If that argument were to win the day, it would probably mean that after adopting a multi-party constitution, we write off presidential terms served under the Movement system and start afresh!
This would be a situation similar to what obtained in 1996. During the making of the 1995 Constitution we wrote off the ten years (two terms) Museveni had already served (since 1986) and gave him a "first" term.
That was, technically speaking, a "third" term. So in technical terms, the President is serving his "fourth" term since 1986!
But just as the new Constitution meant a fresh start in 1996, and we ignored the two previous terms, similarly, movementists might want to argue that when the Constitution amendments come to pass, they will signal a new beginning and Museveni can then stand for his "first" term under the new order!
**********
----- Original Message -----
From: gook makanga
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:25 PM
Subject: It is his first term, not third, not fifth
It is his first term, not third, not fifth
By James Tumusiime
Feb 7, 2004
After months of being fed on anti-third term rhetoric, there is now an explosion of pro-third term sentiments. Almost everyday, a senior public figure comes up with a reason why President Museveni should have at least one extra term in office.
THREE: Col. Kayanja
Apparently the pretence that the campaign to rid the Constitution of presidential term limits is not intended for Mr Museveni has fizzled out.
Third term advocates have apparently realised that they cannot put up a strong case without leaning on Mr Museveni's record and personality.
The initial attempt to market ekisanja as a principled stand, not connected to Museveni as an individual, has fallen flat on its face.
Because the project has narrowed down to an individual, the level of debate has degenerated from principled positions to populist ones.
The arguments have been so trivialised that there's hardly any attempt to articulate a strong case for removing term limits from the Constitution anymore.
The case being put forward with so much gusto is, instead, why Museveni deserves another term, which to me is a different but related subject.
Minister of Health, Brig. Jim Muhwezi set off this populist tone when he unofficially kicked off the campaign in Rukungiri last year, saying at the time that Museveni needed a bonus because he had performed well.
In The Monitor on Wednesday, ISO chief Col. Elly Kayanja was quoted as saying that Museveni should get a third term just like a pupil who needs three terms in order to perform well and pass examinations.
Minister of Water, Lands and Environment Col. Kahinda Otafiire was earlier quoted as saying that the President was still "too young" to retire.
He recently added that Museveni still has some "juice" in him and, therefore, should not be discarded.
Outgoing Kayunga Deputy Resident District Commssioner, Margaret Kivumbi reportedly said that Ugandans should support the third term because it's only then that they can sleep peacefully and enjoy sex.
Kyotera Movement Chairman, Hajji Abbas Mwanje has meanwhile threatened to drag Museveni to court if he does not seek another term.
But the mother of all comments has so far come from Minister of Energy, Syda Bbumba who said Museveni should rule until he is as old as Libya's Col. Muammar Gadhaffi (in power since 1969) or Gabon's Omar Bongo (1968).
She forgot Togo's Gnassingbe Eyadema who has been around since 1965!
The anti-third group might argue that debate is becoming populist and Museveni-centric because the case for lifting term limits is weak, but I do not think so. I would say the pro-third term group's strength and weakness at the same time lies in pegging their campaign on the person of the President.
While it is all right to do that in the countryside where the Movement enjoys most support, it is ill-advised among the urban elite and the international community, a constituency that needs to be convinced by reason, not populism.
To be fair to the third term advocates, some points have come through. But the points often advanced are porous and prone to dismantling.
They argue, for example, that the people should decide, conveniently forgetting that the people decided in the Constituent Assembly. And there is no evidence to suggest that they have changed their mind - yet.
They also argue that other countries do not have term limits.
But the countries mentioned are democracies with a history of stability and prosperity and institutions that have endured the test of time.
How can anyone compare Uganda to Britain in that respect?
They also say that other political leaders in Uganda have no term limits under the Constitution. But which other leader wields as much power as the President? Besides, it is just one office in the whole country.
The trivialisation of the pro-third term campaign has done a great disservice to the person it is aimed at supporting - the President.
Surely, Museveni would not like to be categorised alongside Gadhaffi, Bongo and Eyadema when history is being written?
He would want to earn another term because he is still relevant to Uganda's needs, not as a bonus. Or because he is "still young" at 60!
Could some of these people be told to shut up or speak in the right forum - which means the same thing - keeping quiet?
The job of promoting the third term should probably be left to the likes of Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Hope Mwesigye whom I have heard make what I believe is the strongest argument in the case for abolishing term limits.
Her argument is that once Uganda goes multi-party, it will be up to individual political parties to select their candidates. And non-members have no right to dictate to the NRM-O who their candidate should be.
Just as UPC can choose Dr Milton Obote (if age is on his side) and DP opts for Dr Paul Ssemogerere. It is not a water tight argument but it is, in my view, the smartest of all.
If that argument were to win the day, it would probably mean that after adopting a multi-party constitution, we write off presidential terms served under the Movement system and start afresh!
This would be a situation similar to what obtained in 1996. During the making of the 1995 Constitution we wrote off the ten years (two terms) Museveni had already served (since 1986) and gave him a "first" term.
That was, technically speaking, a "third" term. So in technical terms, the President is serving his "fourth" term since 1986!
But just as the new Constitution meant a fresh start in 1996, and we ignored the two previous terms, similarly, movementists might want to argue that when the Constitution amendments come to pass, they will signal a new beginning and Museveni can then stand for his "first" term under the new order!
It is not morally right but it is politically okay, and legally understandable. And since when did politics and morality begin to mix?
The author is OP-ED Editor of The Monitor [log in to unmask]
© 2004 The Monitor Publications
Gook
"The strategy of the guerilla struggle was to cause maximum chaos and destruction in order to render the government of the day very unpopular"
Lt. Gen. Kaguta Museveni (Leader of the NRA guerilla army in Luwero)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
