Museveni has a pathological fear of elections
By Suleman Mugula
4th Oct 2010
There is now unanimous agreement among many patriotic Ugandans that Museveni has become a liability to the country. There is agreement too that Museveni has to be dislodged from power soon as possible. Finally, there is agreement that the opposition has enough against Museveni to get him defeated in a free and fair election.
The contentious issue however, is whether participating in the Feb 2011 elections without fundamental changes to the constitutional and institutional impediments makes that option a viable one or not. UPC and a cross section of Ugandans believe it’s worthless. The IPC and a cross section of Ugandans on the other hand, feel that participation in whatever conditions is important and that they will defeat Museveni.
So let’s examine the merits and demerits of a boycott. Among the many reasons against participation, one can start with the overall election environment. Museveni changed the constitution to enable him rule till death. He says he has not yet found any Ugandan who is fit to succeed him.
The conclusion I draw from that is that Museveni is not capable of creating conditions where free and fair elections can be held. Secondly, I am now convinced beyond doubt that Museveni does not believe in democracy. And it can be traced back to the 1980 elections when he was decisively defeated Sam Kutesa. From then on, I believe Museveni developed a pathological fear for elections.
His pronouncements, behaviour, and actions in the 1996, 2001, and 2006 elections all attest to the fact that as an individual, Museveni hates democracy. So come 2011, Ugandans should expect the same tricks. That is why it is crucial for the opposition to tighten all loopholes he has used in the past before going into the 2011 elections.
As pointed out by many, the road to 2011, like the past elections, is riddled with many legal and institutional impediments. Paramount among them is the current Electoral Commission. Its track record is well documented. It’s not impartial and it’s incompetent; the Supreme Court of Uganda said that much.
With the evidence of the 2006 elections still alive, with the example of the recently held NRM primaries, [and the 2007 Kenya elections] the last risk a country can afford is an incompetent and a compromised Electoral Commission. So without changing the EC, there can be no meaningful elections.
In addition, rigging in the NRM has been institutionalized. It is a complex and organized system. It takes advantage of the several constitutional and legal weaknesses. For example, we have a weak and compromised Parliament that cannot be relied on to intervene at any level.
We have partisan security forces that are answerable only to Museveni who uses them to ruthlessly suppress those opposed to the NRM. Army representatives in parliament have not even bothered to hide their alliance with Museveni’s ruling NRM. The country cannot go into a free and fair election when the security institutions have shown that they support Museveni the incumbent.
There is one other important point to note here. The Judiciary has already been assaulted and intimidated many times. Apart from that, Museveni’s act of re-appointing Dr. Kiggundu’s EC after the Supreme Court declared it incompetent shows that Museveni has no respect for the judiciary either.
So just like he has done in the past, he can still act in contempt of court anytime. The biggest tragedy for Uganda now is that for purposes of all pre-and post election disagreements, no one can now rely on the courts to act as the final arbiter. Unless the President comes out clearly and declares his respect for the judiciary, the country is going to hold elections in a vacuum. Some specific safeguards must be put in place to guard the independence of the Judiciary.
Another important factor is the media. Superficially, there appears to be media freedom in Uganda. But if you scratch beneath the surface, the reality is that the media severely restricted. For a start, most media houses are owned by NRM functionaries. Those that are not have been forced into self censorship. That makes them equally compromised and yet free media is crucial in any free and fair election.
Buying of votes is also another serious issue. It has become an NRM culture that it uses to make sure the political playing field is skewed in its favour. There is no doubt that the NRM and its insiders are richer than the government itself because they control and even claim ownership of every penny that should rightfully belong to the Republic of Uganda. So they can buy all voters in the country if they want to. So how can there be free and fair elections unless the issue of vote buying is sorted.
In short, there are so many entrenched legal impediments; there is an incompetent and partisan Electoral Commission; there is a partisan and ruthless security force [including militias]; there is limited media freedom; there is a rich and morally bankrupt ruling NRM party; and there is an intransigent and undemocratic President. All these things not only tell us that the 2011 elections cannot be free and fair but they also lend weight to Otunnu’s insistence on a level playing field before elections can be held.
Next week, Suleman Mugula examines the merits in the argument for participation even with these challenges. END. If it’s Monday, it’s Uganda Correspondent. Never miss out again!
