CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
|
Uganda |
DEMOCRACY
Reforms in Uganda’s electoral system are clearly needed.
But which reforms?
The recent history of Uganda’s elections reflects a deep public mistrust of the government in its ability to organise peaceful, free and fair elections. There is popular concern today that election violence has reached unprecedented levels, so as to threaten the fragile democratisation process that had hitherto received local and international acclaim.
A 15-member committee set up by the Ugandan Parliament in March 2002 to probe election mismanagement and violence in the electoral process, said that during the 2001-2002 election cycle, 17 people were killed in election violence, a dangerous trend that threatens Uganda’s fragile democracy.
In the March 2001 presidential election, 742 cases of violence were reported to the police and 408 arrests were effected. In the June 2001 parliamentary elections, 474 cases of election violence were reported to police and 205 arrests were made. However, most of the culprits were never prosecuted.
In their report, the 15 MPs said that candidates for elective office and their campaign agents, as well as state operatives are high on the list of those implicated in election violence. When speaking about who was responsible for violence during elections, candidates came first (with 22% of recorded cases). The army followed with 10%. The probe committee reported that there was state-inspired violence through its security apparatus involving the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF), the Presidential Protection Unit (PPU), the Internal Security Organisation (ISO), the Kalangala Action Plan (KAP) and Local Defence Units (LDU)s. This was rampant mainly in western Uganda.
There are many causes of violence
The probe committee said that whereas in the past, violence was primarily restricted to spontaneous eruptions of fighting which resulted only in injuries and destruction of opponents’ property, today it is a matter of life and death. «The violence manifests itself as highly planned and organised episodes, resulting in loss of lives, serious and fatal injuries and massive loss of property,» the Committee said in the 355-page report released in September.
Indeed, the NGO Election Monitoring Group — Uganda (NEMGROUP-U) — had noted on a previous occasion during the series of Local Council (LC) elections between January and February 2002, that while some incidents of intimidation and violence are spontaneous, many are not. «In fact, several trends can be identified. These show that some intimidation and violence is orchestrated and that its instigators could stop it. Furthermore, because so much of it is apparently orchestrated, the authorities should be able to find and arrest those directing it,» NEMGROUP-U said in a statement.
Violence and intimidation identified
NEMGROUP-U is a consortium of six local NGOs that monitored and reported regularly on the 2000-2002 election cycle in Uganda. The Group has been monitoring incidents of violence and intimidation and identified a variety of cases. These include disruptions of rallies by youth and candidates’ supporters, riots, murder and attempted murder, abductions, physical injury, attacks against property, threats and verbal attacks made by politicians and/or candidates, intimidation by armed soldiers and/or police, destruction of voter records and attacks on electoral officials.
NEMGROUP-U said: «Violence and intimidation keep citizens from attending rallies, sharing their views, listening to candidates, going to polling stations, and doing all of the other things that voters normally do during democratic campaigns and elections. Candidates can also be intimidated — they can be so frightened by violence or threats of violence that they stop speaking in public, do not pursue their campaigns, and may even withdraw from contests. Democracy is undermined when this happens.»
During the period of gathering people’s testimonies across Uganda, the probe committee found widespread public apprehension, frustration, despair and anger over election violence, rigging and other malpractice. According to the probe report, «People are increasingly losing faith that their votes can change leadership in this country. This trend is dangerous because it tempts others to resort to non-democratic means of changing leadership.»
The report says that some people now think that since elections don’t reflect the free will of the people, they should be scrapped «to save Ugandans from the pain and suffering resulting from election violence.»
Uganda’s Electoral Commission
The Electoral Commission (EC), as the organisation constitutionally mandated to organise, administer, supervise and conduct elections in Uganda, was criticised for being incompetent, partial, dishonest, and lacking integrity and independence. The Chairperson, Aziz Kasujja, was particularly described as lacking «clear, assertive and impartial» leadership. Besides having inadequate personnel who are overwhelmed by work, 525 of the senior staff at the EC, including the Secretary, Sam Rwakoojo, were found to be unqualified for their jobs. Some of them were found to have been recruited through fraudulent procedures.
In August, before the probe report was released, President Yoweri Museveni, acting on recommendations of the Inspector General of Government (IGG), sacked Kasujja along with five other commissioners. Their replacements have not yet been appointed. Only one commissioner, Margaret Magoba, stayed in office and is now acting Chairperson.
The EC also was discovered by the Committee, the IGG and the Auditor-General to have caused the government a loss of over US $ 1.1 million. Margaret Magoba says however, that corrective measures have now been instituted.
Failures in organising elections
An example of the EC‘s failures is the erratic manner in which elections have been organised in the last two years. For example, following the LCIII (sub-county local government) elections in January 2002, NEMGROUP-U issued a scathing statement expressing disappointment at the manner in which the LCIII elections were conducted. The Group said the process did not necessarily enable all the voters to exercise their constitutional right to participate in an orderly managed election. In particular, NEMGROUP-U was concerned about key issues, which it had consistently raised with major institutions in the electoral process with no corrective measures being taken. Main pointers for failings in the LCIII elections were:
Democracy in Uganda undermined
NEMGROUP-U said that the disastrous performance of the EC in delivering the LCIII elections was symptomatic of the consistent failure of key institutions in the electoral process to address the above matters. This underlines the fact that there has also been gross failure on the part of other government institutions to enable the EC to organise efficient elections.
Parliament has failed the Ugandan electorate in passing timely legislation. Frequently, electoral legislation/amendments are passed a few weeks before polling day. This affects the capacity of the EC to efficiently organise, conduct and supervise elections».
Because of what happened at the time of the LCIII elections, NEMGROUP-U noted that the democratisation process in Uganda had been severely undermined, and public confidence in the electoral systems greatly eroded. The Group said the widespread and persistent failures might result in voters becoming demoralised with the electoral process and subsequently losing confidence in the EC. The government must take political responsibility for the flaws in the elections. «This is because in the overall scheme of elections, the government controls all the key agencies or institutions that are supposed to enable the EC do its job properly.»
Recommendations
The Parliamentary Committee also came up with a wide range of far-reaching recommendations, aimed at reforming the electoral process.
Recent events
In early November 2002, President Museveni appointed a new team of seven commissioners to the Electoral Commission. The new team is headed by Professor Badru Kiggundu. The nominated commissioners appeared before the Parliamentary Appointments Committee for approval. However, this Committee rejected one of the proposed commissioners, Aisha Lubega, on the grounds that her husband is Chairperson of the Education Service Commission. Her case is yet to be resolved. The new commissioners will hold office for seven years and their appointments may be renewed for one more term.
With everything mentioned above, the question must be asked: «Is Uganda opening up or closing down?» Reforms to improve the electoral process are clearly needed. Whether government will promote democracy by supporting and investing in the institutions that will promote democratic consolidation in Uganda and foster transparency in the run-up to the next election cycle, remains to be seen.