Multiparty politics in Uganda: Be careful what you wish for

A scuffle in Ugandan parliament on September 26, 2017. The end of no-party rule and the return to multiparty competition, however, unleashed demons that hardly anyone expected. PHOTO | NMG 

In Summary

• 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.

By FREDRICK GOLOOBA-MUTEBI
More by this Author

"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.