The Observer (Kampala)
John B. Kakooza
5 September 2008
analysis
It dawns on me that I do not know what the word or concept “politics’’ means. I will appreciate help.
I have always considered politics to be the art or science of gaining and using power; or the art of managing a body politic and its resources, including non-physical resources, such as culture.
To this end I have always held that any polity has every right to demand good governance.
President Museveni, always supported by unfailing cadres like Kintu Nyago, has, almost too often, condescendingly told religious leaders to concentrate on spiritual matters and leave politics to him (Boogera muwawa). The Kabaka of Buganda and the entire Kingdom leadership have also been told, in not exactly polite company language, to concentrate on cultural matters only.
The President sets the tone, often in anger, and cheerleaders do the rest, lecturing certain institutions on how not to “engage in politics.”
True, religious and cultural leaders are expected to stand above party politics, but certainly not outside politics, for where should they stand if politics denotes managing people and their resources within a specific body politic? Culture and politics are intricately inter-linked, if culture is simply taken to mean a people’s way of life; including the way they worship their God.
It is, therefore, not fair to suggest that religious and cultural leaders do not have the right to speak out on how they and the people whom they lead are governed and that to do so is to do partisan politics.
Mr. Kintu Nyago (The New Vision, 6/08/2008) quoted article 246(3) (e) which clearly forbids “traditional or cultural leaders to participate in partisan politics”, not in politics. Certainly for those leaders to keep out of partisan politics is a desirable provision of law, but to stay outside politics is not possible in a modern state. When a religious or cultural leader buys fuel which carries a huge tax component he is interacting with politics. Taxation is politics, plain and simple.
All persons including cultural leaders expect services from the government.
It is indisputably legal and legitimate for cultural leaders to speak out either for self or followers on issues of human rights and governance.
Any person, including a cultural and religious leader, can speak out about illegal arrests, unfair trials, land rights and other human rights issues. That is not forbidden under Article 246(3) (e) of the Constitution.
What they must not do is to openly participate in partisan politics; meaning belonging to or in the exercise of their office, openly identify with political organisations established for the purpose of competing for and gaining political power, or acceding to an executive office.
In this respect, the Kabaka has acquitted himself best. He has not been heard to belong to any political party, nor has he openly identified with any. The Omukama of Bunyoro, on the other hand, has openly stated that his life was in danger because he supported or supports the NRM.
Omukama Iguru should be reminded that supporting the NRM is exactly what he must not do. That is partisan politics.
The Kabaka, I guess other cultural leaders too, owns land – private land (Article 246 (3) (b) which Kintu Nyago forgot to quote). How and why is he expected not to concern himself with a proposed legislation that will affect his proprietary rights guaranteed to him by the same Constitution we all love to flaunt? Similarly, the Catholic Church owns land.
How and why is the same Church expected to concentrate on spiritual matters only while a proposed enactment threatens its proprietary rights?
When a leader like Omukama of Bunyoro openly supports the NRM, which is illegal, we do not hear complaints from the government and its usually spirited cheerleaders.
The late Fr. John Mary Waliggo was an unapologetic functionary of the Movement, even at the Human Rights Commission. The late Fr. Sseguya was RDC. The NRM has almost always had priests in parliament. But when Fr. Lawrence Kanyike or another religious leader makes a comment which may not be in good taste to the NRM fire breaks out, lit by its cadres.
It may be noteworthy that it is not only religious and cultural leaders that should keep out of partisan politics. Judges, the Army and civil servants, too, are generally expected to do so.
The dilemma lies in defining the partisan politics religious and cultural leaders are expected to keep away from, given that the test being used by NRM leaders is subjective and itself partisan. Everyone was by law required not only to be in the Movement, but also to be actively involved in its politics. This should explain why it appears perfectly normal to President Museveni and his cadres for some traditional leaders, senior army officers, some judges and religious leaders to openly identify with the NRM, and not be accused of engaging in politics while others are castigated when they as much as oppose certain policies. It has not yet sat in with the Movement leaders that the Movement is now officially partisan. It always was, but now the law, too, says it is.
John B. Kakooza, The author is a lawyer and former Corporation Secretary of the NSSF
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 The Observer. 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.
