DEMOCRACY, GOOD GOVERNANCE AND THE RULE OF LAW IN UGANDA
The struggle for the rule of Law, which has its roots in democratic values, and respect for human rights did not drop suddenly nor was it just granted as a favour by benevolent people or governments. It is a result of accumulated struggles. Some visible others silent; some armed and others peaceful.
Rule of Law can only be brought about and sustained by an enlightened population that ensures that there is enlightened leadership. Let us look at the 1995 Constitution. There were other Constitutions but the 1995 piece had the broadest consultations, debates by democratically elected people for that purpose. It took a long time to debate and complete.
The safest guarantee of any public officer is security of tenure. MPs are secure in Parliament for the whole five years. Parliament cannot be dissolved. There was an attempt during the last major surgery on the Constitution to give the President powers to dissolve Parliament but it failed. Secondly, Parliament has a lot of leeway in deciding when to convene and decides its own business.
In some countries the executive can keep Parliament in recess for long in order to avoid it convening when certain crucial things are happening. Parliament also has powers to vet Presidential appointments and even has powers to impeach a President. Therefore the executive powers of the President are limited compared to the 1967 Constitution where the President had powers to appoint even parish chiefs and, a Minister had powers to appoint all district councils.
The second provision critical for the rule of law is the independence of the Judiciary. The Judges have security of tenure, and a well set out retirement age. Whether Judges have used this security of tenure in exercising their judicial mind is not for me to judge today.
The third and the fourth is the provision for the Human Rights Commission and the office of the Inspector General of Government respectively.
The shortcomings are: First, the Constitution has been in place for a relatively short time. Second, institutions are still young. In some cases the same people have not yet changed, a critical part in institution building.
Third, most critical institutions are not yet adequately facilitated in form of the requisite resources both in terms of manpower and finance. In terms of the Constitution and broad policy, advances have been made in:
The field of women participation and involvement.
Broadening both formal and informal education at primary, secondary and tertiary.An enlightened women folk and an educated and economically well-off population, are critical in advancing Democracy and the rule of law, checking the activities of governments and demanding respect for laws.
Another relevant issue is that all political parties are generally weak, especially the opposition parties in terms of infrastructure, resources and policy development to which party leaders should adhere. The opposition parties are further constrained by administrative harassment and occasionally open hostility by the very organs that are supposed to administer the law impartially.
Even the party in power is not as organized as it appears in terms of independent resources, adequate personnel and party policy. It is saved by leaning on the State. However, its members are constrained, except that the State organs of coercion have not yet focused on them. But it is a question of time.
Flashback: the bush war
There are crucial observations I wish to make before we comment on where Uganda is heading. First, Ugandans liberated themselves through various political organisations and other instruments. The critical instrument was through the original NRM as a liberation instrument. It is the people who sheltered the struggle, gave their children as fighters, food, information and support. The people were yearning for a change. That is why the NRM/NRA was sheltered in Luwero and Rwenzori. The people's yearning for change, for freedom, for security, was at the centre.
That is why the penetration of the movement had difficulties in other parts of the country especially the north, if it was just a question of guns. We did not carry out a good study, take into account all aspects of the terrain and adjust one's approach accordingly. So the people of Uganda are the owners of the peace that is enjoyed in the larger part of the country. It is a result of a concerted and collective effort. It was not granted or a gift from some people to whom we should forever be grateful. And it is the people to demand and fight for peace and rule of Law to prevail through out the country. Freedom is never a gift or a grant. He, who giveth, can also taketh. It is sweated for.
overnments can never grant rule of law and other rights. They can only observe them. The current NRM party is very different from the Movement in terms of policy, outlook, substance, ideology character, composition and attitude. The only thing in common is the name and its chairman. Besides, one belonged to the Movement system and the others to the multiparty political system.
Ecomomic policies
My second observation is that, for the rule of law to prosper, you need economic prosperity, gainful employment and a good standard of living. To achieve this, the State policies on this and resources available should be open to all for competition for the allocation on well-known criteria. Areas critical to pull the country out of poverty should be debated and agreed upon and be known to all.
For example, on industrialisation, should priority be textile industry, leather technology, and machine manufacturing or sugarcane expansion? Once agreed upon, those capable can apply and the most competent get the resources. They are monitored by a competent team ensuring the rules are followed and money properly used and paid back for the next in line to access.
Rule of Law can only be brought about and sustained by an enlightened population that ensures that there is enlightened leadership. Let us look at the 1995 Constitution. There were other Constitutions but the 1995 piece had the broadest consultations, debates by democratically elected people for that purpose. It took a long time to debate and complete.
The safest guarantee of any public officer is security of tenure. MPs are secure in Parliament for the whole five years. Parliament cannot be dissolved. There was an attempt during the last major surgery on the Constitution to give the President powers to dissolve Parliament but it failed. Secondly, Parliament has a lot of leeway in deciding when to convene and decides its own business.
In some countries the executive can keep Parliament in recess for long in order to avoid it convening when certain crucial things are happening. Parliament also has powers to vet Presidential appointments and even has powers to impeach a President. Therefore the executive powers of the President are limited compared to the 1967 Constitution where the President had powers to appoint even parish chiefs and, a Minister had powers to appoint all district councils.
The second provision critical for the rule of law is the independence of the Judiciary. The Judges have security of tenure, and a well set out retirement age. Whether Judges have used this security of tenure in exercising their judicial mind is not for me to judge today.
The third and the fourth is the provision for the Human Rights Commission and the office of the Inspector General of Government respectively.
The shortcomings are: First, the Constitution has been in place for a relatively short time. Second, institutions are still young. In some cases the same people have not yet changed, a critical part in institution building.
Third, most critical institutions are not yet adequately facilitated in form of the requisite resources both in terms of manpower and finance. In terms of the Constitution and broad policy, advances have been made in:
The field of women participation and involvement.
Broadening both formal and informal education at primary, secondary and tertiary.An enlightened women folk and an educated and economically well-off population, are critical in advancing Democracy and the rule of law, checking the activities of governments and demanding respect for laws.
Another relevant issue is that all political parties are generally weak, especially the opposition parties in terms of infrastructure, resources and policy development to which party leaders should adhere. The opposition parties are further constrained by administrative harassment and occasionally open hostility by the very organs that are supposed to administer the law impartially.
Even the party in power is not as organized as it appears in terms of independent resources, adequate personnel and party policy. It is saved by leaning on the State. However, its members are constrained, except that the State organs of coercion have not yet focused on them. But it is a question of time.
Flashback: the bush war
There are crucial observations I wish to make before we comment on where Uganda is heading. First, Ugandans liberated themselves through various political organisations and other instruments. The critical instrument was through the original NRM as a liberation instrument. It is the people who sheltered the struggle, gave their children as fighters, food, information and support. The people were yearning for a change. That is why the NRM/NRA was sheltered in Luwero and Rwenzori. The people's yearning for change, for freedom, for security, was at the centre.
That is why the penetration of the movement had difficulties in other parts of the country especially the north, if it was just a question of guns. We did not carry out a good study, take into account all aspects of the terrain and adjust one's approach accordingly. So the people of Uganda are the owners of the peace that is enjoyed in the larger part of the country. It is a result of a concerted and collective effort. It was not granted or a gift from some people to whom we should forever be grateful. And it is the people to demand and fight for peace and rule of Law to prevail through out the country. Freedom is never a gift or a grant. He, who giveth, can also taketh. It is sweated for.
overnments can never grant rule of law and other rights. They can only observe them. The current NRM party is very different from the Movement in terms of policy, outlook, substance, ideology character, composition and attitude. The only thing in common is the name and its chairman. Besides, one belonged to the Movement system and the others to the multiparty political system.
Ecomomic policies
My second observation is that, for the rule of law to prosper, you need economic prosperity, gainful employment and a good standard of living. To achieve this, the State policies on this and resources available should be open to all for competition for the allocation on well-known criteria. Areas critical to pull the country out of poverty should be debated and agreed upon and be known to all.
For example, on industrialisation, should priority be textile industry, leather technology, and machine manufacturing or sugarcane expansion? Once agreed upon, those capable can apply and the most competent get the resources. They are monitored by a competent team ensuring the rules are followed and money properly used and paid back for the next in line to access.
posted by mwesigye herbert at 9:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home