In a recent article (reproduced below) attributed to Professor Ssemakula Kiwanuka entilted "Term limits are undemocratic," the professor espouses lofty arguments regarding the demerits of term limits. He argues that there cannot be a danger to democracy so long as the people themselves exercise the franchise. He argues further that free and regular elections do have an inbuilt mechanism to reject tyrannical leaders at the ballot box.
But those arguments presuppose an informed electorate and respect for fundamental human rights, among other factors. In the so-called "mature" democracies of Western Europe that he uses to illustrate or support his arguments, such stuff as stuffed ballot boxes are unheard of, neither is the intimidation of voters using armed personnel and other gimmicks. When was the last time we heard a death related to elections in the so-called "mature" democracies? I do not recall. And when in Uganda? "Smart" tyrannical leaders have become sophisticated at how they manoeuvre to hold onto power. Let the professor look in the mirror. The people rejected him in a recent election exercise. Yet he wields power and a big loud megaphone he is now using to hold onto power. What a charade! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Term limits are not democratic YOUR PLATFORM: By Prof. Ssemakula Kiwanuka Since Cabinet presented amendments to the Constitution Review Commission last September, there is an avalanche of doom saying that a catastrophe is going to happen to Uganda if article 105/2 on term limits is amended to provide indefinite eligibility for the elections of Presidents. Some of these controversial proposals were not authored by the Cabinet. Cabinet was a conveyor belt of the recommendations of the National Executive committee (NEC) and the National Conference which met early in the year. When the NEC recommendations were presented to the National Conference comprising more than 3000 delegates from every corner of Uganda, the recommendations were unanimously adopted. We can therefore say that was the voice of the people as expressed in Article 1 of the Constitution. âAll power belongs to the people...â the essence of that article is that the people of Uganda are sovereign and should therefore be arbiters on issues of national importance such as deciding who should be their president. Nevertheless there is an outcry from the opposition. Weak oppositions which do not see themselves as a viable alternative governments of tomorrow, usually lack a sense of responsibility and do not criticise constructively. Otherwise they would see that the sovereignty of the people of Uganda is the bedrock of our democracy. Because the outcry is orchestrated they do not see that the amendment of Article 105/2 is a win win for all. Mohamad Mayanja, (JEMA) as well as UPC and DP leaders can be presidents as long as Ugandans want them. There is also fright and desperation. The opposition fears President Museveniâs popularity with the masses. Thirdly, because they lack a credible candidate to successfully challenge Museveni, their strategy is to keep Museveni out of the contest. Yet President Museveni himself has not asked for another term. That decision will be, and should be left to the people of Uganda. Fourthly, and unlike Museveni, the opposition believes that politics is nothing more than the spoils of office. One searches but in vain for their programmes on poverty, industrialisation, entrepreneurship, job creation and employment, among others. In discussing the question of term limits, I shall preface my arguments with an obvious statement, namely that democracies are built and founded on two principles: choice and open competition. We emphasise choice because the people who are sovereign on all major political issues and decisions should not be denied a choice of who should lead them. The whole of Western Europe whose democracies are described as âmatureâ believe that the people are sovereign and they exercise that sovereignty through regular and fair elections of their leaders. Prime Minister Tony Blair (U.K) for example will be seeking a third term, should his party continue to adopt him as Labour candidate. Life presidency: Masters of distortion, the pro-term limit proponents have cunningly and falsely turned the argument and interpreted indefinite eligibility as a sanction to a life presidency. Hence pressure groups have been formed and are distributing leaflets in Churches, hospitals, etc. While I do not support term limits on principle and I opposed them at the time when the current Constitution was being debated (1995), it is important to understand the background to some of their arguments. There are two explanations. The framers of the 1995 Constitution did so with a background of the dictatorial and tyrannical rule of Obote and Amin. Like many people in todayâs so called new and emerging democracies in Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe etc, Ugandans suffered from dictatorships and gross abuses of human rights for years. To put an end to such abuses and usher in an era of good governance and accountable political leadership, these new and emerging democracies introduced the two term limit concept as a supposed deterrent to tyranny. The U.S constitution rather than the mature democracies of Western Europe was their inspiration. My disagreement stems from the historical experience and quest to build durable and democratic institutions, the bedrock of which is to trust the people from whom all power should emanate. The mature western democracies believe and rightly so, that free and regular elections do have an inbuilt mechanism to provide the equivalent of term limits when poor or incompetent or tyrannical leaders are rejected at the ballot box. The concept of Ffe tulyako ddi? (when shall we also eat?) neither serves the national interest nor does it serve the cause of democracy. Term limits are basically undemocratic in character and do not strengthen the democratic process upon which we want to build Uganda. This is because they are against the right of the majority to choose their Presidents. I see article 105/2 therefore, as a backward constitutional article because it denies future generations from coping with emergencies and it is a limitation on the powers of the people. What Ugandans should know is that the founding fathers of the American Republic extensively debated term limits at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1788 and rejected them. They instead recommended a strong presidency with indefinite eligibility. During the debate, one of the framers who successfully opposed term limits stated that âElections are for getting rid of politicians who do not perform. Term limits on the other hand are for eliminating politicians who are performing.â That was in 1788 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Almost two centuries later in 1950, the Republican-controlled Congress bulldozed the 22nd amendment (term limits) in the American Constitution. As a supporter of indefinite eligibility, I find no better arguments than those of Representative Bryson, a Democrat from South Carolina during the debate. He argued; âMuch has been said about the danger to democracy in allowing a President to remain in office beyond eight years (two terms). There can be no greater danger to democracy than to deny people to choose a President they want. There cannot be danger to democracy so long as the people themselves freely exercise the franchise. Parliamentary governments in Europe such as the U.K has preserved their democracy with indefinite terms for their prime ministers. Manifestly if the people of USA can be trusted to elect a president for one or two terms they also can be trusted to determine whether he should continue in office for a third or fourth term. This goes to the heart of the constitutional system. Instead of enlarging the rights of the people, as they should, Term limits restrict those rights.â Uganda like the rest of Africa, needs a strong and visionary leadership. Uganda in 2003, has a population of over 40% which has no experience of the dictatorships of Amin and Obote. Like most Ugandans, they have limited experience of the essentials of good governance which stems from strong institutions nurtured by visionary and accountable leadership. As representative Bryson argued in the USA House of Representatives, it does not need two or three terms to become a tyrant as the anti term limit proponents are currently arguing. Of all people, Ugandans who have had the experience of Obote and Amin should not be the ones to advance such arguments. Neither Amin nor Obote needed even one full term to show how evil they were. Equally weak is the argument that other Ugandans should be given a chance. Who is stopping them? Lifting term limits opens up political space for any Ugandan who seeks the Presidency. The opposition should not therefore hide behind the fear of competitive politics and fear of Museveni at the ballot box. For this reason, the cabinet arguments emphasising good leadership should be made clear to the young Ugandans who have no experience of the diabolical dictatorships of Amin and Obote. They should know that democracy has to be nurtured. Democracy does not just happen. The Uganda of today with its democratic governance, the empowerment of women, the economic transformation taking place, a disciplined pro people army, are products of the visionary leadership of President Museveni. That was why NEC and the National Conference recommended the lifting of term limits. In the words of the Cabinet submissions to the CRC on this very question, âgood leaders should not be refused from serving their people.â Prof. Ssemakula Kiwanuka is the minister of state for Luweero Triangle Published by The New Vision on: Wednesday, 5th November, 2003 -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
