*Dear Kaheru,
When Ugandans want to protest they just go onto the streets. No police
permit. Nothing !!
That is unheard of here in Toronto, Canada.
William Pike comes to Uganda and opens a news media company.
In Canada a non citizen cannot own more than 19% of a newspaper, TV, Radio
etc . Never !!
In Uganda some Boer, Malaysian or Anglo-Saxon comes and takes over a Bank.
In Canada a non Citizen ownership of a Bank cannot exceed 14% or about that.
I am afraid Ugandans are still in a slumber and are myopic about their
national interest.
It is doggie doggie world out there. We have to wake up !!
Mitayo Potosi
*
Democracy and good governance in Uganda seem to be a travesty
By Crispy Kaheru
javascript:void(0);
Posted Friday, November 18 2011 at 00:00
We are very privileged to live in these interesting times when Uganda is
experiencing high political turbulence. Even with the increasingly
narrowing space for alternative voice in the country, Uganda still carries
the title of a ‘good-governed, multiparty democratic country’. As you might
realise, democracy has lately become like an ISO certification of quality
for States. If one wants to market a product called Uganda, they are
compelled to slap a seal of ‘democracy’ to make the country more appealing
to investors, tourists, donors, diplomatic calls, and possibly, hoodwink
its very own citizenry about the quality of governance in the country.
Elections today have become too ritualistic, symbolic, periodic events that
many times usher in premeditated leaders at the top echelon of the state.
While elections must underpin characteristics of competition, surprise, and
anxiety over results, here they have become a simply calculated affair for
authentication of certain leaders. Those who run for elective office are
lately being sieved on the basis of how much money they have rather than
what manifestos they carry. Even with such shortfalls, many countries, not
only Uganda continue to glorify themselves as democratic, citing their
practice of carrying out regular elections.
I would, to some extent, agree with those who say that lately democracy is
regressing into a government of the few, by the few and for the few. Take
an example of the 2011 elections in Uganda; out of 13,954,129 registered
voters, we have a president voted into office by just 5,428,369 people. In
practice it means the five million people decide the destiny of the
estimated 34 million Ugandans. Percentage-wise, this reflects 16 per cent
segment of the entire Ugandan population. Is this the rule of the majority?
When Uganda moved on to multiparty politics in 2005, people-- mainly from
the political parties and civil society organisations-- were excited
thinking the governance jinx had been broken. Little did they know that
this would probably be more of a symbolic gesture than a real manoeuvre. It
has since become increasingly hard to divorce the party in leadership from
the State structures; subsequent direct and indirect laws to curtail the
ability of opposition parties to operate freely have become the order of
the day. Despite the passing of the Political Parties and Organisations
(Amendment) Act, 2010, the government has since failed to operationalise
it. Because this Act has not been operationalised, political parties have
not yet accessed State funding for their operations.
Multiparty politics is not just about a multitude of political parties. In
Uganda, there have been unconfirmed allegations about some of the 38
political parties being purposefully founded by the ‘intelligence’ or the
party in power as a way of duping the public that indeed the country
embraces ‘multiparty democracy’. So, is this the construct of the
dispensation that we eagerly envisaged about six years ago?
The rule of law has lately become a very jelly connotation incapable of
setting standard benchmarks. In Uganda, just like in many other countries,
there are bad laws. Does this mean the citizens must heed to these simply
because they are ‘laws’? For instance, the NGO Registration (Amendment) Act
2006 contains provisions that hinder the operations of NGOs in Uganda; many
of the media laws restrict press freedom and have often led to
self-censorship; the institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act,
2010 makes traditional or cultural leaders personally liable for any civil
wrongs or criminal offences committed by their agents; the proposed Public
Order Management Bill, 2009, seeks to grant the police wide discretionary
powers to regulate the conduct of public meetings and also regulate the
content of the discussion of issues at such meetings; the proposal to scrap
bail for certain categories of offenders, among many other laws.
Share This Story
