The Devil lies in the New Journalism Regulations

Just when you think we cannot sink any deeper into the murky waters of politicking, Uganda surprises you with a rude awakening. The introduction of the new fees for Journalists under the Press and Journalists Regulations 2014 is a rather unpleasant reminder of how far this government is willing to go to curtail basic freedoms and rights in order to further entrench itself and impose its presence on us. Under these new regulations, a journalist will be required to pay UgShs.200,000 for a practicing certificate. In addition to that, pay UgShs.50,000 for that certificate to be entered in the register for journalists. That is not all. The practicing certificate will have to be renewed annually at a few of not less than UgShs.100,000 and that excludes the UgShs.30,000 for an enrollment certificate. Now, just how ridiculous is that?

Imagine a young journalist fresh from campus. How is he/she supposed to come up with all that cash to be able to start practicing their profession? Even to the already practicing journalists, these fees are too high considering their salaries which average around UgShs.800,000 in mainstream media.

Leaving the financials aside; onto the rights concerns, these regulations directly jeopardise the freedom of conscience and expression in our Constitution. Article 29(1)(a) states: “Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media.” The press and media practitioners are what one would call journalists. When these journalists have to seek permission to practice from the government, which government retains the right to grant, deny, revoke and renew such permission every year, I am not sure that will still be termed as ‘freedom of the press and media’.

The media sets the agenda for discussion in the whole country on a daily basis. They search for a story, break it, confirm it, give details and ensure that it gets the necessary attention it requires. Though our media in particular has often been guilty of sensationalizing serious issues and quickly jumping from one story to another without fully exhausting and debating one to any logical conclusion, they are still responsible to a large extent, for keeping the government in check and exposing the excesses committed in the corridors of power. Allowing the government to have power to determine who plays the watchdog role and who doesn’t simply defeats the whole idea of an independent media which is key to democratic governance that we claim to subscribe to. There is no guarantee that journalists deemed critical to government and the ‘big men’ will not be denied practicing certificates and/or even whole media houses gradually incapacitated in a bid to deny a platform to such journalists.

The other proposal of forcing private media houses to dedicate a mandatory amount of time to government programs is also as absurd as can be. Besides the obvious wrongful act of dictating programming in a privatized sector, it could disorganize the viewer-ship/listener-ship who usually get accustomed to a certain set and type of programming. This could have serious implications for the private media houses in terms of tilting the easily impressionable (and easily turned off) listeners and viewers. It is common sense that if you are doing something good, the attention will come naturally. You would not need to seek it. Therefore this vain attempt by the government to regulate media attention goes back to what they are doing (or not doing) especially in the areas of service provision.

The media in this country gives a lot of attention to the key sectors especially health, agriculture and education. The problem is that there are often few or no good stories to report there. Certainly those championed by the government are ever diminishing over the years. These sectors have been left to ‘go to the dogs’ and the role of the media is to report it as it is. So, attempting to force the media to paint a rosy picture or else deny them licenses/certificates is indeed absurd. The government should concentrate on service delivery and they will get all the media attention they deserve.

These new regulations come in as old wine in a new skin. After several efforts to gag the media by threating some journalists into self-censorship, closing down media houses, bribing and enticing them with juicy advertising deals, this is yet a new phase of ensuring control over the media. And it is heading towards dangerous levels.

There is a legislation craze going on in this country. Some of these selfish individuals in government think we should have laws to regulate how we dress, how we sleep and with whom, how we convene in our community groups, and more recently, to demonstrate our ‘love for our country’. Now they are slowly creeping into our professions starting with the journalists. We need to collectively reject these inverted and ill-conceived efforts that can yield no good for us or for the future of this country. Instead of the government defining itself in opposition to media freedom, they can choose to affirm the aspirations they both hold in common. We can stand tall without standing on someone and we can victors without having victims.

The Power Of Being A 'Nobody' | LinkedIn By John Hope Bryant

The Power Of Being A 'Nobody' | LinkedIn

The Gradual Mortality of Uganda’s 9th Parliament

When the 9^th Parliament started its term early 2011, a lot of promises were made. A new seemingly sober-minded Speaker, the first as a lady, was elected and everyone seemed optimistic for a brand new start. This new Parliament exuded an aura of departure from the mediocrity we had in the previous Parliament to getting actual work done. By work I mean the three core duties of Parliament which are; Legislation, Representation and Oversight.

The Oil Bills were debated expeditiously, corruption allegations in the sector investigated, Cabinet appointees vetted with incompetent ones rejected, and the usual bullying of the executive was faced with a stern backbone. The Parliament was applauded for their efforts in checking impunity, bribery, and corruption. The Speaker was viewed as the protector of potential oil resources and siding with the people. She had championed causes that saw both opposition and ruling party members of Parliament, civil society and some sections of voters move her closer to the top in “the queue” for the country’s presidency.

Then something happened. Something some of us are still trying to figure out. Suddenly the Parliament’s back bone was not as hard to bend as we thought. First, a female ministerial appointee, who had initially been denied confirmation on academic grounds, got confirmed mysteriously. Then we saw the notorious Public Order Management Bill, which is primarily to crack down on political dissent, rammed through parliament. A serving Military General was appointed, vetted and approved as if to make sure this law is implemented, among others. The parliamentarians were not done yet.

They used our money to build themselves a parking lot worth 36 billion shillings and are waiting to install security equipment worth 16.3 billion. Then on top of their 20 million emoluments per month, they used almost a billion shillings of tax payers’ money to buy themselves an iPad each and procure lessons on how to use them, for two months. Their continuous plunge into trivialities doesn’t seem to have a limit. As last year came to a close, they hurriedly passed two ridiculous bills in a fresh attempt to legislate against people’s lifestyle and what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Of all the issues facing this country in the political, democratic and governance arenas, one wonders where the priorities of these legislators lie.

Word in the corridors of parliament is pointing to another plan of yet two other incredibly asinine bills. The first is to postpone the upcoming 2016 elections, and the other, to force us to love our country. The fusion of the state and the NRM party has forced on us the very unfortunate inheritance of non-thinkers and intellectually challenged individuals charged with running our country. Patriotism is not something you legislate about. As a government, if you provide the services and execute your duties as you are supposed to, people will naturally love their country. Once you are elected into public office, an implied social contract between you and the voters comes into existence. This contract goes along the lines of guaranteed service provision as long as people pay their taxes. With this contract not being fulfilled, I wonder how they intend to test the level of patriotism in an individual and decide who does not love their country.

On the proposal to postpone elections, Article 1(4) of Uganda’s constitution states that, ‘The people shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives or through referenda.’ The interpretation of this article surely includes decisions like postponing elections. Before embarking on a path of multi-party democracy in 2005, a referendum was organised and people had to make the decision themselves through the ballot. The matter of postponing elections is as important if not more. Our parliamentarians have not given us confidence that they take their social contract seriously. Not in the past year or so. They seem to put their individual interests ahead of ours. Democracy cannot truly deliver for all of its citizens if half or the entire population remains under-represented in the political arena.

Statistics show that at least 67% of incumbent MPs do not return to parliament in the subsequent term. It is no secret that due to the high level of monetization of elections in this country, a large number of our legislators are heavily indebted even after almost three years in the August House. A story is told of two parliamentarians who collect as low as $25 from their monthly salaries after loan deductions.  With such a lot, I am highly suspicious that the attempt to extend their term in office is actually to extend their loan-repayment capabilities. After all, with only 33% poised to come back in the next term, one cannot guarantee their ability to meet their financial obligations.

However badly they need more time, it is not their prerogative. Of course in Uganda they can do it and get away with it. That does not make it right. I offer two alternatives to go about the current crisis in the ‘right’ way. The first; Let the current government legislate itself out of power and create a transitional government. This transitional government should include ‘politically neutral’ technocrats chosen from civil society, representatives from all registered political parties, religious institutions and international expert observers from the EAC secretariat, the UN and AU. All Ugandans who get involved in this transitional government would not be eligible to contest for public office in the next 15 years. This transitional government would be charged with overhauling the Electoral Commission and revising the way it is constituted, amending the constitution to reduce the powers of the presidency that give him an unfair advantage and influence over otherwise independent institutions, and organizing free and fair elections in a period of not more than two years. This is the most plausible and sustainable way to navigate through this murky period of transition and mistrust without possible bloodshed. The MPs can deal with their financial woes in their own time.  

Alternatively, organise a referendum and let Ugandans decide whether they want to extend the current term of their leaders for more years. This is probably very unattractive to our MPs considering the very little they have delivered on the social contract they have with their electorate. If we were to judge them on that premise, most of them would perform miserably, which probably explain the high attrition rate of their numbers every term. I really hope they can listen to the voice of reason. They have already done enough damage. Let them exit gracefully.

The Need for Civic Education on Democracy, Elections and Political leadership in Uganda

Our political leaders have been quoted several times in the media, especially when their potentials have been called into question, saying that we have always had the freedom to change every five years in the form of elections. I have always argued that the ritualistic periodic Elections in this country and other like countries have little or no consequence on the country’s direction if the citizens have been deprived of the power to cause change through them. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that majority of Ugandans are not informed enough to bear potential of making the right political choices during elections. Democracy is only one of the many ingredients required in a free society for holistic growth and development. It gives people the right to vote but it does not guarantee freedom or the trust in the people to make the right choice, much less so in a society of the gullible and illiterate.

An old adage goes that, “communities get the leaders they deserve.” Whether you believe this or not depends on your perception of the system through which leaders are chosen. In our case, democracy gives people the right to vote but how they use that right and the outcome is left to freedom. This freedom can only be guaranteed through an independent legal system that is not readily influenced by periodic voting. Elections can only be an agent of freedom if they give people meaningful voting choices and ensures that they have unbiased and undistorted information necessary to make an informed choice that is in their best interest. For instance, a free and fair election is not only about freedom to vote and the knowledge of how to cast a vote but also about a participatory process where voters engage in independent public debate and have sufficient knowledge about the parties, policies, candidates and the election process itself. This engagement must be moderated based on the specific target group characteristics. Only then can we trust that voters will make informed choices. 

Unfortunately, this ingredient of civic education is lacking in this country. A population of low intellect is simply incapable of making beneficial long term decisions. People base on all sorts of petty issues like party colours, cash handouts, material possessions et al., all of which do not reflect the capabilities of an individual to lead them in the right direction and represent their interests. The voters we have here are irrational, highly uninformed about political issues especially relating to the economy, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable. They are not ‘adequately educated’ to boost their ability to foresee the betterment of their communities and therefore, I argue, are unable to cast a vote to that effect. Simplistic promises such as financial help or jobs have previously been used to lure ordinary voters. Some have exchanged a solid five-year term for as little as a bar of soap and kilogram of sugar. 

Politicians have been very consistent in taking advantage of the immediate needs of the poor ordinary voters, their lack of rationality and poor education. Instead of advancing ideology, they compete in cash, material handouts and public relations tactics. They focus their energies on pointing out the faults of their opponents instead of advancing alternative courses of development and economic growth. This is why the opposition political parties have failed to coin and forward an effective message that resonates with the wider populous. Even the elites who understand what has failed with the current government do not see any of the opposition parties as worthy alternatives. 

We need to go back to the drawing board. Civic education at the grass roots is most crucial for citizens to understand their role in shaping their destiny and that of their country. The idea of genuine democracy can only be achieved of we can trust first, that people understand where they want to go, and second, that they can make that choice of who to lead them there without being unduly influenced. With the current system, decentralization has not been fully utilized to strengthen good governance, widen democratic participation and to promote democratic accountability right from the local level to the top. After ritualistic and uninformed voting, citizens are unable to monitor their leaders and to demand accountability for the entire length of the electoral term. Low levels of civic education imply limited opportunities to learn about governance processes including the roles of leaders and citizens in a democratic system. Couple that with the limited interaction with leaders who seem too busy caucusing in their parties, and effective political participation becomes impossible on the part of the citizens. 

We must empower our civil society to play an effective role in conducting civic education from the local level upwards. Citizens must be empowered and educated on the tenets of democracy, good governance and accountability together with their specific roles in this process and those of their elected leaders. Only then can we expect and trust that election results truly represent the ‘informed will’ of the people. Else, even abolishing rigging will not earn us genuine democracy and the governance we desire to steer us in the right direction. 

As we work on this holistic approach systematically, there is no harm in having the recent electoral reforms demanded by the opposition politicians and civil society for starters. They include; a new Independent Electoral commission, a new voters’ register, Keeping Security organs out of elections, No diversion of public funds to finance NRM, Transparent demarcation of electoral areas, Freedom to assemble and organize, Participatory selection of presiding officers, Participatory processing of electoral materials, Integrity of the tally Centre and Honest and transparent adjudication of presidential election disputes. These embody a very good start.

“New” Lessons for the West, from “Old” Uganda

Uganda has received a lot of stick especially from the West in recent weeks due to its stand on the Gay Issue. There was outrage in Europe and the Americas shortly before and after the President assented to the Anti-Homosexuality Law in front of local and International journalists. News outlets carried it as breaking news; Human Rights Watch denounced it while Western leaders appeared to be competing for space to express their dissent and issue threats. Some threats were actually executed. Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway announced publicly that they had cut their aid support to Uganda. The US announced a review of its $400M aid to the Health sector. Having noticed that it would put a lot of lives at risk, create bad publicity and prompt Ugandans to question their motives for the aid in the first place, the US became clever. They utilized their influence as its largest donor and went through the World Bank to do their billing. $90M in additional loan funding for the Uganda Health Systems Strengthening Project was suspended. Ugandans overwhelmingly responded by supporting their government’s decision even more as they went all over social media declaring that ‘we do not need aid.’ The finance minister was quoted last week as well saying the same. By trying to rally Ugandans against the populist action of their government, donor countries achieved the exact opposite.  The west has been in bed with this government for a long time but they still seem to get a few things wrong. So, here are a few ‘new’ lessons to refresh their mind in case they had forgotten.

Uganda is NOT a democracy.

One does not need to ask a Ugandan today whether this country is democratic. You just need to watch the decisions and manoeuvres made by our leaders in any single week of your choice in a year. The evidence is overwhelming. From appointing a serving military officer into cabinet role, and party card holders as Justices, to pushing unconstitutional legislation through parliament and curtailing the freedoms of opposition/ dissenting leaders, using the army to intimidate voters and outright voter bribery, the regime seeks to further impose itself on Ugandans. The people under the impression that we have a democracy here are delusional. Citizens are powerless to cause change through ritualistic and constantly rigged elections against a military regime that increasingly seems to have outlived its very few merits. Very few government policies and decisions can one find to reflect the true will of the people, but instead are construed to certain individuals’ interests. We are just hostages in a regime that cares only about perpetuating their stay in power. Western governments have been complicit in supporting, defending and promoting these manifest illegalities since 1986. Presidents, Ambassadors, Secretaries of State, all cheered on Museveni as one in the “new breed” of leaders and turned a blind eye to the injustices here. The lesson is; you cannot pick and choose which rights to advocate for and which ones to ignore.

We don’t really care much about rights

If you had been attentive in the past few years, you would know that rights are not such a big deal here. The right of free speech and assembly was scrapped last year through the colonial era Public Order Management Law. Just before then, the right to privacy had been removed through the Interception of Communications Law, otherwise known as the Phone tapping Law that was passed in the previous parliament. Journalists and activists get arrested, for expressing dissenting views on air and in print. Newspapers get closed for exposing government secrets.  In fact, some opposition people don’t even have the right to leave their homes on certain days. When we tried to refuse the imposition of these laws on us, the west did not support us. Certainly, they were not as loud as they are about the gays. So Ugandans had to accept the fact that they are on their own. Therefore there was little will to fight for Gay rights here. After all, we all do not fully enjoy our rights at all.

We wrote the constitution, we can change it

The other day, the president was quoted in the media saying, “We wrote the constitution. We can change it.” In other words, if the constitution stands in the way of getting what he wants, it can be amended. Need I say more? What he says is law in this country. That’s why despite all the Anti-corruption laws and agencies we have, no one gets prosecuted if the president does not allow it. He will even go to the extent of paying for defence lawyers and bail money for his suspect ‘friends’ if he hasn't ordered his cadre judges to throw out the case. 

 While we grappled through all this, the West continued to support him. Far reaching military, diplomatic and financial support kept pouring in as if to patronize the ordinary Ugandans. Despite continuous warnings from domestic human rights activists, political commentators and analysts that this regime is a corrupt and militaristic one, Western governments have been willing accomplices in the steady erosion of the rights of Ugandans. And I do not buy the argument that the US ambassador advances, that different circumstances call for different approaches. Rights are not absolute but they certainly are universal and must be advocated for in the same breadth. Indeed, the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act depicts a nation that lacks democracy, and has an entrenched practice of notorious disregard for the protection of fundamental human rights.

Washington and Europe need to learn to look beyond their own selfish interests and posturing and keep people’s ideals and rights as priorities while dealing with their governments. Such is the kind of interaction that builds partnerships that endure and transcend the transitory interests of a particular head of state. But if they continue to put certain rights up for bargain and pretend that others are non-negotiable, the results are what we see in Uganda today. Autocrats like our own will choose to call their bluff and innocent citizens will be left to suffer the brunt of severed partnerships and suspended aid. 

Remembering the importance of ideals doesn’t mean that autocrats should always be ignored or ostracised. One must deal with the world as it is with the understanding that there are going to be limits to the good we can do and the bad that we can prevent. But to maximize the positive influence, the west should never forget that all people around the world share a common desire for freedom and respect for their rights. Therefore there should never be rights that ‘must’ be respected and those on which we are willing to compromise.