Kampala — All Ugandans are entitled to present their views to the Constitutional Review Commission. However, those that have made their views public should be ready to engage in further discussion before the Commission writes its report.

Discussion at this early stage would help eliminate such views that many people would wish had never surfaced at all.

There is no doubt that the most controversial views are those proposed by the National Conference of the National Resistance Movement at meeting in March.

The recommendation that the limitation to the presidential terms be deleted from the Constitution and that the president should have powers to override decisions of Parliament have attracted the widest reactions. The Constitution restricts a president to two five-year terms.

But however offensive the resolutions may be, the debate about such views is healthy. The debate about the views presented by the different sections of Ugandans enriches the Commissions' work.

The discussions will also help the legislators fully understand the intricacies of the matter such that when faced with the final report, they know how best to dissect it.

The debate will also help expose those who want to promote their parochial interests at the expense of the country's future.

At the moment, despite my disagreement with the third term crusaders, I hope that they are just misled and can still be educated about the dangers of their proposals.

I highly sympathise with them particularly when they base their arguments for a third term on President Yoweri Museveni's performance.

To them, Mr Museveni is the fountain of development and without him the country cannot go anywhere. What a pity! Remember the Baganda say that a kraal can produce more than one bull.

The third term and wide presidential powers issues do not deserve to be incorporated into the final report. These are selfish proposals and the process through which they were reached was manipulative and therefore dangerous to the democratic process.

Local Government minister Jaberi Bidandi Ssali has already described it as a drama stage-managed by schemers close to the President.

The problem has been compounded by Mr Museveni's ambiguity whenever the issue of third term is mentioned. Without a clear answer, the people who argue that it is Mr Museveni's scheme are certainly justified. They are also justified to question his political commitment even on other proposals such as the opening up of the political space, which has been hinged on holding a referendum on the same matter.

Ministers Amama Mbabazi and Crispus Kiyonga argue that Article 1 of the Constitution gives power to the people to determine who and how they should be governed.

The problem with African leaders is that they are quick at citing constitutional provisions that justify their continued stay in power than those provisions that might facilitate the smooth change of leadership.

While I appreciate the notion of "people's power", those in leadership have often manipulated "the people" to achieve their selfish interests.

The proposals to lift presidential term limits, widen executive over legislative powers and hold a referendum on political parties should be viewed as one such manipulation under the guise of "people's power".

Surely, you do not expect a hybrid of intellectuals and upcountry semi-literates to engage in a constructive debate over such important issues as the third term, presidential powers and political pluralism.

The situation in Uganda still calls for a limited presidential term and a powerful legislature.

In a country that has never organised a free and fair election, to think that "the people" will ultimately determine who leads them is a callous disregard of the intimidation and harassment many Ugandans went through during the previous elections.

Besides, electoral democracy is in itself not enough measure of democracy when other political forces are not free to organise before elections are held.

In Africa, those in power have always made it impossible for other forces to win an election.

A recent study from Cornell University on how leaders in Africa leave office, including either through coup, war or invasion or by elections revealed the following that from 1960-1969, no African country held an election but leadership in various countries changed 27 times through. That was either through coups, wars or invasions.

The number shot to 30 between 1970-1979. The next 10 years show 22 leadership changes and only one cosmetic election in Uganda.

The situation, however, somehow "improved" between 1990 to 2000. During this period, African countries changed their leadership 14 times through elections but 22 in general.

The number here again includes Uganda's elections of 1996 and I leave it to the readers to judge the fairness of those election results.

To me this unfortunate situation is understandable. It is unthinkable in Africa for one to organise his or her own funeral. Those close to the president fear to lose power and must find ways to justify their continued stay in power.

Ugandans should not be deceived that the proposal to lift the term limit restriction from the Constitution is not intended to benefit Mr Museveni as a person. In fact to argue so is to abuse the intellect of Ugandans.

It is surprising that one of the arguments the proponents of the third term are making is that countries such as Britain have no limits to the presidency yet these are the same states the Movement has often quoted as having conditions that are far different from ours to allow for political pluralism.

I acknowledge Mr Museveni's contribution to the development of Uganda in the last 20 years. However, I do not agree that Ugandans should amend the Constitution just to give Museveni another term.

I also do not think it is necessary to hold a referendum on political pluralism whose results are very predictable. In fact, Mr Museveni informed the National Executive Committee in Kyankwanzi that there is a reasonable number of Ugandans who have persistently voted against the Movement in favour of political parties.

The results of the 2000 referendum were a clear manifestation that there are Ugandans who are clearly and strongly opposed to the Movement political organisation.

This should be a clear indication that in the interest of democracy, the rights of the minorities should be recognised and protected without incurring unnecessary expenditures by holding a referendum whose results will again be very predictable. I hope that when the final report is eventually out, the members of Parliament who "overwhelmingly" supported the third term proposal will have sobered up.

In the meantime, debate should rage.