Museveni must not get a blank cheque in 2011
By M. Suleman
11th Oct 2010
In my article “Museveni has a pathological fear of elections” last week, I discussed the merits of boycotting the 2011 elections. This week, I look at the argument for participation even with the skewed political landscape.
The pro-participation group start their argument for it while also appreciating that the Electoral Commission is handpicked by their opponent Yoweri Museveni. That the present EC is incapable of organizing free and fair elections is beyond debate now. It is accordingly agreed that all efforts must be geared towards dismantling it before the elections take place in Feb 2011.
But while all means have to be explored to remove the present EC, the IPC and a cross section of Ugandans also think boycotting the elections is not the right thing to do.
To begin with, for a boycott to get recognition and impact, it has to attract mass organizations including civil and religious groupings. The problem is that these groups have to be mobilised by our political organisations and yet they are still nascent and cash-strapped.
So to divert them from their day to day political mobilisation into protests involving other civil society groups would be pushing them into a costly exercise that they can’t afford. Demonstrations and protests require immense financial resources and yet they have no definite and quantifiable outcomes.
The security apparatus cannot allow protests and demonstrations to have the desired effect. They are partisan, ruthless, and are empowered by a plethora of laws which have always been invoked for purposes of suppressing any protest however small or harmless it is.
Apart from the difficulty of organizing successful protests and demonstrations, there are other serious implications of boycotting. Boycotts have negative effects on individual parties as well as on the politics of the country.
For example when the late Obote ordered UPC to boycott the NRM’s one party elections, the immediate result was a split in UPC. Career politicians simply couldn’t allow their constituencies to be given to the NRM on a silver platter.
Secondly, non participation by some politicians robbed both UPC and the country of some of the finest patriotic Ugandans. It also marked the beginning of withdrawal from politics by well qualified men and women of integrity. This allowed money hungry opportunists to enter our politics. So another boycott could mean more splits and more fine politicians being lost in the process.
Besides, participation in the 2011 elections is very important to the country; not least because it gives us an opportunity to identify fine new leaders. The other point to note is that prevailing amidst serious challenges and adversity is a good test of strength for any political leader or party. This is precisely why Besigye’s support base has increased steadily since 2001.
The 2001 elections, fraudulent as they were, demonstrated that Museveni had become vulnerable. But Ugandans only discovered that because Dr. Besigye, even without a political party to support him, showed them that it can be done. Besides exposing Museveni as a vulnerable politician, Besigye’s participation forced Museveni to purge his NRM. This ultimately forced him to accept a multi-party dispensation to accommodate the cadres he had fired from his NRM.
A combination of the cadres Museveni could no longer work with, plus others from other political parties formed FDC in 2005. In 2006, with its leader Besigye practically blocked from canvassing support by court appearances, FDC still managed to pluck a significant 37% out of Museveni’s support.
In the eyes of some people today, the NRM is a dying horse; all because of the gains that have been secured from participation in Museveni’s bogus elections. It is therefore imperative that the opposition does not give Museveni a blank cheque in 2011.
To put it lightly, you cannot confront a vicious dog with a piece of meat in its mouth by simply shouting at it and expect it to drop the meat! You must courageously confront it in a scuffle and force it to drop the meat! That is my interpretation of why the IPC has found it prudent to participate in the 2011 elections.
Lastly, participation is not at variance with the anti-EC protests and demonstrations. Both can be carried out at the same time. Parties can still, in the worst case scenario, prepare to participate in the 2011 elections while also participating in campaigns to dissolve the present EC.
In Burundi, opposition parties agreed to boycott the elections citing similar grievances. The government was not moved at all. Ethiopia, Sudan and Rwanda all held elections without the prominent opposition parties. In all cases however, the “winners” were declared and it’s now quiet! So why should Ugandans donate even a fraudulent “landslide victory” to Museveni and give him more ground to continue oppressing them.
In short, let us use the limited space that we have to build on what has been achieved so far. Museveni and his NRM are at their weakest today. On a balance therefore, I think the decision that Dr. Besigye and IPC took not to boycott is the right one. END. If it’s Monday, it’s Uganda Correspondent. Never miss out again!
