"Be careful what you wish for; you may get it,” is a saying that
people use quite often. It is usually invoked when someone yearns for
something presumably better than whatever they have.
I
am reminded of the saying each time I reflect on how politics in Uganda
has evolved since the country returned to multiparty politics after
nearly 20 decades of no-party politics.
No-party
politics itself had come as a breath of fresh air, having supplanted the
multiparty competition that had plunged the country into unprecedented
internecine violence and war.
After five years of war
provoked by disagreements over an electoral contest, the idea of
politicians working together rather than against each other and the
promise it contained, of politics no longer being a source of
destabilisation, was music to the ears of Ugandans. Everybody yearned
for tranquillity.
Unfortunately, it did not take long
before some of the key players reverted to unprincipled power games
whose eventual outcome was the collapse of the post-war consensus and
the return to jostling for power and position.
Soon
enough, many who had endorsed what they had believed was a worthy
experiment and joined the “non-partisan” government began to exit and
embarked on campaigning for a return to multiparty politics.
They
believed that once this happened, they would secure the political space
to compete with the National Resistance Movement on an equal footing.
The end of no-party rule and the return to multiparty competition, however, unleashed demons that hardly anyone expected.
The
multiparty system has over the past 13 years seen a creeping return to
the conflict-ridden politics of old, the endless recriminations,
accusations and counter-accusations and, from time to time,
intimidation, in which the gun has once again become an instrument of
political control and domination.
No fundamental change
So,
the former insurgents who promised fundamental change have not lived up
to the reputation they once sought to carve out for themselves as less
violent and less power-hungry than their predecessors.
It
is hardly surprising that these trends haves raised concern among
Ugandans and foreign observers alike, as well as the fear that, the
longer they are left unaddressed, the more Ugandans are likely to
witness another violent change of government and possibly worse.
In
the past few years, eminent Ugandans and friends of Uganda have been
working hard to get the ruling party and its leadership on the one hand
and their rivals in the broad opposition on the other, to consider
engaging each other through structured talks, with a view to charting a
new course for the country.
Yes, after clamouring for
and returning to conventional competitive politics in which power
changes hands through competition rather than necessarily through
negotiation, Ugandans have now realised that unrestrained competition
may not be the route to the greener grass on the other side.
The
question now and for the past few years has been whether the
protagonists are really interested in talking and seeking a new
consensus about the Uganda we all want.
While the
eminent persons and their supporters in and outside the country want to
believe that it can be pulled off, the signals coming from the
politicians are not good.
First, opposition parties
have drawn the proverbial line in the sand, outlining conditions they
would like the ruling party and government to agree to before they can
proceed with the talks.
It is an old tactic they have
tried applying to would-be talks about talks with the ruling party in
the past, under the auspices of the donor-funded Inter-party
Organisation for Dialogue and failed.
It is not clear why they believe it will work this time round.
That
it is unlikely to work has already been signalled by two individuals, a
spokesman for the ruling party, and another bearing the labels
“Personal assistant to NRM national chairman and senior presidential
advisor on political affairs.” On the surface they appear to contradict
each other.
The party spokesman writes: “For the
record, the National Resistance Movement party and government have not
sought such a dialogue process, because we believe the current
constitutional framework and government are legitimate and effective in
building consensus towards resolving emerging contentious matters.”
Line in the sand
A
few days later, the “personal assistant” weighs in: “This is a welcome
idea. In principle the government agrees with the idea and I am sure
whatever support is required to make it happen will be extended to
organisers.”
She then waters all that down: “These
parties setting preconditions, whose views are they representing? The
NRM has a clear majority mandate of Ugandans and if the ‘talks’ are
intended to question that mandate, the arguments will be heard but it
will change nothing.”
So there we have it. The NRM too, has drawn a line in the sand.
The
writing on the wall is fairly clear. Ugandans asked for multiparty
politics and a reluctant NRM gave it to them. Now they want a return to
civility and consensus but the NRM is unwilling. Indeed, be careful what
you wish for.
No comments :
Post a Comment