Uganda’s Democratic
challenges and possible solutions
Uganda still faces a number of democratic challenges ranging from
institutional management and administration to democratic management of
elections among many others. However, democracy promotion is a collective
effort which does not only take politicians’ willingness and mandate but also
the general population. As one may clearly note, Uganda’s electoral democracy
is more or the same bought by rich class seeking to occupy certain political
positions. This has led to continued oppression of the poor for the rest of the
five years they give their voting right to self-minded and egocentric
politicians. It has become a culture that citizens will only seem to be
relevant to Uganda’s governance systems when it comes to electoral period.
Therefore, if the challenges are to be realized and solved, it will take the
wholehearted willingness of the general public more so the voting population of
Uganda.
In
Uganda like it was with the governability of western European nations; her
governance is being hampered by a set of related which revolve around the
general the general emphasis on bureaucratic rule, the lack of civic
responsibility and the breakdown of consensus (Michel
J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki, 1975).
Governance and management of state affairs has of recent times become like a
one man’s show in that even simple land problems in Ugandan villages are
directly brought to the executive to be solved. This has time by time eaten up
the institutional fabric in that certain state and local government institutions
become weaker day by day. This has also hampered the rate of service delivery
in the country. Important also to note
is that the moral fabric among civil servants is nearly to death due to rampant
corruption in the system. It would have been more relevant and reasonable if
all systems and institutions of government are respected and given chance to be
innovative and pro-active in implementation of certain policies and
strengthening service delivery. There is no doubt that in case of a political
catastrophe like a military coup in Uganda, all government intuitions may cease
working unless another stable government is in place. To political scientists,
this is a very dangerous time bomb because in causes diverse negative effects
to citizens in cases of political crisis.
In
Uganda’s electoral system and process, universal adult suffrage with a secret
ballot is in place for presidential, parliamentary and local government
elections. Judicial complaint mechanisms are also provided for in cases of
electoral petitions. Please note that; following the referendum decision of
2005, the Movement System has been replaced by the multiparty political system.
Since then therefore, the opposition parties can operate legally, although they
are still struggling to effectively organize themselves in terms of programs,
operational structures (particularly in the remote areas), funding and
qualified personnel (Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2012: 9).
This has given NRM (the ruling political party) to remain stronger basically in
Uganda’s rural areas. However also, the fact that on some instances the
opposition has been suppressed and placed in a disadvantaged position by the
ruling party cannot be disputed. On some instances opposition political parties
‘rallies have been stopped by Police and party leaders brutally handled. On
many occasions for example the lead opposition political party leader (former) Kiiza
Besigye has been put under house arrest by Police on no clear legally
stipulated grounds (Simon Masaba, New Vision Oct 09, 2012). Therefore, one can argue that the only
solution to the current political democracy challenge could be; creation of
room for a free political participation without involvement of state coercion
to oppress the opposition. More so, it is important to give chance to
opposition to maximize their available political opportunities to avoid a blame
game at the end of the day. On most
occasions, the opposition has disputed presidential and or parliamentary
election results based on such grounds as limited equal political platform.
Talking
of institutional independence in Uganda, as already noted above it is one of
the biggest democratic crises in the country. As one may have noted, there is
less or no institutional independence mostly among the three most important
pillars of government (Judiciary, Executive and Legislature) due to two major
reasons; one is excessive constitutional powers of the executive (president)
and the other is dominance of one political party in parliament. Expounding
more on this, it is important to note that most of the influential positions
ranging from cabinet, heads of corporations, Police, Service Commissions,
Judges including the Chief Justice, Heads of the electoral commission and Bank of Uganda are
appointed by the president. Whereas the
parliament has the duty and mandate to approve presidential appointees,
manipulation is unavoidable due to the fact that majority of members of the
appointments committee of parliament subscribe to the ruling party hence rubber
stamps to the President’s decisions.
“....Democratic institutions exercise
their functions in principle and generally political decisions are made within
the constitutional framework by the appropriate authorities. However,
inefficiencies exist due to frictions between institutions at different levels.
One of the challenges the multiparty political system still faces is the extent
to which the NRM and the state are still interwoven. The NRM has a two-thirds
parliamentary majority and for more than two decades Ugandan governments and
administrations have been dominated and formed by the party. This has led to an
overall situation where the lines and limits between the different actors have
a tendency to be blurred. The mandates of democratic institutions like, for
example, the inspectorate of government, the directorate of public prosecutions
and committees of parliament such as the public accounts committee partially
overlap....” (Bertelsmann
Stiftung, BTI 2012:14)
Talking
of independence, there is great executive influence on the two other arms of
government as already noted above due to the mere fact that some of the members
(in most cases majority of them) in such arms of government are cadres of the
ruling party hence must implement party decisions. In most African states, this
has been one of the long lasting problems and it has in one way or the other
jeopardized institutional democracy and endangered service delivery. Therefore,
the only solution to the long lasting problem is liberalizing appointments of
officers who are considered to be most influential and nonpartisan like those
in the Electoral commission such that their appointments are participatory.
Here I mean; there should be consultations with other political parties, media,
general population and civil society when appointing such officers. This is to
ensure that they are officers of high integrity and highly respected by the
society they are leading.
Uganda
may need to learn from Europe where Western Europe is known to have suffered a
tragic period of social and political regression when the effervescent world
born out of World War I could not face its tensions, especially those of the
depression, and when its needs for order were met by recourse to the fascist
and Nanzi regression (Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji
Watanuki, 1975: 49). Uganda through all the political
regimes has faces such kinds of regressions politically, socially and
economically as stipulated above. As
noted for example during Amin’s regime after the expulsion of Asians from
Uganda, Uganda is said to have experienced an economic regression by 20 years
backwards. Alongside that is the military dictatorship and repression of
government institutions among others. The same trend continued even after
Amin’s regime and the situation started recovering after the National
Resistance Army by Museveni took over in 1986 up to today. However, the
political environment in Uganda today is a clear manifestation of what Uganda
is likely to go through after the Current Government which one can’t predict to
be good. Therefore, if Uganda is to be a progressive country in terms of social,
political and institutional democracy, there has to be measure put in place to
ensure a peaceful political transition of power. As noted above, since
independence Uganda has had eight presidents but none of them has ever handed
over power peacefully hence the reason for 1970s and 80s regressions.
Therefore, if the current government is to ensure that there is no such kind of
situation as in the 70s, it has to ensure that a peaceful way of handing over
power is established. However, this can only be done when leaders come to learn
that Uganda belongs to Ugandans not certain individuals hence anything done
should be for the good and benefit of all Ugandans. This is an aspect most
leaders in Uganda have always forgotten. After acknowledging that, independent
intuitions will be established to handle a peaceful transition in Uganda.
Like
in US in 1960 where party identification dropped sharply, and the proportion of
the public which considers itself Independent in politics correspondingly
increased hence the decay of party system (Ibid: 85),
there is a growing decline in the role of political parties in Uganda. Due to
domination of the NRM party, most political parties have been rendered toothless
and do not do much in shaping policies of government because they are a
minority group. Due to this, the presumed political participation which is said
to increase polarization within society according to Michel, Huntington and Joji has lost meaning. The
existence of political parties has only been seen as an avenue for opposing
each and every government policy good or bad. This has also created some form
of bias in citizens in that they no longer give much credit to existence of political
parties. Hence, any seek for political power by an individual; he or she has to
use the NRM ticket to get there. Therefore, there is an urgent need to
effective political and civil society participation in shaping of public
policies but also internal reorganization of political parties in order for
them to earn credibility in the entire public.
In conclusion therefore, as clearly noted above,
there is still a long way to go for Uganda to achieve effective democracy.
However, achieving democracy does not only take the so called “revolutionary
leaders” but also collective participation of able bodied citizens in the
country. As I conclude, I will try to suggest five most important aspects that
may need to be put under consideration for Uganda to be considered a democratic
state. They are; intensification and support of political leadership
institutions, boosting of political parties, effective social and economic
developmental planning, recognition and acceptance of innovation in areas of
work and lastly and most importantly institutional creation for cooperative
promotion of democracy. As one may have
realized, many of the democratic challenges we have in Uganda emanate from the
above five aspects. Hence if one has to solve the problem, then he/s must
acknowledge the cause.
Institutions of political leadership should not be
neglected mainly in execution of their constitutional mandate. Such form of
support may range from creation of room for innovation, technical and financial
support. There are democratic disputes in Uganda due to neglect of opposition
groups and looking at them as political enemies to governments in power. This
has created political problems and on most occasions has led to abuse of human
rights when the police is handling opposition in a brutal way. Supporting them
would mean involvement in policy making agenda and financial support as
suggested by the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
Poor and self-centered social, political and
economic development planning is one of the biggest democratic challenges we
have not only in Uganda but in the entire Africa. Leaders in political power
only give the first priority to short tern strategies that would help keep them
in political powers other than looking at long term developmental aspects.
Therefore, if some aspects of democratic constraints are to be solved, there
has to be some kind of strategic developmental planning. Plans that last for
centuries not just decades are the most relevant for Uganda. More so, as already
stipulated innovation among politicians from all political parties, civil and
public servants to not only shape policies but also direct their implementation
is a key to democratic development in Uganda. Running of government affairs
like a machine has in one way or the other led to reluctance and less
innovation among government employees leading to moon-lightening hence less
value for money.
Last but not the least, it is important to note that
democracy stands on the foundation of institutions. Hence noting; absence of
relevant independent institutions is one of the biggest blows to democracy. If
Uganda has to realize her democratic potentials, it should not only strengthen
existing institutions as noted above but also create other relevant institutions
like independent appointing bodies among others. Such institutions should be
given constitutional mandated to exercise their duties without political
interference or influence. This is could be done in an effort to increase
respect for credibility of institutions of the state. Most citizens have lost
respect to most of the existing institutions basically because they are looked
at as creations of the existing g0overnments to help them stay in power. This
is one of the historical events not only in the existing government but also in
the past governments. Collectivity in policy making is the way forward for
Uganda’s democracy.
Julius Byaruhanga
