{UAH} Why the diaspora should participate in our national politics
The global processes shape both domestic and transnational political mobilization. The modes of political mobilization can be passive and active, constructive and destructive.
The concept of diaspora does not have a single definition. The term has been applied to groups with very different origins such as exiles, expatriates, migrants and refugees.
For purposes of this opinion, diaspora shall be used to refer to all people whose common origin is Uganda and reside, more or less on a permanent basis, outside the borders of Uganda – regardless of whether Uganda as a homeland is real or symbolic.
For contextual purposes, the diaspora that will be referred to are mainly those in western Europe, Scandinavian countries and the North American block.
Amidst the hostile weather conditions, hectic schedules, working several low-paying jobs around the clock, dealing with the daily frustrations of being a visible minority and the constant reminiscing about the myth to return home, many Ugandan diaspora find the spaces and the time to contribute to the framing of major issues in their homeland.
In addition to the five per cent (roughly $1.4 billion) that the diaspora contribute to the national economy through money remittances, the diaspora have real opportunities to significantly contribute to the politics of their homeland.
The first, and perhaps, most potent tool - yet under-utilized - for transnational political mobilization relates to the fact that Uganda, just like most "developing" countries still depends on Western countries to finance a perennial deficit budget.
Considering that mutual dependency leads to mutual vulnerability, the diaspora - who double as taxpayers in the host countries - have the opportunity to use their host country members of parliament and senators to lobby for the coercion of the rulers of the diaspora home governments to loosen the grip on political spaces.
Therefore, if well harnessed, the people in the diaspora can play a significant role in influencing both homeland and host country government policies.
Secondly, in situations where the ruling government becomes ruthless through indiscriminate use of aggressive means to silence all forms of local political mobilization, the diaspora - using a wide range of digital-media - become the major mouthpiece of the opposition.
Unlike their counterparts in the home countries, those in the diaspora are guaranteed safe travels to their homes without any fear (real or perceived) of state-organized motor-vehicle accidents, kidnaps, state-inspired robberies, loss of job(s), assassinations and all manner of economic sabotage.
Also, as the adage goes, one's own mother is always going to be the best cook if one hasn't tasted the meal prepared by other mothers.
The diaspora have experienced functional social service delivery systems such as: calling an ambulance or emergency firefighters and they turn up in less than five minutes; gone to public hospitals and found not just enough competent staffs but functioning medical equipment and genuine medications.
They have also experienced political accountability and rule of law when leaders err. They have certainly seen public officials in the host countries resigning or forced to abdicate their positions whenever one is found guilty of abuse of office.
Therefore, the double knowledge and experiences of both the host and the home countries gives the diaspora that special ability to see through the cracks of the social services delivery systems of their homeland countries. They can, therefore, play a crucial role in articulating and raising the much-needed awareness and consciousness of the masses in the home countries to demand for better services and political accountability.
However, diaspora mobilization is not without its own problems. Considering that most political endeavors tend to have both a public and a personal interest, the opposition politicians who are based in the homeland country tend to exclude the diaspora from some political activities.
The major reasons for excluding the diaspora stems from the fact that those in the diaspora are believed to be out of touch with the actual realities of their homeland countries and cannot be trusted with crucial government positions after the struggle.
Secondly, when the struggle is over, the diaspora are excluded since they are physically away when their counterparts in the homeland countries are "drinking" tear gas, facing constant arrests while the diaspora are mostly immune from any of the immediate coercive means of the brutal government.
Lastly, given the high stakes that the Ugandan diaspora have in their homeland, it is important that they are co-opted in their homeland's framing of issues. Also, any meaningful embracement of the diaspora must not be blind to the fact that not all diaspora belong to the opposition.
The writer is a social worker in Alberta, Canada.
--
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ugandans at Heart (UAH) Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ugandans-at-heart/CAKh9Gt8FKWHq5tkJkCEW83-Nwp83eRAp5nnYQ3qXO%2Bc_7r%3DKdw%40mail.gmail.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment