KANYEIHAMBA: When the people are betrayed by their leaders

Interestingly, government does not lack the necessary knowledge about these public misdeeds upon which to base its remedial actions. Teddy Sseezi Cheeye, former Director of Economic Affairs in the office of the President, once said, “Peasants have no stake in democracy. The critical point of democratisation of Uganda now is for the led (the governed) to demand total accountability from the leaders and fulfillment of their raised expectations. At the same time, leaders have to account to the led and to be responsive to public demands and views. Unfortunately, this situation cannot be attained in Uganda. The majority of the people who have the political muscle to tilt the balance of power in presidential elections happen to be peasants who at the same time do not pay tax. The peasants therefore have no stake to ensure that public finances are used prudently.

My honest opinion is that from the time NRM adopted the political system of general elections, it was forced to adopt opportunistic politics, of making false promises and of compromising positive economic and environmental policies, just because it wanted to appease a section of peasant voters. For example, in 1996, the NRM government abolished the Anti-Smuggling Unit (ASU) because it wanted to appease voters who at the same time depended on smuggling goods across the Uganda –Kenya border.

In 2001, the ministry of Local Government resisted construction of a modern housing estate in Nakawa and Naguru slums to appease the poor voters. In the recent general elections, the government allowed human settlements in the national forest reserves. The impact of deforestation, when eventually Ugandans start cutting trees, may be in the next 20 years, will be “environmental genocide”.

The failure of its leadership to tolerate opposition will in the end destroy the NRM itself. In public and private affairs, tolerance connotes the ability of a person, leader or a group to allow other persons to hold and express different opinions. Tolerance is an art of endurance or patience which characteristically permits variation in opinions and behavior whether of political, religious or social nature. Tolerance in a democracy results in peaceful co-existence and justice in society. It is reciprocal in that neither the majority nor the minority should be intolerant of each other. The infringement of the democratic principles of tolerance breeds instability, violent struggles for political power and may lead to internal strife and wars. The exercise of governmental powers may be legitimate and constitutional, but the manner of it and its consequences need to be buttressed by the rule of law, tolerance and constitutionalism. As Prof. Ben Nwabueze of Nigeria once observed:

“The term ‘Constitutional government’ is apt to give the impression of a government according to the terms of a constitution. However, to-day, there are many countries in the world with written constitutions but without constitutionalism. It may consist to large extent of nothing but lofty declarations of objectives and descriptions of the organs of government in terms that import no enforceable restraint. Such a constitution may indeed facilitate or even legitimise the assumption of dictatorial powers by the government. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to conclude that for many countries, a constitution is nothing more than a proclamation of what the government is entitled to do, and often does to restrain the liberty of the individual; it is an instrument of legitimising the exercise of power. For opponents of these rulers, constitutions are understood in terms of  the government’s legitimacy to exercise arbitrary power, to impose unreasonable laws, arrest and detain persons whose guilt is often suspect, to impose  restrictions on certain freedoms and rights and to do whatever the ruling oligarchy deems necessary and in the interest of society”.

This is the kind of constitutional behaviour that finds easy targets among revolutionaries and leaders of military coups d’état. That the latter parts of the rules of Obote 1, Obote 11, Idi Amin and now of the National Resistance Movement are examples of this unacceptable phenomenon must be of great concern to all Ugandans who desire peace and good governance.