On June 16, Sunday Monitor's Tabu Butagira caught up with Sir Edward Clay, the former UK High Commissioner to Uganda for an interview at the Grosvenor Hotel in central London. Below is a heavily abridged version.

You served in Uganda at a time of the writing of the country's current Constitution, what were your impressions of the political issues then?

The burning issues then, and later was [restoration of] multipartyism and the [Prof. Frederick Ssepembwa-led Constitutional Review] Commission. The Constituent Assembly delegates debated efficiently and quickly to produce a wonderful Constitution in 1995. But the time of voting on the issue of multipartyism was the most dramatic day in Parliament.

So, what do you think of the practice of multi-party politics in Uganda today?

The fact that the country has made the transition to multipartyism successfully is a great credit to Ugandans but it also shows that those who tried to argue that it would be a disaster really were not quite accurate and they judged their countrymen a little bit unfairly.

In the 2008/09 budget, Uganda is cutting donor support to about 30 percent. Critics say donor aid to President Yoweri Museveni's government should be frozen altogether because the regime is corrupt.

This [decision on whether or not to freeze aid] is the most difficult dilemma for donor countries.

On the one hand, if you reduce aid or cut it out, you do damage to poor Ugandans even before you damage the government. It seems therefore that instead of punishing the government, you instead punish the poor people. On the other hand if you don't do anything, the problem tends to grow. I think donors ought to be more demanding, more self-critical and of course there are other ways of giving aid than through the bad financial arrangements in government.

There are variations you can use to make the point that you are in favour of eradicating poverty and not in favour of appearing to reward corrupt people.

So, how can donors rein-in errant leaders since ordinary citizens appear not to have the power to stop official graft?

It is rather difficult because the ordinary tax payer may not be able to enforce accountability on their governments. Probably, it is not donor money that is being stolen but rather the public money raised by tax payers. What aid does is only to make that possible because aid enables the government not only to steal its own taxes but also to provide services. It thus helps to create a cushion of comfort for a government!

There is this cynical argument that corruption is good for leaders because it taints cronies and then deflects potential competition for the incumbent.

In a way the whole story of corruption is to undermine the Opposition politically and competition commercially because tenders are awarded to companies not because they produce the best but because they pay the biggest bribes.

The Uganda government is currently clamping down on the free media with an ad hoc cabinet committee reviewing existing and progressive media freedom laws. Does this concern you?

Attempts to muzzle the press are wrong and misguided and ineffective in the long term. It is a very bad thing for society.

The media are [best] disciplined by competition and in the end reputation. I don't like the stories of efforts to exercise muscle on journalists.

Also civil liberties are getting increasingly stifled as well with arrests of three MPs in the past fortnight. What do these coercive actions bode for the health of Uganda's democracy?

It seems to me wrong if members of the legislature, which is after all one of the highest institutions in any democracy, are not treated with respect. The [Uganda] Police surely have instructions on how to carry out their duty with respect. (Coercion) doesn't sound very healthy and it is disappointing to hear.

It is said a people can vote bad leaders out of office. Retrospectively, do you think it was a good idea to scrap presidential term limits in Uganda?

The greatest thing I thought about the 1995 Constitution was the idea of term limits. Ten years is a good period for someone to be able to achieve something. I do recognise, as everyone does, that Uganda has had a really difficult history since the 1960s and respect those who say that President Museveni is a unique person with unique contribution... (But) term limits are good not because we want to get rid of anybody but just that it is a good thing. Somebody taking up office should do so on the basis that they will have one election or win another term and they can leave with honour.

Would you then support proposals for reinstatement of term limits when the Constitution is amended?

That argument has been lost...the question is really, can there be a good competition at an election in which the [sitting] President is a candidate? Clearly, the term limit is not going to be re-introduced. I understand [President Museveni's] feeling that he has a lot of energy and contribution to give.

But critics say Mr Museveni has stayed for far too long and needs to exit for fresh blood to take over?

I think it is too difficult to make this argument as it were when there is one overwhelming individual around because the argument then gets conducted not in terms of what is the best thing for the Constitution and for the country but (rather) what is the best thing for President Museveni and his opponents!

During your tenure in Uganda, what were your impressions of President Museveni?

I admire him as an extraordinary man and a remarkable President for Uganda; soldierly, believed in discipline, was quite a dominating character but he incorporated values, which at the time seemed to very many of his people extremely relevant.

He was a bit brilliant [and could] communicate with extraordinary [ability]. But I also had criticism on constitutional issues, defence expenditure and I became really worried by Uganda's role in conflicts that broke out particularly in the DR Congo. I came to think rather that Uganda sometimes made matters worse than better through its interventions [in regional conflicts].

I was, throughout, worried by the situation in the north and it seemed that more could have been done to solve the problem [of the LRA insurgency] by the Uganda government.

Are you then suggesting that there was less political will to solve the problem?

I think it was not given the priority it should have been given.

There have been arguments that western donors exaggerated the success of economic recovery under Museveni's leadership to justify their own economic and aid policies. For instance, that if a country's economy is doing well, then there should be no reason for it to fail to service its debt, let alone benefit from debt cancellation as Uganda did?

There is obviously some truth in that. Donors have budgets they want to spend and in the end, they sometimes become clients of the government rather than the other way round because they don't want to disturb those comfortable relationships.

But in all justice, Uganda did have some genuine success stories and the country's economic growth has been remarkable now for several years.

To be fair, President Museveni did meet some of those requirements (donor conditionalities) but there were inevitably some blemishes and some of the leaders we thought were the "new breed" of Africa have also turned to be in one way or another "very questionable."

Though Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is loathed by the West, he seems to have many peers on the continent involved in electoral fraud, torture of opponents, corruption etc. Why has the West, and particularly the UK failed to denounce President Museveni's regime, isn't it double standards?

I don't think the situations in the two countries are really comparable, what Mugabe has done, he has been doing for many years and so most blatantly. He doesn't seem to care about the opinion of other African leaders, the international community or most importantly, his own people. So, there is a tragedy being worked out there and I don't really think that it is sensible to compare Robert Mugabe with anyone else on the African continent. The situation in Uganda is simply one of increasing prosperity not famine and unnecessary disease as it is in Zimbabwe.

Trade not aid, do you buy the idea?

We need both. It is important to ensure access of Africa to wealthy markets and make investors find investment opportunities on the continent and believe them as more attractive. But aid has a role, I mean a few years ago Uganda was dependent on aid for about 60 per cent to meet its budget needs, which has now gone down [to 30 percent]. I don't think there are still resources in the country to enable it do without aid.

Arising from the recovery point you raised, Rwanda comes out as a shining example after the 1994 genocide. Is there a dividend, if you like, that chaos or political upheavals bring in re-orienting people's mind to development?

It maybe but it is a huge price to pay. [The liberation war in Uganda] did, however, have that effect to make people realise that orderly government, strong and clean leadership is worth a lot.

How can the volatile situation in the Great Lakes region be addressed?

The area has tempting riches and governments whose authority is very remote from large parts of its people, in the DRC in particular. Conflicts in Africa are actually reducing and I think the best option is to have strong leaders; leadership that needs to be clean and above serious complaint.

What advice would you give Mr Museveni to enable him leave a shining legacy?

First, I would ask him to give me some words of wisdom and assuming he intends to stop being President one day, even if not in the next year or two, it would be good thing to think about his legacy - how people will assess his period in power when he is not there disciplining them.

Anything you miss about Uganda

I miss the admirable people, they were likable, generous to us; their instincts were kind.