The schism this past week in the Forum for Democratic Change,
the biggest opposition party in Uganda, is a reflection of the
existential crisis that democracy faces in East Africa.
Across
the region, opposition parties struggle for relevance with their roles
perceived as adversarial and therefore needing to be contained; or as
mere window dressing to create the impression of a functional democracy.
This has been the situation for so long that,
sometimes, even those who aspire to the opposition mantle don’t fully
appreciate the roles and responsibilities they are assuming. And so you
find the fluid and sometimes inspiring alliances of Kenya, the mute
opposition parties of Rwanda, the tense standoff in a once-promising
Tanzania, and the almost chaotic and survivalist politics of Uganda.
In
South Sudan, the failure of competitive politics snowballed into an
armed conflict that is still running and taking a shockingly heavy human
toll.
After more than a decade-and-a-half of
uncomfortable accommodation within the party he helped found, but where
he was never completely trusted, Major General Gregory Mugisha Muntu
finally called it quits this week.
He then proceeded
to launch a new platform called the New Formation, blaming his move on
the lack of tolerance of alternative views within the FDC, which
polarised the party so much that he was routinely accused of being a
“mole” for presumably the ruling party.
The split in
the FDC – a number of the party’s representatives have signalled support
for General Muntu – comes months after the historic handshake between
President Uhuru Kenyatta and undisputed opposition leader Raila Odinga
sucked the wind out of the sails of Kenya’s opposition coalition… and
put his own reputation on the line.
Unsurprisingly, the
reactions to Muntu and Raila’s moves have not been dissimilar and
reflect the limited understanding of representational politics across
the board. Both have been vilified as traitors or self-seekers by their
former constituents while the ruling parties have gloated over their
compromises as evidence of their own superior strategies.
Whatever
their evolutionary merits, these are depressing developments,
especially since they appear to help entrench a totalitarian culture
where incumbents use public resources to coerce or bribe into submission
those opposed to them.
With perhaps a single
exception, this has turned East African elective politics into a
do-or-die affair that invariably leaves communities polarised. At the
core is a limited understanding of elective politics and legal regimes
that manipulated to guarantee incumbency.
Ideally, the
ultimate purpose of exercising power should be to bring to life a vision
for the collective good. Failing that, participation in opposition
should seek to influence those exercising power to accommodate
alternative views. The opposition can therefore, be a useful partner in
development.
So who or what can save opposition
politics in the East Africa? Making standards for democratic governance
the core of the regional integration project may be the answer.
No comments :
Post a Comment