Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem examines Musoveni's politics in running Uganda:
Norway has cut some Aid to Uganda reportedly in
protest against slow pace and direction of democratic
reforms’ in the country. The Norwegian Ambassador to
the country, Tore Gjos, put a sum to this displeasure at
"mishandling of the democratic process’’ at a whopping
sum of $4 millions which is ten percent of total
Norwegian Aid to Uganda. The British government earlier in April
took a similar line when it withheld $9.5 million in
budgetary support to the Uganda government.
It will not be surprising if one or two more so called
Donor countries took a similar action. But they will
be merely symbolic. It is important to note that both
the British and the Norwegians talk about
withholding’ not canceling their Aid altogether. So
the opposition needs not congratulate itself that its
campaign against Museveni is succeeding.
No doubt the withholding of Aid has something to do
with the stated displeasures at the zig zags in the
transitional politics of the country from a virtual
one party state to a formal multi party system. The
irony is that return to Multi partyism canvassed by
both the opposition parties and Donor friends of the
President for many years especially after the first
ten years of division of Labor between them and the
President is exactly what Museveni has been come round
to. Is it now a case of not heading the advice: 'Be
careful what you pray for, you may just get it'! From
1986 to 1996 as a reward for bringing
Uganda up from the backwaters into a 'positive' role
model through macroeconomic reforms Museveni was given
a huge discount on the usual democratic
conditionalities beloved of Western countries when it
pleases them. For being the apostle of IMF/World Bank
Structural Adjustment policies he was more or less
allowed to shape the politics of the country in his
own image. He left the economy to them and they left
the politics to him. He became the darling of the west
and Kampala a must destination for Western delegations
desperate for some good news from Africa or wanting to
feel good about themselves. However the romance has
gone soar for many reasons. One, Uganda is no longer the single
success story it used to be. Just look at the stories
about Mozambique today and you wonder if you were not
talking about Uganda of the 1990s. Two, almost all
African countries have accepted the reactionary
neo-liberal orthodoxy that proclaims No alternative to
the market. With so many of them prostrating before
imperialism there is no need to be specially disposed
towards one particular state or leader. Three,
imperialism has only permanent interests, not
permanent friends. This is something that African and
other Third world leaders always miss. They think they
are so close, so popular and well liked in Washington,
Paris, London or Brussels and delude themselves that
they are indispensable. They are as dispensable as
disposable towels in a toilet. When their Western
patrons are tired of them they turn off the tap. The
same people who praise them to the heavens as ‘the
best leader possible’ ‘the savior of the country’,
‘the best they can offer’ or ‘without him there will
be chaos’ will turn round to condemn them in the
direct
opposite of those praises. Four, one of the
consequences of the collapse of the Soviet bloc are
the more positive environment for democratic politics
to take roots in many countries. While the West is not
necessarily interested in democracy but continuing
domination / exploitation, in recent years they are
becoming more
sophisticated in trying to give democratic legitimacy
to
their domination through some legitimate domestic
processes. Partly this is because Civil Society in the
West itself demands that their governments support
what they preach although where their interests are
more threatened like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan,
they do not shout so much. Also domestic pressures in
many countries challenge the West’s hypocrisy and
double standards but also make democratic claims on
their rulers. However for the many Banana/Ugali
republics in Africa their shouts are much louder
and impact more direct.
President Museveni and his supporters have generally
reacted in two predictable ways. One, they consider
the threats of cutting Aid or withholding such and
critical comments on the political transition as
unacceptable foreign intervention. Their second
counter is a seemingly democratic one. All the
political issues, they argue, are to be decided by
'the people'
therefore it is undemocratic for foreign countries to
think they know better than the Ugandan electorate.
In principle both counters are legitimate but the
politics is not. Uganda and President Museveni
enjoyed so much foreign patronage and basked in it for
a long time that it is too late in the day to start
decrying foreign intervention. They are not opposed to
foreign intervention in principle as long as it is on
their side. They obviously think that the saying
‘those who pay the piper dictate the tune’ does not
apply to them.
The second argument about letting the people decide is
the most unconvincing of the various populist
responses from the NRM. They did not ask the people of
Uganda when they went to the IMF/World Bank and
prostituted themselves to all kinds of Donors and
foreign interests in the name of inviting investors to
Uganda and building a middle class, why now ask the
people to decide only when you have contradictions
with your friends? It is not evrytime that people vote
that there is democracy or even a democratic outcome.
Even Hitler came in through the ballot box.
The bitter truth though is that after this process is
all over the same Donors will crawl back to the State
House in kampala bearing their Greek gifts and the
president will make
his usual jokes, pet talks and foreign rounds and
things will return to business as usual. It happened
in 1996, 2001 and who says it will not repeat itself
even in the changing circumstances of 2006?
The NRM has
succeeded in creating an opposition whose internal
bickering and inconsistencies make many to fear them
more even when they are alienated from the government.
The opposition must learn from the experience of other
pro-democracy groups in Africa like Senegal where it
took more than forty years and an alliance of 17
opposition parties to get rid of Abdu Diouf or Ghana
where Jerry Rawlings' party was fought to a standstill
and eventual surrender through consistent battles
within democratic
spaces opened up through a constitution that he had
orchestrated to perpetuate himself or his party if
self -succession failed. Or just look across to
neighboring Kenya where after several years of
squabbles and internecine warfare, once Moi was not in
the picture the opposition was able to get rid of
KANU. In both Ghana and Kenya it was important that
the long-term ruler was not standing in the election.
This is where the removal of limitation on
presidential terms in Uganda posits different
challenges for a coalition of opposition parties. As
long as the President is standing it may be extremely
difficult but as the Abdu Diouf experience in Senegal
shows, it is not impossible. It may not be the sad
term coming up next year but may be a sadder one to
follow.
What unites all three examples is the continuing
engagement by the political parties within the skewed
and unbalanced political field but niggling away at
the authority of the ruling party. They did not
achieve their victory through boycotts and I do not
see how Uganda’s anti NRM groups will use boycott to
get rid of Museveni and the NRM.How can they boycott a
referendum simply because the government is on the
same side. Why bother about the reasons of the NRM
instead of concentrating on their own intentions for
supporting a return to Multi Party democracy? Why
boycott the referendum and then contest the election
to follow?