PARTICIPATORY POLITICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY: ARE THERE LESSONS FROM HISTORY?

Much as any one who meets the requirements of contesting for political positions is welcome and has the right, it should not be on grounds of the wild consideration of nepotism -whether positive in one sense or not.

It can be hard to take a view that a son or wife should take over a political party position on the mere passport that the husband, wife or father nurtured current nostalgia. It can as well be of a bad taste if in any case -the so-called founder had unanswered political questions to take, more so the ones of political-inbreeding, lack of alternatives, family patronage, lack of internal democracy or reforms and undying yet defective spiritual sycophancy.

Sycophantic syndrome is known to potentially stall political party reforms to the point of actual party demise. But it is also sickening to hear that because a contestant is a relative to a founding president, a beloved son or daughter must take over the party leadership -without a contest.

In fact, calls that urge potential contestants to stand down or seek other vacant positions to protect or preserve the most senior one to a member of “royal family” is not only disrespect but derogatory or the worst insult to the intelligence of citizens -who naturally know what they want.

But whether the problem is lack of confidence to contest for the highest party position or a question of lack of potential, it ought to be a political party's core program to groom youth for future leadership.

Stressing absence of potential leaders to take over the helm of the party is itself failure and irresponsibility on the part of the regime in power. For the sake of patriotism that so many relish to walk the talk to -is undermined if a statement as “lack of potential successors” became a justification for life-rule or dynasty.

And if that was the case, then there would be no reason to have elections commissions and national constitutions. Their existence should mean nothing to the tax payer and the salaries given to them -be as well interpreted as robbery or just mafiasm at work.

One wonders whether the good old days will ever be new good days. But because of the chronic failure to adjust away from the living a life of the past to the present, no effort is exhibited by party officials to making necessary transformations compatible to the current situation needs.

Not even do they ever think of building or rebuilding the party on the foundation of the youth -who are most energetic and ready to take on new challenges. Instead, the so-called party officials only found taking entire days in offices drinking tea, reading newspapers and idle-talking. What does that mean to democracy and development?

Incidentally, it is the same tea-partyists, who will come out to fight progressives and more energetic leadership off the offices and out of the party. They not only fear political challenge but also the change-forces that could judge their performance. Indeed, their faith credentials could be questioned -since central to it is change of the being.

But history remains key basis of decision-making. While some people choose to learn from it, others opt for a guided or structured challenge. When Uganda Army soldiers went to patrol Mmengo on suspicion that the Kabaka, then, was amassing weapons in preparation for an eviction exercise that would see UPC government out of Kampala, they were only met with hostility from the royal guards under the command of Kabuki, himself. Actually, he was the last man standing: thanks to the famous electric gun.

The Libber incident went on to influence future politics of Uganda; being a justification for some people opting for war to restore kabuki -while others used it as an opportunity to promote personal ambitions and a main root for governments consolidating themselves in power. It was a matter of party officials being frequent visitors to Mmengo and playing the role of darling and honey.

Failure to harmonize principles of warring groups -including the Buganda question upon formation of the 1986 broad-based government or government of national unity, only revealed to the world a serious patch in the trousers of government -through years of federal-system advocacy -to recent riots. Buganda was only lucky not to be in possession of arms to retaliate and create more havoc.

Probably, as it were in 1966, government forces would come out victors. Fortunately or unfortunately, it was also surprising how humble today's Kabaka was. His father only entertained talks in Mmengo, not anywhere near state house. Perhaps because the current president too is not Muganda like former prime minister -Kiwanuka Ben.

It can also come to anyone's mind that if Obote was alive, under the current political shape, he would have replaced Binaise as Museveni's best friend. In fact, it would be shocking to ever hear Museveni insult Obote again. Unfortunately, he is not Jesus -who ably resurrected Lazarus -to help resurrect a potential ally.

The riot was the worst since Amin's era. Regardless of what it meant government It government security could shoot dead people without guns, what would happen if Kabaka had his own army and gun-powder. Of course, from the colonial times it has always been true to say that the one with gun-power takes always the day, not spear-yielding or stone pelting opposition.

Nevertheless, it was de-meaning to kills unarmed civilians. It would be unfair even for a smaller, low-level fight to employ mambas. What was only missing in action must have been UPDF MIGs or air force.

No wonder, one rioter reportedly grabbed a gun from a security guard to shoot back to sort out the fairness or unleveled ground. But now future violence is put at the stage when civilians will find guns to find leveled grounds with armed government forces. This is so because human beings are dynamic.

Before the year 2000, we always thought that whoever started violence took the blame for any consequences that followed. And that a winner of it all must have killed the most people. However, the strongest ever propaganda machinery took the day.

But the truth seems to last longest. We heard from the president himself accusing the opposition of masterminding violence, and one to two member (s) of the armed government security side were killed against over twenty unarmed civilians. If the civilians were armed as in the hey days, it could be a different explanation.

But shooting unarmed civilians was like being an enemy of the same people one claims to be leading. Perhaps at the back of its mind, government must have wondered if the famous saying, “a good muganda is a dead” is not the most correct statement ever said.

Surely, what happened was a big damage to government and in the eyes of its citizens. And that will go a long way to affect it in future polls. From the about 56% reported poll score in the last presidential elections, a lot of brain-work and associated actions more than ever will have to be employed to see the same regime around after 2011. It is always interesting to see them make the impossible -possible to realize.

But -as an African country, an incumbent will always have options -including application of characteristic of a bad loser like suspension of parliament and its constitution and declaring a remote-controlled regime. Upon implementation of this exercise, shooting will be more real and simple than what everyone has so far seen. From the simple twenty people who died, we could see thousands or a genocide-numbers.

It is sometimes stimulating to ask questions as regards to the motive restoring kingship if in the first place they would operate with no arms and legs. The other is about if people were consulted to give views about the return of monarchies. In some areas like Busoga it is surprising to see a few malwa-like club murmering about kingship and going ahead to erect it.

The implications have always been there. For example, when Muloki was still alive one could hardly see his influence on Busoga -apart from the common knowledge that he was fan of NRM. So many wrangles where happening in Busoga, but at no point did he try to mediate. And, as early as 1999, he could never be recognized wherever he went. Imagine, in his own kingdom, he was like any other musoga moving around.

While at Jinja SS, memories are still alive that the headmaster, then, David Kintu had to plead with difficulty to have students line up to greet the Muloki. The Kybazingaship could be more of the elderly person's affair than youth below forty years.

Expectantly, with roaming poverty and unemployment anyone will come out to claim he is king. It could be fun, if we had a woman claimant as queen. Why not? After all, government will be willing to pay a few millions for just owning the title -king.

It is surprising continue seeing and reading news of handfuls of people hopping around in demand for kingship in Busoga. This British imposed concept seems not to have mingled well -since it in the first place had no history in Busoga -as was the case in Buganda. Love for short-cuts to decision-making and action driven by selfish interests are proving to be the biggest cancers to politics of Uganda and Africa -in general.

Jacob Waiswa
Situation Health Analyst
www.situationhealthanalysis.blogspot.com