Ssemusu Mugobansonga
Let us cut out The movement to start with, and only limit our discussion on the
opposition political parties we have in the country and I will throw in UPC as
a good example. It was written with a very good structures that were set up
from get go to pass autocracy within the party. The leadership of the party
must be chosen by the people right from the grass root going up to build a
delegate conference which sits to decide the leader of the party. And this is a
very simple structure that even my father can implement if he was still alive.
Allow the grass roots to build their leadership from the people chosen by the
people, come up choosing leaders from those groups coming up till when you
reach the level of delegate conference, let it sit and let it choose the
national leaders. And why is that system important? Because it empowers the
national leadership from bottom up than up bottom as it is today.
That system was thrown out at the anointing of Olara Otunnu, it was never used
for people like Gwokto Pojim and so on decided to change the game at a last
minute to use the selection of the national leadership as a weapon to The Obote
family. Even though Mama Miria was an effective leader of the party they
squeezed her out, they went after MP Jimmy Akena and squeezed him out as well,
they got Olara Otunu without powers from the grass roots and anointed him a
leader of the party. They sat in their homes and drunk Champagne for now a man
from Mucwiini is in power. Struggles started on Uganda house right from his
anointment to today and they were so bad that he hired security guards to guard
himself from the very people he is leading. The party died that today UPC is
way more screwed than UNAA. Or to put it the other way around, UNAA within its
confusion corruption and in fights, is of a more value to Ugandans than UPC an
entire political party.
Now I am not going to walk you through the discussions we have done about that
party as people who love it and miss its principles for I have done that very
extensively, but here is the point I am trying to drive across. If you are
among those that used the hate of Obote to support Olara Otunnu and put him
into Uganda House, when you see the party going to the Dogs this badly, why do
you have a problem saving it? At what point of your life do you walk into the
bath room and look in a mirror and question yourself why you wish that party to
die? We all make mistakes and we all learn from them, just how low will that
party sink for you to realize that you can throw a rope to it and save it? And
it does not need that much actually to raise up from the pit latrine that
Otunnu and Lucima have thrown it into, it only needs its members to go back to
the structure that was written and run it by those structures. UPC has a
structure to remove a bad leader use it. UPC has a structure to choose or to
change a leader use it. The party has a system to set up a grass root structure
implement it and set them up. The party has a written structure to set up a
delegate conference to choose a leader implement it. Take the party back to its
constitution and run it by its constitution and see if it cannot raise up. And
yet no one can raise to do that because at the end of the day if you do that
there is a chance and a very small chance, that Ugandans can end up selecting a
non-Acholi, and that will break the heart of the Gwoktos the Pojims and so on.
So we rather let the party sink into the God damn abyss.
I am at a point today where I have started to strongly believe that UPC is
done, it is dead as a political party and it has reached a point of never
coming back. Ever. And why? Because the very people that built and maintained
its structures are all gone. When you look at the people that are the most
corrupt in The Movement today, they are the former UPC stalwarts. If you look
at the people that are calculated killers in The Movement today, they are the
former UPC stalwarts. If you look at the people that have got very rich through
embezzlement of public funds in The Movement today, they are the former UPC
stalwarts. The party does not have to today an organized grass root system. So
it has died on top as it has died at the bottom. The top has got rotten as the
bottom has got rotten, how will you resurrect that party? It is done and UPC
has gone caput but in a name. And we all now feel very better because we have
successfully erased the name of Obote and ended up with a party ran by only two
people, Olara Otunnu and my dear friend Lucima.
Now even if I was to push The Movement to the table to create or to agree to
reforms in the country, who exactly do you want me to go with to discuss with
the Movement? Is it making sense to go with Olara Otunnu to hold that reform
when he can never agree to set up the grass roots to run his party as its
constitution? Should we go after Museveni and get these reforms so that we hand
some political authority to Uganda House when even to hung on leadership with
in Uganda House, Otunnu needs a set of security guards to be on the 6th floor
to defend him from his own membership? Do you realize that to hand Otunnu
political authority in that country he will need an Abraham APC parked on
Uganda House permanently to blow up every non Acholi UPC member that will show
up on Uganda House? You are building a grave danger to the rest of members of
the party for with such reforms that empower Otunnu more he will request the
government for the Nakasongola facility to run the delegate conference, for he
needs a guaranteed supply of bullets to blow up any non-Acholi that raise up to
ask a question sir. The single largest dictatorship we have in Uganda is not in
the government it is sitting in Uganda house, and it is surviving because it
has two people Olara Otunnu and Lucima that should know better, a people that
have failed to use their mistakes, learn from them and create an internal
change. And I wonder about Lucima for I all along thought I knew him so well,
how did he decide to get swallowed up into this I simply fail to understand.
May be I just did not know him as I so thought !!!!!!!
Dan Bwanika has some very good ideas, they are not for Uganda and they will
always look nice on the page, but as long as you cannot change UPC to be about
Obote and his family to being about Uganda the country we love, Bwanika can
write to his death bed you will never implement a single God damn project of
his, in that Ghetto so called a country, and with the same tone, your example
of Malawi sounds sweet, but can you guarantee that we can implement it into
Uganda and a non-Acholi will never step into Uganda House? If the answer to
that question is a yes I need it in writing and certified by a practicing
lawyer sir.
You have a larger problem in Uganda than going after Museveni, mumuleke muzeeyi
waffe abeewo !!!!!!
EM
On the 49th Parallel
Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in anarchy"
Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni katika
machafuko"
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ssemusu Mugobansonga
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:03 PM
To: [email protected]; Gwokto La'Kitgum; Rehema Uganda
Subject: Re: {UAH} Electoral reform Exchange visit of Uganda Political Parties
represented in Parliament sharing experience
Malawi Political Reforms: Tears of Opposition Parties
The Malawi Congress Party is building some rich experience as a party in
opposition. For about 3 decades, The Malawi Congress party enjoyed almost
absolute power as the only and all powerful political grouping in Malawi. This
status changed when in 1993 when fundamental political reforms saw the
introduction of multiparty politics, and we lost power in 1994. We have been
the major opposition party since, and in all elections, we have been runners up.
I am giving this cursory background to underscore a point that the MCP is in a
unique position to understand the sweetness of power in general, and absolute
power in particular. We understand the temptations that come with such power,
including the blindness, the naively, the selfishness and oftentimes the folly
of thinking that we will never find ourselves on the other side of the
political aisle. Perhaps most importantly, the MCP understands the frustrations
of being in the not so attractive side of the political divide called the
opposition, where the powers that be often times treat you as undesirable
elements, elements bent at opposing anything coming from the ruling party. We
have experienced the powerlessness and frustrations holding on to, and seeing
an otherwise beneficial agenda not seeing the light of day, simple because
despite the agenda bringing a lot of good to the populace, it would not be
palatable to the ruling party simply because the agendas would threaten or
weaken their hold on power.
My brief discussion therefore intends to share with you some of the challenges
we have faced as an opposition party in pursuing some political reforms and
reflect with you on how we have attempted to overcome such challenges, and
sometimes with disastrous results falling unto ourselves. I will also touch on
lost opportunities in the process for lasting reforms.
Let me emphasize from the outset that over the past three decades, piecemeal
political reforms in Malawi have played a dual role: some reforms have helped
in the gradual transformation from what they call a closed authoritarian system
to an evolving democracy (although we in MCP would call it a one party
democracy!). Other reforms have practically be retrogressive. In any case
however, the reforms have been in a piece meal fashion, pursued in as far as
they are seen to be benefiting the ruling party.
Floor Crossing
Since our first multiparty elections in 1994, no ruling party has ever won with
a comfortable majority of seats to enable them transact business with ease. To
beef up, ruling parties have tended to wangle some post election alliances that
have never lasted, only serving the purposed of dismantling and disorienting
the opposition. More sinister has been the poaching and “buying” of MPs who in
turn cross the floor. Our anti defection law is very clear: that if a member of
parliament crosses the floor, that should trigger a processes where the speaker
has to declare the seat vacant.
But since ruling parties have been beneficiaries of this practice, you have
seen unrelenting efforts to try to frustrate the due process of the law, in
some cases even leading to proroguing Parliament by the head of state. We have
had a scenario where the Speaker was from us, the MCP and we expected to win on
that account. But we found that the hands of the Speaker were tied through
injunctions. Now the catch is that in our system, if an MP takes an injunction
against a public officer like the Speaker, it is Attorney General who is
expected to run around and vacate the injunctions. The Attorney General has
either been the Minister of Justice or an appointee by the president, an
operative of the ruling party. A case in point would be the current Attorney
General, who before his appointment was a defense lawyer of the president and
the DPP party in a number of cases. As such so many injunctions taken against
the speaker remain unchallenged up t the expiry of the life of parliament.
While it is the belief and expectation of many citizens that floor crossing
really undermines the spirit of multiparty democracy, and that it has the
potential of leading to the eventual death of the oppo, opposition political
parties find themselves with very limited room for maneuver. In a desperate
effort to bring sanity, we in MCP as the major opposition with the ability to
frustrate government efforts ended up burning our own fingers with the
electorate when we held the national budget “hostage” demanding implementation
of the floor crossing provision.
Reforming the Electoral System and the Electoral Commission (Stalled
Constitution Review)
As I alluded to earlier on, no party in Malawi has ever won a comfortable
governing majority. This challenge is also reflected at the presidential level.
Apart from one election, in 1999, all presidents have been governing the
country after winning with a minority of votes. In one instance, a winning
president only got about 34 percent. We find this to be a weakness of our
electoral system as it defeats the argument that in a democracy, it is the
majority that rules.
Considering this challenge, our party has been championing a change in the
electoral system proposing that a president should always be winning with an
absolute majority of 50%+1. For a long time now, we have been agitating for
this change, but the government has always moved to frustrate the efforts.
Related to the elections is the issue of electing commissioners of the
Electoral Commission. We have been pushing for a more independent electoral
commission, with security of tenure that reports not to the president, but to
the national assembly. Again, the party in government has not seen our wisdom
in this.
Both of these proposals were strongly presented in the Constitution Review
document, a report of which was submitted to cabinet in 2005. But to the
government hasn’t moved on it because the report contains elements that, in the
eyes of the party in government, the proposed reforms would work to the
disadvantage of the ruling clique.
As a major party in opposition, we realize that we made a big mistake. Our
mistake was that when the constitution review process started, we trusted the
government so much that we thought the process would just run smoothly to its
logical conclusion. With hindsight, we realize that we should have worked
(perhaps with the civil society and the churches, a working relationship that
doesn’t really exist) hard to ensure that we secure the constitution review
process with a piece of law that would ensure that the process acquires its own
life, so that the process does not depend on the good will of the powers that
be. Thus some of the failures of reform cannot be entirely be blamed on the
governing parties (for it appears that all governing parties are expected to be
arrogant and stubborn), but can also be blamed on us opposition parties for
lack of foresight and strategic maneuvering.
Financing / Campaign Financing / Regulation of Private Financing (Political
Party Act)
Before I go to what I consider to be specific challenges facing political
parties in opposition as regards political reforms, let me give another example
of what we are struggling with, and that something to do with financing of
political parties.
According to our constitution (and this is the only place that issues of
political party financing is made reference to) political parties can get
finances from the state if they acquire 10% of the national vote. Well, there
is an ambiguity that according to our electoral system, it is possible for a
party to get 10% of the national vote, but without getting a seat in
parliament. But that’s a discussion for another day. Of interest is that in the
legislative framework for political parties, private funding, be it from
membership contributions or donations from within or outside the country, is
not regulated. As opposition parties, we have noted that this works to the
advantage of ruling parties because they have capacity either to benefit from
crime, by stealing money from the public purse to finance their political
parties. Also, ruling parties have the capacity to exhort finances from the
private sector or some deliberately “vulnerable” groups in exchange of sinister
deals or showdy government contracts.
We have been pushing to reform this, especially to introduce some regulation of
private financing and donations of assets including declaration of assets by
political parties. As we speak, we are facing resistance from the governing
party. And one can only guess why.
Pitfalls / Specific Challenges
Polarized opposition / Unconsolidated agenda
Oftentimes, it is difficult to keep the opposition together. This happens
either through inducements or for want of favors. This makes it difficult to
have a common agenda and mount pressure to “force” the ruling side to bulge.
Unresponsive governing party / Winner takes all attitude
As I have alluded to earlier on, ruling parties sometimes just tend to be
unresponsive, and reject everything that comes from the opposition, especially
because they believe that whatever the opposition is advancing will end up
benefiting them, to the detriment of the ruling side. As such, they consider
every proposal for reform with unwarranted skepticism and suspicion.
Another stumbling block in our case has been the winner takes it all attitude
where at some point, even parliamentary oversight committees that traditionally
and logically have to be headed by opposition parties were controlled by ruling
parties (public appointments committee, public accounts committee, budget and
finance committee) leaving the opposition with literally no room to maneuver.
Unsophisticated citizenry
Whether is on account of high illiteracy levels or inactivity and disengagement
of the citizenry, you find that the citizens easily buy cheap propaganda from
the government side at the expense of the citizens. I can give an example of
our experience of floor crossing vs. budget debate: where the government simply
launched a huge misinformation drive brandishing us as rejecting the budget in
preference for floor crossing debate…and they attributed all problems (of lack
of drugs, chaotic subsidy program, delayed teachers salaries)…everything was
blamed on the opposition. And this had traction with the passive and
unquestioning citizenry. They wouldn’t appreciate that we were simply employing
a bargaining ploy at an area where the government was most vulnerable.
Politicized civil service
Some reforms have been and are being frustrated because of a self censoring
civil service, and a civil service that works as an agent of a political party.
A case in point would be the reluctance of the office of the Attorney General
to process some legislation simply because of suspicion of anti ruling party
elements in the proposed reforms.
Wanting to get it all (entrenching / digging in / failure to bargain)
As opposition, we also have not done a good job in identifying areas for
bargaining where we would give, and take on issues. At times, we have tended to
want to take it all or take nothing….looking for near revolutions.
Conclusion
I have given these examples to dismiss an illusion that initiating political
reforms would be easy in some countries. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a
more positive story. As opposition political parties, we have to appreciate
that it is a difficult task to initiate what we consider to be positive
changes, and this realization has to encourage us to think dipper and be more
strategic if we are to get the returns that we look for. Most importantly for
us, we have find value in utilizing our interparty dialogue platform – the
Centre for Multiparty Democracy – to engage the ruling party at a more equal
and level playing field with the idea of getting alliances from within the
ruling circles. The alliances and relationships that we build at the CMD level
works to provide entry points for engagement at a more strategic level. And
while concrete results might be slow or hard to come by, we do believe that
maintaining talking terms with our counterparts is the only viable way to go.
Strictly speaking, I do not think that there are specific roles peculiar to
political parties in opposition in as far as political reforms are concerned.
The only distinction is that opposition parties have the ability to think about
more equitable reforms, reforms that would genuinely level the playing field;
reforms that would indeed make politics a game of wits and ideas as opposed to
a game of resources and how well one is positioned to abuse such resources. Our
experience has shown that ruling parties tend to be short sighted, and when the
tide changes, they are the ones that cry the loudest, and yet they do have
chances of fixing the problems. (May conclude with conclude with an example of
MBC bias and the DPP complaints against the PP.)
By Mr. Kizito Tenthani, Executive Director CMD Malawi
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Ssemusu Mugobansonga <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
African Regional Programme-ARP
The Uganda-Tanzania Peer to Peer Learning Exchange
Sharing Experiences and Lessons on Inclusive Interparty Dialogue and
Electoral... Reform
Zanzibar, Tanzania
22nd - 26th October 2014
Double Tree Hilton Hotel Zanzibar-Stone Town
Electoral Democracy in Uganda : Reforms towards 2016.
By Semusu Mugobansonga secretary General Conservative Party.
“Electoral democracy” denotes free elections which in Law symbolizes a
Political system which guarantees each voter a right to vote according to his
or her conscience. Aristotle the Greek philosopher clarified that thinking by
saying that there are two main aspects of freedom; being ruled and ruling in
turn.
In Uganda, General Elections are held at the end of every 5 years in the areas
of local governance, Parliament and the Presidency.
In the 1995 Constitution, there are specific areas which call for the effect of
Electoral Reforms in view of what has been happening for the last 18 years.
The preamble, “we the people of Uganda, recalling our history which has been
characterized by political and constitutional instability and recognizing our
struggle against the forces of tyranny, oppression and exploitation;
COMMITTED to building a better future by establishing a socioeconomic and
political order through a popular and durable national Constitution based on
principle of unity, peace, equality, democracy,freedom,Social justice and
progress.
DO HEREBY, in and through this constituent Assembly solemnly adopt, enact and
give to ourselves and our posterity, this Constitution of the Republic of
Uganda, this 22nd day of September, in the year 1995.
The above excerpts in the preamble are a lamentation over the cause of the bush
war in Luweero.
President Museveni and his crew of 27, waged a protracted war in Luweero in
open protest over the rigged Elections in 1980 during the Muwanga Regime. The
NRA essentially went to the bush in opposition to the manner in which the
previous Regimes were undermining and marginalizing “the people sovereignty”.
Article (I) of the Constitution briefly states that all power belongs to the
people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with the Constitution
of Uganda. Article 1 (4) adds “the people shall express their will and consent
on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free
and fair elections of their representatives”.
The crooked nature of elections held since 1996 hardly demonstrate that
Ugandans have learnt any lessons related to misrule and rigged elections.
Caution
If the Luweero initiative is still unaccomplished the people can still go back
to the bush to enforce their objectives. But it is necessary to go back to the
bush?
Need for Electoral Reforms
1. Free elections imply that the opening of a free expression of ideas, free
movement and access to the electorates by all stakeholders before and after the
elections. A meaningful election in 2016, cannot be held in the presence of the
Public Order Act 2013. Such a law would suffocate the candidates and the
Electorate. It should be repealed ahead of the 2016 polls.
2. The whole Electoral Commission must be overhauled and disbanded to create
room for an independent and impartial Electoral Commission. This amendment must
equally be reflected in the Constitution of Uganda Article 60.
3. The known key players in the political game namely, political parties must
have a say to propose how best the independent Electoral Commission should be
constituted. The current electoral commission should be over-hauled in time to
prepare a fresh-voters’ Register free from manipulation. Uganda’s recent
General Elections have predominantly been marred by grave deliberate errors in
the voters’ register, non- implementation of electoral laws misuse of police
and related security Agencies, commercialization of elections and limitation of
the media to reach all electoral areas.
4. The Electoral Commission apart from lacking independence and impartiality is
badly managed. It lacks technical experts, and should by now have gone
electronic. Worst still, it is used as a servant of the state to manipulate
electoral results at its convenience. A lot of such errors could be avoided if
the presidential term limits under Article 105, of the Constitution could be
re-instated.
5. The proposed National identity card program should be put to a halt to
enable Parliament address the following-
(a) If the identity cards will also serve as voters’ cards, this calls for
political parties to participate in the program by way of monitoring the
exercise.
(b) The term of office for the key-players (LC officials) in identifying people
in the ID registration exercise has already expired. That means that the LC
Chair-persons no longer have the locus standi to identify a village member from
one who is not. There is need for a law to be put in place to state the
requirements for registering Ugandan citizens as the process of doing so is
also going to serve as a voter’s program. We must protect our citizenship from
infiltration by non-Ugandans.
6. Many right thinking Ugandans hold the view that Elections in Uganda are not
free and fair. There are fundamental mischief’s that call for immediate address
to avoid a time –bomb capable bedeviling the country that Sir. Winston
Churchill once described as the Pearl of Africa.
The Courts of Law
1. All claims from the aggrieved parties during and after elections should be
heard expeditiously in answer to the contents of Article 28(1) of the
Constitution. Justice delayed is justice denied.
(a) Delayed bye-elections are painful on top of being unconstitutional- a case
in point are the Luweero district Elections. Hon. Nambooze’s bye-election, was
held 8 months to the 2010 General Elections in Mukono.
2. The Supreme Court has been doing a wonderful job and has tried to act
impartially enough to avoid shame over the issue of judgments which cannot
internationally stand the test of time.
However, in the case of Dr. Kizza Besigye v Y.K.Museveni and Electoral
Commission (2006) there are many unanswered questions. Court acknowledged the
mess and vote rigging that characterized the presidential elections and all the
errors made at various polling stations but held that the errors made were not
substantial enough to overturn the final results of the elections such a ruling
can be dangerous. Wrong doing is not based on a number of offences committed.
An offence is an offence.
That assessment would not help Uganda get over its electoral errors. Why? In
Dr. Lulume Bayiga v Mukasa Court held that much as vote –rigging predominantly
occurred in Busagazi, the final results in that constituency could not be
trusted. A bye-election had to be held in defence of the candidate who had been
cheated.
--
UAH forum is devoted to matters of interest to Ugandans. Individuals are
responsible for whatever they post on this forum.To unsubscribe from this
group, send email to: [email protected]
<mailto:ugandans-at-heart%[email protected]> or Abbey Semuwemba
at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .
--
UAH forum is devoted to matters of interest to Ugandans. Individuals are
responsible for whatever they post on this forum.To unsubscribe from this
group, send email to: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> or Abbey Semuwemba at:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
