While three out of every ten Ugandans continue to wallow in biting poverty without access to basic necessities of life; and where as nearly 70% of the population in Northern Uganda face imminent hunger and starvation; the country is preparing to spend more than 500 billion shillings in electoral activities in the run-up to the 2011 elections.
Recently, EC commissioner Tom Buruku asked Parliament to intervene and compel the Ministry of Finance to release Shs105 billion to support the Uganda Electoral Commission’s operations budget for 2009/2010 – focussing on activities like voter registration, update of register and purchase of electoral equipment. Around the same time, EC Secretary Sam Rwakoojo told MPs that the EC projects the 2011 elections to cost Shs198 billion.
More over, it has been revealed that the ruling National Resistance Movement has drawn a Shs20 billion budget for activities culminating in the election of party flag bearers for the 2011 general elections. The party also plans to spend nearly an extra Shs30 billion to sponsor the campaigns of its flag bearers from village to the parliamentary level during the general elections. It is understood that other political parties are also mobilising colossal funds to match the NRM party spending.
How immoral! Can anything justify such colossal electoral spending in a country with staggering numbers of poverty-stricken citizens? Are Ugandans assured of a verifiable value for such colossal electoral spending?
There is no contradiction on the fact that Uganda needs a democratic system of governance. However, it should be a system that we can afford given the compelling development needs. There are plenty of lessons to learn from. For instance, NRM during the rebel days erected democratic structures (Resistance Councils - RCs) for their bush constituencies using electoral college systems. Being an impoverished rebel movement, it did not spend any money to elect those RCs.
Even after the NRM guerrillas had captured state power, they interpolated the bush era democratic model across the country, culminating in the election of vibrant democratic RC structures at village, parish, sub-county, county, district and national levels – using electoral colleges. Indeed National Resistance Council (NRC) of the late 1980s to early 1990s could pass as one of the most vibrant parliaments of the NRM era!
If we could have vibrant democratic institutions then without spending a lot, why is this craze about big electoral spending and the so-called universal adult suffrage? It hasn’t delivered a better democracy over the last 10 years or so; indeed the last couple of parliaments have been the most morally corrupt and legislatively inefficient. The last two parliaments as well as District Councils have been politically compromised, consequently resulting into gross failure to dispense their oversight functions. Yet, these were elected through the wasteful and expensive universal adult suffrage system.
The essential elements of democracy were defined by philosophers during the “Age of Enlightenment” (17th/18th centuries) as separation of powers; basic civil rights/human rights; religious liberty; and separation of church and state. The term “democracy” is known to come from the Greek language meaning "rule by the people". And U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) is reported to have defined democracy as: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” However, democracy is only remains the desired end!
It is important to realise that the means to democracy remains discretionary! Governments have to make a choice among the various options. But for the impoverished Uganda, the economic predicament dictates that cost considerations be the overriding criterion for choosing the means to attaining a democracy---and I would argue that the more affordable electoral college system should be preferred over the universal adult suffrage.
As to whether electoral collages deliver the best democracy is not an issue; after all, even Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), the British war-time leader contented that there is no such thing as the "perfect form of democracy" on earth! Let’s strive for a working democracy within our means! Electoral colleges worked in the 1980s and early ‘90s; they can work now and in the future.
Published in the Daily Monotor, July 7, 2009: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Uganda_should_revert_to_electoral_colleges_87643.shtml
25 June 2009
Tinyefuza should find a better reason for land-grabbing
The story carried in the New Vision of Wednesday, 24th June, 2009 entitled “Seize idle land, says Tinyefuza” reports General David Tinyefuza as having said that there should be a limit to the size of land individuals can acquire; and that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop.”
This resonates with the on-going debate about land reforms and the proposed kangaroo justice systems for land arbitration in which land cases will be adjudicated not by courts of law, but the Minister of Lands using administrative directives to Resident District Commissioners, police, land boards and land committees.
While the kangaroo justice systems are meant to protect those who illegally settled on people’s land prior to the 1995 constitution, General Tinyefuza’s latest drive for seizing un-used land will open flood gates for fresh land-grabbing!
By recommending that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop”, Tinyefuza knows full well in his mind that majority of Ugandans; the peasants will not join the race since they would not have capacity to “develop” any seized lands. Peasants will be effectively marginalised by the requirement to demonstrate ability to “develop” the seized land. The grabbing will therefore be meted by, and benefit only the economically muscled – the likes of General Tinyefuza and his compatriots.
What I failed to understand though from General Tinyefuza’s proposals is whether his concern for lack of government-imposed ceilings on land holding and acquisition was genuine. He certainly is one of the privileged Ugandans with more than the average household land holding in Kabale district – which according to latest statistics, stands at 2.4 hectares per a seven member household. More over, these 2.4 hectares are often heavily fragmented into 10 – 15 parcels scattered over a ten square kilometre area. I challenge the General to voluntarily donate part of his land to the land-strapped Bakiga, or even indeed any of his less fortunate kins from Ankole. He has to be seen to be walking-the-talk!
I appreciate that inequality in terms of land holding is a serious issue requiring attention, but General Tinyefuza’s proposal to seize idle land for those who can “develop” it is not a solution. On the contrary, his proposal will be a licence for fulfilling the biblical philosophy: “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance…” (Mathew 25:29).
Land is a tradable commodity, and as long as Uganda remains a free market economy, Tinyenfuza’s neo-marxist thoughts will be abhorred. Those who have capacity to develop land are not in short supply of land. Therefore Tinyefuza should think of another reason for land-grabbing!
Published in New Vision, June 28, 2009: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/686211
This resonates with the on-going debate about land reforms and the proposed kangaroo justice systems for land arbitration in which land cases will be adjudicated not by courts of law, but the Minister of Lands using administrative directives to Resident District Commissioners, police, land boards and land committees.
While the kangaroo justice systems are meant to protect those who illegally settled on people’s land prior to the 1995 constitution, General Tinyefuza’s latest drive for seizing un-used land will open flood gates for fresh land-grabbing!
By recommending that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop”, Tinyefuza knows full well in his mind that majority of Ugandans; the peasants will not join the race since they would not have capacity to “develop” any seized lands. Peasants will be effectively marginalised by the requirement to demonstrate ability to “develop” the seized land. The grabbing will therefore be meted by, and benefit only the economically muscled – the likes of General Tinyefuza and his compatriots.
What I failed to understand though from General Tinyefuza’s proposals is whether his concern for lack of government-imposed ceilings on land holding and acquisition was genuine. He certainly is one of the privileged Ugandans with more than the average household land holding in Kabale district – which according to latest statistics, stands at 2.4 hectares per a seven member household. More over, these 2.4 hectares are often heavily fragmented into 10 – 15 parcels scattered over a ten square kilometre area. I challenge the General to voluntarily donate part of his land to the land-strapped Bakiga, or even indeed any of his less fortunate kins from Ankole. He has to be seen to be walking-the-talk!
I appreciate that inequality in terms of land holding is a serious issue requiring attention, but General Tinyefuza’s proposal to seize idle land for those who can “develop” it is not a solution. On the contrary, his proposal will be a licence for fulfilling the biblical philosophy: “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance…” (Mathew 25:29).
Land is a tradable commodity, and as long as Uganda remains a free market economy, Tinyenfuza’s neo-marxist thoughts will be abhorred. Those who have capacity to develop land are not in short supply of land. Therefore Tinyefuza should think of another reason for land-grabbing!
Published in New Vision, June 28, 2009: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/686211