A Discussion Paper
Prepared by
Ronald Kakungulu-Mayambala*
Lecturer, Human Rights & Peace Center, Makerere University School of Law
For
Uganda Christian University Law Society (UCULS)
March 11, 2011
*LL B (Hons) Mak; Dip. LP. (LDC); LL M (Lund); LL M (Fordham); SJD (Arizona).
I.0 INTRODUCTION
This paper deals with the critical issue of free and fair elections in the country. The issue is dealt with by focusing on the recently concluded 2011 General Elections, mainly the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections.
The paper therefore seeks to question whether the 2011 Presidential and Parliamentary elections were conducted in a free and fair environment. It is intended that this assessment place the concept of elections and democracy within the context of both the constitutional legal framework and the human rights norms pertaining to our country. More importantly though, is the advancing of pluralism and diversity generally but also ensuring that all key players, and stakeholders, i.e., the Government of Uganda (GoU), political parties and the general public understand the notion of free and fair elections.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Uganda had a return to multiparty rule after the constitutional amendments leading to the 2006 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections. The 2011 general elections were the second to be held under the multiparty system within the 1995 Constitution as amended. However, questions still remain as to whether the two general elections of 2006 and 2011 were free and fair. For purposes of this paper, am restricted to discuss only the 2011 general elections.
It is important to note that having free and fair elections is not a mere exercise but a process. Thus, in analyzing whether the 2011 general elections were free and fair, it is vital that we look at all the factors: prior to the elections, during the elections and after the elections. The three stages of [prior, during and after] set a fertile ground for a clear and unbiased understanding of the meaning of free and fair elections.
3.0 CONTEXT: UGANDAN STATE AND ELECTIONS
The current of management of public affairs in Uganda must be seen in a broader historical context but at the same time we note that the specific institution(s) mandated with handling the elections process in the country, do not only lack public confidence but are generally conceived to be biased. The lack of public trust in the institutions handing the election process further weakens these institutions as viable institutions.
As Barya notes:
One of the major problems in the change that took place from the so-called moevemnt system to a multiparty system since 2005 is that while a referendum was held on July 28, 2005 and the Political Parties and Organizations Act (No. 18/2005) was passed by Parliament in November 2005, all the other laws and institutions set up and groomed under the movement System logic were never changed and indeed have not been changed todate.
Apparently, whereas the country is supposedly under a multiparty dispensation, the institutions meant to help the country operate under the multiparty system are actually those of the old movement system both in outlook and composition. This does not only present a major political and social disdain but also have great ramifications upon the conduct of free and fair elections in the country. Most of the office bearers of these institutions remain as political appointees mainly coming into office through the well-entrenched system of political patronage and are mainly cadres of the current establishment in the country. In one-way or another, they are bound to feel the strong urge to “reward” the appointing authority, not only as a way of saying “thank you” but also to further their own stay in office since they remain eligible for a second and last term in office.
In terms of certain institutions of the State and especially those that are key to the election process such as the Uganda Police Force and the Judiciary, issues remain as to their independence [see questionable vote recount in Rubaga North Constituency] and the police role in the recently failed Kampala Mayoral Elections. However, some credit still goes to the judiciary and as Barya notes, “to a large extent, the judiciary today remains one of the few institutions of state that is relatively still independent.”
4.0 THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
The mandate of organizing elections in Uganda is with the Electoral Commission (EC).4 All Ugandans who seek to exercise their right to vote must first register with the EC.5 The Constitution gives Parliament power to enact laws on elections.6 Indeed Parliament has enacted laws to this effect including The Electoral Commission Act7 as amended,8 The Presidential Elections Act,9 as amended,10 The Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Act,11 and The Political Parties and Organizations Act,12 as amended.13 All the above legislations (with just slight amendments) and if applied properly are capable of giving Uganda free and fair elections. However, strong challenges (some of which are actually deliberate) still remain which render elections not free and fair or at least not to be seen as such.
2 J.J. Barya, Politico-Cultural Pluralism, Diversity and Public Order Management in Uganda Today, Paper presented at the National Convention on Peace, Democracy and Good Governance, January 13 – 14, 2011 at Makerere University Main Hall, p.2.
3 Barya, supra, at 3.
4 See Articles 60-68 of the Constitution of Uganda, Cap.1.
5 See Article 59 of the Constitution.
6 Article 76 of the Constitution.
7 Cap.140 Laws of Uganda (LoU).
8 See the Electoral Commission (Amendment) Act 2010.
9 Cap.142 (LoU).
10 Act No.14 of 2010.
11 Cap.141.
12 Act No. 18 of 2005.
13 See The Political Parties and Organizations (Amendment)(No.2) Act, 2010.
4
4.1 MANDATE OF THE EC VERSUS THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND
The wide and vast mandate of the EC sometimes goes unnoticed. Despite its wide and well-grounded mandate, the EC has either deliberately or out of sheer incompetence failed to exercise its mandate to deliver free and fair elections in Uganda‟s 2011 general elections. Cases of missing names on the register and late arrival of voting materials attest to this fact. This incompetence has intensified voter apathy. Indeed of the 13,954,129 registered as voters for the 2011 general elections, only a paltry 8,272,760 voted (59.28%), whereas a total of 5.6 million (44 per cent) of the registered voters did not vote. The EC needs to investigate the cause of such a low voter turn up.
4.2 COMPOSITION OF THE EC
H.E. President appoints the EC with approval of Parliament.14 It is a known-fact that the ruling NRM has a solid and unshaken majority in Parliament and will maintain the same numbers or even above in the soon to be sworn in 9th Parliament of Uganda. This calls into question the issue whether the current composition of the EC (which is as a result of „how the President deems fit‟ with approval of the NRM dominated Parliament) should be allowed to continue. Similarly, questions still remain as to whether key players such as political parties should not have representation at the EC at the level of Commissioners.15 Calls by the Inter-(Political) Party Cooperation (IPC) for reform on both the country‟s electoral laws and composition of the EC were flatly rejected by the GoU and the EC itself. The result of all this acrimony were a few country-wide demonstrations by the IPC women and leaders against the EC and calls by President Museveni‟s main challenger – Dr. Kizza Besigye threats of announcing his own results with threats from the President to arrest the latter if he dared announce his own results.16 The EC later intervened and announced that Dr. Besigye was free to announce his own results. However, all the above point to a big malaise with regard to the EC.17
In a multiparty dispensation, the political opposition must be represented at the EC. This does not only increase transparency at the EC but is also the practice worldwide in relation to multiparty politics.
5.0 VOTER BRIBERY
One of the key factors that can be said to have had a negative effect on the 2011 general elections is voter bribery. This vice is mainly done through the endless Presidential donations (courtesy of the very big Office of the President and State House Budgets), creation of new Districts (however unviable but for mainly political expediency), „facilitation‟ of government projects such as the NAADS and Baana baggagawale (which
14 Article 60(1) of the Constitution.
15 The EC consists of a Chairperson, a deputy Chairperson and five other members (Commissioners).
16 M. Nalugo & P. Croome, Besigye gives self 47% of votes cast, DAILY MONITOR, March 2, 2011 at 1.
17 G. Bareebe & P. Croome, Opposition call for city protests today, DAILY MONITOR, March 9, 2011 at 1.
5
have actually been high jacked as NRM party programs the fact that they are run using public funds notwithstanding) (remember the 20 millions given to every MP immediately after passing the questionable supplementary budget allegedly to „supervise‟ NAADS the program) and out right bribery of both the vote and political opponents.
5.2 OTHER FACTORS
The above factors coupled with a “supportive and standby” army make matters worse. Free and fair elections remain a mere dream. With commercialization of politics through the national treasury, comes the massive deployment of the army as soon prior to, during and after the elections.18 The use of both state resources and facilities mainly by the incumbent during the campaigns also creates a non-leveling ground among the candidates.19 Both the private and electronic media also discriminate against the candidates in utter disregard of the law. This makes it difficult for mainly the opposition candidates to make their message and manifestos reach the wanainchi.
6.0 CONCLUSION
In order for Uganda to have free and fair elections, major reforms need to be carried out mainly relating to the composition of the EC, the army should not get involved in election or post election security, and all cases of voter bribery including the creation of new districts should be stopped. A new law can for example be made to state that no new districts shall be created says two years to the general elections.
For God and My Country.
18 Indeed the massive deployment of the army on the streets is one of the factors that scared away voters from turning up to vote alongside the missing names, which not only disenfranchised but also disorganized some voters. See Y. Mugerwa, Why 5 million Ugandans stayed away from polls, SUNDAY MONITOR, March 6, 2011 at 2.
19 One Presidential Candidate went „missing‟ due to lack of logistics to traverse the many districts.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
DEMOCRACY IN UGANDA. IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW KIND OF DEMOCRACY TAILORED FOR UGANDA’S NEEDS CONSIDERING THE RIGHTS INHERENT IN A PERFECTLY DEMOCRATIC
1 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
A PAPER PREPARED FOR AND DELIVERED AT THE UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY LAW SOCIETY LAWYERS’ DAY 2011
BY
DAVID F.K. MPANGA
LL.B (EXON), BARRISTER-AT-LAW
2 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
It is a great honour and privilege to be invited to the Uganda Christian University Law Society Lawyers’ Day to deliver a paper on a very interesting, topical and important subject. Let me start off by observing all protocol and thanking the organizers for permitting me to air my humble views on the theme: “Democracy in Uganda. Is there a need for a new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs considering the rights inherent in a perfectly democratic society and the role of abuse of democratic procedures as a source of civil strife?” The question is rather long and has a couple of assumptions which need to be interrogated. That said, I think that it is a question that is capable of a simple “yes” or “no” answer and my answer is a firm “NO”! We do not need a “new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs”. Uganda’s needs are not unique and therefore there is no need for an exceptionalist approach to democracy here. Put another way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the game, as it were, all we need is a fundamental change in the culture and attitude of the players to the game and the rules thereof. In order to explain my stand, I think that there is a need to ask and attempt to answer a few questions:
1. What is Democracy?
As with all complex concepts, democracy can be defined by stating what it is not as well as attempting to state what it is. To that end let me use a couple of quotes that I think shine some light on the nature of true democracy:
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.1”
This quotation rightly brings out the fact that a true democracy cannot simply be about arbitrary majority rule. Democracy implies and entails more than simply having elections to determine the will of the majority. True democracy enables the expression of the will of the majority of the people through regular free and fair elections and at the same time is sensitive to the rights of individuals and minorities.
“The one evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.2”
1 James Bovard, p. 333 Lost Right :The destruction of American Liberty (1994) ISBN 0312123337 2 Lord Acton, The History of Freedom and Other Essays. Section III: Sir Erskine May’s Democracy in Europe p. 76
3 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Here we get a flavour of what happens when the rule of the people, by the people for the people gets subverted by an aggressive, fraudulent and/or violent party. In this scenario posited by Lord Acton, “democracy” takes the form of rigged elections and lip service to constitutionalism and the rule of law. A minority short circuits the system and uses the façade of regular elections to gain legitimacy for what is essentially a brutal, kleptocratic, neo-patrimonial regime. This false democracy is prevalent in Africa and its very essence is brought out by an excellent exchange between two characters, Arthur Dent and Ford Perfect, in Douglas Adams’ science fiction book So Long and Thanks For All The Fish, which I must reproduce here, in extenso: "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...." "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Genuine democracy requires more than just elections – and certainly more than false choices between the lizards that you may prefer over other lizards! It requires that people have the genuine and free choice of how and by whom they will be governed. There must be constitutional limits on governmental power, respect and guarantees for individual and minority rights as well as “an independent judiciary and responsive institutions that are accountable to all citizens and protect their rights [as well as enforce their obligations] equally and fairly3”.
3 Hillary Clinton at Georgetown University, Washington D.C., December 14th, 2009
4 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
2. Is there such a thing as a “perfect democratic society”?
It cannot be news to students at the Uganda Christian University – formerly the Bishop Tucker College of Theology – that nothing has ever been perfect on Earth ever since Eve succumbed to the evil advice of the Snake and partook of the Forbidden Fruit and then went on to persuade her companion Adam to do the same. We live in an imperfect World and there is no such thing as a perfect society, leave alone a perfect democratic society. But just as it is true that “we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God4” but must aspire to live a life free from sin, so it is with democratic societies: none is perfect but all must aspire to achieve the highest and most authentic form of democracy possible.
3. So what kind of democracy is practiced in Uganda?
There is no question that over the last 15 years we have had regular elections for President, Parliament as well as the Local Governments. Relative to, the 2007 Kenya General Election, the Uganda General Elections of 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 have been peaceful but relative to Swedish General Elections of 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010, they have been very violent! The elections have also not been quite free or fair because one party has grafted itself onto the State and used the advantage of incumbency to defeat its opponents. Opposition candidates have been harassed and opposition to the party in government equated to treachery (treason). There are lingering question marks over the impartiality of the national Electoral Commission and constant complaints of a dodgy national electoral register that is bloated with “ghost voters”. Elections are always characterized by allegations of malpractices such as voter disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, voter bribery, ballot stuffing, ghost polling stations and false tallying.5 In fact in so far as elections go, one could be forgiven if one believed that Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, was talking about Uganda when he entitled his autobiographical memoirs “If Voting Changed Anything, They’d Abolish It6”!
It is not in question that there have been advances in the areas of respect for individual and minority rights as well as constitutional limits on governmental power relative to the dark days of Idi Amin which, to this audience, must sound as recent and as relevant as the reign of the cruel Ssekabaka Ssuna who reigned in Buganda from 1810-1852! There have also been great strides in establishing and maintaining the independence of the judiciary and responsive state
4 Romans 3:23
5 For further reading on this please see: the Supreme Court decisions in Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Museveni Election Petition No. 1 of 2001 and Election Petition No. 1 of 2006; the AU Election Observers’ Report on the 2011 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections http://www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/Preliminary Statement ugand.doc; the Report of the Commonwealth Observer Group on the 2006 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/africa/UG/uganda-final-report-presidential-and-parliamentary-1 ; as well as the numerous judgments in sundry Parliamentary and Local Government election petitions. 6 ISBN 9780006373353
5 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
institutions which protect the rights and enforce the obligations of citizens. However violation of individual and minority rights still remains prevalent relative to Sweden. There are repeated incidents of violation of the freedoms of speech, association and of the right to peaceful assembly. Leaders behave and speak as if the respect for these rights is a benevolent choice on their part rather than an inherent right of the citizens. The independence of the judiciary as well as the accountability and responsiveness to the citizens of other bodies such as Parliament are routinely undermined.
So if I was asked what kind of democracy is practiced in Uganda I would say that it is closer to the “ancient democracy” that Ford Perfect described to Arthur Dent in the exchange above.
4. So do we need a “new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs?”
As I said at the outset, with respect to the person who posed this question, no we do not. The needs of the peoples of Uganda are not different from those of people in any other society on Earth. We all need one breakfast one lunch and one supper per day (food security). We need decent roofs over our heads (adequate housing). We need easy access to potable water. We need good infrastructure for transport and other communication. We need good and relevant education for our children. We need accessible and quality healthcare. We need equal opportunities for all in whatever field of endeavour that they may choose to pursue. It has been proven by time that true democracy is the best guarantor of these needs for the peoples of other societies; Ugandans do not come from Mars or Jupiter, we should also seek to guarantee our present and future needs by aspiring to the establishment of true democracy in Uganda.
In my humble view, what we need is not a new kind of democracy but rather a new kind of culture that fosters, nourishes and upholds democratic behavior and the rule of law. Having a Constitution full of liberal democratic statements of rights is one thing, but having a culture of constitutionalism – i.e. respect for the Constitution as the universally binging and supreme grund norm is, in my view far more important.
Article 1 of our Constitution provides that all power belongs to the people and that the people shall be governed through their will and consent. It goes on further to provide that the people shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they shall be governed through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives and through referenda. Chapter Four of the Constitution also sets out the protection and promotion of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. But all these mean nothing if we do not have a strong culture of abiding by these provisions come what may, most especially when it does not seem expedient to do so!
The cultural or attitudinal change that I am talking about here is not required just amongst the leaders; it is necessary across society! The people must become alive to the fact that power
6 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
actually belongs to them and that responsibility for the defence of their rights primarily rests with them, individually and collectively. This is why Article 3(4) of the Constitution makes it the right and duty of every Ugandan to defend and protect the Constitution. This is also why Article 50 empowers any Ugandan to apply to court for redress where the fundamental right or freedom of any Ugandan guaranteed by the Constitution is infringed or threatened. Put simply, freedom and democracy cannot defend themselves and nor can we rely on others to defend them for us! We individually and collectively have the right and obligation to do all that is necessary to defend democracy and resist all those that may be subverting it to their own ends. So to the Ugandans at large I would say, that we do not need a new kind of democracy tailored to Uganda’s needs, we need a bold and informed citizenry ready to stand up to defend true democracy and the Constitution that enshrines it. To our leaders, on both sides of the political divide and at Central and Local Government level, I would say we do not need a new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs – that will just be useless tinkering with the rules. Respect the citizens of Uganda and understand and internalize the fact that you occupy or aspire to occupy office to serve them not so that they may serve you. Develop a culture of abiding by the strictures of the Constitution, especially – most especially – when you disagree with it or when it is inconvenient to you or your party. Subordinate your own and your party’s interests to the interests of the people whom you serve. Do not delude yourself with notions of your indispensability; we are all dispensable, we are all mortal – in the grand scheme of things we are all here for a very short time! Heed the advice of the late Harry Truman, 33rd President of the United States, who said that “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” Let us all strive to engender better democratic traditions, practices and customs. Let the leaders and the led (on all sides) abide by democratic etiquette in their conduct and speech towards one another. I personally look forward to the day when there shall be truly free and fair elections at the conclusion of which, no matter how closely decided, shall end in a fulsome concession to the winners by the losers and magnanimous appreciation of the losers by the winners.
Let me conclude by reading out an excerpt from the editorial of the e-Journal USA Vol. 15 No. 17 [insert excerpt here]. That strong statement, made before the Senate, in sight and hearing of the president-elect, then Senator J.F. Kennedy, was an affirmation of the democratic culture and respect for the constitution to which we must aspire. So let us not tinker with the rules, let us strive to play the game better and also cultivate a healthy respect for the rules. Let us not sit
7 Issued by the US Department of State, January 2010
7 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
back and expect that all players will abide by the rules, let us be vigilant and call to order all those who may wish to bend them.
Thank you very much for listening to me.
David F.K. Mpanga
Thursday, 10 March 2011
A PAPER PREPARED FOR AND DELIVERED AT THE UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY LAW SOCIETY LAWYERS’ DAY 2011
BY
DAVID F.K. MPANGA
LL.B (EXON), BARRISTER-AT-LAW
2 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
It is a great honour and privilege to be invited to the Uganda Christian University Law Society Lawyers’ Day to deliver a paper on a very interesting, topical and important subject. Let me start off by observing all protocol and thanking the organizers for permitting me to air my humble views on the theme: “Democracy in Uganda. Is there a need for a new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs considering the rights inherent in a perfectly democratic society and the role of abuse of democratic procedures as a source of civil strife?” The question is rather long and has a couple of assumptions which need to be interrogated. That said, I think that it is a question that is capable of a simple “yes” or “no” answer and my answer is a firm “NO”! We do not need a “new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs”. Uganda’s needs are not unique and therefore there is no need for an exceptionalist approach to democracy here. Put another way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the game, as it were, all we need is a fundamental change in the culture and attitude of the players to the game and the rules thereof. In order to explain my stand, I think that there is a need to ask and attempt to answer a few questions:
1. What is Democracy?
As with all complex concepts, democracy can be defined by stating what it is not as well as attempting to state what it is. To that end let me use a couple of quotes that I think shine some light on the nature of true democracy:
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.1”
This quotation rightly brings out the fact that a true democracy cannot simply be about arbitrary majority rule. Democracy implies and entails more than simply having elections to determine the will of the majority. True democracy enables the expression of the will of the majority of the people through regular free and fair elections and at the same time is sensitive to the rights of individuals and minorities.
“The one evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.2”
1 James Bovard, p. 333 Lost Right :The destruction of American Liberty (1994) ISBN 0312123337 2 Lord Acton, The History of Freedom and Other Essays. Section III: Sir Erskine May’s Democracy in Europe p. 76
3 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Here we get a flavour of what happens when the rule of the people, by the people for the people gets subverted by an aggressive, fraudulent and/or violent party. In this scenario posited by Lord Acton, “democracy” takes the form of rigged elections and lip service to constitutionalism and the rule of law. A minority short circuits the system and uses the façade of regular elections to gain legitimacy for what is essentially a brutal, kleptocratic, neo-patrimonial regime. This false democracy is prevalent in Africa and its very essence is brought out by an excellent exchange between two characters, Arthur Dent and Ford Perfect, in Douglas Adams’ science fiction book So Long and Thanks For All The Fish, which I must reproduce here, in extenso: "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...." "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Genuine democracy requires more than just elections – and certainly more than false choices between the lizards that you may prefer over other lizards! It requires that people have the genuine and free choice of how and by whom they will be governed. There must be constitutional limits on governmental power, respect and guarantees for individual and minority rights as well as “an independent judiciary and responsive institutions that are accountable to all citizens and protect their rights [as well as enforce their obligations] equally and fairly3”.
3 Hillary Clinton at Georgetown University, Washington D.C., December 14th, 2009
4 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
2. Is there such a thing as a “perfect democratic society”?
It cannot be news to students at the Uganda Christian University – formerly the Bishop Tucker College of Theology – that nothing has ever been perfect on Earth ever since Eve succumbed to the evil advice of the Snake and partook of the Forbidden Fruit and then went on to persuade her companion Adam to do the same. We live in an imperfect World and there is no such thing as a perfect society, leave alone a perfect democratic society. But just as it is true that “we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God4” but must aspire to live a life free from sin, so it is with democratic societies: none is perfect but all must aspire to achieve the highest and most authentic form of democracy possible.
3. So what kind of democracy is practiced in Uganda?
There is no question that over the last 15 years we have had regular elections for President, Parliament as well as the Local Governments. Relative to, the 2007 Kenya General Election, the Uganda General Elections of 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 have been peaceful but relative to Swedish General Elections of 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010, they have been very violent! The elections have also not been quite free or fair because one party has grafted itself onto the State and used the advantage of incumbency to defeat its opponents. Opposition candidates have been harassed and opposition to the party in government equated to treachery (treason). There are lingering question marks over the impartiality of the national Electoral Commission and constant complaints of a dodgy national electoral register that is bloated with “ghost voters”. Elections are always characterized by allegations of malpractices such as voter disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, voter bribery, ballot stuffing, ghost polling stations and false tallying.5 In fact in so far as elections go, one could be forgiven if one believed that Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, was talking about Uganda when he entitled his autobiographical memoirs “If Voting Changed Anything, They’d Abolish It6”!
It is not in question that there have been advances in the areas of respect for individual and minority rights as well as constitutional limits on governmental power relative to the dark days of Idi Amin which, to this audience, must sound as recent and as relevant as the reign of the cruel Ssekabaka Ssuna who reigned in Buganda from 1810-1852! There have also been great strides in establishing and maintaining the independence of the judiciary and responsive state
4 Romans 3:23
5 For further reading on this please see: the Supreme Court decisions in Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Museveni Election Petition No. 1 of 2001 and Election Petition No. 1 of 2006; the AU Election Observers’ Report on the 2011 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections http://www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/Preliminary Statement ugand.doc; the Report of the Commonwealth Observer Group on the 2006 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/africa/UG/uganda-final-report-presidential-and-parliamentary-1 ; as well as the numerous judgments in sundry Parliamentary and Local Government election petitions. 6 ISBN 9780006373353
5 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
institutions which protect the rights and enforce the obligations of citizens. However violation of individual and minority rights still remains prevalent relative to Sweden. There are repeated incidents of violation of the freedoms of speech, association and of the right to peaceful assembly. Leaders behave and speak as if the respect for these rights is a benevolent choice on their part rather than an inherent right of the citizens. The independence of the judiciary as well as the accountability and responsiveness to the citizens of other bodies such as Parliament are routinely undermined.
So if I was asked what kind of democracy is practiced in Uganda I would say that it is closer to the “ancient democracy” that Ford Perfect described to Arthur Dent in the exchange above.
4. So do we need a “new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs?”
As I said at the outset, with respect to the person who posed this question, no we do not. The needs of the peoples of Uganda are not different from those of people in any other society on Earth. We all need one breakfast one lunch and one supper per day (food security). We need decent roofs over our heads (adequate housing). We need easy access to potable water. We need good infrastructure for transport and other communication. We need good and relevant education for our children. We need accessible and quality healthcare. We need equal opportunities for all in whatever field of endeavour that they may choose to pursue. It has been proven by time that true democracy is the best guarantor of these needs for the peoples of other societies; Ugandans do not come from Mars or Jupiter, we should also seek to guarantee our present and future needs by aspiring to the establishment of true democracy in Uganda.
In my humble view, what we need is not a new kind of democracy but rather a new kind of culture that fosters, nourishes and upholds democratic behavior and the rule of law. Having a Constitution full of liberal democratic statements of rights is one thing, but having a culture of constitutionalism – i.e. respect for the Constitution as the universally binging and supreme grund norm is, in my view far more important.
Article 1 of our Constitution provides that all power belongs to the people and that the people shall be governed through their will and consent. It goes on further to provide that the people shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they shall be governed through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives and through referenda. Chapter Four of the Constitution also sets out the protection and promotion of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. But all these mean nothing if we do not have a strong culture of abiding by these provisions come what may, most especially when it does not seem expedient to do so!
The cultural or attitudinal change that I am talking about here is not required just amongst the leaders; it is necessary across society! The people must become alive to the fact that power
6 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
actually belongs to them and that responsibility for the defence of their rights primarily rests with them, individually and collectively. This is why Article 3(4) of the Constitution makes it the right and duty of every Ugandan to defend and protect the Constitution. This is also why Article 50 empowers any Ugandan to apply to court for redress where the fundamental right or freedom of any Ugandan guaranteed by the Constitution is infringed or threatened. Put simply, freedom and democracy cannot defend themselves and nor can we rely on others to defend them for us! We individually and collectively have the right and obligation to do all that is necessary to defend democracy and resist all those that may be subverting it to their own ends. So to the Ugandans at large I would say, that we do not need a new kind of democracy tailored to Uganda’s needs, we need a bold and informed citizenry ready to stand up to defend true democracy and the Constitution that enshrines it. To our leaders, on both sides of the political divide and at Central and Local Government level, I would say we do not need a new kind of democracy tailored for Uganda’s needs – that will just be useless tinkering with the rules. Respect the citizens of Uganda and understand and internalize the fact that you occupy or aspire to occupy office to serve them not so that they may serve you. Develop a culture of abiding by the strictures of the Constitution, especially – most especially – when you disagree with it or when it is inconvenient to you or your party. Subordinate your own and your party’s interests to the interests of the people whom you serve. Do not delude yourself with notions of your indispensability; we are all dispensable, we are all mortal – in the grand scheme of things we are all here for a very short time! Heed the advice of the late Harry Truman, 33rd President of the United States, who said that “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” Let us all strive to engender better democratic traditions, practices and customs. Let the leaders and the led (on all sides) abide by democratic etiquette in their conduct and speech towards one another. I personally look forward to the day when there shall be truly free and fair elections at the conclusion of which, no matter how closely decided, shall end in a fulsome concession to the winners by the losers and magnanimous appreciation of the losers by the winners.
Let me conclude by reading out an excerpt from the editorial of the e-Journal USA Vol. 15 No. 17 [insert excerpt here]. That strong statement, made before the Senate, in sight and hearing of the president-elect, then Senator J.F. Kennedy, was an affirmation of the democratic culture and respect for the constitution to which we must aspire. So let us not tinker with the rules, let us strive to play the game better and also cultivate a healthy respect for the rules. Let us not sit
7 Issued by the US Department of State, January 2010
7 | P a g e
Thursday, 10 March 2011
back and expect that all players will abide by the rules, let us be vigilant and call to order all those who may wish to bend them.
Thank you very much for listening to me.
David F.K. Mpanga
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)