One historian once
lamented, the most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born- that
there is a genetic factor to leadership. This myth asserts that people simply
either have certain charismatic qualities or not. That is nonsense, in fact the
opposite is true, leaders are made rather than born.
The test is here once
more. It has been here before; in 1989 and 2005 and at both times we have let
down democracy. The authors of the book Militarism and the Dilemma of
Post-Colonial Statehood: The Case of Museveni’s Uganda opine that at two very
critical junctures especially the 1989 and 2005, the NRM as a political group
with a military base, failed the test they had set for themselves under point
one of the Ten Point Programme, that is to say the restoration of democracy. It
is on the basis of these two occasions that we seek to examine the quandary
before us i.e. article 102 (b) of the Constitution (Age Limit)
For starters it is important
to recall the ping-pong that played on before us in 1989 and 2005 respectively
for us to be fair judges of history. When the NRA took over power in 1986, they
set for themselves a timeframe in Legal Notice No. 1 that required them to have
organised and ushered in civilian rule within four years. That never came to be
and instead an extension was sought. A resignation in protest by Wasswa
Zilitwawula from the NRC and a few voices of dissent were not enough to stand
in their way. It is also important to note as Dr Busingye Kabumba, a Law Don at
Makerere University always points out that the 1989 moment revealed futility of
expecting that a political movement which had come to power by force of arms
rather than elections, would voluntarily relinquish power on the basis of a
promise made through a legal document issued by themselves. 5 years later a Constitution
came into place and term limits were installed. Fast forward 2005, the story
was no different, a bigger agenda set in and the term limits too were removed.
The one statement that I can never forget from 2005 was the one made by the
late Hon. Eriya Kategaya. At that time considered the President’s de facto
number two, implored his childhood friend and colleague to seize the moment and
be the first Ugandan president to peacefully hand over power. Eleven years
after, these words make more sense than they did that time.
The framers of the 1995
Constitution in their wisdom thought that our country should not have a very
old president (above75 years) and not a very young one either (below 35). The
rationale for this was to be put candidly by H. E President Museveni himself 17
years after the coming into place of the Constitution while appearing on a
local television. While there he said, “After 75 years the vigor is no longer
there, one is no longer active and cannot be very efficient.” The two things that
are visible from this proposed amendment are that first of all it is propagated
as a selfish motive that is only targeting at keeping an individual in power
and secondly it is not brought in good faith. Ugandans and the rest of the
people would not suggest selfishness and individuality if say this proposal was
mooted 5 or 10 years ago because then we would be able to objectively look at
it and not aim at jostling to keep a septuagenarian president in power. The
basic arguments that are being raised like article 102 being discriminatory
seem flawed within themselves. What then is more discriminatory than minimum
academic qualifications that one ought to have to run for the same office, what
still is more discriminatory than setting certain fees that one should pay to
be nominated as a candidate? These are only basic requirements and standards
that are ever present in every free and democratic society. So it is only
illogical for one to say that article 102 is discrimatory in as far as it sets
an age limit for those running for the highest office in the land.
Margret Thatcher, when
faced with the reality that her term as Prime Minister of Great Britain was
drawing to a close, had this to say, “But there one more duty I have to
perform, and that is to ensure that John Major is my successor. I want to
believe that he is a man to secure and safeguard my legacy and to take our
policies forward”. Maybe, and just maybe it may not be too late for our
president to pick a lesson or two from this selfless statement. The best gift
he can give to this country is ensuring a smooth transition of power that may
as well make us forget the “necessary” evils that bedeviled his 3 decade rule.
That alone may not
bring him in the league of the greats of Africa like Nelson Mandela of South
Africa or the lesser celebrated Joachim Chissano of Mozambique but for the
record he will be the first of the 8 Ugandan presidents to “seize the moment”
as late Kategaya referred it to and handover power peacefully. That may save us
in the least bloodshed or at worst a civil war that could plunge our mother
country into a bottomless abyss. The great writer Chinua Achebe asks a
fundamental question in his book, There was a Country: A Personal History of
Biafra, “Are we perpetually doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past because
we are too stubborn to learn from them?” It is this question that is glaring
hard in the faces of us Ugandans, and in the days, weeks and months to come it
is one that will demand for a concrete answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment