THE NOOSE OF PATRONAGE AND CORRUPTION, ON WHICH UGANDA HANGS!

If you have lived long enough in Uganda, at least for the past 15 years or so, you must have noticed an unbelievable pattern of corruption scandals, bribery and patronage rings. From ministries to the August house, government departments and agencies to state house. From learning institutions to the smallest unit of administration, corruption has really taken to the root in Uganda and is now a source of livelihood for many. But this is no longer news.

As the president grabs the opportunity of every state of the nation address for the past disturbingly many years to rant about how his government will fight corruption, several political analysts here and abroad suggest that this government lacks the political will to get rid of the vice. In fact, they have absolutely no interest in fighting corruption at all.

Corruption and patronage offer the most vicious combination of evils that hold the lifeline of president Museveni’s regime. The president and his government have allowed the patronage ring to hold the regime with a tight noose that it cannot set it free. In a recent unfortunate event of fire that broke out while people were siphoning fuel from a tanker where more than forty people lost their lives, the president visited the scene and decided to compensate the bereaved families with 5 million shillings. While some people argued that people were driven by poverty and trying to find a means of survival, others including me, disagree with the act of compensating thieves.

These people were stealing fuel having overpowered the driver of the fuel tanker. The fact that they were unfortunate to have a fire blow-out in their faces and some lost their lives does not rule out the fact that someone’s fuel was being stolen illegally by petty criminals. Therefore, for the president to come out and compensate such criminals is clear patronage and a “gesture of sympathy” aimed at nothing else but winning popular support by any means necessary. That money should have served better being used by the government to sensitize people about the dangers of dealing with flammable fuel. That way, the fire and the loss of lives could have been avoided.

Last week, the secretary to the treasury and other witnesses, told the Parliament Accounts Committee that the 10 Bn shillings that was allocated to the SACCO fund in 2010 was diverted by politicians and used to bribe voters and buy elections the following year in what seems like a carefully orchestrated scheme to siphon money from government coffers to preserve the survival of the regime. Allegations of the leaders at the Micro-finance Support Centre carrying sacks of money in their vehicles during election campaigns had already made rounds before. And am sure a more thorough forensic audit of so-called government projects would reveal even more damning evidence of tax-payers money being channeled into activities that are aimed at pure preservation of the regime. One wonders just how much does this government care about the plight of the citizens. It seems to have degenerated to fighting for pure regime survival regardless of whether the citizens are dying of hunger or communicable diseases that should be cured with minimal effort.

In my recent article, I wrote about how parliamentarians are slowly but surely aiding and abetting the emergence of a dictatorial regime in this country. Last week, in what is arguably their most shameful act, a section of parliamentarians appealed to the president to bail them out of their debts. These are fellows among the highest paid class of Ugandans taking home about 20 million shillings per month. And they have failed to put enough pressure on the government to increase salaries of the teachers that taught them or the police men that escort them and provide them with security.

It is very shameful that these “usual suspects” are seeking a bail out from the president like they know he has a bumper of cash stashed away somewhere. Maybe he has, who knows in this country? But to realize that a section of these same parliamentarians want nomination fees increased to 2Million from 200,000 shillings and fresh allegations that they are employing unqualified relatives in their offices is just defeatist and reflects how long they are willing to go in their shameless behavior. And these are the kinds of actions that will make it even harder for Uganda to free itself from the tight noose of patronage and entrenched corruption, even long after this regime is gone.

By Pathias Klinn Akabanjuna

The writer is a socio-political commentator 

Twitter: @PathyKlinn

CONSTITUTIONALISM IN UGANDA IS A SHAM…

The parliament appointments committee has approved a military General, Aronda Nyakairima to become internal affairs minister. It wasn't much of a surprise to some of us who have been around long enough to see exactly how the invisible or sometimes very visible hand of president Museveni works in the August House. Initially I had predicted that the speaker will conveniently abscond from parliament and then the deputy speaker who is not very secretive about his support for whatever the president wants, will just chair the committee and get Aronda approved since that’s what the president wanted. Well, it seems to me like I had overestimated the speaker’s resolve to protect and uphold the constitution.

The path that this parliament is leading Uganda to is regrettable and very undemocratic. Parliament is officially an appendage of the executive. There is absolutely no flicker of independence in the three arms of government of Uganda like it should be. The multi-party dispensation where the ruling party sets the agenda and the other parties follow suit is not helping Uganda as well. Opposition parties and leaders who wait for the president to do something and then they react do not help our pursuit for democracy and rule of law.

Parliament by approving Gen Aronda to participate in partisan politics has set a very dangerous precedent. Aronda will be partisan because as a Cabinet minister, he will be fostering and implementing the manifesto of NRM.  

It is even unbelievable that though a precedent had already been set, in the matter of Jeje Odong who had to retire from the army first before he could be approved as minister; parliament has again gone against its initial position to satisfy the desires of the president. That simply means that what gets passed in parliament and what fails are simply dependent on what the president wants. In this case, the president wanted Aronda to be both a serving military General and a Cabinet minister. And he got exactly that. Whether it respects the supreme law of the land doesn’t matter as long as it serves his interests of self-preservation. When the president said that very few Members of parliament can survive without his help, they rushed to defend themselves. Now we can see it in the works. Without his under-the-table payments or even sometimes openly on their accounts, they cannot indeed survive in their luxurious lifestyles full of debts. And it is exactly this parasitic behaviour that exposes them to shame when matters of upholding constitutionalism, as is their sworn mandate, contradict with the presidents wishes.

Parliamentarians need to understand that the constitution itself is just like any other book if we do not uphold the very important culture of constitutionalism in this country. The way having elections every few years does not mean democracy is the same way having a constitution does not guarantee rule of law.  In Uganda, elections are rigged, the judiciary manipulated and opposition activists clobbered to the extent of fighting for their lives in a bid to stop them from exercising their rights. But somehow, we still consider ourselves a democracy. The police who are supposed to be a civilian force and protector of the people are headed by military men who have no culture of handling people but fully understand following orders as is in the military.

Rule of law is steadily being eroded and that has set us on path to tyranny and military rule.  How can parliament that is supposed to be independent consult the head of the executive on a constitutional issue? It has become common place to see parliamentarians being called to state house and having them to approve policies that are in clear contravention with the constitution. One wonders when the president became an expert in interpreting the constitution. Then why do we need a parliament of 375 members when one person can make laws, pass them and execute them?

The approval of Gen Aronda by parliament as a cabinet minister opens up the constitutional space for the possibility of the president proposing that the Speaker of the house should be a military general since we already have the army members in parliament and they  vote for the ruling NRM when the army is supposed to be non-partisan.  We have already seen the president meddle with the judiciary throwing in a carrot here and there. And he is about to militarise parliament which is probably the only remaining organ with its hand up. 

When that happens as our parliamentarians are letting it gradually, Uganda can officially bid farewell to any sort of constitutionalism.

“Successful states are run on the basis of consent not conquest. “ – Prof. Mahmood Mamdani

By Pathias Klinn Akabanjuna

The writer is a socio-political commentator and Blogger

BSc. Quantity Surveying

Twitter: @PathyKlinn

In the trial of Trayvon, the US is guilty - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

In the trial of Trayvon, the US is guilty - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

THE "EDDIE KWIZERA" BILL DOES NOT HELP UGANDA

The proposal by MP Hon. Eddie Kwizera to raise the retirement age for Judicial officers from 70 to 75 years is absurd. We may not know for sure what his motivations are yet, but the fact that he is a former employee of the State House who worked as a senior presidential assistant for about 7 years, leaves little room for imagination. He apparently intends to table a Private Member’s Bill under Article 144(1) so that the retiring age of judges can be increased to address the issue of appointing the next Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice. But this is because those are the Judicial posts that require immediate attention. Some think this was triggered by retired Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki’s discussion paper that he penned before leaving office. Personally, I think Mr. Kwizera’s proposal has wider intentions and of course, implications and it had sufficient fore-thought. He intends for the Bill to be developed to cut across the board for all public servants.

Uganda has a population of over 80% youth who are 35 years of age and below. Over 70 universities spread all over the country are churning out thousands of graduates every year into the job market. The private sector is very unforgiving and can only absorb less than 10% of these graduates. The rest look to the government they gave a fourth mandate 2 years ago to provide employment. It is absurd that while unemployment levels are higher than ever before, a 53 year old MP is proposing that we increase retirement age, regardless of whom for. 

Uganda’s Judiciary has not been spared by what seems like the long arm of corruption in government. From cases of elections to outright bribery allegations, Justice Odoki has for the past decade, presided over a not-so-clean judicial system. I wonder what new ideas he has to bring to the table at 70 years of age. This country has a fairly young bench and I am sure we can find a good replacement without letting the good old Justice soil his reputation further into ink. 

I do not think anyone can contest the fact that Justice Odoki has served his country. From well before the days of constitutional making, he has done quite some work. And I think when one has served his country, it is better to go and rest and give others a chance to serve. Every system needs a mechanism for cleaning up what has been used up and bringing in new and fresh material. Those advocating for 75 to be the retirement age simply have no retirement strategy in place so they want to keep enjoying employment benefits. And of course other benefits like avenues to steal, free medical treatment abroad and many such others. I agree with this writer who said, “Uganda is not like Japan with high life expectancy. Let those who have attained 65 years of age retire instead of blocking the young and energetic people from climbing the career ladder. In fact, they can set up consultancy firms if they feel that their services are still needed.”

Mr. Kwizera says he wants to “restore sanity” in the Public Service. I think but facilitating the process of keeping old, tired and non-productive people in office is bringing more insanity than sanity.

I disagree with the argument that since life expectancy has increased over the years, we need to revisit our retirement age. Currently 2.1 per cent of the population is 65 years and above. Compare that with the percentage of youth looking for employment and the argument will guide you which side to go.

I also disagree with the argument of additional social security needs after retirement. The resources to cater for the needs of retirees are available. Some are even squandered and stolen both from NSSF and Public Service. The notion that the young people should wait for the old guard to drop in office for them to start working for their country is not sustainable especially in a country that is looking to unlock it potential and habours plans of becoming a middle class economy in a few years.

We need to be creating more jobs for the economy especially for the youth, and keeping public servants who have failed to deliver on their mandates, in office until they are frail and grey does not help our country at all.

In the unfortunate event that Kwizera’s Bill is passed into law, it will open up the possibility of increasing or even scrapping the retirement age of other public servants including the president. We have already seen one evil in removing term limits. I hope the August house will not subject us to yet another national “tragedy”.

By Pathias Klinn Akabanjuna

The writer is a socio-political Commentator and Blogger

Bsc. Quantity Surveying

Twitter: @PathyKlinn

Who knew what in the hunt for Bin Laden? - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English

Who knew what in the hunt for Bin Laden? - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English

Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems

This is by far,  the best articulated TED talk i've viewed, and i have viewed quite a number..

Al Jazeera staff resign after ‘biased' Egypt coverage | GulfNews.com

Al Jazeera staff resign after ‘biased' Egypt coverage | GulfNews.com

EGYPT’S MURKY ROAD TOWARDS DEMOCRACY…

"Be happy #Morsi is gone but please stop pretending this is a triumph for democracy. A coup is a coup no matter how many people support it." These were the words of a “tweep” on the popular social platform twitter, a few hours after the Egyptian army took control of the country and detained president Mohamed Morsi on expiry of the 48-hour ultimatum they had given him to “restore order”.

Egypt is a very young democracy that had members of the military as presidents since 1952, until the Arab Spring that toppled the high handed dictator Hosni Mubarak to pave way for democratic elections and set the country on what seemed like a path of constitutional leadership. Whether what unfolded after that was democratic is still a matter of contention between many political analysts. But what we saw, until recently, was a country that was trying to recover from decades of dictatorship to embrace rule of law and constitutionalism backed by a continuously enlightened and educated populous. By organizing an election that gave the Egyptian people a fair chance at electing a president with whom they would entrust the mandate of steering them towards constitutionalism and be accountable to them was, in itself, a baby step towards democracy that had eluded them for decades. That person was Mohamed Morsi who took office on June 30th , 2012.

Morsi moved swiftly to convince Egyptians by consolidating power in the presidency and the Parliament. By doing so, he diminished the power of the army, to which the army seemed “contented”, as long as order was restored. But considering the nearly collapsed economy he inherited, high unemployment and unsettled Mubarak supporters, Morsi was bound to make a few un-popular decisions. With Egyptians not well known for their patience, calls of failure to deliver were already being made as soon as two months into his presidency.

Egyptians did not wait for Morsi to reform the Institutions and structures that had come very close to non-functionality under Mubarak. But they saw a president who rushed to make deals with Hamas while negotiating a ceasefire between them and Israel, an action, the army says, threatened “national security”.

Considering their history, I wouldn’t rush to judge Egyptians on the high expectations they had from Morsi. However, Egyptians need to understand that the route from dictatorship to democracy is a long and delicate one that takes a concerted and collective effort. It is not straight. It is long, complex and full of obstacles. The most crucial part in that transition is the co-operation and support of the population in building functional institutions, developing the capacity of the state and emphasizing rule of law. Supporting the army in usurping power from an elected government and detaining a democratically elected leader in the name of “protecting the interests of the people” is no way to churn towards democracy. Democracy involves discussions and toleration of difference in ideology to be led until periodic elections where you get the chance to change. Deeper and wider participation, difference, confidence-building, the search for consensus, are invaluable keys to democratisation. Electoral processes, constitutional framing, or amendment processes, require high-quality institutions and professionalism which Egyptians should be building now. 

Al Jazeera reported that, “The military has proposed a roadmap, agreed to by various opposition parties "to correct the direction of the revolution", and put the country back on the track of democracy. The roadmap envisioned swearing in the chief justice as a new interim president, forming a transitional government of technocrats with wide-ranging authorities and preparing the way for new constitutional amendments and elections.” The Egyptians should not be under any illusion that the military has their backs. Promoting democracy is not one of the roles of the military. The organisation, chain of command and authoritarian operation of an army is not in the least of ways, democratic.

The Egyptian army is known to control businesses that contribute about 40% of Egypt’s GDP. Therefore the act of undermining a legitimately elected government might be to shield their own interests and not necessarily to set the country on a path of democracy as many Egyptians believe. The army says Morsi had failed to “meet the demands of the people” and therefore they could not just sit back and turn a deaf ear to the movement. Opposition figures have said the numbers of protesters in the street is proof that Morsi had lost that legitimacy during his brief one year stint in office, but again, in a democracy, the only way to avoid speculation on what the numbers actually mean would be to invoke a referendum and decide his fate through the ballot. 

The fate of Egypt continues to be seen under the “road map” proposed by the army, but the fact remains, its high time Egyptians made a choice between full scale democratisation and military rule. Military intervention in the political sphere, regardless of the circumstances, is hardly a positive sign towards democracy.

By Pathias Klinn Akabanjuna

The writer is a socio-political Commentator and Blogger

Bsc. Quantity Surveying

Twitter: @PathyKlinn