Washington, D.C. — Under Uganda's "no party" or "movement" system, parties cannot be formed to campaign for office but any individual can run for any office. President Yoweri Museveni, who instituted this law, won re-election by an overwhelming margin in March despite charges by his opponent that under his leadership Uganda has become corrupt and undemocratic. And in parliamentary elections held this week candidates backed by Museveni did well. There have been charges that government soldiers intimidated some voters in areas where opposition to Museveni was strong. Kampala 's police chief said there was more violence in this week's elections than those held in 1996. But most observers have proclaimed the vote generally free and fair. Indeed, Winnie Byanyima, wife of defeated presidential candidate Kizza Besigye, won a parliamentary seat in Museveni's hometown of Mbarara. "I'm not against him (Museveni)," she said. "I will not sabotage his programs through parliament, but I will not accept thieves to surround him."
Museveni and Uganda remain popular with western governments. The east African nation's anti-AIDS campaign is held up as a model. Its approach to managing the economy is considered solid. Uganda is also pivotal to efforts aimed at settling conflicts in Sudan and Congo. Earlier this week Ugandan Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi was in Washington to discuss a "Partnership to Cut Hunger in Africa" with other African leaders and U.S. officials. He also talked with allAfrica's Charles Cobb Jr. about many of the issues affecting his nation. Excerpts:
The United Nations AIDS conference is beginning as we talk. Uganda is some thing of a model of how to grapple with this issue. How is that Uganda has been able to come to grips with this problem so straightforwardly while so many other African nations have not?
Our leader, President Museveni was transparent. At a time when many countries were hiding this problem he came out clear. Having come out there was the political will to handle it and then we started networking internally, addressing issues of stigma, and addressing the question of cure and also networking with the global village. So, you have transparency, you define the problem properly - that is always essential to define the problem properly - and then the solutions are easier to prescribe. The matter is now global and we are enjoying a lot of sympathy and assistance. We are now addressing the whole question of drug affordability. It is a very important issue.
The question that especially interests us though is how is that Uganda which is not that different than other African nations been able to address this question so directly? Until recently, at least looking at it from Washington, there has been so much resistance across the continent to facing this problem. You have, I suppose in Uganda the same kind of rural and traditional conservatism around these issues that you would find in any very traditional society - not just in Africa, but also anywhere in the world. So what is it that has enabled Uganda? Is this simply a question of leadership or something else inside the society?
There are two issues that have always made a difference when there are problems in polities. The first one is leadership. The second one is the quality of followership. Leadership is not enough in itself because if you have got sycophantic followers, leaders will deteriorate. So you need a combination of good, imaginative and accountable leadership and also good and non- sycophantic followership. Those are very important elements. And what's more, the question of transparency has also been very rewarding to the population and to other neighboring countries.
This week in Dar es Salaam there was supposed to be a "summit" between President Kabila of Congo, and President Museveni. It has suddenly been cancelled. We understand that President Kabila cancelled this meeting. Is that your understanding? Will this summit take place?
What I know is that currently Uganda is dealing with that question of her neighbor using the Lusaka framework. We are still working within that framework. And I know that the problems, which have been afflicting us, will be overcome through that framework. I am not in a position to reveal everything because when you're still negotiating and you reveal information it might be injurious to the interface you are going to have with a friend.
Last week, the United Nations with specific references to Uganda, called for foreign troops to be pulled out. I was a bit surprised because I thought Uganda was pulling its troops out yet the UN made this specific reference to Uganda. What's you reaction to that?
To the best of my knowledge Uganda in fact was pulling out of Congo faster than the Lusaka Agreement requires. And Uganda was asked not to over-accelerate the pace because there are staggering problems in the DRC. And as a political scientist let me mention one. In political science we refer to the problem of "territorial integration." Territorial integration concerns the capacity of the central government to establish central authority over its subordinate governments. Now this problem is still with our neighbor. Therefore a number of problems spill into the neighboring countries. And as far as I know the DRC - let me call it Congo - requires assistance on this score. So, how can you now urge affected people to simply pull out when the international community has not put in place a formula that is going to enhance territorial integration?
Do you think territorial integration is even possible at this point?
It is possible if there is massive infusion of assistance in the DRC comparable to what was done in Kosovo. If it were done it would make a difference. But you need even to handle the basic infrastructure - roads, recruitment of trained personnel, you need to encourage dialogue with regard to the contending groups in DRC - it is a multi-faceted problem requiring a lot of assistance internally and externally
Is there any reason to think that you will get for the DRC the kind of investment of resources or manpower that have been made in Kosovo or the Balkans - resources for an African nation?
It is difficult that's why you require the affected groups and even those who are not affected in the region to continue assisting resolution of this problem - conflict resolution. And also to bring the different contending groups to a negotiating table. You may not get immediate global assistance in the quantities you require but now as you realize that the world is becoming a small village I think there is a moral duty for the international community to respond. I should also add, promptly, that the DRC has the potential resources. It is essential to harness them to help avoid anarchy in that polity. This anarchy affects global sobriety so the international community should have a stake in what is happening in Congo.
Is the international community's stake consistent with either Congo's or Africa's stake?
That's a good one. And this is where the role of advocacy, the role of articulating the question to the international community is very important. We need essentially to ensure that public interest prevails over personal interests. It is a struggle. Let us struggle together.
You have elections in Uganda this week. Talk to me about your country's "no party" or "movement" system. It's relationship to democracy is a big question in many people's minds.
The essentials of a no party system are contained in article 71 of our constitution. And let me highlight them because they are extremely important. It is actually article 70. You have participatory democracy, accountability and transparency, accessibility to all positions of leadership by all citizens, individually merit as the basis for all political elections to office. The point must be made that a no party system is different from a single party system because in a single party system those who don't comply with the requirements of the single party system are thrown out of that party. But in a no party state we don't throw out anybody who is a wrongdoer. We caucus that wrongdoer so that he or she may belong. The point must be made, when a country has "died" - as Uganda "died" - I am basically referring to atrophy of institutions, atrophy of morality, atrophy of procedures - that country requires a "movement" system so that all the elites may put their heads together to restore sobriety, to restore institutions, restore procedures. That's extremely important. So that you create institutions from village, parish, sub-county, district and parliament. All of these embrace everybody so that we solve our problems together, so that we do not dissipate our energy.
But now the critical question to ask is, 'Is this a permanent arrangement? What is happening to those who would like to have a multi-party system, what you call in America political pluralism?' These are some of the questions we are grappling with.
Are you saying that Uganda was so shattered because of the years of the Idi Amin regime that to form political parties would be disruptive?
The point that I was making was that there was total collapse of the minimums required to run a decent polity; that we had to work together. Unfortunately we had parties that required transforming because they were dividing people, using ethnic differences, using religious differences. The point is to restore the minimums of running a polity and if you examine our constitution - for example article 74 of our constitution.: During the fourth term of the term of parliament there is room to reexamine the political systems we may have. For example currently we are having a "movement" political system. There are those agitating for a multi-party system but it is possible to address this matter. I think it was in the year 2000 when there was a referendum as to whether we should continue with a movement political system or revert to a multi-party system and 93 percent agreed that we should retain the movement political system. So, what we have on the ground is being assessed diligently. There are procedures in the constitution itself - you a referendum and special majorities to move from one political system to another.
Also bordering Uganda is a country we sometimes find even more complex than Congo - that's Sudan. It also poses certain difficulties for Uganda. Do you think that the Khartoum government and the southern rebels are at the point at which they are willing to come to the peace table? Should the Sudan conflict be described as a conflict between an Islamic North and a non-Islamic South? Or an "Arab" North and an "African" South? And what do you think of this fairly peculiar coalition in the United States that has emerged around Sudan that brings together religious evangelicals who are usually associated with the right wing of the political system, and liberal democrats?
Essentially, as Prime Minister of Uganda I need to be prudent when answering questions about the problems of another country. Especially at a time when our neighboring country - Sudan - attended the swearing-in ceremony of the president; the leader of Sudan attended the swearing in ceremony. It was a very important development because we have had fundamental conflicts. And the leader of Libya assisted in bringing us together. And things would appear to be on the mend.
Now, on peace talks. The task is for the international community to facilitate the contending groups to come together. They are involved in the question too. Their task is to ensure that these groups come together.
It would be simplistic to argue that this is a religious war. It has a religious dimension but also there are problems of disparity of development between the different parts of that country. And when you have this disparity it tends to create conflict - not only in Sudan, but even in Uganda and other polities. That's what in political science we refer to as the problem of basically creating parity - economic parity, social integration - it must be addressed. The problem in Sudan is multi-faceted.
On the third part of your question. It is a complex question and I don't think I have an easy answer to it. You get all sorts of groups now coming to the fore, aggravating the problem on the ground or reducing it. I need more data to answer that question.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Let me ask you a straightforward question on the Sudan. Is there slavery there?
As I said earlier on we are trying to handle intricate matters. And if I answered some questions overtly I might look biased in the process of negotiation.
Would you discuss the East African Community? It is not clear whether we - at least from Washington - are watching integration or three separate states going three separate ways.
It is a community in the sense that whereas in the past we we has a top to bottom approach - the leaders were responsible for its creation - or abolition for example when there were major differences between Uganda and Tanzania it collapsed, we are now using a bottom up approach. The people have been involved in its formation. Parliaments representing the population have had to approve it. So that is now a very important community in formation. Integration is a process. Even when you have just gotten married you don't have a coalescence of identities. You begin in a simple manner, and then things mature. We have not yet achieved a political federation but we have a common history - those who colonized us were the same. We share customs and so on. So, those infrastructural issues are being addressed. Problems of one polity dominating others are being addressed and my belief is that when we move now steadily and we concentrate on functional issues we shall eventually enter the political union with a firm foundation. That requires a lot of bargaining, a lot of homework and goodwill.
Also you have some new leaders who realize that you need larger markets. In Uganda we have about 22 million people. Is that a market? But when we form the east African Community we are speaking of 81 million people. If You form COMESA you have 400 million people. So we are now realizing the importance of larger markets, the importance of networking. We have suffered too much. Events are forcing us to united.
Somewhat in this same vein, at the last OAU meeting, [OAU Secretary-General] Salim announced that now that 36 nations had ratified it, the African Union would come into existence after roughly a year-long transition. Given the kinds of difficulties you've just outlined in terms of a regional effort, and given the historic difficulty the OAU has had moving as a unit except in very limited ways, how is an African Union - parliament, currency and presumably the relinquishing of at least some decision-making power by individual states, at all possible?
It is possible when there is political will. In the past there was the problem of some leaders wishing to be big fish in a small pond. But now Africa is realizing that the process of globalization is going to hit Africa very hard unless we get together. We can only deal with globalization properly when we have reasonable cooperation. Otherwise, we shall be overwhelmed by groups which are developed, by polities which are developed and which network. Now African leaders realize that we have to network properly in order to deal with the intricate forces of globalization. Divided we shall suffer worse than when we were invaded in the 19th century and we were divided with impunity by big powers.
