It is undisputed that the army in Uganda has been variously misused by the successive governments since independence. The scars left behind by what has often been labelled Idi Amin's, Obote's, Tito Okello's and now Museveni's soldiers are still fresh in the minds of some people.

In his article, "Role of Army Puts Democratic Transition in Serious Doubt" in the Daily Monitor of November 3, Mr Kalinge Nnyago seems to infer that the presence of UPDF in parliament particularly, and in politics generally, continues to strike fear among the population.

What some people have been advocating is a purely civilian government. I find contradictory arguments in Kalinge's opinion when he says that "the rationale for soldier representation in parliament is embedded in Uganda's history." If this is true, which I accept, then we should examine the impact of army's role in parliament in the last two and a half decades.

Has that representation brought about positive changes or not, is what we should analyse, and not merely criticizing the institution's past record. History, some people argue, should guide us in making decisions. At the moment Uganda has enjoyed relative peace in nearly three quarters of Uganda, because of that army.

I must hasten to add here that I am not a spokesperson of the UPDF, although I have some historical attachment to that institution. I am also indebted to Kalinge Nnyago, for his mentoring role in bringing me up through higher education. To say that the army should be kept out of politics is to live in a dreamland.

Instead of advocating exclusion of the army from important decision making institutions, we should be debating on the way our army should be treated in politics. The world is now searching for a modern government with stable institutions like the army. How can we reach that optimistic position when some of us are telling the army to return to the barracks?

In his discourse on "Possible Future Architectures of Global Governance: A Transitional Perspective/Prospective" Prof Sanjeev Khagram of the University of Washington, delineates several normative-analytical images of a possible future global governance. To paint a picture of what a future world government should look like Khagram believes in six models but I will only cite where he envisions interstate regimes that would provide widespread demilitarisation linked to collective security mechanism.

If the likes of Kalinge are 'still dying a little' on seeing a uniformed person, what alternatives do they have in as far as maintenance of world peace is concerned? One of Khagram's model talks of an international well facilitated, trained police force. What is the difference between this police force and the army?

Secondly, have we addressed the issue of multiple civil wars especially in the third world? What we should be most concerned about now is the quality of our forces in military and political participation. This political participation has enabled UPDF to be recognised globally as a disciplined force that can be relied on in missions such as peacekeeping. In my view it is too early to talk of removing the army from politics. True, there are some rotten eggs in that force, just as there are in other organisations. But removing the army from politics is not the way to go.

Political actors should look for other civil ways of ascending to positions of governance and stop peddling the excuse of presence of the army in politics. The army can be impartial as was clearly shown during the debate on the constitution amendment. Col. Fred Bogere abstained during voting. We need to streamline the role of the UPDF in our politics so that we remove what the Kalinges fear.

Mr Emojong is a student of Master's in conflict resolution at Lancaster University.