ANB-BIA SUPPLEMENT

ISSUE/EDITION Nr 375 - 01/10/1999

CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS



Uganda

Referendum brews trouble


by Fred Kirungi, Uganda, August 1999

THEME = POLITICS

INTRODUCTION

Many months have gone since Uganda's Parliament passed the Referendum Bill,
and there is no sign that the storm it kicked up is about to die

The controversial law which paves the way for a referendum next year to decide between a multi-party political system and the "Movement System", was passed on 2 July amidst protests from supporters of political parties. The referendum is provided for by Article 271 of the 1995 Constitution (so, under President Yoweri Museveni's regime). Presently, political parties are not permitted to operate normally. According to Article 269 of the Constitution, they cannot open and operate branches, hold delegates conferences or public rallies, back a candidate in elections nor carry on any other activity "that interferes with the Movement political system...".

The Movement System

The Movement System, a creation of Museveni, has been in force since 1986 when he and his National Resistance Army (NRA) guerrillas captured power. Initially "sold" to the population as a transitional arrangement, it was turned into a competing system by the 1995 Constitution.

Under the Movement System, any Ugandan is supposedly free to contest any elective political office, but only in his or her individual capacity. In the May 1996 presidential elections, two party leaders, Paul Semogerere of the Democratic Party and Muhamad Kibirige of Justice Forum, did in fact stand against President Yoweri Museveni "as individuals." They were heavily trounced, with Museveni running away with 75.5% of the vote. They blamed their defeat on not being allowed to organise through their parties. The Movement, they claimed, was a disguised one-party system, thought up to keep Museveni in power.

The Opposition's viewpoint

It may seem surprising then, that having been given a chance, supporters of political parties have not taken the opportunity to urge voters to cast their ballots against the Movement. Instead, they are making themselves heard over the private FM radio stations and in the newspapers, denouncing the referendum as "the political fraud of the century."

Political parties maintain that the right to association is an inherent right and cannot, therefore, be subjected to a vote. When Article 269 of the Constitution which bans party activities was passed in 1995, the few multi-party supporters in the Constituent Assembly, stormed out.

Supporters of the Movement, on the other hand, insist that Ugandans have a right to choose a political system. They blame political parties for Uganda's past political turmoil. However, a number of Movement supporters privately admit they would rather see a time- table leading to a return to multi-party politics.

Even if a referendum were to be acceptable to them, political parties say the process will hardly be free and fair. How can they compete against the Movement, with the whole state machinery behind it? After all, they have been out in the cold for the last 13 years.

A free and fair referendum promised, but...

Movement politicians retort that multi-party supporters are simply scared of losing the vote. Indeed, the government has promised that all will be open and fair. The Attorney-General (who interprets the Constitution for the government), Bert Katureebe, asserts that according to the Constitution, the ban on political party activities will be lifted before the referendum. (Article 271(2) of the Constitution states that a year before the referendum, "any person shall be free to canvass for public support for a political system of his or her choice for purposes of a referendum." Therefore, everybody will have an equal chance to campaign for the political system of their preference.

Critics remain sceptical and they have a point. The Referendum Act does not allow parties to organise freely for the referendum. Instead, different "sides" may form committees of not more than twenty people each to campaign for their side. The committees will be supervised by the Electoral Commission, whose members are appointed by the President.

Political parties - an uphill task

Political parties are faced with an uphill task. They don't have any sort of national structure through which they can reach voters. They cannot even elect their leaders, since they are not permitted to hold delegates' conferences. In contrast, the Movement has a national structure, backed by an Act of Parliament and fully- funded by the state. In July last year, it held its delegates' conference and elected its national leaders.

In addition, local government committees, at grassroots level, though supposedly independent, are inseparable from the Movement. They started off as Movement Committees in 1986 and were converted into local government committees more than ten years later.

Unlike political parties which would have to rely on the referendum committees of twenty, the Movement has got a huge network to rely on for its campaigns.

Lack of political good will

The manner in which the referendum law was passed revealed a lack of political goodwill on the part of government. The Referendum Bill was supposed to come after the Political Organisations Bill which would have freed political parties. However, the government postponed the Political Organisations Bill and used the Referendum Bill to deny political parties the freedom to organise for the referendum. The excuse given by government for the postponement was that the Referendum Bill was more urgent since the Constitution demanded that the referendum law be in place by 2 July.

In the event, the deadline was not even met. Parliament passed the Bill on 2 July, but it only received the presidential assent a few days later. A presidential assent is a constitutional requirement for any law to take effect. To make matters worse, the Referendum Bill was passed without a quorum. When an opposition Member of Parliament pointed out that there was no quorum, Speaker Francis Ayume, contrary to established practice, ruled that since more than a third of all Members - the number that makes up the quorum - had signed the attendance register, there was quorum. (Normally when the question of quorum is raised, the Speaker physically counts the number of Members present, because many simply sign the register and leave.)

All this has left the credibility of the process in crisis and might well be President Yoweri Museveni's biggest political challenge since he came to power 13 years ago.

END

ENGL.CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS


PeaceLink 1999 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement