Posts
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Beisgye, Muntu did it the FDC way, not the NRM way
Beisgye, Muntu did it the FDC way, not the NRM way
Monday, 16 February 2009
By Muniini K. Mulera
Dear Tingasiga:
Besigye, MuntuThe re-election of Dr Kizza Besigye as president of the Forum for Democratic Change [FDC] was never in doubt. In the decade since his public dissent with President Yoweri Museveni over, among many things, the lack of internal democracy in the National Resistance Movement [NRM], Dr Besigye has become the leader of the opposition to the Museveni regime.
Whatever his weaknesses and failures, Besigye has consistently scored high marks among committed members of the FDC. And so the FDC has spoken very clearly in favour of renewing Besigye’s contract for a second and final term. We congratulate and join him in savouring his victory.
We also congratulate Gen. Mugisha Muntu whose courageous and steadfast fidelity to democracy propelled him to challenge the incumbent leader of his party.
Just as Besigye defied the myth, back in 2001, that the incumbent ruler could not be challenged from within his party, Muntu followed in Besigye’s footsteps and offered himself as an alternative candidate to lead their young party.
Muntu’s challenge was one of the greatest services rendered to a Ugandan political party and to the ongoing struggle for democracy.
The two opponents competed with a grace and civility that dignified the contest and gave us hope that it was possible to do things differently. The front-page photo in yesterday’s Sunday Monitor, showing Besigye and Muntu shaking hands, each beaming with a beautiful smile moments after their contest had been settled fairly and freely, spoke volumes about the possibilities that exist within us. To paraphrase Gen. Kahinda Otafire, they did it “the FDC way, not the NRM way.”
Yet it would be an error for the FDC to indulge in self-congratulation and miss the opportunity to do a thorough audit of the entire process and the state of the party, two years before the next national elections.
All FDC members, especially the party leaders, need to engage in an honest self-examination, to identify their individual and collective strengths and weaknesses.
Some of the questions worth considering are: How did the party leaders react and behave under the pressure of the contest? How did they react to the news that Muntu would challenge the incumbent for the party presidency?
Was their reaction consistent with their claims to be democrats or did they react with the reflex fear of a “palace coup” that defines the political DNA of our society?
Was it a level playing field on which the two men, indeed all the candidates, competed? Why did Muntu declare his candidacy mere days before the election? How well did Muntu and the other the challengers for the various posts make their cases for change?
What needs to be done to expunge fear of competition under the guise of maintaining party cohesion? What should the party, especially its leaders, do to enable all candidates to present themselves fully and equally to the party and its delegates, while maintaining a common vision?
To what extent did ethnic and regional balancing yield space to ability and productivity? Did the party achieve its constitutional obligation to fill at least 40 per cent of its leadership positions with women? Overall, how has this delegates’ conference advanced the party’s interests and fortunes in the country?
An objective analysis will likely reveal a party on the right track, but with major opportunities for improvement.
The delegates’ conference was held under the theme of “Restoration of National Values.” By setting itself such a high goal, the party undertook to restore such values as honesty, moral conduct of public affairs, democracy, fair play, tolerance, justice, transparency, meritocracy and efficiency.
The self-audit that must follow the conclusion of the conference should determine to what extent the party itself has adhered to these values.
The party will have an opportunity to put these values to the test next year when it elects the FDC’s candidate for president of Uganda.
In all likelihood, that election will be a highly contested one. At least one hopes it will be. The FDC has in its ranks a few people who would be up to the task of challenging Gen. Yoweri Museveni in 2011.
The front-runner, of course, will be Dr Besigye. His popularity in the party, along with the benefits of incumbency give him an enormous advantage.
However, the FDC has a duty to encourage and enable a vigorous competition for its 2011 flag bearer. To advance the cause of internal party and national democracy, the FDC will have to deliberately encourage and allow the candidates to organise and campaign for that position well ahead of the conference.
Namboole I, held in 2005, was a hasty start in conditions of crisis. Nambole II has been a step in the right direction, with an outcome that is good for the party and a foundation upon which to build.
If the party’s goal is to offer the country a better, much better alternative to the fossilized NRM, no effort should be spared in cleaning up the FDC, in order to enhance its internal democracy and to train its leaders and members in the only correct religion of politics, namely, a genuine belief in democracy.
mkmulera@aol.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
