The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Uganda is headed in the same direction as democratic competition deepens. Indeed, over the last 25 years of electoral politics, we have seen honest politicians like Eriya Kategaya, Rukikaire, Ruhakana Rugunda, Kintu Musoke, Bidandi Ssali, Kirunda Kivejinja, Amanya Mushega, Tarsis Kabwegyere, etc. quit electoral competition or be trounced when they have tried. This is because they are not willing to dirt their hands looting the state. The problem is that there are many crooks ready to join.
In rich countries, the private sector is rich enough to fund parties and individuals who represent its interests. There are also many rich individuals and private organisations/foundations to do similar. In poor countries, the private sector is small and most rich individuals are beholden to the state. There are limited opportunities outside the state to sponsor an effective opposition. Therefore, the only reliable source of political money is corruption. Consequently, corruption is not just a means for individual enrichment. That is only its overt manifestation. Fundamentally it is a system of cultivating and maintaining a political following.
This is why we need to understand, even though we may refuse to endorse Museveni’s brand of politics. Our president moves around with cash-stuffed envelopes, which he liberally hands over to people. The young Museveni would have been revolted by this crass bribery and political opportunism. However, he has outlived many of his bush compatriots in large part because of his willingness to step down from his revolutionary utopia to the hard rock of reality. Many Ugandans accept his transformation with the humility of experience.
With this knowledge we can craft a political model to limit the role of money in politics recognising that we cannot eliminate it. The problem, of course, is that most of the people who get elected to public office have little incentive to reform the system. Their success shows they are beneficiaries of the system and hence have a vested interest in its perpetuation. It would literally be like asking them to bite the hand that feeds their political success.
Money politics is not a cause of our poverty but a symptom of it. Neither does it mean we cannot outgrow it. The U.S. had a very corrupt political-machine system that has over decades improved, albeit slowly. The country remains saddled with a lot of political corruption, a lot of it actually legalised – like lobbying. For instance, up until the end of the 19th century when America was poor and agrarian, votes were sold in an open marketplace the way we buy tomatoes and beans – it was perfectly legal. Indeed, early efforts to criminalise vote buying in the USA were resisted by some of the most respected economists who defended it on the principle of willing buyer and willing seller.
Whichever political reform we attempt will not eliminate the centrality of money in politics unless we give up on democracy. It can only limit it with tradeoffs. The American philosopher, Will Durant, said there are only three successful forms of government known to man: aristocracy (rule by birth), theocracy (rule by religion) and democracy (rule by money). One way to limit vote buying is to introduce proportional representation. Here political parties, not individuals, would compete for votes. Parliamentary seats would be allocated according to the share of votes a party got in the elections.
This system would reduce the incentive of individual politicians to ingratiate themselves with voters by giving them money. However, it would shift power from voters at the grassroots to political party bosses at the center. The jockeying for top slots on the list of parliamentarians would centralise corruption since aspiring legislators would now bribe party bosses. This would shift money from a multitude of voters to a small group of party bigwigs. The question is, what is better: the decentralised corruption we have today at the grassroots, or the centralised corruption of the party bosses?
******
amwenda@independent.co.ug
Mwenda, it becomes self-evident that overly politically ambitious Museveni, is despicably and inherently an unpopular politician. Because in 1980, he did have a penny in his name to win any voter on his side except maybe his parents and immediate family members like Janet Kataha, to balance the power of money, the manresorted to primitive violence to ascend to power.
And thereafter, Mr. Museveni resorted to the evil “end justifies the means” through abuse of office, power, corruption and massive voters bribery; in order to cling to a dirty power, while keeping the violence card close to his heart, because it works wonders for his stay in power.
Correction: I meant Mr. Museveni did not have a penny in his name.
1. Haven’t the books written about the NRM liberation become stale? Its like it has become a source of income for some ex NRA liberators.
2.In the 1970’s and 80’s most Ugandans were in need of basic goods like salt,sugar,paraffin and soap may be in the mind of the ex NRA liberators like Besigye,Rukikaire today’s equivalent of paraffin and sugar are their farms and Suv cars.
3.Naturally giving out money is a sign of love and kindness people never ask for the source of one’s money.
4. I am so skeptical about the 1980 election because there was a lot of intimidation ,no international election observers ,no social media.
Commonwealth observers were present and they endorsed the outcome.
@Alifunisi what do you want from me? Which common wealth observers were those ?Are you aware that Ugandans under Obote and Amin’s regime were mesmerized by Kenya you would think that they are in London; Honestly what were the stakes in the 1980s to warrant an election?Unlike today when Ugandans are faced with environmental,social,economic and social problems,in the 1980’s all that mattered to a Ugandan was sugar and soap actually they had no or lousy ambitions Secondly; the environment alone would not warrant an an election for example between Kololo and Nakasero alone there would be 30 roads blocks tell me what would put a Ugandan in the mood of participating in an election? .
When a Ugandan casts his or her vote today they are confident that it will result into policy review for example UPE and USE.
You are comparing the un-comparables, can you imagine talking about election in 1980. I was there and as a matter of fact UPC massively rigid the 1980 election to an extent that even if M7 had not gone to the bush something else who have happened to remove UPC from power.