----- Original Message ----- 
From: [log in to unmask] 
To: [log in to unmask] ; [log in to unmask] 
Cc: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Learn from Blair's remorseful speech


Learn from Blair's remorseful speech
By Charles Ochen Okwir
Oct 4, 2003

On the rather grey autumn afternoon of September 30, British Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP strode to the platform to deliver his speech to Labour Party faithful gathered in the seaside town of Bournemouth in the United Kingdom for their annual conference.

With his personal approval ratings fast dropping in the polls, his government under fire from lawyers on the Hutton Inquiry representing both the BBC and the slain weapons expert Dr David Kelly's family and failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq among other things, the prime minister's speech was widely regarded as a make or break affair. 

With the conference theme reading "A Future Fair For All", he had his work cut out to regain not only the trust of his party but also of the British people whose trust he lost with the decision to go to war in Iraq at the expense of local "bread and butter" in his backyard.

Blair spoke on several issues during his 45-minute speech but only one or two of them struck me most. This is not to say that the rest were non issues but rather primarily because of what I consider to be a personal weakness on my part. It is my inability to de-link what I hear and experience everyday from wherever I am from developments back home in Uganda. 

The prime minister fought hard to show his audience that he too was a mere mortal and that mistakes were not beyond him. To emphasise his mortality, he admitted that the big show of dissent by the British people against the decision to go to war and having received some less than charitable letters from parents whose children had died in Iraq, he would be lying if he denied developing any doubts about the decision to go to war. 

Secondly, Blair said that he did not disrespect those who disagreed with him on the decision to go war but on the contrary saluted their principled stand in what they believed in. In the end, as if to say that you will be consulted in future about such major decisions, Blair announced that his government would launch a major consultation exercise with the British people to work out the way forward.

Finally, he made clear his intention to run for a third term in office. He says it is not merely for historic purposes but to enable him champion a fundamental re-alignment of all the political forces shaping the UK. He said no change is not an option for him and that the reform process must go on because he said, "I have no reverse gear". A seven minute standing ovation was what he got for his efforts.

The issues touched were interestingly similar to some of the problems confronting Uganda today. But the difference is that unlike our leaders, Blair has, at least in his speech, attempted to put a human face to his approach in dealing with these fundamental issues of governance.

When it comes to matters of governance, our leaders are fiercely jealous and hostile to claims of competence by other people in handling them. In their minds, no one other than themselves is competent to lead and steer clear of avoidable mistakes. This is a serious and chronic illusion that borders on insanity. They fail to realise that Uganda had good leaders before them, has some brilliant leaders outside government now and will have even better leaders long after they have gone because theories of evolution and Mother Nature, respectively, say so. 

Together, these two are the worst dictators ever known to man. The second issue that Tony Blair talked about is also at the heart of our political problems. Its surname is institutional intolerance to political dissent; which is, quite simply, dictatorship. Although its prevalence is highest in Africa, it is by no means unique to African gunmen. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was often referred to as an elected dictator for her trademark "No, No, No", to the views of Her Majesty's opposition which was the Labour Party that is now in power.

Today, while Blair gracefully expresses his respect for those who disagreed with him over Iraq, our leaders on the other hand have shown a jelly soft chin to take criticism and political dissent and have tended to move with lightening speed to criminalise it. This is an unfortunate and vicious tragedy that will destroy our country if not checked. 

Until this happens, our leaders will not see the need to enact laws that will enable them not only to exist but to operate freely if the roles were to be reversed as they will inevitably be. 

The premise from which our leaders must start working is that, until human cloning becomes a reality, the only thing other than mortality that all human beings have in common is that we are all different. It is as simple as that. As soon as they internalise this, then they will understand why not everyone agrees with them on various issues of policy; like how best to end the 17-year-old war in northern and eastern Uganda. 

They will then cease to see those who disagree with them as enemies and the healing process and march to salvation will have began in earnest. 

On October 1, 2003, the BBC reported a case in Zambia in which the Chief of Military Intelligence during former President Frederick Chiluba's time in office, is fighting for his freedom having been charged with car theft; a crime for which bail is as difficult to get in Zambia as it is in treason cases in Uganda. Ironically, this provision had been enacted by the Chiluba government that he served. 

Most of these oppressive provisions it seems are conceived and enacted with malice aforethought merely to stifle activities of opposition politicians. This has stretched my understanding of jurisprudence as a philosophy of law to breaking point. Like the emergency detention powers in the [Grace] Ibingira case in Uganda before that, history is repeating itself in Zambia and that must be a lesson yet again for the current leadership in Uganda.

The final points about consultation with the governed and the need to engage all political forces in a country that Blair talked about, in our case to work out a peaceful, practical and sustainable solution to national problems, is something that many Ugandans including myself have called for with no luck. I repeat this appeal now. 

While the raging debate in the media about the contentious proposals such as amending Article 105 (2) of the Constitution to allow for a potential "third term" or life presidency, federalism, scrapping the rights commission, reducing both the powers of the IGG and Parliament are healthy and must be encouraged, they are no substitute for a face to face national dialogue involving all the stakeholders in the country. 

The sooner the Movement government realises this, the better for all of us. Otherwise I fear we may be tackling mere symptoms and ignoring the real problem; lack of good governance. Think about it.

The writer is a Ugandan studying in the UK. 

Email:[log in to unmask]





© 2003 The Monitor Publications

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~