{UAH} There are increasing calls for a National Dialogue

By Augustine Ruzindana

FIRST PART

INTRODUCTION:

There are increasing calls for a National Dialogue. Why? Is this call in support of regime or President change? Was the C.A  a sort of National Dialogue? What form can it take? I am going to attempt to make a case for a National Dialogue and possibly show how it would be favorable for all (sides). A more comprehensive write up is available in case it is  agreed to organize one.

INTRODUCTION:

In January 1986 the NRA captured power in Kampala and shortly the whole country came under the new regime. A broad based government was formed and a number of other fighting groups were absorbed into the NRA. The political organ of the NRA, the NRC was enlarged in 1989 to incorporate members of other parties. All this was done to be inclusive and to give assurance of good will and good faith. Public trust was earned through these measures.

A Constitutional Commission was appointed to collect the views of the people and in 1995 a new Constitution was promulgated leading to the elections of 1996 under individual merit no party Movement System, in which restraints were still imposed on political party activities. The first youthful ten years of the NRA/NRM regime were under the Republican 1967 Constitution with some of its Articles suspended.

Thus the 1995 Constitution was implemented by a President already used to the powers and practice of the one party rule centralist 1967 Constitution and in some cases the transition has not yet occurred.

ELECTION PROBLEMS:

Under the Movement System the emphasis was individual merit and the first elections were mainly through electoral colleges. From the CA elections onwards universal suffrage has been the general rule, except for certain interest groups. However, there have been persistent questions about whether the elections were democratic, free and fair in view of certain constraints on freedom to organize, on freedom of speech and the part played by security agencies and the use of public funds.

Then a multi party system was introduced in 2005, in a situation that was dominated the differences caused by the concurrent lifting of Presidential two term limits. However, for the highest levels of the Executive the practices and the thought process of the Movement System remained in place. In other words the practices of the centralist 1967 Constitution and the Movement System of 1986-2006 continue to be practically in place. The role of the military and security agencies from 1967 and from 1986 were not cured by the introduction of the 1995 Constitution and by the introduction of the Multi Party System.

Thus from the elections of 1996 the part played by the military, Police, security agencies has continued to increase and in many instances it has been excessive. Violence, Harassment, arrest, crackdown on dissent, on opposition, suppression of civil society, media, human rights activists and disruption of social media have led to serious and widespread social discontent. The people's trust of the first ten years in Government and public institutions has thereby been seriously undermined.

Thus the current problem in the Presidential Election Petition is not the Justices and neither is it the Petitioner's side lack of preparedness. The problem is that the basic structure of the 1995 Constitution was tampered with and the problems it was supposed to address have not yet been adequately addressed and we are witnessing some of the repercussions.

CURRENT SITUATION DEBATE:

There are many people discussing these issues but most forget the background of how the Constitution was put in place; the extensive consultation process, the representativeness of the CA, why the structure and sequence of the chapters, the separation of powers, checks and balances in and between the various organs of state, entrenched protection of human rights etc.

The Constituent Assembly was a structured formalized dialogue whose output was the Constitution that was supposed to provide an environment of social justice, freedom and fairness to everyone. The Constitution was supposed to chart a way forward from the problems of the past and this has not yet happened.

I and many others have therefore suggested that a way must be found to work out a new Social Contract or Social Compact. The Preamble of the 1995 among other things states that "Recalling our history which has been characterized by political and constitutional instability" and then goes on to state expected outcomes of the new Constitution: unity, peace, equality, democracy, freedom, social justice and progress. The Constitution determined

the form of governance, a quasi parliamentary and presidential system and a political democratic order in which governments would come into existence through free and fair elections.

Among the established basic structures is the Parliament, Executive, Judiciary, Local Governments and Traditional Leadership; a secular democratic state; shared appointment powers between the President, Parliament and independent institutions (Judicial and Public Service Commissions). The functions, powers and jurisdiction of the different structures are clearly provided.

Some of the current problems arise from some of the amendments made to the Constitution. For example the Presidential term limits would have ensured that no President would appoint more than one Chief Justice or more than one complete Supreme Court or all the judges in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Neither would there have been a President appointing more than one IGG or Chairman of the Civil Service Commission or any other independent agency. As it is we have had one President appointing several office holders in these institutions and the office holders often get attacked for no fault of their own.

Similarly the change from NRA to UPDF was supposed to facilitate the transformation of the army into a force subject to civilian control and this has not occurred. In fact there has been a reversal to NRA in all but name.

There are many other aspects like the configuration in the political, economic and political spaces that call for various sectors of the people again to get together in a national forum to agree on a way forward. Elections clearly do not create a satisfactory outcome that can be considered final and the recent elections created sizable pockets of single party dominance. Courts no longer attract universal respect as they should and Parliament suffers the same deficit of respect. Leaders, institutions (public and private) no longer attract the respect and authority they should.

So the Constitution starting from a premise of settling "political and constitutional instability" seems to be far from achieving this objective. An evaluation exercise is therefore due and this is what is called a National Dialogue, because besides evaluation it would work out a way forward.

End of First Part One

Second Part will look into the aspects outlined in the Introduction.

--

"When a man is stung by a bee, he doesn't set off to destroy all beehives"

--
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/CAFxDTfp9Zn9Owh3jN5%2B%2BNoUUP-FCQsqeykZLLr_Q2HmqyXTtFQ%40mail.gmail.com.