By Mutabazi Sam Stewart
No single debate or analysis can claim to exhaustively discuss all the facets of democracy, especially in Africa. Different countries still lack the conceptual clarity that clouds the understanding of democracy either by default or design. However there is the general standard of quality minimum requirement especially with regard to the respect for the rule of law. One idea that has come to the fore as part of the debate about third term for President Yoweri Museveni is the concept that Power belongs to the people and they have the right to choose how to be governed including changing the constitution at the sound of the whistle. This may be being a little bit unfair.
The state in which this country is in requires knowledge and understanding of how different processes in sustained democratic governance and rule of law are capable of furthering peace and security in future. Sustainable democratic governance depends upon a legal system that protects both majority and minority interests. Radical changes in laws and especially the constitution, which is the supreme law, need a great deal of justification. From the point of view of the level of development and democracy in our country, limitless terms are very undesirable. The argument that some Western democracies do not have term limits is only counter productive but it is also unrealistic because Uganda has not achieved self supporting institutions like those in the developed world that are able to dispense their duties accordingly, without any political interference.
Referenda have always been used to settle contentious issues throughout the world. However not every issue where public opinion is divided must be referred to a referendum. Although power belongs to the people, the same people must live and act according to the laws, which they themselves or their representatives made. A key determinant for successful democratic consolidation is the ability of democratically elected governments to guarantee the rule of law. And good laws are those that last. It is usually not what people believe per se which will shape the future of our democracy but what they do or do not do according to the existing laws. In many developing countries including Uganda, the very desire to demonstrate that democracy works even in poor countries should serve as a major motive towards the establishment of structures and institutions that are responsible and capable of defending constitutionalism.
As I have already noted, not every issue where public opinion is divided must be put to referenda. There must be special arrangements to ensure that the constitution has a way of protecting itself from abuse and distortion from unscrupulous leaders that are always eager to change it at the slightest opportunity to serve their selfish needs.
Those who are conversant with the way in which resolutions are adopted in most conferences and meetings will not fail to appreciate the fact that in majority of cases, the initiative is often taken by the bureaucrats at the top, who make good their vintage positions to influence the majority in adopting such decisions however unpopular they may be. Naturally, I will be forgiven for assuming that the impending amendment of the constitution to allow limitless terms is an initiative of some people who are reflecting that the demands are from the people of Uganda through the common slogan “power belongs to the people”. Perhaps the only difference is that the initiators of changing the constitution lack the courage to declare publicly that they are both the direct and indirect beneficiaries. The agitation for limitless terms is no more that mere intellectual exercise with little relevance to the realities of our country. There is no evidence yet to suggest that two five-year term is bad because it has not been tested. Therefore, the discussion is not about an accepted principle but what one can easily call manipulative gamble. It is fundamental that future constitutional designs must ensure powerful political actors do not use their offices to sway and influence public opinion about what people want or do not want under the guise of “power belongs to the people” phenomenon. This is however not to say that people can not use their power to determine what they feel is best for them. The case of Madagascar where people demonstrated in favour of President Ravalomanana is an example of people’s power. For Ugandans to allow the amendment of the constitution is to believe that the same constitution is not supreme and is just a mere document that can be respected only in times when it is in agreement with the wishes of the President.
The state in which this country is in requires knowledge and understanding of how different processes in sustained democratic governance and rule of law are capable of furthering peace and security in future. Sustainable democratic governance depends upon a legal system that protects both majority and minority interests. Radical changes in laws and especially the constitution, which is the supreme law, need a great deal of justification. From the point of view of the level of development and democracy in our country, limitless terms are very undesirable. The argument that some Western democracies do not have term limits is only counter productive but it is also unrealistic because Uganda has not achieved self supporting institutions like those in the developed world that are able to dispense their duties accordingly, without any political interference.
Referenda have always been used to settle contentious issues throughout the world. However not every issue where public opinion is divided must be referred to a referendum. Although power belongs to the people, the same people must live and act according to the laws, which they themselves or their representatives made. A key determinant for successful democratic consolidation is the ability of democratically elected governments to guarantee the rule of law. And good laws are those that last. It is usually not what people believe per se which will shape the future of our democracy but what they do or do not do according to the existing laws. In many developing countries including Uganda, the very desire to demonstrate that democracy works even in poor countries should serve as a major motive towards the establishment of structures and institutions that are responsible and capable of defending constitutionalism.
As I have already noted, not every issue where public opinion is divided must be put to referenda. There must be special arrangements to ensure that the constitution has a way of protecting itself from abuse and distortion from unscrupulous leaders that are always eager to change it at the slightest opportunity to serve their selfish needs.
Those who are conversant with the way in which resolutions are adopted in most conferences and meetings will not fail to appreciate the fact that in majority of cases, the initiative is often taken by the bureaucrats at the top, who make good their vintage positions to influence the majority in adopting such decisions however unpopular they may be. Naturally, I will be forgiven for assuming that the impending amendment of the constitution to allow limitless terms is an initiative of some people who are reflecting that the demands are from the people of Uganda through the common slogan “power belongs to the people”. Perhaps the only difference is that the initiators of changing the constitution lack the courage to declare publicly that they are both the direct and indirect beneficiaries. The agitation for limitless terms is no more that mere intellectual exercise with little relevance to the realities of our country. There is no evidence yet to suggest that two five-year term is bad because it has not been tested. Therefore, the discussion is not about an accepted principle but what one can easily call manipulative gamble. It is fundamental that future constitutional designs must ensure powerful political actors do not use their offices to sway and influence public opinion about what people want or do not want under the guise of “power belongs to the people” phenomenon. This is however not to say that people can not use their power to determine what they feel is best for them. The case of Madagascar where people demonstrated in favour of President Ravalomanana is an example of people’s power. For Ugandans to allow the amendment of the constitution is to believe that the same constitution is not supreme and is just a mere document that can be respected only in times when it is in agreement with the wishes of the President.
No comments:
Post a Comment