Opposition must use criticism to better themselves

On August 30, my colleague Alan Tacca authored an opinion titled ‘NRM is a cheat, and a wife-beater’ as a rebuttal to my August 2 opinion titled ‘If NRM is a cheat, People Power is a wife-beater’. Sunday Monitor published both articles.
Glaringly, Mr Tacca did not address the central arguments of my article. I argued that the behaviour of a movement can be predicted from the way it behaves in its infancy and that the People Power movement would not lead to change for the better. 
I emphasised the need to scrutinise anyone who seeks our political support, and the fact that Uganda needs improvement, not mere change. Subsequently, I authored an opinion titled ‘Cutting People Power Open: Open Letter to Nubian Li,’ in which I urged the moderates in People Power to become the dominant voice (thereby pushing the extremist section to the fringes, where they belong).
But the Opposition rarely uses criticism to introspect and better themselves. Their default response is to point you to another sinner to distract you (and themselves) from dealing with their weaknesses. Alternatively, they dwell on your bias and motivations.
However, bias is not a bad thing, as long as you correct it. In the modern court system, for example, we have two biased lawyers, one for the defence and another for the prosecution. Yet despite their bias, a judge or a jury can approximate the truth and make a judgment. What matters most are the merits and demerits of one’s arguments, and the validity of supporting evidence, not bias.
The same applies to motivations. If an unholy man or your enemy advises you to educate and love your children, is that bad advice or sound advice? The Opposition is bound to call it bad advice because the person giving it is ‘not a friend’ or is biased. Such is the extent of their unhealthy fascination with bias and motivation.
In the same spirit, my colleague focused on my motivations, bias, and the weaknesses of the NRM instead of addressing the inadequacies within the Opposition. In doing so, he did not negate People Power’s ineptitude to capture power, let alone transform Uganda.
That said, it is not helpful for us to dwell on the numerator (the weaknesses of NRM, People Power, or MPs) and completely ignore the denominator (the flaws of Ugandans).
All well-meaning Ugandans agree that Uganda needs change. But while the more reckless Ugandans are okay with any change, the pragmatic ones insist on change for the better. The next point of contention is whether the desired change should come from within or without the NRM. In other words, are the available alternatives more qualified to deliver transformation? Besides, should the change primarily be political or cultural?
We claim that Uganda’s biggest problem lies in State House; however, the conduct of Ugandans, irrespective of their party affiliation, suggests that the problem is mostly cultural, not political. 
So, the idea that a change in State House is the panacea for Uganda’s challenges is reductionist at best and naïve at worst. We must realise that what we do in our homes and individual lives is not any less important. 
Poets may say that the fish rots from the head down, but science shows that the fish (and other animals) rot from wherever the factors that are conducive for rotting are. 
Patients with uncontrolled diabetes, for example, rot from the feet up.

Mr Kibudde is a socio-political thinker
[email protected]