Why the failure of a third force has locked us in a choice
between Museveni and Besigye
In debating whether President Yoweri Museveni should go or
stay we are not indulging in an abstract theoretical exercise but a challenge
of practical politics. We can say Museveni’s government is performing badly, we
need to improve it from within; or that it is dysfunctional, we need to change
it from without.
It can be improved from within if Museveni chose a
successor, which has failed (for now), the last gasp being Amama Mbabazi’s
attempt. Alternatively, reformers can join government and help the president
perform better. This is problematic. Museveni has been president for 32 years,
and is growing old and rigid. He is used to certain ways, which have served him
well. That is why he has been in power this long. Asking him to change is
futile, except for minor adjustments. This would please few.
The only viable option for real reform is change from
without. This leads inevitably to seeking an alternative to Museveni/NRM. But
which person/group is best organised and positioned to take over from
Museveni/NRM? What are the values, competences and aspirations of this
leader/group?This is a troubling question that Ugandan pundits always
ignore/avoid.
The leader/group best organised and positioned to take over
from Museveni/NRM is Dr KizzaBesigye and his radical extremist wing of the FDC.
Some people talk of a third force! However, the 2016 failure
of Mbabazi’s presidential candidature and the defeat of Mugisha Muntuin the
2018 elections for president of FDC are evidence that a third force, however
morally appealing this idea feels, has limited appeal in the current circumstances.
So dissecting Besigye and his group is a critical factor in the succession
debate, however much many want to avoid it.
Like Museveni, Besigye has refused to leave leadership,
becoming an opposition presidential candidate for life. Also like Museveni, he
says there is no one else to lead the struggle as well as he does.And like
Museveni, he has side-lined all the enlightened and moderate leaders of
opposition such as AmanyaMushega, Augustine Ruzindana, Abdul Katuntu, Morris
Ogenga-Latigo, etc., surrounding himself with people of questionable
credentials –Ingrid Turinawe, Wycliffe Bakandonda, Doreen Nyanjuraetc.
It is possible that Museveni and Besigye are outcomes, not
architects, of this particular style of leadership; that their conduct reflects
the nature of our society and its politics than their individual character. I
am inclined to believe this. But it also means that the struggle for change is
a struggle to replace Museveni the person but not his system of rule. If this
is the case, thenI find Museveni the better man and NRM the better party
compared to Besigye and the radical extremist wing of the FDC.
Compare the competences of the two men. Museveni confronted
worse odds trying to remove Milton Obote from power than Besigye is confronting
to remove him. He triumphed because of superior leadership and organisational
ability. He was able to build a coherent organisation, rally political and
diplomatic support, mobilise logistical supplies, cultivate alliances with
powerful social institutions in Uganda like the Catholic Church and the royal
families of Toro and Buganda and inspire both elites and the masses to a higher
goal and induced them to make huge sacrifices for the cause. That is why he
won.
Besigye faces less risks and handicaps. He has freedom to
traverse the country and globe to raise money and rally diplomatic support for
his cause. Yet he has failed in all his efforts. He has tried elections four
times and lost. He claims his votes are stolen and promises it won’t happen
again. It happens and he does nothing. He tried armed rebellion and it failed.
He has attempted mass insurrection and was defeated. He failed to build FDC
into a viable institution. Why should we believe he can build institutions of
state and run a successful reformist administration?
The ability to organise people and make them do great things
(like bringing down a government) is the best evidence that once in power you
can mobilise them to reform the state and make it an effective instrument to
serve the common good. If you cannot organise a political party how can you
organise a state? Based on this experience, Museveni has much better skills in
managing the state and its politics than Besigye.
Third, we must ask ourselves whether Besigye and his radical
extremists represent better values for progressive change than Museveni and his
corrupt NRM. This can be deduced by looking at both the leadership and
follower-ship of Besigye’s radical extremist wing within the FDC. Its leaders
are NEITHER drawn from the economically productive segments of our society NOR
are they linked to it by interest or association. Instead they are drawn
entirely from the professionalclass. It should be obvious,therefore,that their
interest in power is for opportunities it offers them as salaried employees of
the state.
Besigye’s followers are a virulently intolerant, angry and
abusive army of radical extremists. Unemployed and perhaps unemployable, their
best skills are at hurling insults and abuses at anyone and everyone who dares
express a view contrary to their own. Once in power, they would most likely
transfer this intolerance into the government and use security forces to stamp
out dissent, thereby turn our country into a fascist dictatorship. So they are
not agents of the liberal democratic values that we would like to see.
The desire for change is admirable but its practical
implications cannot be ignored. In an ideal world, I would like to see Museveni
go. I am intimately aware of the failures and limitations of Museveni as
president and of NRM as a government. But I do not agree that we hand Uganda to
radical extremists simply because we are tired of Museveni. Surely we cannot be
blind to the risks of the most likely alternative.
Those who supported change without thinking about the
quality of the alternative – George Bush in Iraq, Barack Obama in Libya, the
warriors in Somalia and Yemen etc. have created outcomes worse than the problem
they sought to solve. Aspirations without plans inevitably turn into tragedies.
Uganda needs a transition. But this must be led by a third
force. This should attract moderates in NRM and FDC and independents. It should
also distinguish itself from NRM’s incompetence and corruption and from the
intolerance of FDC’s radical extremist wing. Only then can Ugandans feel
confident that a post Museveni political settlement offers a better future.
Short of that, Museveni will rule for life.
****
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment