously does not have a "presidential debate" - for the simple reason that they have no president.

But the leaders of the main parties traditionally have debates before major elections; from which elections the winning party forms a government with the party leader becoming Prime Minister - with executive power of course.

resident oweri aguta useveni President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni

 



I have never felt comfortable jumping onto all Western band wagons just like that - it gives the uneasy feeling that we are being forced to toe some line by somebody.

Secondly, my other fear was not that the President would not "shine" in a debate. Far from it. I know the President's abilities (don't we all?) and I was certain that nobody - certainly none of his opponents - would match him in a fair contest.

My only worry was that I know he likes to explain - "okunnyonyola" in Luganda. He is one who wants to take some time explaining things to the people.

He is never one to throw things in the air and leave them hanging. With two or three minutes allocated to the candidates to respond to questions, I was not sure he would be able to explain well in just two minutes.

I recall he was once invited for an international conference where each of the leaders was given five minutes to speak. He protested. "How can I, who has come all the way from Africa and across the oceans, be given just five minutes to speak on matters of global concern?!" he asked.

So when he didn't appear for the first debate, I was happy for reasons above. But when he appeared for the second debate, I was even happier.

He was in full control of the situation. He was composed and very calm; he showed leadership amidst the pressure of countrywide and indeed global expectation.

He responded to the questions in a way that none of the opponents could muster or match up to. He had so much information at his fingertips, he simply reeled it off like an encyclopedia, with eloquent and assured delivery that was fascinating to behold.

The opposition - who had been making all manner of allegation just because he did not show up for the first debate of 2016 - have now been firmly dealt with.

Nobody has bothered to say anymore. His performance distinguished him as a leader; a statesman and a person that Ugandans will be proud to invest their votes in once again in Election 2016.

He showed the gulf of class between him and the others. FDC's Dr. Besigye was several times at his usual abrasive self. Former Premier, Amama Mbabazi, was as usual, being bogged down by that credibility crisis that has always hung around him  - he has been an integral part of the system for 30 years before walking out of it. It is difficult for him to criticise a government he had been a key part of.

The President's performance on the night was such that any doubt  about who should be sworn in on May 12, 2016 was firmly removed and relegated to the dustbin.

***

It is two days to the big moment when Uganda goes to the polls to select both presidential and parliamentary leaders. One thing is clear - the Museveni and NRM victory is no longer in doubt; that is if it ever was in the first place.

The writing has always been on the wall - an overwhelming majority of Ugandans are confident they need no change at the helm. The person of the president as an individual, the assuredness of the NRM as an institution, juxtaposed with the inherent weaknesses of the opposition leave Ugandans in no doubt as to whom they should trust.

Little wonder more a dozen NRM candidates went through unopposed as Members of Parliament and almost twice as many district chairpersons. The 12 MPs are essentially already about one fifth of the entire opposition representation of the 9th Parliament. That is how strong the NRM is.

All these unopposed areas are already a block vote for the president and the ruling party. It is, therefore, now a matter of, not whether or not we (NRM and the President) shall win, but by what margin. To everybody let us have ensure that we have a peaceful elections.

The writer is the Minister for Security also the spokesperson of the NRM Party and Woman MP for Bushenyi District.

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