THE NRM AND Point Three OF ITS TEN Point Programme PDF

Preview

Summary

NRM TEN POINT PROGRAMS...

Description

THE NRM AND POINT THREE OF ITS TEN POINT PROGRAMME An analysis and critique of just how the Movement has performed in its mandate to eliminate sectarianism thus far The national resistance movement, led His current Excellency Yoweri Kaguta Museveni took hold of Uganda’s political power in 1986. The movement made quite the impression, given its promises to redeem and revive the nation from the shambles it had been reduced to over the past century. Torn by power struggles, military excesses and of course the fact that Uganda had never had a peaceful handover of power, the people welcomed the movement with open arms. The movement blessed the people with an outline of its objectives known as the ten point programme. Point 3 of this programme was specifically targeted at eliminating all forms of sectarianism in the country. However, “it is not stated, for example, whether the ten points are intended as strategies, as goals or simply as hopes, nor is this clear from the context.”1 This author argues that however well-meaning the points may have been, their framing was problematic2 and to this end I agree. However that is not the point of this research hence I should leave that line of argument for another day. Sectarianism There is need to understand a few terms moving forward, starting with sectarianism itself which is defined as the excessive attachment to a particular sect or party especially in religion.3 Sectarianism is also a form of prejudice, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching relations of inferiority and superiority to differences between subdivisions within a group. Common examples are denominations of a religion, ethnic identity, class or region for citizens of a state and factions of a political movement.4 Sectarianism may be the expression of a group’s nationalistic or cultural ambitions or exploited by demagogues.5 Sectarianization- how sectarianism is mobilized by political actors due to ulterior political motives. It is an active, multi-layered process and a set of motives.6 Sectarian democracies – multi-factional countries where the faction with the greatest power has a democratic government that is discriminatory towards the other faction.7 In Uganda for example, one can look at the relationship between the Ugandan government and the people of Northern Uganda in the early 2000s when Kony was wreaking all sorts of havoc in the state.

1 Lisa Halka, Selected Articles on the Uganda Resistance War by Yoweri Museveni, Ufahamu; A journal of African studies 2 Owing to the fact that it was framed 3 Google, Sectarianism 4 Wikipedia, Sectarianism 5 Ibid 6 Wikipedia, Sectarianism 7 Ibid

It has been made quite obvious that there was clear cut sectarianism in Uganda’s past. If that were not the case then point three of the TPP would not have been necessary and thus not be a point of question presently. If an example is necessary, we can easily reflect on Idi Amin’s regime, and the obvious elevation of Islam and Muslims in the nation. Take for example the Islamic Summit Convention in 1974 where Uganda was admitted as a Muslim nation even though only 5-10% of the population was actually Muslim and heavily outnumbered by Christians.8 Point 3 of the TPP provided an alternative to this by adopting a non-sectarian stance. Non-sectarians espouse that free association and tolerance of different beliefs are the cornerstone to successful peaceful human interaction. They espouse political and religious freedom.9 Ideally speaking, this may be the best way to go; acceptance, understanding, equality and respect. What this means, therefore, is that for this manifesto/mandate to be fulfilled, the Movement would need to be impartial in affairs of religion, ethnicity and so on.

Point 3 of the Ten Point Programme and how the NRM sought to make good on their promise. Over the years, numerous documents, articles and books have been written that examine the steps taken by the NRM in the fulfilment of its ten point programme mandate. One of these documents,10 while talking about point three notes that the first and most important of these was the No-party system of democracy that was introduced in 1986. It notes that the Movement did not immediately reintroduce the multi-party system of democracy and though not understood internationally, it worked in as far as healing the country from the almost century old scars of sectarianism was concerned.11 It also noted the following; “Achievements under Anti-sectarianism 

 



President Museveni preached that the movement was a home of everybody irrespective of colour, sex tribe or religious affiliation. This new thinking drew crowds to the movement camp because Ugandans were tired of disunity, favouritism and inequality in the distribution of social and economic benefits. All the initial and top civil service appointments reflected the spirit of anti-sectarianism. The movement government was broad based. When it came to elections, it was the merit of the person that was most crucial, thus the spirit of individual merit was started. The seed of unity and anti-sectarianism has been sown and continues to grow. The anti-sectarian law has been passed.”12

8 Ali A Mazrui, RELIGIOUS STRANGERS IN UGANDA; FROM EMIN PAHA TO AMIN DADA 9 Wikipedia, Sectarianism 10 UGANDA 25 YEARS OF NATION BUILDING AND PROGRESS JAN 1986-2011, Foreword from Mrs Joan Kakwenzire, Senior Presidential Advisor 11 Ibid 12 Ibid

The No-party system of democracy in Uganda: did it really work? Under this system, political parties were dealt away with; every civilian was under the Movement. This was aimed at uniting the country by having everyone identify as not different from anybody else. Museveni himself claimed that the Movement system “removes ethnic, religious and gender based sectarianism from politics, cleanses the country of political corruption and in fact infects a new (as opposed to backward or foreign) ideology into the politics of Uganda.”13 Therefore as far as elections were concerned, competition was considered to be between individuals rather than political groups and movements.14 This may have seemed like a useful initiative from the outset, but it is important to note that although there were no political parties, there were still groups of individuals with differing ideologies from that of the Movement. The no-party system of democracy as employed the NRM is closely examined in a book entitled No-Party Democracy in Uganda. Myths or Realities. The book provides insights from different perspectives, one belonging to Professor Joe Oloka Onyango who stated that “the movement system is no more than a one party system in disguise. It is a political animal that neither succeeded in its basic raison d’etre of promoting democracy nor in eliminating sectarianism and political corruption.”15 Naturally, not everyone could be in agreement with the movement’s line of action and that is only understandable. However, if the system was such a soaring success, why then was there, pressure from the public to reinstate it through the 2005 referendum in which the people voted in favour of a multiparty system?16 Perhaps this move wasn’t in fact all that it was puffed up to be. Section 41 of the Penal Code Act: the law against sectarianism One of the talking points of the NRM is this, the law that was passed against sectarianism. Unfortunately, there is not much jurisprudence on this so there is little to work with to determine how effective it has since been. What we do have however, the infamous case of Andrew Mwenda in which the constitutionality of the offence was challenged.17 In this case the defendant was charged with promoting sectarianism contrary to section 41 of the penal code act, having made statements that were to the tune that the appointments being made to the national army, the Uganda People’s Defence forces were partial in nature. After all deliberations had gone down in court, the judges had very little to say about the matter. In fact, the entirety of their judgement was that they found nothing unconstitutional about the offence. 13Book Review, WHAT IS AFRICA’S PROBLEM?, NO-PART DEMOCRACY IN UGANDA: MYTHS AND REALITIES, WOMEN AND POLITICS IN UGANDA, Joshua B Rubogonya – Journal of Asian and African Studies 14 15Book Review, WHAT IS AFRICA’S PROBLEM?, NO-PART DEMOCRACY IN UGANDA: MYTHS AND REALITIES, WOMEN AND POLITICS IN UGANDA, Joshua B Rubogonya – Journal of Asian and African Studies 16Growing but not transforming: Fragmented ruling coalitions and economic developments in Uganda, Anne Mettle Kfoer, Mesarch Katusiime, DIIS Working Papers 2012 17Andrew Mujuni Mwenda & Anor v Attorney General (constitutional Petition No.12 of 2005)

Given that the court had just delivered a very detailed judgment concerning the unconstitutionality of the offense of publication of false news, it was a tad disappointing that this was all it had to say concerning this section. It might have been better if the court had given more context and nuance because the silence of the courts leaves a lot of room for speculation in times when clarity is much desired. Arguably it might have been for a good cause such as presenting an ethnic war, but a little context wouldn’t have hurt.

The Lord’s Resistance Army and Sectarian politics in Uganda: was sectarianism responsible for inspiring the resistance movements in the North The Lord’s Resistance Army is a rebel military group that gained notoriety for its efforts to oust the Movement Government, heavily relying on guerrilla warfare tactics. Led by the infamous and presently at large Joseph Kony, the Army sought to overthrow the Museveni government and instil a new rule based on Kony’s understanding of the 10 commandments. According to Wikipedia, causes of the LRA attacks include among others, the marginalization of people in the Northern parts of Uganda. “this marginalization, deliberate or otherwise, with the adverse consequences of the war has resulted in disparate poverty levels in Northern Uganda for the most part of the NRM’s rule18… the Poverty Status Report 2003 indicates that one third of the chronically poor(30.1%) and a disproportionate moving into poverty are from Northern Uganda.”19 With statistics as troubling as these it is no wonder that certain negative sentiments took root in the hearts of the people. “The LRA is a consequence of an ethnic oriented war that was initiated by the NRM/A in Luwero Triangle against the ‘northerners’. This was fuelled by the belief on the part of the leadership of the NRM/A that Uganda politics had since political independence been dominated by the Northerners in the country and that this had happened because of their alleged dominion of the armed forces.”20 This was a rather unfortunate line of action taken by the Movement, and I believe it was this sectarian attitude towards the people of northern Uganda that resulted into the breeding of sentiments against the government. In this case, we have an example of sectarianism as earlier defined; the active employment of certain measures to ensure that a certain part of the population is kept in check. Important to note is that this in no way condones or attempts to justify the violence of the movement against its own. However, “members of a religious, national or political group may believe that their own salvation, or the success of their particular objectives requires aggressively seeking converts from other groups; likewise adherents of a given faction may believe that the achievement of their own political or religious goals requires the conversion or purging of dissidents within their own sect.”21 Perhaps this was the rationale behind the rebel group’s inhuman actions towards its very own men women and children. 18 Wikipedia, Lord’s Resistance Army 19 Ibid, as a footnote from the actual report 20 Wikipedia, Lord’s Resistance Army 21 Wikipedia, sectarianism

What is the conclusion then? The conclusion then is that the NRM has not in fact fulfilled its manifesto/mandate/promise. The movement has however done a very good job of saying one thing and doing quite the opposite; paying lip service to a people maybe not too eager to listen anymore....