{UAH} Age and term limits are irrelevant in a culture that encourages hooliganism

By Nicholas Sengoba

By the time we parted company, my guest had lost his cool and fell short of openly alleging that I had "joined those who had been bought". Our meeting was planned to enrich each other by exchanging ideas on Uganda's current political and economic status.

It turned out (and I might be wrong) that the person seated on the other side of the small restaurant table was trying to sell the idea of term and age limits. He suggested that there should be a provision in the Constitution that sets the terms to two five-year terms and age at 75 as was the case in 1995 when the current Constitution was promulgated. He added that there should be another which says the issues should never be debated for the next 100 years and that whoever suggested a debate on the same, be tried for treason.

His argument was that the current attempt to increase the age of Judges and other civil servants, recall doctors from retirement was to populate the entire political and government service spectrum with old men and women to make age 'just a number'. He added that it was an 'addendum' to the appointment of very old men in Cabinet.
Then he alleged that this was a 'preamble' to introducing a law that would remove the age limit for president. Its aim, apparently to give the incumbent, President Museveni (now 71) leeway 'to rule for life' at a time when he had been 'cornered' by the law.

By the look on his face, my friend had failed to make a sale because I was not very enthusiastic about the things he is so passionate about. Laws setting term and age limits are just like any other law, rules and regulations. The most important aspect is the environment and culture in which they are set to operate. They are like good seeds. Their germination and production of fruit depends on the ground and attention they receive from the planter.
If the people for whom the laws are enacted do not believe in the law as measures useful for the regulation and progress of a society, then it is irrelevant to have the laws in the first place.

I have seen many people who talk of promotion of constitutionalism and good governance, but when they are arrested for drink driving, they use their 'connections' or even bribe to get out of the mess instead of voluntarily submitting to the provisions and sanctions of the law.

The biggest challenge our society has had is that for most of the 54 years of our independence, we have been under one form of autocracy or another. It is mostly about unquestionable orders from above and beyond that regulate society and make things work the way they do in favour or those in power.

Autocracy and dictatorship create an environment that offers opportunities for misfits and hooligans to prosper. It does not matter if one is in government or is opposed to the government. Ruffians and violent people prosper. You either survive by promoting the force of the ruling class or by standing up to the promoters of the force of the ruling class.

The NRM government only came to existence through a violent response to what they alleged was a dictatorship. They did not seek legal redress when the 1980 election was allegedly stolen by the UPC government.
Since then, they have stayed in power basing mainly on the means they used to ascend to power. Those who have wanted to dislodge them have also sounded war drums of all nature, including the defiance campaign.

This is because to amount to anything, one must have the capacity to generate enough force to match or surpass those who use force to hold onto power. You don't base your actions on the law because there is a suspicious belief that the laws, judges and other officers of the law are dubiously positioned to protect and promote the incumbent.

As such, the culture of respecting the law is almost nonexistent across the board. So even if you limit the age and the terms, as long as hooliganism in politics thrives and is willingly or begrudgingly accepted, there will be a way round the best laws.

Just picture the current impasse in the courts. Presumably all citizens are equal before the law but here we are debating whether the Inspector General Of Police (IGP) should appear in court. We have an incident where ruffians have said 'over their dead bodies' will the IGP be produced in the court.

So what if we stay the age limit for one to stand for the presidency at 75 years. Then 'concerned citizens' carrying sticks and other harmful paraphernalia surround the Electoral Commission insisting they want him to stand because of the good things he has done or that there is no one like him, what shall we do?
Mr Sengoba is a commentator on political and social issues. nicholassengoba@yahoo.com

--

Allaah gives the best to those who leave the choice to Him."And if Allah touches you with harm, none can remove it but He, and if He touches you with good, then He is Able to do all things." (6:17)

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com