Uganda, a long awaited transition to multipartism
Besigye’s comeback and the long awaited transition to multipartism: a vindication of Museveni’s politics of evolutionary democracy?
By Daniel G. Ogbaharya*
Jan 3, 2005 — Dr. Colonial Kizza Besigye, an ardent critique and political rival of President Museveni, was released from prison after a brief detention, which has been a highly politicized event in Uganda (BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4574692.stm). Museveni has been criticized widely, both by opposition groups and donors alike, for imprisoning the popular opposition figure soon after he returned from five years in exile in South Africa to run for president. Many believed that Besigye was jailed for political reasons, namely for challenging Museveni’s rule. Some countries and donor agencies even withdrew aid to the government citing human rights violations and reversal to authoritarian rule. Besigye, who once was the personal doctor and close confident of Mr. Museveni, was released just in time for Uganda’s first multiparty elections after 1986, in which Dr. Besigye is set to challenge Museveni.
Given the political stature of Besigye and growing public support for his party, Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), the ruling of the Court is historic for many important reasons. For one, the ruling challenges the military’s role in Uganda’s politics as it overturned the Ugandan Military’s case against Besigye, which among others include treason charges. The Court’s decision that Besigye “has been under illegal detention” is a blow to the image of the National Resistance Movement (NRM), which has been in power since 1986, and in effect may garner public support for FDC. It also attests to some degree of judicial independence that will be critical for consolidation of multiparty democracy in Uganda. If the court’s decision remains firm and that Besigye is indeed allowed to run as the presidential candidate of FDC, then Uganda has accomplished something many East African countries such as Eritrea, Ethiopia and Rwanda have yet to achieve: it has allowed the rule of law to prevail rather than resorting to force to undermine and eliminate opposition leaders.
It also appears to vindicate Museveni’s politics of evolutionary democracy which maintains that multiparty democracy can take root in Africa only after political stability, economic growth and a certain level of institutional maturity has been attained. To be sure, it remains to be seen whether the ruling of the Court is a sign of judicial independence or it is a mere show to appease an increasingly anxious public and frustrated donors. Some also claim that it is Museven’s last ditch effort to save his image and improve his chances to win the presidency in March. One thing, however, is unequivocal. The Movement System (MS) or the No-Party Democracy, the political system that NRM argued was a source of political stability and security for Uganda and for Africa in general, is going to be the thing of the past. Even though the end of the MS democracy does not imply the end of NRM’s dominance in Uganda’s politics, it marks the beginning of the realization of Museven’s consistent argument that the MS system would eventually evolve into a multiparty system that reflects the political and historic realities of Uganda. Perhaps Uganda stands a better chance than many new multiparty states in Africa in forming a lasting pluralism because of NRM’s controversial decision to put Uganda’s economy and national security on the right track before venturing into multiparty elections.
Uganda’s evolutionary path to multiparty elections has also important implications for post-conflict countries such as Eritrea and Rwanda where unfettered pluralism is seen as a risky exercise that can lead to internal political instability. These countries, therefore, have chosen to espouse evolutionary or vanguard style democracy in which an umbrella movement forges national unity and spearheads a gradual transition to multiparty elections. In Eritrea and Rwanda, as in Uganda until recently, the doctrine of evolutionary democracy has been abused to perpetuate authoritarian governance where opposition leaders are purged and the private press is subject to close scrutiny (Rwanda) or outright ban (Eritrea). Uganda’s transition provides a more concrete conception of evolutionary democracy as a process of building institutions such as the rule of law and judicial independence in the prelude to multiparty elections. If Uganda becomes a multiparty state after a long tradition of a no-party state, the message to countries like Eritrea is powerful: evolutionary democracy, a vanguard state or Stalinist democracy some might say, can be tolerated only as an adhoc arrangement not a permanent one.
The other crucial lesson that can be learned from Uganda’s overdue transition into a multiparty state is that former comrades in arms can be legitimate political rivals without resorting to zero-sum politics and jeopardizing the democratic life of the state. This is an important lesson as rivalry among former comrades can be a cause of political instability and creeping reversal to dictatorship. It is natural for old comrades to disagree politically and ideologically and still be civilized contenders for political office. Dr. Besigye and President Museveni can prove this point to leaders like President Isaias Afwerki who have refused to reconcile with their opposition and have chosen an authoritarian response to internal democratic demand. When a group of fifteen senior party and government officials demanded democratic reform in Eritrea in 2001, the response of President Afewerki was draconian. All the reformers were purged except those who later recanted their support for the internal reform group, the so-called the G-15, and those who left the country. Private newspapers were shut down and their journalists imprisoned apparently for simply publicizing and writing about the G-15 and their political demands. Eritrea, as Uganda’s experience indicates, could have dealt with the G-15 in a less draconian and more democratic manner. The ideological chasm between the ruling party, the PFDJ (Peoples Front for Democracy and Justice) and the G-15, which has now been reconstituted into Eritrean Democratic Party (EDP), could have easily been translated into a golden opportunity for multi-party elections. It is not too late for a second chance. Eritrea can learn from Uganda to tolerate its critique, allow private press, free members of the G-15 and other political prisoners, and encourage political dissidents to form their own parties and contest for power in free and fair multiparty elections. By doing so, President Afewerki can ensure his and his party’s political resurrection.
In conclusion, Uganda’s transition into a multiparty state is worth celebrating despite the many questions that have yet to be answered. If successful, the transition will have important implications for democratization in East Africa. It is a definitive message to post-conflict countries like Eritrea and Rwanda that a one-party or no-party state may be tolerated as an adhoc and transitory step but never as a permanent political system. Therefore, it is high time these countries take precautionary measures to avert impending political crisis due to intolerance of political and ideological diversity.
* The author is PhD student, Department of Political Science, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA