Charles Ochen Okwir
22 July 2008
opinion
Jacob Zuma, the man tipped to be South Africa's next President, has, like Nelson Mandela before him, given some African leaders [whom we shall not identify here], serious reasons for introspection.
The army, he said, "should not interfere in the affairs of the state," and that "the affairs of the state should be left to those who were elected by the populace" (Army has no place in politics, says Zuma, Daily Monitor, June 18).
That, in diplomatic speak, is actually euphemism for what he would have said directly, probably in undiplomatic language, to his hosts the NRM had he not been the public figure that he is. Put bluntly, Zuma effectively told the NRM government to relieve the army of its active participation in Ugandan politics in the interest of good governance and national stability. Interestingly, it is the same cause of "national stability" that the NRM government has consistently advanced in vehement defence of the army's continued participation in Uganda's politics.
What this clearly suggests is that South African and Ugandan political leaders have completely different appreciations of what it takes to achieve and maintain good democratic governance and national stability. You will recall that, before Zuma, Mandela had warned Uganda against removing term limits for the office of president from our constitution but we ignored his advice and we are now grappling with the succession question.
When you look back into Uganda's turbulent political history, the very army that Zuma thinks should be kept out of politics, has been right at the centre of Uganda's political troubles.
That simple fact of history completely changes everything. What we thought was a legitimate difference in political appreciation between two sovereign states is immediately transformed into a battle for supremacy of political judgement between Ugandan and the post apartheid South African leaders.
The question then is: who comes out on top, Uganda or South Africa? The answer again lies in a simple historical fact. Whereas South Africa, which had very legitimate reasons to militarily fight apartheid has largely changed presidents/governments peacefully through democratic elections, in Uganda it has consistently been through iron and blood.
A former "kadogo" [child soldier] in Museveni's rebel National Resistance Army (NRA) once told me that he went to the bush to fight indiscipline in former president "Lutwa's army" (the UNLA) because they robbed him of a wrist watch at a road block!
Interestingly, it is also on record that the rebel Uganda Peoples Defence Army (UPDA) that first took up arms against the NRM government also cited harassment and political persecution by the "victorious" NRA rebels led by Museveni. For example, I know for a fact that an NRA Commander matched into COVMO Motors on Plot 45 Jinja Road and demanded the keys to a Mercedes Benz 500 and drove off with it forever!
In my view, the acts of indiscipline allegedly committed by both the UNLA and NRA were enabled by a catastrophic deficit in the appreciation of what it takes to politically govern a country effectively with the interests of "democracy, national unity and stability." This, in my view, is exactly the sort of failure that Zuma is warning against. The army may, as he put it, "be politically aware" but it must also not take its eyes off its strict constitutional mandate; to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.
So when today's army Generals say openly that "we can never accept Kizza Besigye as president even if he won an election," you know that as a country, we haven't learnt a thing from our turbulent history. And that is tragic.
The writer is a Ugandan lawyer and journalist based in UK
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 The Monitor. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
