By Prof. Semakula Kiwanuka
Nov 6, 2003 - Monitor
|
The recent cabinet proposals to the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) to amend the constitution to allow the president to dissolve Parliament under certain circumstances provoked a storm. It is important to first understand that most of the proposals forwarded by cabinet to the CRC were actually recommended by the Movement National Executive Committee and the National Conference which met in March and April this year. The second point to note is that ministers, who comprise the Executive arm of government, have routinely encountered difficulties, contradictions and inadequacies, etc in implementing the constitutional provisions of the current constitution. Whether one agrees with the proposed amendments or not, the cabinet proposals are important. They were from political practitioners who on a routine basis were confronted with the contradictions of operating a hybrid constitution. The 1995 constitution comprises American style as well as British style approaches to constitutional governance. What was interesting was that up to the time the cabinet submitted its own proposals, there had been limited excitement by the public in the work of the commission. I personally was for a short time a member of the CRC. During that early period few serious matters were being addressed apart from federalism, the land question etc. Why was this? My brief experience suggested that most of the people, who presented proposals had either not read the constitution or were not serious. The reactions to the recommendation for a dissolution of Parliament was typical of the deliberate distortions that come from the opposition. It was alleged that this was the same as a concentration of Presidential power. No one describes the U.K. or Australia or the French who have dissolution clauses as dictatorial and tyrannical. I have argued that the reactions to the dissolution recommendation are based on ignorance because all the so-called mature democracies of the West do have dissolution clauses. These include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France etc. The single important exception is the U.S.A. In addition to the so-called mature democracies of the West, many African countries have dissolution clauses. Here are a few examples: Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Zambia, Kenya and Zimbabwe. In all the constitutions of the countries quoted above, the circumstances that force a dissolution are stated. For example the U.K. states as follows:- “Parliament is dissolved at the end of a five year period (Parliament Acts, 1991 and 1949). If however, a government is defeated on a major issue in the House of Commons during the five-year period the Prime Minster must, by convention, resign. Parliament is thereupon dissolved and a general election is held. “A Prime Minster may at any such time during the five-year life of a Parliament request a dissolution. Normally where a government has a workable majority in the House of Commons, a Prime minster will not wish to dissolve Parliament. But, where this is not so and government has only a small majority, a Prime Minister may feel that an appeal should be made to the electorate to enable strong and effective government to be carried on”. Article 120 of the Mozambican Constitution of 1990, reads: “The President shall have powers to dissolve on a one time basis, the Assembly of the Republic if the Assembly does not approve the programme of the government”. The rationale here is that the President is elected with a national mandate after presenting a programme of action. Should Parliament make it impossible to implement key elements within that programme, the President has the right to refer the matter back to the people. The American model, which has no such provision, promotes an unsatisfactory political culture of gridlock between the President and Congress. It becomes a question of who blinks first. What should be noted is that dissolution, or going back to the people does not necessarily serve the interests of the Executive. The electorate can defeat government as it happened in France and Canada in 1999 and 1997 respectively. For this reason dissolution serves all parties because they have to seek a fresh mandate. Under a strong leadership, campaign promises are much more likely to be fulfilled. A powerful and strategically positioned presidency becomes an instrument of socioe-conomic change. When the presidency is progressively weakened, it develops into a mere institution, which is incapable of creative leadership. There are numerous examples in history to show that governments under strong and visionary leadership have brought about profound changes in the political, economic and social spheres of their countries. The Movement government since 1986 has transformed the Uganda landscape in governance, press freedom, the rule of law, the empowerment of women and other vulnerable groups, the decentralisation of power, the fight against HIV/Aids, education etc. President Franklin Roosevelt brought the U.S.A. out of the economic depression of the 1930s. President Charles de Gaulle transformed French politics. President Julius Nyerere created a strong and united Tanzania. The post-war Labour government in the U.K transformed U.K. politics for more than a generation. The political leadership of the so-called `Asian Tigers’ of Singapore, South Korea, Malaysia etc was visionary, strong and committed. Those who advocate a weak and shackled presidency in Uganda are ignorant of the critical role of government in national development. We must avoid what Professor Rose described as the American presidency under siege. The writer is Minister of State for Luwero Triangle. |
© 2003 The Monitor Publications
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
