-The forthcoming referendum on multi-partyism is opposed by civil society, oppositional political parties and the donor community, and not only for its wastefulness, says Martin Masiga (right), Executive Director of HURINET, one of the leading human rights organisations in Uganda. Read Masiga’s background on the issue. (17-JUNE-05)
It will be remembered that after the National Resistence Army (NRA) rebels led by Yoweri K. Museveni took over Kampala in 1986, they established the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government. The new governement immediately suspended political party activity for a period of four years. This was also supposed to be the transitional period. By the end of these four years, a new constitution should have been enacted and democratic elections held. In the place of parties, the political system was replaced by partylessness, or, as it was called in Ugandan political parlance, “the movement, ” which however allowed the predominance of the National Resistance Movement, no doubt, by this time, a political organisation. This organisation enjoyed state funding, used state organs and its operations were obfuscated with state structures.
Opponents marched out in protest
At the end of the four years the government instead asked the National Resistance Council (NRC)–legislature at the time–for an extension of the government?s tenure for a further five years to preside over the writing of a new constitution. Inspite of resistance from the opposition, Museveni was granted the extension.
The new constitution suspended political party activity and subjected the resumption of such activities to referenda to be held once every five years. The proposals to keep political party activities in abeyance turned out to be the most contentious in the constitution-making debate at the time. Indeed, opposition members of the constituent assembly marched out of the house in protest during the debate. The argument against political parties as advanced by Mr. Museveni and his government was that the parties had been formed on a sectarian basis and had a divisive role in Ugandan society, as such parties constituted a threat to national unity, they said again and again.
Only groups lacking credibility claimed to be campaigning for a ?no?
The first political systems? referendum was held in year 2000 and resulted in the continuation of political party activity suspension. The opposition boycotted the referendum, arguing that the enjoyment of fundamental rights ought not to have been subjected to a referendum. Nevertheless, there were some small groups hitherto unknown which claimed to be campaigning for a “No” to the suspension. These groups have never been regarded by the larger Ugandan population as credible political actors or as representatives of the opposition.
-What a waste. We don?t need a referendum. Just give us our rights
Given this background, it should be understood that the referendum being prepared for next month is not the first, but the second referendum on political systems in Uganda. The referendum is scheduled to cost 30 billion Ugandan shillings. This has been opposed by civil society, political parties and the donor community alike as wasteful, especially seeing that the Movement government, the architect of party activity suspension, is now saying that they would want to open up political space. The move towards opening up political space came against the background of mounting internal political and external donor pressure against Mr. Museveni?s single-party Movement system. The opposition is opposed to the referendum and has filed a suit in the constititonal court to challenge its validity. This follows a court ruling which declared that the suspension of political parties was unconstitutional and that the movement was never a “political system” as claimed by NRM but rather a political party.
-Whatever the outcome of the referendum, it is already too late
In the years of suspension the governement has dealt very heavy-handedly with persons who tried to organise themselves. Rallies by suspected political party activists have been violently broken up and on one occassion resulted in death. Party sympathisers have been arrested and sometimes kept in prison for what many believe to be tramped up charges. They have been demonised and linked to armed rebellion. Just last week police confiscated the T-shirts belonging to the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC). Also last week, MPs Okumu and Ochula who, as reported on this website, were imprisoned last month, were refused to address their constitutents with the army blocking their rally. A few weeks ago the army blocked a rally in the north, also by the FDC. In december five MPs from the north were flogged by the army at a rally to address their constituents. In another development last week, Brig. Henry Tumukunde, a dissident representative of the army in parliament was arrested and apparently forced by the commader in chief of the Armed Foces (the President) to resign. Given both the long-standing tradition of disturbing any oppositional activity, and these recent examples of how this tradition is still very much alive, there is clearly no environment to cultivate a genuine develompent towrds a muliti-party system. In real terms, a referendum on the issue will most probably not make much of a difference. And in any case, after twenty years of only one party being allowed to establish and act as such, it is already too late for a real opposition to establish and consolidate itself, within the political system, in the media and among the electorate, in time to challenge for power and the presidency at next years’s elections.
