July 12, 2004
| Face reality on federalism
The Buganda Lukiiko has rejected a Cabinet proposal that a new regional tier of government be introduced for districts who want to amalgamate into larger units. The Lukiiko also insists that Kampala should be an integral part of the federal kingdom. The members of the Lukiiko are living in dreamland. The clock cannot be turned back. What is done is done. Kampala has not been part of Buganda for over 100 years. The Buganda administrative kingdom as existed until 1966 cannot be recreated. Even if Cabinet and government were committed to restoring federalism, it would still have to go through Parliament and a referendum. And the majority of MPs and the country would not vote for it. Federalism cannot return just because they said they told the Constitutional Review Commission that it should. The Lukiiko should start identifying a way forward within the existing political framework. And the proposal for regional government would be a good start. What will make the Buganda regional government succeed? The answer is simple: progressive leadership from Mengo. If Mengo keeps living in the past, it will get nowhere. Joseph Senyonjo, *** I was not surprised that Cabinet rejected Buganda’s clamour for federalism because in my own belief the President does not embrace this system of government for reasons known to himself. Vincent Kasozi, Rwanda cannot hurry with Bizimungu’s fate Mr Gawaya Tegule was partly objective in his “Give Bizimungu Another Chance”, which ran in The Monitor on July 7. The piece is likely to have made good sense to camps either side of former Rwanda President Pasteur Bizimungu’s fate. He understands how far Rwanda has come and how secure it is at the moment. What he seems not to comprehend is the way it all came about. Rwanda is where it is because those in charge since July 4, 1994 have rarely been complacent. The government of national unity has registered several victories on political, economic, social and military fronts. Yet it has not been carried away and forgotten where it came from. When late Juvenal Habyarimana’s government was routed from power, it pitched camp in former Zaire, not far away from the Rwandan border and re-organised troops. But because the RPA had infiltrated their camp and knew what was about to happen, they decided to attack instead of waiting in their defences, The internationally unaccepted, but highly effective invasion of DR Congo by the RPA, now Rwanda Defense Forces, in 1996 is one instance that clearly demonstrated how Paul Kagame’s government was not going to act the good boy at the expense of national interests. Tegule is cynical about how secure Rwanda becomes with Bizimungu tucked away in jail. On the other hand he is upbeat about the country’s security currently; saying, “The country is so secure in the grip of President Kagame, it is unlikely people of Bizimungu’s tendencies can pose a significant threat”. Sounds like America is so strong militarily it should not be bothered by the threat Al-Qaeda’s acts of terrorism continue to pose. September 11 is to Americans what the 1994 Genocide is to Rwandans. Both people will forever be haunted by the crimes committed on those occasions. Brig. Romeo Dallaire’s UNAMIR supplied sufficient intelligence to the UN to the effect that late Habyarimana’s regime was preparing to wipe out the Tutsi. UNAMIR, the UN peacekeeping force deployed in Rwanda during the war supplied the intelligence well in time. The UN chose to ignore the warning and what followed, as they say, is history - Kagame’s government could not afford to ignore Bizimungu’s tendencies that are clearly divisive. Memories of what such politics can do are still very fresh in the minds of Rwandans. However, I think it is possible that at an opportune moment in future, Kagame can exercise his prerogative of mercy on Bizimungu. Trust the Kigali establishment for the very focused outfit it is. Indeed if in Kagame’s wisdom, and the wisdom of those he consults, he finds it in the national interest to pardon Bizimungu, he will no doubt do so. But if the opinion of mercy clashes with the long term national security interest, I am sure the he will not give in to any amount of pressure. Ignatius Kabagambe, Science ministry is the way to go Sometime in early January, I wrote a letter commending the President for recognising the potential of science and technology to liberate our country. I was also impressed by the consideration of science and technology in the 2004/05 budget. That the National Council of Science and Technology (NCST) has started the search for science policy experts reassures me that progress is being made. It is important to realise that science and technology are one of the greatest intellectual enterprises of humankind; they provide man with the impetus to fulfil his potential. This is what we are now realising more than two centuries after the industrial revolution. My humble request to NCST is that, as it seeks expertise, it should look more to the east than the west. We certainly have a lot in common with a number of eastern countries like India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan. The westerners seem not to be interested in helping us develop our capacity in a practical sense rather than a theoretical one that makes us perpetually needy. It is also my view that be elevated to a full ministry as is the case in countries like India. This gives it full mandate to solicit funds and to implement rather than only engage in policy making. Arthur M. Makara, Advise your boss freely, Kashillingi Reading “Appeal Useless – Museveni Adviser” in The Monitor of July 8, one wonders why the Presidential Legal Assistant, Hussein Kashillingi was defensive, saying it is his personal opinion that appealing the Constitutional Court ruling on the referendum law is futile. He has to remember that tax-payers pay him to advise the President. Kashilingi should advise his boss to put the nation above self interest and political expediency as we look to 2006. Robert Adongakulu, Peasants are not in good position Imagine you are a patient. You are not trained in medicine, although you can understand certain things about your condition and treatments when the doctor explains. After some treatment, your doctor refers you to a consultant who seeks the opinion of another consultant. The consultants disagree about diagnosis and treatment and accuse each other of lack of professionalism. You can overhear them in the next room shouting abuse at each other. Then supposing they ask you to make a decision about your treatment. It sounds ridiculous, does it not? Would the conditions of informed consent have been met? Now, by analogy, consider the current political – or is it legal – position following the Constitutional Court ruling about the referendum of 2000. On what basis should ‘the peasants’ make an informed political judgement? Rev. Amos Kasibante, |
© 2004 The Monitor Publications
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
