|
|
The Role of MPs in the Quest for Federalism |
|
Home | News | Discussion | FAQ | Federal Model | Regional Models | Addendum | What's New |
|
|
By
Dr. F. Golooba-Mutebi I
have thought long and hard about this topic. The suggestions I present
below are therefore not the product of ‘thinking on the hoof’. They
are likely, however, to disappoint those who expected a heavy role for
MPs. Given
the record of parliament since 1996, or one could say 1989, MPs should
play no role in the initial discussions about, or study of, the
feasibility of a federal system of government in Uganda. By this I mean
they should have no role in their official capacity as members of
parliament. Our MPs [or at least many of them] hold distinguished records as lacking the capacity for expressing independent views on any issue save for the most mundane before parliament. Moreover, the question of federalism should not be exposed to ignorant posturing, which many MPs are wont to do on many questions of national importance, a tendency that has led to debates on critical issues having outcomes that can only be described as inimical to the long-term interests of the country. The UCB saga to which I refer cursorily below, is a case in point. I do not believe that a serious discussion of the viability of federalism necessarily calls for the participation of every Tom, Dick and Harriet. I propose a small group of independent-minded, knowledgeable and wise men and women, quietly deliberating behind the scenes. I make this proposal on the grounds that an overly large forum would only lend itself to cacophony rather than harmony. You will note that in the following paragraphs this small group gives way to wider constellations of participants. In
my opinion these sages could be individuals – whether foreign and/or
Ugandan should be of no consequence – chosen by a multi-partisan
committee inclusive of all significant political forces in the country.
The role of this committee should stretch no farther than simply the
selection and final endorsement of the said sages. Thereafter, it should
disband. The
sages should be only people who know what they are discussing and are
open-minded and sober enough to see the other point of view. I see
nothing particularly wrong with such a group comprising academics of
repute and other public figures, given that its deliberations and their
outcome would simply seek to inform the wider debate. Where
possible, sitting ministers should be barred from membership, as should,
under the current system, senior apparatchiks of the Movement
Secretariat. As for the president, the question of his membership should
not arise. They, too, should submit views as individuals. Suffice it to
say that well-known partyists with agendas beyond simply softening up
the difficult issues and questions should also be excluded. Party
leaders and their ‘ shadow cabinets’ as well as official advisors
come immediately to mind. They, too, should submit views as individuals.
Likewise, members of the Lukiiko or members of the Mengo cabinet and
other so-called cultural institutions should be barred. We should thank
the Movement for introducing us to the ‘individual merit’ system;
never mind that they have since relegated it to the status of a used
condom. The
deliberations of the chosen sages should be closed to the press until
such a time as when they feel they are ready with a document or
proposals ripe for wider debate. This is where MPs as [overt] political
animals, that is, in their official capacity, should come in. However,
debate in parliament should not allow for caucuses of any kind. In that
way individual MPs would have breathing space to present and/or clarify
their opinions or those of their constituents as the case may be,
independent of the views of the government of the day or of the
leaderships of their respective political groupings. A
panel of independent observers [judges and clergy, perhaps?] should be
constituted to ensure rules of the game are adhered to. In that way,
bodies such as the Movement caucus or political groupings whose leaders
hold particular views are not allowed to exercise undue influence on
spineless and easy-to-sway legislators. The
press would play a critical role here. It is obvious that even
clandestine moves aimed at exerting influence on MPs by over-bearing
individuals or groups with particular views would leak and get reported
by the press. They should then be thoroughly investigated. A body to
investigate such violations should be constituted in a manner similar to
that used to constitute the committee of sages. After
parliament has deliberated on the proposals of the sages [helped by
public debates in the press and elsewhere], the final decision should
then be left to the wider public. A referendum closed to political
campaigns by any political group should be the avenue for determining
the public’s verdict. A public information campaign could be conducted via different types of news media for a period of at least 3 months prior to the referendum. The objective of this campaign should be to make clear to the public what the merits and demerits of each of the systems vying for support are. Public broadcasts or adverts via newspapers and bulletin boards should be scrutinised for impartiality. People should only be encouraged to come out and choose a political system of their preference via casting a vote on the appointed day. Some will criticize my proposals for envisaging 'a perfect world'. I plead guilty to the charge. I have based them on the assumption that the debate would take place within an atmosphere of acceptance by all, including the movement [and other vociferous opponents], that federalism was an inescapable requirement for the country's future development. Were I to be
considering the 'imperfect world', I would have come up with another set
of proposals. Suffice it to say, however, that I have no doubt that the
issue of federalism will eventually be debated soberly with all
interested parties having agreed the need for such a debate. It is a
question of time. It could as well not be in my lifetime, but take place
it will. In conclusion,
my proposals aim to facilitate as free and thorough a debate as
possible. They do not seek to exclude anybody from such a debate. |
| © 2002 Federo for all Uganda, All Rights Reserved | |