It’s time to confront the generational question of our time

23 years down the road
However, while the aspirations and the consensus of Ugandans were transformed into a Constitutional text, 23 years down the road, this text has remained frozen and has not transited into day-to-day practical realties as people envisaged.
The surgical alterations that have been made on the 1995 Constitution have either derailed or made a mockery of the notion of “political consensus”.
The 1995 Constitution, for instance, contains the founding principles of the decentralisation system of government. And, indeed, the idea of decentralisation as anticipated in the Constitution is good, but the way it is practiced today is not different from a unitary or centralised system. Substantively, power and resources remain at the centre, – but in form, you have local government structures and councillors at districts who appear more of a smokescreen and cannot make any substantive decisions.
Let’s take an example of the dichotomy of a locally elected LC5 and centrally seconded RDC – between the two, who is a symbol of power and authority?
You have a Constitution that prescribes separation of powers for State organs, but in reality, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, you have an Executive that has captured the Legislature and the Judiciary; and a head of the Executive who seems to be controlling all the three branches. I will illustrate this further as I go along.
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, here we are, confronted with a country that has changed Constitutions more than four times, amended more than 66 of the original Constitution articles yet failed to converge people’s aspirations and realities of life.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the point at which we then should ask ourselves whether realistically it is possible to have an enduring political consensus, or if we were to interrogate the same question differently, has there ever been anything like an enduring political consensus?
Let me draw your interest to a time-tested concept of civilisation, for instance.
Civilisation is one of those time-tested social processes that have been reliably traced to as far back as the advent of humankind.
Historians, archaeologists and anthropologists tell us that in the course of human evolution, at a certain point in time, the idea of living in a group with mutual understanding and dependency became a very useful and practical lifestyle. From such small isolated groups, communities were formed. Then came societies which in due time became a civilisation.
But if we do a reality check on this thing called civilisation, we come to one conclusion that even such momentous social processes have not been “enduring” in the true sense of the word.
The Greek civilisation, for instance, which is said to be the oldest, came and collapsed. The Indus valley civilisation, Egyptian civilisation, Roman civilisation, among others, all came and vanished. The only surviving civilisation to-date seems to be the Chinese civilisation which has remained on a fair progression till today – as we speak.

Drawing parallels
If we are to draw parallels with our quest for an enduring political consensus, we then have to ask ourselves, why is it that only the Chinese civilisation seems to have endured the times?
The answer lies in perspective.
Only China has from time-immemorial provided space for a third alternative. Western civilisations have always been too conservative in perspective – they have always been built on the Anglo-Saxon (and Roman) two-dimension approach. It is either a “Yes” or a “No” and nothing else in between or beyond.
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I am sure you’ve heard of the practice of coin tossing. Coin tossing was originally a Roman practice of throwing a coin in the air and checking which side is showing when the coin lands to choose between two alternatives; to resolve a problem (is it heads or tails?). And this is what afflicted Western civilisations. Western civilisation has always been locked to a binary approach in perspectives. So, you are either:
• Jew or gentile;
• Holly or sinner;
• Believer or non-believer;
• Muslim or Infidel;
• Good or evil;
• Young or old (the Ugandan law [0-30 as young] and [60 and above as elders])

You can probably draw the same parallels in the Ugandan lingua. You are either:
• Working for us or you are against us;
• You are either in power or in opposition.
This binary approach has created a fault line at the centre of Uganda – with some people harbouring an unexplainable sense of entitlement and others feeling excluded.
The Chinese, on the other hand, have embraced a multi-dimensional approach to the world outlook. In other words, to the Chinese, a coin has more than two (2) sides. It has: the head, the tail and the edge – the edge being the limitless third perspective.
It is this third perspective that has given Chinese an edge to continuously innovate and progress in civilisation. That is why, in the world of a Chinese, a mobile phone can have more than two SIM-cards. And besides, a phone can also be your TV screen, torch, nail cutter, a microwave etc. – that’s how powerful a third perspective can be.
If we are to construct something close to an enduring political consensus, therefore, then we have to remain alive to the reality that the world is dynamic and is home to unlimited perspectives, alternatives and choices – let alone the ever-changing tastes and preferences.

Geographic, social constructs
Back in the day, our identity was pegged to geographic and social constructs (a Munyoro from western Uganda). Today our interests have become our new identifying tribes (a politician, musician, a farmer, businessman).
Consensus, whether political, economic or otherwise has to match the fast changing contexts, remain adaptable, flexible, and inclusive.
As we speak today, Facebook has 2.2 billion users, a population higher that of the most populous country, China – that has 1.3 billion people or India that has about 1.2 billion. If we were to vote by size of social network communities, which could happen rather sooner than we have anticipated, then, Facebook CEO, 33-year-old Mark Zuckerberg would be president of the world.
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, because societal construct is fast changing, alignments – be it political or otherwise, inevitably have to shift, but shift primarily in the interest of the majority of the people (not just a few who may control instruments of power and coercive means).
My view, therefore, is, we probably should not be worrying about an enduring political consensus – but rather a “responsive political consensus”.
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, let’s take a quick look at Uganda:
Uganda’s political consensus has either been imposed or has suffered a frozen transition. It is actually accurate to argue that the post-independence consensus was largely imposed for convenience’s sake. In fact, in his 1995 book, The Politics of State Formation and Destruction in Uganda, Prof Tarsis Kabwegyere argues that Ugandans have never had the chance to work out a consensus that suits the conditions of Uganda, save for the 1995 Constitution.
The 1995 Constitution, good as it may be, has suffered a frozen transition at three levels:
1) First, the failure to transition from a constitutional text to constitutionalism:
You have a Constitution that establishes three separate but equal branches of government – the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. In reality, you have a fusion between the Executive and Legislature. You have the Executive having the most powers over all the other branches, and the head of the Executive actually retaining more powers than all the three branches.
You have a Constitution that prescribes decentralisation as a form of government; but in practice you have power, authority and resources concentrated at the centre.
You have a Constitution that directs the composition of Parliament to be reviewed every 10 years. In practice, this has never been done;
You have a Constitution that directs regular, free and fair elections. In practice, you have local council elections that are irregular; you have elections contested on grounds of serious malpractices; you have LC elections convened as an open vote – contrary to provisions of Article 68 of the Constitution that require every vote to be by secret ballot.
So, in as much as there may have been an admirable 1995 Constitution text, the failure to transform that good text into practical realities has affected Uganda’s quest for a common political destiny.
2) Secondly, in as much as Uganda moved on from a single party movement system to a multiparty political system in September 2005, this transition has remained largely frozen. The spirit, the law and the practice have remained largely “Movement” in nature:
You have a winner-take-all system akin to regular practices in a single party system;
You have a situation where State institutions that are supposed to be impartial political and electoral arbiters fused with NRM party structures;

Cadre judges
You have temples of justice staffed with “NRM cadre judges” – probably not appointed on the strength of their capabilities but on grounds of political party affiliation and level of loyalty.
3) Thirdly, you have a political systems malfunction at hand:
You have a system based on the State versus society concept. A system that believes that common good must be guaranteed by imposing technically correct solutions – without necessarily taking into account the views of the majority. A classic example is what happened last year. While 85 per cent of Ugandans did not agree to the amendment of the Constitution to lift the age limits for presidential candidates, government in its wisdom felt it was technically correct to amend the Constitution;
You have a system in which political competition is “dysfunctional”. What is meant to be fair play is now fierce contestations laced with deception;
You have a skewed system which sucks money from an already stressed economy and injects it into politics. Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, the 2016 general election, for instance, cost the taxpayer close to Shs3 trillion (Shs2.4 trillion campaign spend, and about Shs500 billion spent by the EC). That is about 12.5 per cent of our annual Budget. And this amount excludes approximately Shs1.6 trillion, most of which went to enhancing security (including procuring crime preventers, procuring teargas and importing armoured vehicles).
Again, you have a reality of fusion of State powers and jurisdictions, which undermines the doctrine of separation of powers – today, more than 70 Members of Parliament double as ministers – you have a Legislature which is the Executive and an Executive which is the Legislature – where are the checks and balances? You propose the law, you debate it, you pass it and you implement it (a situation which the Baganda describe as, ‘y’azina, atte ya’kuba engoma’);
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, in order for us to nurture an enduring political consensus, in our context, we must concretely deal with these existing contradictions. This requires doing a complete systems upgrade:
If this were a computer, we would have to replace most of the hardware, software and firmware with newer versions in order to bring the system up to date and improve its operational capabilities.
It is just about time that we reviewed our political system to reduce the contradictions within it;
It is time that we recalibrate our Constitution to ensure that its software (or call it spirit) – is responsive to the users’ current demands. Same for our electoral system;
Isn’t it just about time we sorted out the role of the military and civilians in statehood and nation building?

Generational question
Isn’t it time that we confronted the generational question of our time? – where is the place of the young in today’s political matrix? Is it the right place? Where is the place of the elders or senior citizens? Is it the place where we need them to be?
What is the role of social institutions such as religion, culture, ethnicity, civil society, educational institutions, media etc. in statehood and nation building?
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, this is the time to get out of the “quick fix it” mentality or rather wait for solutions to be provided by ‘some other people out there’.
The task before all of us is clear. We now must honestly acknowledge that the motherboard (of our computer) has parts that are either defective or parts that have worn out. We have no other choice but to repair or replace those parts lest we crash the entire system.
Not until then shall we be close to talking about “an enduring political consensus”.
For God and my Country.

The writer is coordinator Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy (CCEDU)