In his willingness to change his mind in the face of
new facts, he embodied the finest traits of intellectual self-confidence
I spent most
of Saturday March 2 night staring at my computer at home trying to write an
obituary of the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of East African
affairs, Eriya Kategaya, who had just died. I did not exceed a paragraph. I
then spent a good part of Sunday morning and evening on a similar exercise,
still without success. I cannot claim that this was just because I was overcome
with grief. My relationship with Kategaya was more political than personal. His
loss to me was more intellectual than emotional. I was, therefore, puzzling on
how to frame his role in Uganda’s politics.
For example,
whenever there was a major national issue, Museveni would meet Kategaya. And on
such occasions, the two would talk for hours on end. And when they came out
with a position, it was always what was implemented. In that way, there was a
genuinely shared leadership. In fact, Museveni would not announce a cabinet
without consulting Kategaya. If Kategaya objected to someone being appointed to
a specific portfolio, Museveni was always willing to change his mind. This is
what happened when the President proposed Bidandi Ssali as prime minister in
1996. Kategaya went to meet Museveni and Kintu Musoke was appointed prime
minister instead.
I was a
student at Makerere University and full of opinions that were published in The
Monitor. Many of them were critical of the NRM government. In the Constituent
Assembly, NRM was advocating a Movement system, while I was arguing for a
multiparty system in the pages of Monitor. I would accuse the NRM of being
deeply sectarian and corrupt. Yet Kategaya would never be angry with me.
Whenever I met him, he would point out where I made a point but for the most
part mock my criticisms or simply laugh at me. However, he would listen keenly
even where he disagreed with me.
Whenever I
met him, we would debate politics. Kategaya would always challenge my
assumptions, question my facts, or expose logical flaws in my argument, and
inconsistencies in my reasoning. He was always willing to change his mind
whenever you gave him facts which contradicted what he thought was true. Although
this made some to assume he lacked core convictions, I think Kategaya had a
deep intellectual self-confidence which allowed him to easily change his mind
in the face of new facts or counter arguments he had not thought about. Most of
us suffer from a hidden intellectual inferiority complex which makes us
reflexively reject out of hand arguments that contradict our own.
This way,
Kategaya was the politician who would perhaps have made the President that most
of Kampala’s chattering class would have loved to have but perhaps would never
have voted for. He was not the man to stand and denounce his opponent with
vitriol. Instead, he always focused on the issue, not the person. When he
criticised, it was to disagree, not to insult. The more I engaged him, the more
I admired his ways – his political behavior. I also realised how different I
was from what I admired in him. I am acutely aware of my tendency to be like
many Ugandans, given to dismissing opposing views without reflection.
I would watch
in silent wonderment the calm composure with which he debated even with those
he disagreed and realised that perhaps that is the leader our country needed.
But in the tumble of Ugandan politics, many of our people seem to get attracted
to polarising politicians – those who call their opponents names. For example,
I once had lunch with Kategaya to discuss why he went back into cabinet after
he had been dropped over his disagreement with Museveni over term limits. His
answer was profound.
Kategaya said
he agrees with Museveni on many things and disagrees with the President on a
few – one of them, term limits. “I have not changed my mind on term limits,” he
said, “I still think it was done wrongly and I have told the president this.”
He told me he did not leave cabinet over term limits since he never resigned.
It is the president who fired him. There are many other things he was willing
to work with Museveni over for the good of Uganda, the region and Africa – even
if they disagreed on term limits. So when the President asked him to work
towards East African integration, he was willing to make a contribution.
For a man who
had gone through many political struggles, he surprisingly exhibited little
political ambition. He never seemed to hanker for a top job or scramble for money.
For him power was to serve, not to rule. So Kategaya never strove for pomp and
glory. Instead he sought to be obscure even when he was at the top. Throughout
his career, his name did not come into the mud of corruption that has consumed
most NRM politicians. Some accused him of returning to government because of
financial burdens. Had he stolen his way to economic security, he would have
secured the financial independence he needed to challenge the government
without becoming destitute.
We can debate
his decision to go back into government and the personal motivations that may
have influenced him. But it was vintage Kategaya. He would disagree with you
but he would never be disagreeable. This way he was like Ruhakana Rugunda –
always affable and willing to listen to the other side. He was vigorous in his
political beliefs but restrained in his political actions. Those are qualities
that could make a very good president but, perhaps, not a good presidential
candidate. This flexibility made him who he was – Eriya Kategaya.
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment