Uganda's Parliament in session. PHOTO | NMG
As 2017 entered its last weeks and 2018 loomed on the horizon,
many Ugandans were pondering what a number of occurrences in their
country portended in the short to long term, and what the new year will
be like. Much of the soul-searching had to do with a number of
unsettling political developments.
In 2005, certain
actors within the ruling National Resistance Movement party engineered
the removal of presidential term limits from the Constitution. They
contended that the term limits served no purpose.
In the dying days of 2017, they suddenly proposed that they be restored.
The
latest machinations had their origins in a ruling by the Supreme Court
in 2016, after a legal suit challenging the outcome of that year’s
presidential election, that the government carry out specific legal
reforms within a specific time before the 2021 general elections.
The
government, not known to take seriously court rulings that do not
advance the ambitions of the ruling party and its leaders, dragged its
feet on the matter.
And then, like a bolt out of the
blue, a ruling party member of parliament claiming to be acting in the
interest of time, proposed a private member’s Bill whose centrepiece was
to remove from the Constitution age limits for presidential candidates.
With breathtaking sophistry, he denied that his
proposal had anything to do with President Yoweri Museveni’s soon-to-be
ineligibility to run again.
The costly consultations
that followed ultimately proved meaningless. For the most part, public
reactions showed that the issue was at best extremely divisive, at worst
highly unpopular.
Even then, despite public
opposition, ruling party MPs supported the proposed amendment, as they
did the even more controversial idea of extending presidential and
parliamentary terms of office from five to seven years.
To
ensure that not only they would end up with the Constitution’s blood on
their hands, and that a large number of people would be implicated in
its murder, they proposed to extend the terms of all elected leaders,
also from five to seven years. That public opinion counts for nothing
where their careers and personal interests are concerned has long been
clear.
It was not the first time MPs showed disregard for popular opinion.
Way
back in 2005, Ugandans expressed their opposition to the removal of
presidential term limits from the Constitution. Those pushing for their
removal argued forcefully that term limits served only to prevent
Ugandans from electing leaders of their choice, and good leaders from
continuing to serve.
Term limits on a continent such
as Africa — which is short of good leaders, they argued — could even be
damaging; they could force out good leaders and open the way for bad
ones to take over power, with all the risks that entail.
Perhaps
the strongest argument for the opposition was that their removal would
open the way for incumbents to impose themselves on a population that
may otherwise want them to step down.
On a continent
where vote-rigging and manipulation of electoral processes were so
common, they argued, removing term limits would be too much of a risk.
Twelve years after parliament voted to remove term limits from the Constitution, the results are in.
As
numerous opinion polls have shown, not a single presidential election
since 2005 has passed the test of being widely seen as free and fair or
been universally accepted as representing the will of the majority.
Also,
since 2005, Ugandans have consistently argued for the restoration of
term limits. One might therefore argue that the recent decision by
parliament to restore them would have been in response to popular
opinion. It wasn’t.
It was a cynical ploy to reduce
the bitterness in the mouths of the general public, of the removal of
age limits whose intention is to create another opening for the
incumbent to avoid stepping down.
Curiously, the same
argument against term limits in 2005 is being thrown around: Ugandans
can now freely elect the leaders they want without restriction.
And
for good measure, critics of the manipulations and the entrenchment of
rule by deception are being reminded that there are other countries
where age restrictions do not apply. It is as if at the time Ugandans
opted for age limits those that are citing them were unaware of their
existence.
It would seem, however, that the
government’s attempt to put up a brave face belies an acute awareness of
much bottled-up public anger against these manipulations. According to
certain analysts, there are frantic efforts to find ways to deflect
public attention and limit the damage they have caused.
They
are probably exaggerating, but some now claim there may be more than
meets the eye to the timing of recent military action against the Allied
Democratic Forces (ADF) in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The
government says it was in response to plans by the ADF to launch
terrorist attacks.
Coming amid palpable popular anger,
and given its high visibility and publicity, sceptics argue it could
have been timed to create a situation around which a new focus of public
discussion can emerge. True or not, chances are that 2018 will throw
light on this and other mysteries, among them the wider implications of
the constitutional amendments.
Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs. E-mail: fgmutebi@yahoo.com
No comments :
Post a Comment