Posts
Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Opposition, chiefs call for protests
By Gerald Bareebe (email the author)
Posted Friday, February 25 2011 at 00:00
Uganda’s main opposition leaders yesterday called for peaceful protests against President Museveni’s leadership and also demanded that fresh, free and fair elections be held under certain minimum conditions. The government, however, received news of this development without flinching.
Force threats
Information minister Kabakumba Matsiko told Daily Monitor that the government is well-equipped to quash any opposition uprising. “Their call is of no consequence because we shall easily suppress them,” Ms Kabakumba said yesterday.
In a joint statement read to the press and supporters after a meeting in Kampala yesterday, Dr Kizza Besigye (FDC/IPC), Olara Otunnu (UPC), Mr Matthias Nsubuga representing party president Norbert Mao (DP) and independent candidate Walter Sam Lubega repeated the accusation that the presidential election was a “big sham”.
The four, who alongside another candidate, Jaberi Bidandi Ssali, have previously said they will not recognise the new government to be sworn-in, in May, said other constitutional options in the quest for democracy have failed.
“It is now clear that Ugandans cannot advance democracy through elections, the courts or Parliament under Mr Museveni and the NRM leadership,” said Dr Besigye reading from the statement.
“We have explored several constitutional options with no success … The only option left, that is allowed by the Constitution and which is peaceful to challenge the results of this sham election, is for the people to assert their sovereign power under Article 1 of the Constitution.”
On Sunday, the Electoral Commission declared Mr Museveni winner of last Friday’s poll with 68 per cent. Closest challenger Dr Besigye trailed at 26 per cent. Mr Museveni has threatened to jail any opposition politician who incites unrest, as well as any individual who attempts to demonstrate against the results.
But the four former presidential candidates have appealed to Ugandans to take to the streets, and also asked opposition leaders in the districts to organise peaceful rallies in support of the call for fresh elections.
“The time is now for the people of Uganda to rise and peacefully protest against the outcome of the 2011 elections and demand that no further fraudulent local government elections be conducted by the existing partisan EC,”
Dr Besigye said. “We reject any government that may be formed out of these sham elections and demand that an independent, competent and representative EC, composed through criteria agreed by all stakeholders be established.”
Democracy stifled
The opposition leaders accused Mr Museveni and the NRM party of stifling multiparty democracy in Uganda. Together, they are criticised for standing in the way of constitutional and legal reforms “through reckless misuse of their parliamentary majority”.
The statement observed that, “For the last two decades, the people of Uganda, through their opposition political parties and civil society have been in the protracted struggle for a peaceful and genuine democracy. At every turn the NRM and Mr Museveni have been obstacles to the people’s aspirations. Even when he was prevailed upon by internal and external forces to embrace multiparty politics, Mr Museveni did so reluctantly and continues to undermine its genuine operation.
It additionally makes the point that Ugandans’ participation in the last four general elections has been frustrated by the NRM and Mr Museveni who jointly “subverted the will of the people through cheating and violating their human rights.”
The statement spoke of the opposition’s and civil society’s filing of numerous court cases in a bid to bring about political reforms. But that these efforts were frustrated when court either dismissed them “on questionable grounds or are still not yet heard and concluded”.
Mr Lubega, who criticised the international community after they “quickly endorsed a fraudulent election”, said it was time for Ugandans to assume their constitutional responsibilities. “No matter the amount of intimidation, no matter what amount of soldiers Mr Museveni will deploy, the people of Uganda remain the most powerful,” Mr Lubega said.
Mr Otunnu said since democratic change of government under the current rules, structures and processes is now impossible, Ugandans should “step outside the system and confront Museveni on their own terms.”
“We can choose to remain slaves in our own country, we can choose to be subjugated by Mr Museveni, we can choose to remain subjects or we can choose to remain owners of our country, to be citizens or to be masters of our land.”
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Regardless of Shameful U.S. Endorsement; Toss Elections
Gen. Museveni, shown left, beneficiary of well-documented election theft, was annointed by U.S. today
Ugandans were denied this right on February 18. The U.S.-backed dictator Gen. Yoweri K. Museveni by most accounts was the beneficiary of massively rigged presidential and parliamentary elections.
Today, the Obama Administration shamefully added insult to the injury. It endorsed the election theft--the U.S. State Department released a statement congratulating Gen. Museveni on his "reelection" though the overwhelming evidence shows otherwise. The State Department's actions amounted to a debasement of the concept and practise of democracy everywhere. Uganda's sham "elections" need to be anulled--the fraud has been well documented by monitoring organizations and Ugandan journalists.
Ugandans from all over the world should voice reaction to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at (202) 647-2492 or (202) 647-1512; also call Clinton's boss, President Obama, through press secretary Jay Carney at (202) 456-2580 or email him via press@who.eop.gov , so Obama knows how you feel about the U.S. betrayal of democracy in Uganda.
On Sunday, Uganda's partisan Electoral Commission awarded Gen. Museveni 68% of the vote and 26% to his key opponent Dr. Kizza Besigye. On Saturday, before the Commission's announcement, this newspaper had published an article stating that Museveni would win by 67.2%. This information was supplied by a source who obtained the tip from a contact in the Museveni government; that contact was involved with a special unit created to manipulate the election "figures."
It was critical for Gen. Museveni to get over 50% to avoid a runoff. Logically the results aren't credible--in disputed elections in 2001 he was awarded 69%, in 2006, only 59%. His popularity has continued to diminish and yet the Electoral Commission awards him 68% this time around.
Even before the February 18 vote, an independent group, the Democracy Monitoring Group (DEMGroup), exposed fatal flaws which should have called for the postponment of the elections. DEMGroup studied the National Voters' Registry and found, on the fraudulent registry, that: 139,541 dead people were listed as voters; more than half a million "unknown people" were listed; 1.9 million people had changed their locations; 418,623 foreigners, ineligible to vote, were listed; 5,000 registered voters were 100-years old or older; and 4,629 voters had the same name and birthdate, and the same polling station.
The shocking expose was printed on the front pages of Uganda's major independent newspaper, The Daily Monitor; it was ignored by the Uganda government-owned newspaper, The New Vision, and a major newspaper The New York Times, which had a correspondent in Uganda to cover the elections.
Since the vote, the Commonwealth observers' group has declared that "commercialization" of the voting, otherwise bribery and vote-buying compromised the elections; the European Union (EC) also criticized the vote. Yet, it seems that the United States isn't bothered that fictitious and dead voters may have accounted for Gen. Museveni's "victory."
Ugandans must not have been copied on the State Department memo. The leaders of Uganda's three major opposition parties, the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) under Dr. Besigye, the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) under Olara Otunnu, and the Democratic Party (DP) under Norbert Mao, have all rejected the election results. They have called for mass public reaction in Uganda.
Yet the rigging actually began last year when Gen. Museveni hand-picked the Electoral Commission. The same Museveni Commission four years ago was found by Uganda's Supreme Court to be incompetent during the 2006 disputed elections. In fact, the opposition's challenge in 2006, claiming the elections were rigged and that it's outcome should be nullified almost prevailed. The court voted 4-3 against nullification, only after some Museveni generals are said to have threatened a military coup.
Even the U.S., which sustains the Ugandan dictator --much as Washington had sustained Egypt's Hosni Mubarak for decades-- was so concerned about election rigging that last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a report to Congress declaring that the credibility of Uganda's elections would be "damaged" because of the exclusion of opposition parties in determining the Electoral Commission's composition.
The day before the State Department annointed Gen. Museveni, on Monday DEMGroup issued a statement that it had discovered that nearly 2,000 polling stations across Uganda had ballot boxes with more votes than the number of people who voted. Additionally, 7% of the 23,968 polling stations, representing at least 1,677 centers that DEMGroup randomly observed, had ghost voters--fictitious voters. And on election date, the FDC intercepted ballots that had already marked for Museveni enroute for ballot stuffing.
There was always much concern that the U.S. would look the other way if Gen. Museveni stole the elections. Museveni serves U.S. interests in the region, much in the same way as Mubarak once did in north Africa and the Middle East. In the case of Museveni, he is the only African president who has provided significant number of troops --8,000-- to help prop up the U.S. installed government in Somalia, which is unpopular and not representative of Somalians. What's more Museveni's U.S.-trained soldiers are accused of war crimes by shelling Somali civilians in Mogadishu. Gen. Museveni's departure might actually attract the participation of more African countries in the attempt to stabilize Somalia.
"Through fraud, intimidation and bribery the Ugandan people have been denied the right to exercise a free choice," Mao, the DP leader has said. "The results declared do not reflect the will of the people." He also concluded: "In the words of President Obama, Africa does not need strong men but strong institutions. We urge you to realize that your relationship should be more with the people rather than the regime in power."
The Obama State Department's endorsement of Gen. Museveni's election theft sends the wrong signal. That when the U.S. talks about global democracy, as President Obama did during his 2009 Accra speech, it shouldn't be taken seriously. Yet even worse, the United States will share the blame for the possible grave consequences should Ugandans, following the examples of Tunisia and Egypt, rise up and challenge tyranny.
The U.S. failed the first test by endorsing the sham elections. At the very least it must now warn Gen. Museveni, who has widely deployed his U.S.-trained and equipped military throughout the country not to use force against peaceful popular outcry against the election theft.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Mao speaks out on February 18 polls
STATEMENT ON THE 2011 GENERAL ELECTIONS BY DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NORBERT MAO
Former Presidential candidate and Democratic Party leader Norbert Mao has added his voice to his other losing colleagues rejecting the February 18 poll results and urging his supporters to, “struggle to redeem our country that goes beyond different political party ambitions.” In the statement released on Tuesday, Mao who scored 1.9% in the elections, declared, “All our previous attempts have only emboldened Museveni to increase his grip on power. We must now say enough!
Uganda is a volcano under an ice-cap
A Dream Deferred
by Langston Hughes
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raising in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load. Or does it explode?
Fellow citizens,
On the road to the 2011 elections the tell tale signs of a flawed process were clear. President Museveni decided to re-appoint the same discredited Electoral Commission which messed up the 2006 elections. With the help of the most partisan House Speaker in the history of the Ugandan legislature and a largely complicit and compromised Parliament the Electoral Commission was reappointed. Even the walk-out by the opposition Parliamentarians did nothing to change the Speaker's mind about the need for a measure of consensus on such an important matter.
The newly re-appointed Electoral Commission thus started their work lacking the necessary legitimacy and independence to organize a free and fair election. When the voter registration process began, the incompetence of the Electoral Commission became manifest. Millions of dollars were spent in securing equipment from a German firm to help with the registration process. Poorly trained personnel were deployed to man the registration process. The registration process was very slow. Consequently, many citizens were caught up by the voter registration deadline.
Meanwhile in Parliament, President Museveni was given a blank cheque to spend State resources for his campaigns. The instrument of a supplementary budget was abused to give State House and President Museveni a total of 160 billion shillings yet our main hospitals get less than half of that amount.
We know for a fact that the recruitment of election officials like Presiding Officers and Supervisors favoured NRM operatives. In Gulu I personally saw people I had seen Presiding at Polling stations openly wearing NRM T-Shirts and jubilating at a party organised at the NRM offices. We had proposed that all election officials should wear name tags with a picture ID.
We went into the election not because we trusted the Electoral Commission but because we trusted the people. We went forward in the faith that it is possible to win even an unfair election.
On Election Day the anomalies were too many to be accidental. The Electoral Commission deleted voters' names from the register and in other cases transferred voters to other Polling stations without notifying them and without their consent. Consequently, on Election Day millions of voters were disenfranchised and denied the right to vote through willful incompetence and a malicious intention to frustrate them. In addition there was widespread vote buying by NRM operatives. In many cases, these vote buyers were being escorted by armed soldiers. Needless to say, this is unlawful and an abuse of the role of the national army. The cases of bribery and vote buying by the NRM were so rampant that it undermined the free will of voters.
In Kiruhuura, results from four polling stations were cancelled because the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. In Omiyanyima Subcounty of Kitgum it was first declared that 11,000 people had voted for President Museveni only to have the announcement annulled because the Sub County has not more than 7000 registered voters!
The register appears to have been inflated to create a rigging margin to accommodate ghost voters. This matter was raised by DemGroup who argued that given how young Uganda's population is, it is statistically impossible to have almost 14 million voters out of a population of about 33 million. We suspect that the so called NRM Yellow Book may have had its contents offloaded onto the National voter register. The national register remained a work in progress till Election day. The lack of a clear and verifiable register has totally discredited the 2011 elections.
There were cases of multiple voting. Some of those who voted multiple times claimed to have their names in the register did not have photographs on the register. There was no adequate civic education. This led to the high number of spoilt and invalid votes. We also got reports of falsification of the Declaration of Results form. Furthermore we were informed that some District Registrars were bribed to falsify final results.
We can cite countless incidents of Electoral malpractices but we hope these examples drive the point home. The outcome of an electoral process which is marred by massive rigging, bribery, intimidation and a disenfranchisement of voters cannot be legitimate. We cannot and will not accept as legitimate the outcome of such a manifestly flawed process. What President Museveni and the NRM have done can only be categorized as a coup against the people of Uganda. Through fraud, intimidation and bribery the Ugandan people have been denied the right to exercise a free choice. Our sources indicate that over 150 billion was spent to buy voters.
The NRM and President Museveni know that they have achieved a hollow victory. Otherwise why should some one who has garnered almost 70 percent of votes have to deploy thousands of armed troops around the country and impose a virtual curfew? We condemn in the strongest terms the unacceptable levels of vote rigging, bribery and intimidation. The results declared do not reflect the will of the people. This election has eroded the people's confidence in the Electoral process. Worst still, barring far-reaching reforms, it will be difficult to persuade Ugandans that free and fair elections are possible in Uganda.
The Election pitted hope against fear. We represented and still represent hope for a better future. President Museveni and the NRM represented fear in it's worst form.
We did not campaign against a political party but the state machinery itself. The NRM and the state are now fused. They have become one and the same. The State and the party are now inseparable. Worse still because of being in power for so long, the NRM now has so many appendages masquerading as State institutions. The individuals in these institutions have surrendered to the will of the party and can no longer think and act independently.
A party which rode to power on the crest of fundamental change now shamelessly preaches no change. In deference to the regimes it displaced, and in imitation born perhaps of a secret admiration, the NRM now revels in the most despicable excesses. Corruption, illegal detentions, election rigging, political persecution, undermining the rule of law and personalization of state institutions have become the hallmarks of the NRM.
These are the reasons why change is imperative in Uganda. But change will not come on a silver platter. Let’s not have any illusions. Change will come out of sweat or blood or both. Therefore those resisting change must be resisted until they succumb to the power of the people.
The question now is 'where do we go from here?’ First, we should not despair. Let's keep hope alive. This does not mean acquiescence in the misdeeds and crimes of the regime. As long as we believe in the cause of genuine democracy we must remain in the trenches. In this kind of struggle, every blow counts.
We may look like we are defeated but we are not. By our bold action we forced the NRM regime to show its true colors. We have exposed the hypocrisy which has been passing for democracy. Even in our so called defeat we are like Christ on the cross. To the high and mighty in the Roman Empire the cross was the end of the road for Jesus and his mission. But in God's plan this was the zenith of victory.
To our international partners we say to you that for years you have invested more in individual despots. In the words of President Obama, Africa does not need strong men but strong institutions. We urge you to realize that your relationship should be more with the people rather than the regime in power. We urge you to invest more in democratic systems and institutions which will in turn bring forth democratic leaders. We further urge you to realize that it is hypocritical to pick and choose which violations to condemn and seek redress for. Human rights are like the Ten Commandments. You do not have to break all the commandments to earn God's wrath. It is fine to hear world leaders condemn the discrimination of homosexuals but we are disturbed when we do not hear condemnation of extra-judicial killings, illegal detentions and sham elections.
We will confront the menace of an illegitimate government with our bare hands. We declare a campaign of defiance to say NO! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
President Museveni has been ruthless in preserving himself at the helm. Nothing good can come out of President Museveni in the next five years. We do not see any hope in President Museveni in the next five years. Museveni cannot leave power voluntarily. He will only move when he comes under intense diplomatic pressure or physical pressure from the people.
Many Ugandans of all walks of life and of all political persuasions believe in real democracy. The Museveni regime has become an obstacle to democracy. Using sheer force and primitively acquired wealth the Museveni regime's stranglehold on power is absolute. In the circumstances, elections have become a meaningless ritual.
But we are not helpless. To govern, the Museveni regime needs the compliance of the people. We owe it to future generations to withhold our compliance from the illegitimate Museveni regime. In this crisis there is no middle ground. We urge all Ugandans to cast aside the existential fear that has paralyzed them for decades and embrace the cause of ridding our country of Museveni's one-man rule.
We have been pushed too far. Our backs are against the wall. We cannot sentence our country to another five years of oppression, poverty, nepotism, corruption and poor service delivery.
We have to struggle to redeem our country. This is no longer about the ambitions of individual leaders. It is no longer about political parties. The destiny of our beloved country is at stake and we must rise beyond our political confines and reach out to one another. This will not be an overnight struggle. It will take days or weeks or months or even years but let us begin. The starting point is for us to take a clear and unequivocal stand for genuine democracy by denying the Museveni any semblance of legitimacy. The Defiance Campaign will have to be like any other struggle.
All our previous attempts have only emboldened Museveni to increase his grip on power. We must now say ENOUGH! In the words of Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening.”
I thank you.
For Truth and Justice
NORBERT MAO
DP PRESIDENT and
DP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 2011 GENERAL ELECTIONS
Former Presidential candidate and Democratic Party leader Norbert Mao has added his voice to his other losing colleagues rejecting the February 18 poll results and urging his supporters to, “struggle to redeem our country that goes beyond different political party ambitions.” In the statement released on Tuesday, Mao who scored 1.9% in the elections, declared, “All our previous attempts have only emboldened Museveni to increase his grip on power. We must now say enough!
Uganda is a volcano under an ice-cap
A Dream Deferred
by Langston Hughes
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raising in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load. Or does it explode?
Fellow citizens,
On the road to the 2011 elections the tell tale signs of a flawed process were clear. President Museveni decided to re-appoint the same discredited Electoral Commission which messed up the 2006 elections. With the help of the most partisan House Speaker in the history of the Ugandan legislature and a largely complicit and compromised Parliament the Electoral Commission was reappointed. Even the walk-out by the opposition Parliamentarians did nothing to change the Speaker's mind about the need for a measure of consensus on such an important matter.
The newly re-appointed Electoral Commission thus started their work lacking the necessary legitimacy and independence to organize a free and fair election. When the voter registration process began, the incompetence of the Electoral Commission became manifest. Millions of dollars were spent in securing equipment from a German firm to help with the registration process. Poorly trained personnel were deployed to man the registration process. The registration process was very slow. Consequently, many citizens were caught up by the voter registration deadline.
Meanwhile in Parliament, President Museveni was given a blank cheque to spend State resources for his campaigns. The instrument of a supplementary budget was abused to give State House and President Museveni a total of 160 billion shillings yet our main hospitals get less than half of that amount.
We know for a fact that the recruitment of election officials like Presiding Officers and Supervisors favoured NRM operatives. In Gulu I personally saw people I had seen Presiding at Polling stations openly wearing NRM T-Shirts and jubilating at a party organised at the NRM offices. We had proposed that all election officials should wear name tags with a picture ID.
We went into the election not because we trusted the Electoral Commission but because we trusted the people. We went forward in the faith that it is possible to win even an unfair election.
On Election Day the anomalies were too many to be accidental. The Electoral Commission deleted voters' names from the register and in other cases transferred voters to other Polling stations without notifying them and without their consent. Consequently, on Election Day millions of voters were disenfranchised and denied the right to vote through willful incompetence and a malicious intention to frustrate them. In addition there was widespread vote buying by NRM operatives. In many cases, these vote buyers were being escorted by armed soldiers. Needless to say, this is unlawful and an abuse of the role of the national army. The cases of bribery and vote buying by the NRM were so rampant that it undermined the free will of voters.
In Kiruhuura, results from four polling stations were cancelled because the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters. In Omiyanyima Subcounty of Kitgum it was first declared that 11,000 people had voted for President Museveni only to have the announcement annulled because the Sub County has not more than 7000 registered voters!
The register appears to have been inflated to create a rigging margin to accommodate ghost voters. This matter was raised by DemGroup who argued that given how young Uganda's population is, it is statistically impossible to have almost 14 million voters out of a population of about 33 million. We suspect that the so called NRM Yellow Book may have had its contents offloaded onto the National voter register. The national register remained a work in progress till Election day. The lack of a clear and verifiable register has totally discredited the 2011 elections.
There were cases of multiple voting. Some of those who voted multiple times claimed to have their names in the register did not have photographs on the register. There was no adequate civic education. This led to the high number of spoilt and invalid votes. We also got reports of falsification of the Declaration of Results form. Furthermore we were informed that some District Registrars were bribed to falsify final results.
We can cite countless incidents of Electoral malpractices but we hope these examples drive the point home. The outcome of an electoral process which is marred by massive rigging, bribery, intimidation and a disenfranchisement of voters cannot be legitimate. We cannot and will not accept as legitimate the outcome of such a manifestly flawed process. What President Museveni and the NRM have done can only be categorized as a coup against the people of Uganda. Through fraud, intimidation and bribery the Ugandan people have been denied the right to exercise a free choice. Our sources indicate that over 150 billion was spent to buy voters.
The NRM and President Museveni know that they have achieved a hollow victory. Otherwise why should some one who has garnered almost 70 percent of votes have to deploy thousands of armed troops around the country and impose a virtual curfew? We condemn in the strongest terms the unacceptable levels of vote rigging, bribery and intimidation. The results declared do not reflect the will of the people. This election has eroded the people's confidence in the Electoral process. Worst still, barring far-reaching reforms, it will be difficult to persuade Ugandans that free and fair elections are possible in Uganda.
The Election pitted hope against fear. We represented and still represent hope for a better future. President Museveni and the NRM represented fear in it's worst form.
We did not campaign against a political party but the state machinery itself. The NRM and the state are now fused. They have become one and the same. The State and the party are now inseparable. Worse still because of being in power for so long, the NRM now has so many appendages masquerading as State institutions. The individuals in these institutions have surrendered to the will of the party and can no longer think and act independently.
A party which rode to power on the crest of fundamental change now shamelessly preaches no change. In deference to the regimes it displaced, and in imitation born perhaps of a secret admiration, the NRM now revels in the most despicable excesses. Corruption, illegal detentions, election rigging, political persecution, undermining the rule of law and personalization of state institutions have become the hallmarks of the NRM.
These are the reasons why change is imperative in Uganda. But change will not come on a silver platter. Let’s not have any illusions. Change will come out of sweat or blood or both. Therefore those resisting change must be resisted until they succumb to the power of the people.
The question now is 'where do we go from here?’ First, we should not despair. Let's keep hope alive. This does not mean acquiescence in the misdeeds and crimes of the regime. As long as we believe in the cause of genuine democracy we must remain in the trenches. In this kind of struggle, every blow counts.
We may look like we are defeated but we are not. By our bold action we forced the NRM regime to show its true colors. We have exposed the hypocrisy which has been passing for democracy. Even in our so called defeat we are like Christ on the cross. To the high and mighty in the Roman Empire the cross was the end of the road for Jesus and his mission. But in God's plan this was the zenith of victory.
To our international partners we say to you that for years you have invested more in individual despots. In the words of President Obama, Africa does not need strong men but strong institutions. We urge you to realize that your relationship should be more with the people rather than the regime in power. We urge you to invest more in democratic systems and institutions which will in turn bring forth democratic leaders. We further urge you to realize that it is hypocritical to pick and choose which violations to condemn and seek redress for. Human rights are like the Ten Commandments. You do not have to break all the commandments to earn God's wrath. It is fine to hear world leaders condemn the discrimination of homosexuals but we are disturbed when we do not hear condemnation of extra-judicial killings, illegal detentions and sham elections.
We will confront the menace of an illegitimate government with our bare hands. We declare a campaign of defiance to say NO! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
President Museveni has been ruthless in preserving himself at the helm. Nothing good can come out of President Museveni in the next five years. We do not see any hope in President Museveni in the next five years. Museveni cannot leave power voluntarily. He will only move when he comes under intense diplomatic pressure or physical pressure from the people.
Many Ugandans of all walks of life and of all political persuasions believe in real democracy. The Museveni regime has become an obstacle to democracy. Using sheer force and primitively acquired wealth the Museveni regime's stranglehold on power is absolute. In the circumstances, elections have become a meaningless ritual.
But we are not helpless. To govern, the Museveni regime needs the compliance of the people. We owe it to future generations to withhold our compliance from the illegitimate Museveni regime. In this crisis there is no middle ground. We urge all Ugandans to cast aside the existential fear that has paralyzed them for decades and embrace the cause of ridding our country of Museveni's one-man rule.
We have been pushed too far. Our backs are against the wall. We cannot sentence our country to another five years of oppression, poverty, nepotism, corruption and poor service delivery.
We have to struggle to redeem our country. This is no longer about the ambitions of individual leaders. It is no longer about political parties. The destiny of our beloved country is at stake and we must rise beyond our political confines and reach out to one another. This will not be an overnight struggle. It will take days or weeks or months or even years but let us begin. The starting point is for us to take a clear and unequivocal stand for genuine democracy by denying the Museveni any semblance of legitimacy. The Defiance Campaign will have to be like any other struggle.
All our previous attempts have only emboldened Museveni to increase his grip on power. We must now say ENOUGH! In the words of Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening.”
I thank you.
For Truth and Justice
NORBERT MAO
DP PRESIDENT and
DP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 2011 GENERAL ELECTIONS
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Special Report: Cables show U.S. sizing up China's next leader
By Paul Eckert
WASHINGTON
Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:29pm EST
(Reuters) - What does the United States make of Xi Jinping, the man widely expected to take over from Hu Jintao late next year and lead China for the next five or 10 years?
An unpublished WikiLeaks batch of U.S. diplomatic cables portrays the 57-year-old Xi as untainted by corruption -- he is referred to as "Mr Clean" -- and disdainful of China's nouveau riche and consumer culture.
He is also depicted as an elitist who believes that the offspring of Maoist revolutionaries are the rightful rulers of China. His father was a major Communist leader who fought alongside Mao Zedong and helped implement Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms.
On human rights, the cables leave the question open. They note that Xi's father was critical of the military crackdown against Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989 and that the Dalai Lama had "great affection" for the elder Xi.
The cables, which Reuters obtained through a third party, trace Xi's rapid rise from provincial official to national leader, covering a period from October 2006 to February 2010. They are based on conversations with numerous Chinese sources -- scholars, senior journalists, businessmen, relatives or friends of senior officials and the occasional government official.
There are very few fly-on-the-wall accounts of meetings with Xi or other top
There are very few fly-on-the-wall accounts of meetings with Xi or other top leaders, and none since he rose to national-level power in October 2007. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this cache of roughly 1,000 pages of cables is the window they provide into official U.S. efforts to size up Xi, the likely next leader of the world's most populous country, second largest economy and America's most important -- and complicated -- bilateral relationship.
What emerges is not a coherent biography. Rather, the documents contain granular details -- Xi likes Hollywood World War II movies for their "grand and truthful" tales of good versus evil, and wishes Chinese films would promote such values -- that the diplomats offer as potential insights into his character.
Aside from basic biographical information and background included to provide necessary context, this report relies solely on the content of the cables.
THE PRINCELING
Who is Xi Jinping?
He was born in 1953 as the middle child of Xi Zhongxun, a first generation Chinese Communist revolutionary comrade of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, who rose to deputy prime minister.
As party boss in the southern province of Guangdong from 1978-80, the elder Xi (pronounced "she") implemented China's first experimental "economic zone" in Shenzhen, a key element of reforms that have propelled China from a dirt-poor land to an economic giant.
His status makes his son, in Chinese parlance, a "princeling": an informal grouping of an estimated 200-300 descendants from top Communist revolutionaries whose careers and fortunes are built largely on their family name.
Eventually, Xi's relatively liberal father fell victim to one of Mao's purges in the early 1960s. He was sent to the countryside and later jailed. His son, like many youth in his generation, was also "rusticated" -- sent down to the countryside -- for seven years. The punishment included farm work.
joined the Communist Party in 1974, while his father was still in one of Mao's jails, and steadily rose through its ranks. Xi joined the People's Liberation Army and worked as a secretary to the then defense minister while on active duty at the powerful Central Military Commission.
Xi studied chemical engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing from 1975-9 and then served a long stint as a party official in poor rural areas of Hebei, the northern province that surrounds Beijing.
From the mid-1980s, Xi then shifted to the fast-growing export powerhouse provinces and cities on China's southeastern coast. In quick succession he rose to the top of the government in Fujian, then Zhejiang province, becoming Communist Party secretary there in 2002.
In 2007, he was named party secretary in Shanghai, sent in to mop up after his predecessor was jailed and disgraced in a massive scandal over misuse of the city's social security funds. After a short stint in Shanghai, in the fall of 2007, Xi was elevated to the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party Central, ranking 6th on the elite nine-member group that rules China.
He was appointed China's vice-president in March 2008. In October 2010, he added an important political title seen as a strong indication that he will succeed Hu: Vice Chairman of the Communist Party's Central Military Commission
CABLES SKETCH CHINA'S SYSTEM
Hu Jintao and Xi come off as competent and honest in comments by Chinese business, media and academic sources quoted in the cables.
"Hu was untouchable from the corruption standpoint in that he, his wife, his son and his daughter were all clean," the diplomats quoted a Chinese executive of a U.S. investment bank as saying.
Xi was likewise referred to as "Mr Clean," having refused a 100,000 renminbi ($15,180) bribe offer during his time working in Fujian province's port city of Xiamen, site of brazen smuggling scandals in the late 1990s.
"Xi has no need to risk taking bribes given the amount of money his wife, a famous singer, pulls in," said the investment banker. Xi's 48-year-old wife, Peng Liyuan, sings syrupy folk songs with a People's Liberation Army troupe.
In contrast to Xi, several retired senior leaders do not fare well in the cables.
The investment banker "noted that the base rate to purchase influence" with one
powerful elder was around 500,000 renminbi ($76,000 dollars), while it cost only 50,000 renminbi for influence with a retired minister of lower rank.
The men in question were associates of Hu's predecessor and party chief and state president, Jiang Zemin. Although retired and in his 80s, Jiang's meddling and maneuvering to protect or promote his family and followers -- and Hu's efforts to rein in Jiang's influence -- are a theme of many 2006-7 cables.
In revenge for the sacking on corruption charges of Shanghai Party Secretary Chen Liangyu, Jiang's people tried to set up a minister regarded as a Hu protege with a woman but he refused the advances, said the investment banker. (Another source said the minister did have a relationship with the woman in question.)
Jiang's allies then tried get that woman to seduce the minister's son and arranged a transfer of 500,000 renminbi ($76,000) into the son's bank account. "By the time the son realized that there was a large sum of money of unknown origins in his account, the matter had already been turned over to the Minister of public Security for investigation," read the cable.
They then forced the minister to resign as the price for closing his son's case, said the investment banker.
Relations at the party's top echelon are "akin to those in the executive suite of a large corporation, as determined by the interplay of powerful interests, or as shaped by competition between princelings with family ties to party elders and 'shopkeepers' who have risen through the ranks of the Party," said a cable from July 2009, citing conversations with a source with family connections to senior leaders.
Shopkeepers is a derogatory term the offspring of revolutionary leaders use to describe those without elite party family backgrounds, a fellow princeling who befriended Xi as a teenager told diplomats.
"While my father was bleeding and dying for China, your father was selling shoelaces," the friend, who now lives outside China, quoted one of his peers as saying.
A senior Chinese journalist likened Hu to chairman of the board or CEO of a big company, where some issues are put to a vote, and others are discussed until consensus is reached. "Hu Jintao holds the most stock, so his views carry the greatest weight," said the journalist.
The party "should be viewed primarily as a collection of interest groups" with "no reform wing," a second well-connected journalist told the U.S. diplomats in December 2009. "China's top leadership had carved up China's economic pie,
creating an ossified system in which vested interests drove decision-making and impeded reform as leaders maneuvered to ensure that those interests were not threatened," a diplomat wrote in a synthesis of the journalists' views.
Retired, and in some cases active, leaders and their families had taken firm control of sectors such as electric power, oil, banking, real estate and precious gems and they opposed media openness, fearing the scrutiny this might bring to their activities, it said.
"The central feature of leadership politics was the need to protect oneself and one's family from attack after leaving office," said the cable.
"Ever since the 1989 Tiananmen protests and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, a number of party elders have been pushing to place their progeny atop the party, believing that only their own offspring can be trusted to run the party," a diplomat wrote in a cable after conversations with a party think tank scholar.
Hu, a "shopkeeper" in the view of princelings, has run into resistance in trying to rebalance growth from the fast-growing coasts to the poorer inland provinces
under his otherwise uncontroversial policy platform, formally called the Scientific Development Concept.
The most important factor frustrating Hu is "the power of retired cadres and their princeling sons and daughters, many of whom have become China's vested interests, controlling major sectors of the economy and opposing the SDC, particularly its notion of redistributing wealth to more backward areas," said the party think tank scholar.
AMBITION, CONNECTIONS, HUMILITY
The friend who knew Xi as a teenager was quoted by U.S. diplomats as describing Xi as "extremely pragmatic and a realist, driven not by ideology but by a combination of ambition and self-protection."
The friend, who shared Xi's background as the son of revolutionary leaders but moved abroad, said Xi had his "eye on the prize" from the very beginning and mapped out a career plan very early in his life.
The network and reputation of Xi's father gave Xi broad support in the party. The misfortunes Mao's 1966-76 Cultural Revolution visited upon Xi's family did not alter his career choice or direction, the friend said, noting that Xi joined the party in 1974 while his father was still in prison.
Xi was exceptionally ambitious and, with "promotion to the center in mind from day one," chose to start his Party career in hardscrabble Hebei province as a calculated move to get experience in the Chinese countryside and broaden connections.
The friend told the U.S. diplomats that while many of Xi's peers became alienated from the Party as a result of the Cultural Revolution and mainly sought to enjoy life -- women, drinking, films -- Xi did none of those things.
"Unlike many youth who 'made up for lost time by having fun' after the Cultural Revolution, Xi 'chose to survive by becoming redder than red,'" the friend was quoted as saying.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
POLITICAL CHANGES CLOUD THE FUTURE
By Chris Yeung
Hong Kong cycling gold medalist Wong Kam-po was both disappointed and puzzled when he made a last-minute appeal for support from city lawmakers on behalf of the government’s planned bid to host the 2023 Asian Games. He had expected pro-democracy parties to oppose the bid—not worth the high cost, in their view—but he thought parties that backed the government would go along with the plan.
They didn’t. At a public hearing held by a Legislative Council (Legco) panel in late November, Wong said, “I have assumed from the beginning…that the League of Social Democrats (LSD) and the Democratic Party (DP) will oppose it. [But] the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has turned out to be the first to say no. It’s very strange and sad.”
The Asian Games cycling champion was referring to swift action by the DAB, widely considered the major pro-establishment party, to publicly oppose the bid just days after the government began a 10-week public consultation period in October. Soon after, the democratic parties joined in opposition as predicted, citing the estimated HK$54 billion (US$7 billion) cost as a major reason for disapproval.
Although public opinion remained divided as the consultation period ended, the Hong Kong Executive Council (cabinet) chaired by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen decided to go ahead anyway and will ask Legco to finance the bid. Yet the DAB didn’t back down. Vice Chairman Ip Kwok-him said his party will take public opinion into account before deciding how to vote on the funding bill. In an early test, the DAB joined the pan-democratic parties to oppose the Asian Games plan in a non-binding vote of a key Legco committee.
The DAB Changes Tactics
The marked change of tactics—putting public opinion above political loyalty to the Tsang administration—suggests a profound change in the city’s political scene following the passage of an election reform resolution last summer, which will set for rules for voting in 2012. It became law only because the Democrat Party held direct talks with officials representing Beijing and crafted a compromise which many other pro-democrats opposed and which, in fact, caused several Democrats to quit the party. That passage, in important ways, heralds possible changes in the city’s political scene and raises questions about the future.
The questions include:
Will the Democratic Party remain the flagship of pan-democratic forces which often oppose the government? Or will it join—at least partially—the political establishment? Future DP positions will significantly impact other pan-democrats and broader political alignments within Hong Kong.
Second, will the DAB revise its strategy, or least the image it projects, of being the most loyal of establishment forces and instead try to lure voters from the center of the political spectrum—now that the Democratic Party seems to be moving towards a moderate role?
Third, will the election reform package, known as the “district council model,” become the catalyst for change and, if so, how?
Fourth, what will passage of that bill mean to Donald Tsang and his administration during its final two years in office?
Last but not least, what new game plan, if any, does Beijing have for Hong Kong as the city takes a small but important step in 2012 toward a presumed universal suffrage voting system, perhaps in 2017 for chief executive and in 2020 for all Legco seats?
There is no doubt that the role of the Democratic Party has been crucial – and controversial – in the electoral reform saga. Holding the most seats in Legco, the party’s support for the government blueprint, revised by the deal it hammered out with Beijing, ensured its passage. Negotiations over the controversial terms marked the first time the Democrats, whose core leaders are still banned from visiting China, sat down and talked with Beijing officials.
The Democrats’ switch to a “negotiated democracy” approach has caused much speculation among political analysts and within overall pan-democratic ranks about whether it will now move closer to the establishment side. One leading pro-democracy figure, Legco member Alan Leong Kah-kit, wrote in November that it caused pan-democrats to split into three streams. His Civic Party, he insisted, still adheres to a “rational line.” The Democratic Party, Leong said, has switched to an “establishment line,” while the smaller LSD has grown more radical.
Worried about losing some long-time supporters, the Democrats were quick to restate their role as an opposition force immediately after the reform blueprint was passed. But this did not prevent a split. Andrew Cheng Kar-foo, a founding member and legislator, quit the party because he rejected the electoral package’s terms. About 16 members from the reformist faction, also disappointed by their party’s stance, in October formed a new political group based in local district constituencies and call themselves NeoDemocrats. Hours before the Democratic Party held an annual general meeting on December 18, the NeoDemocrats and 14 other members of the reformist faction resigned en masse.
Faced with two sets of elections in the near future—for the 18 district councils in 2011 and the Legco in 2012—the Democrats seem unlikely to depart significantly from their basic position as an opposition force for that would risk losing their steady, long-time supporters. But the departure of the young reformist members will deepen the mainstream faction’s sense of crisis and enhance its sense of vigilance about not getting too close to the establishment, or be seen as doing so. Yet members know well that most Hong Kong people want dialogue, not perennial confrontation, with Beijing on crucial issues like universal suffrage. This will be a serious dilemma for the party leaders.
Leadership Changes, Delayed Talks
But 2012 will bring leadership changes to the governments of both Hong Kong and China, and this could well make substantive talks about Hong Kong’s arrangements for elections after 2012 almost impossible until those changes occur. Although relations frozen by 1989’s Tiananmen Square crackdown are slowly thawing, with both Beijing and the Democrats having shown a willingness to deal with each other, however slowly and gradually, there is not much chance of major political breakthroughs during the next two years. For example, Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan in December has merely repeated his hope that a formal channel of communication between Beijing and the pan-democrats can be set up no later than 2012.
One reason is a deep-rooted and lingering popular distrust of dealing with the Communists. Thus the Democratic Party’s decision to hold serious talks with Beijing cadres sharply divided the pan-democratic camp and its supporters. However, recent opinion polls show the Democrats’ popularity rating has risen slightly, matching public support for the electoral compromise they made possible; most people apparently favor an end to confrontation. This year’s district council elections will be the first real test of whether the DP’s revised approach towards Beijing can pay off at the polls.
Though some political analysts see the Democratic Party’s action as a classic united front success for Beijing, the DP’s strategy has caused jitters within Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing camp. Always worried about possible conspiracy, the pro-Beijing hard-liners have warned their allies against letting themselves be “cheated” by the Democrats. They fear their supporters may shift allegiance to the Democrats now that they are mending fences with China.
If anything, the DAB’s firm opposition to the Asian Games bid illustrates this anxiety about a changing political landscape. When it comes to an issue on which there is no clear Beijing policy, the DAB now appears bent on siding with the majority of people—even if that means opposing the Hong Kong government. Even after the central government said it would support a Hong Kong bid for the games, DAB leaders repeated their opposition.
Contentious Issues Ahead
The Asian Games tussle is but one example of things to come as political parties look forward to the scheduled 2011 and 2012 elections. Though many details about out how to implement the new electoral blueprint will cause fierce debate when Legco drafts a final bill, its passage is expected. Contentious issues include who is eligible to run for five new Legco seats that will represent district council constituencies; how many nominating votes a would-be candidate needs from the current 405 elected district council members (10 or 15?) and whether there should be one territory-wide constituency for these new seats, or five separate ones. Under the framework electoral resolution passed by Legco in June, nearly all Hong Kong voters can cast ballots for these five new seats. (Excluded will be the 200,000 voters from special interest groups who select 30 legislators in what are called functional constituencies.) Another five new seats will be chosen by popular vote in existing geographical constituencies, meaning that 40 of an expanded Legco’s 70 members will in effect be chosen by democratic means.
According to an election bill introduced in mid-December, which is expected to be passed into law in the legislative session that ends in mid-July, the five new seats representing the district councils will be chosen by a proportional representation system in a single constituency of some 3.2 million voters covering all of Hong Kong. As a result, the five winners could well get hundreds of thousands of votes apiece, something not possible in smaller geographical constituencies, causing some analysts to call them “super-legislators”. And some predict these winners – with a much stronger elected mandate - could pose a political challenge to the next chief executive, who will be chosen by majority vote of only 1,200 members of an election committee, many of them carefully vetted by the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.
Not surprisingly, the guessing game has begun about who might become “super-legislators.” Although major parties like the DAB and DP have an advantage because they are strong in the districts, popular political figures—notably minister-turned-legislator Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and some prominent business leaders—could emerge as strong contenders in a territory-wide poll.
The more radical LSD has announced its intention to boycott these elections, but all other major political parties are formulating their strategies for seeking the new seats. This contest could well aggravate an earlier split between the Democrats and the Civic Party that was later worsened when they opposed each other on the electoral reform proposal. On the other hand, it might also compel them to join forces in a Hong Kong-wide election to avoid a situation in which they might both lose.
Because final terms of the 2012 election bill are not yet drafted, it is difficult to predict what campaign strategies the two leading pan-democratic parties might choose. But their damaged relationship isn’t likely to mend anytime soon. Despite persistent calls for pan-democrats to form a grand coalition, such a united front looks unlikely before 2017 when the chief executive could be elected by universal suffrage. Until then, the pan-democratic camp will remain fragmented and fraught with discord on various political and policy issues. Only when electoral arrangements for post-2012 voting and a universal suffrage election of the chief executive are on the agenda will they have incentive enough to consider joining forces.
No Gains for Beijing’s Friends
Meantime, a sense of bitterness among the establishment parties became clear when it emerged that the Beijing-Democrats compromise did not bring the pro-government side any benefits. The DAB, for example, hasn’t gained in public opinion surveys since the electoral reform was approved. Following a major setback in the 2008 Legco elections, the pro-business Liberal Party was already sometimes ridiculed as being “half-dead”. Suffering from the exodus of four core leaders in recent times, the Liberals’ future grew even more uncertain when Michael Tien Puk-sun, a wealthy businessman who was tipped to become a party leader, quit in November. The next month he became a vice chairman of Regina Ip’s just-launched New People’s Party, which she will chair. This party, which has about 70 founding members, will follow a center-right line in social, economic and political policies, and will target middle class voters. Meantime, former Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun (Michael’s brother), who resigned after the party’s 2008 electoral defeat, was given its newly-created title of honorary chairman. His former deputy, Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, who also left the Liberals in 2008, will run for the post of vice chairman. Their political comeback is seen as a desperate move by the Liberals to survive the next two sets of elections. However, given their depleted strength, the party seems unlikely to regain its former place in the political landscape. The question Beijing and the local business sector must face is how business interests can be represented in future Legislative Councils when all seats are returned by universal suffrage.
Because an earlier and somewhat similar effort at electoral reform failed in 2005, to the dismay of both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments, Beijing should feel relieved by passage of the 2012 version. Presumably, it agreed to modest concessions—under pressure from pan-democrats and others who want improved governance—to avoid a second failure. Otherwise, its chosen chief executive, Donald Tsang, might well have faced public pressure to stand down in mid-term, just as his predecessor was forced to do over a different issue. Intentionally or inadvertently, Beijing’s surprise green-light to the package has divided the pan-democratic camp, with the Democrats portrayed as politicians with whom Beijing can do business and most others, such as the Civic Party and the LSD, considered the die-hard opposition.
Even one long-time pro-Beijing figure has said privately that he remains baffled by Beijing’s decision because the Democrat-initiated reform includes direct election for five additional Legco seats, something Beijing normally doesn’t favor. The political ramifications of the emergence of five “super-legislators” could also be profound. The political gains of the reform bill compromise, nevertheless, are clear. The Tsang administration has regained some lost popularity and the pan-democratic camp is in disarray, at least temporarily. Given a choice, however, Beijing would prefer an even more fragmented pan-democratic camp it could ignore completely, allowing more room for its own political maneuvering as both the central and Hong Kong governments acquire new leaders. It remains to be seen whether Beijing’s blessing of the 2012 electoral reforms signifies a major change of tactics, if not strategy, towards Hong Kong. The style and policies of Vice President Xi Jinping, who will succeed President Hu Jintao in 2012, and Wang Guangya, a career diplomat who recently took over the central government’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, are still anybody’s guess.
It is clear, however, Beijing is not prepared to begin talks anytime soon about post-2012 electoral reforms or a specific roadmap to universal suffrage. Top on its Hong Kong agenda during the next two years are a string of five elections. They include voting in 2011 for district councils and selecting the 1,200-member committee that will choose the next chief executive; and in 2012 selecting local delegates to the National People’s Congress in Beijing, choosing a new Hong Kong chief executive and filling all 70 seats of the Legislative Council.
On its face, passage of electoral reform in 2010 has not brought seismic change to Hong Kong’s political landscape. The political divide between pro-establishment and pan-democratic forces remains sharp and clear. The Tsang administration still faces recurring troubles in governance. Meantime, Beijing is continuing the proactive, more visible political approach it adopted following the 500,000-strong protest rally which shook its complacency on July 1, 2003.
Change, however, is in the air.
Chris Yeung is News Director of the Hong Kong Economic Journal. The article does not reflect the views of that organization.
Hong Kong cycling gold medalist Wong Kam-po was both disappointed and puzzled when he made a last-minute appeal for support from city lawmakers on behalf of the government’s planned bid to host the 2023 Asian Games. He had expected pro-democracy parties to oppose the bid—not worth the high cost, in their view—but he thought parties that backed the government would go along with the plan.
They didn’t. At a public hearing held by a Legislative Council (Legco) panel in late November, Wong said, “I have assumed from the beginning…that the League of Social Democrats (LSD) and the Democratic Party (DP) will oppose it. [But] the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has turned out to be the first to say no. It’s very strange and sad.”
The Asian Games cycling champion was referring to swift action by the DAB, widely considered the major pro-establishment party, to publicly oppose the bid just days after the government began a 10-week public consultation period in October. Soon after, the democratic parties joined in opposition as predicted, citing the estimated HK$54 billion (US$7 billion) cost as a major reason for disapproval.
Although public opinion remained divided as the consultation period ended, the Hong Kong Executive Council (cabinet) chaired by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen decided to go ahead anyway and will ask Legco to finance the bid. Yet the DAB didn’t back down. Vice Chairman Ip Kwok-him said his party will take public opinion into account before deciding how to vote on the funding bill. In an early test, the DAB joined the pan-democratic parties to oppose the Asian Games plan in a non-binding vote of a key Legco committee.
The DAB Changes Tactics
The marked change of tactics—putting public opinion above political loyalty to the Tsang administration—suggests a profound change in the city’s political scene following the passage of an election reform resolution last summer, which will set for rules for voting in 2012. It became law only because the Democrat Party held direct talks with officials representing Beijing and crafted a compromise which many other pro-democrats opposed and which, in fact, caused several Democrats to quit the party. That passage, in important ways, heralds possible changes in the city’s political scene and raises questions about the future.
The questions include:
Will the Democratic Party remain the flagship of pan-democratic forces which often oppose the government? Or will it join—at least partially—the political establishment? Future DP positions will significantly impact other pan-democrats and broader political alignments within Hong Kong.
Second, will the DAB revise its strategy, or least the image it projects, of being the most loyal of establishment forces and instead try to lure voters from the center of the political spectrum—now that the Democratic Party seems to be moving towards a moderate role?
Third, will the election reform package, known as the “district council model,” become the catalyst for change and, if so, how?
Fourth, what will passage of that bill mean to Donald Tsang and his administration during its final two years in office?
Last but not least, what new game plan, if any, does Beijing have for Hong Kong as the city takes a small but important step in 2012 toward a presumed universal suffrage voting system, perhaps in 2017 for chief executive and in 2020 for all Legco seats?
There is no doubt that the role of the Democratic Party has been crucial – and controversial – in the electoral reform saga. Holding the most seats in Legco, the party’s support for the government blueprint, revised by the deal it hammered out with Beijing, ensured its passage. Negotiations over the controversial terms marked the first time the Democrats, whose core leaders are still banned from visiting China, sat down and talked with Beijing officials.
The Democrats’ switch to a “negotiated democracy” approach has caused much speculation among political analysts and within overall pan-democratic ranks about whether it will now move closer to the establishment side. One leading pro-democracy figure, Legco member Alan Leong Kah-kit, wrote in November that it caused pan-democrats to split into three streams. His Civic Party, he insisted, still adheres to a “rational line.” The Democratic Party, Leong said, has switched to an “establishment line,” while the smaller LSD has grown more radical.
Worried about losing some long-time supporters, the Democrats were quick to restate their role as an opposition force immediately after the reform blueprint was passed. But this did not prevent a split. Andrew Cheng Kar-foo, a founding member and legislator, quit the party because he rejected the electoral package’s terms. About 16 members from the reformist faction, also disappointed by their party’s stance, in October formed a new political group based in local district constituencies and call themselves NeoDemocrats. Hours before the Democratic Party held an annual general meeting on December 18, the NeoDemocrats and 14 other members of the reformist faction resigned en masse.
Faced with two sets of elections in the near future—for the 18 district councils in 2011 and the Legco in 2012—the Democrats seem unlikely to depart significantly from their basic position as an opposition force for that would risk losing their steady, long-time supporters. But the departure of the young reformist members will deepen the mainstream faction’s sense of crisis and enhance its sense of vigilance about not getting too close to the establishment, or be seen as doing so. Yet members know well that most Hong Kong people want dialogue, not perennial confrontation, with Beijing on crucial issues like universal suffrage. This will be a serious dilemma for the party leaders.
Leadership Changes, Delayed Talks
But 2012 will bring leadership changes to the governments of both Hong Kong and China, and this could well make substantive talks about Hong Kong’s arrangements for elections after 2012 almost impossible until those changes occur. Although relations frozen by 1989’s Tiananmen Square crackdown are slowly thawing, with both Beijing and the Democrats having shown a willingness to deal with each other, however slowly and gradually, there is not much chance of major political breakthroughs during the next two years. For example, Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan in December has merely repeated his hope that a formal channel of communication between Beijing and the pan-democrats can be set up no later than 2012.
One reason is a deep-rooted and lingering popular distrust of dealing with the Communists. Thus the Democratic Party’s decision to hold serious talks with Beijing cadres sharply divided the pan-democratic camp and its supporters. However, recent opinion polls show the Democrats’ popularity rating has risen slightly, matching public support for the electoral compromise they made possible; most people apparently favor an end to confrontation. This year’s district council elections will be the first real test of whether the DP’s revised approach towards Beijing can pay off at the polls.
Though some political analysts see the Democratic Party’s action as a classic united front success for Beijing, the DP’s strategy has caused jitters within Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing camp. Always worried about possible conspiracy, the pro-Beijing hard-liners have warned their allies against letting themselves be “cheated” by the Democrats. They fear their supporters may shift allegiance to the Democrats now that they are mending fences with China.
If anything, the DAB’s firm opposition to the Asian Games bid illustrates this anxiety about a changing political landscape. When it comes to an issue on which there is no clear Beijing policy, the DAB now appears bent on siding with the majority of people—even if that means opposing the Hong Kong government. Even after the central government said it would support a Hong Kong bid for the games, DAB leaders repeated their opposition.
Contentious Issues Ahead
The Asian Games tussle is but one example of things to come as political parties look forward to the scheduled 2011 and 2012 elections. Though many details about out how to implement the new electoral blueprint will cause fierce debate when Legco drafts a final bill, its passage is expected. Contentious issues include who is eligible to run for five new Legco seats that will represent district council constituencies; how many nominating votes a would-be candidate needs from the current 405 elected district council members (10 or 15?) and whether there should be one territory-wide constituency for these new seats, or five separate ones. Under the framework electoral resolution passed by Legco in June, nearly all Hong Kong voters can cast ballots for these five new seats. (Excluded will be the 200,000 voters from special interest groups who select 30 legislators in what are called functional constituencies.) Another five new seats will be chosen by popular vote in existing geographical constituencies, meaning that 40 of an expanded Legco’s 70 members will in effect be chosen by democratic means.
According to an election bill introduced in mid-December, which is expected to be passed into law in the legislative session that ends in mid-July, the five new seats representing the district councils will be chosen by a proportional representation system in a single constituency of some 3.2 million voters covering all of Hong Kong. As a result, the five winners could well get hundreds of thousands of votes apiece, something not possible in smaller geographical constituencies, causing some analysts to call them “super-legislators”. And some predict these winners – with a much stronger elected mandate - could pose a political challenge to the next chief executive, who will be chosen by majority vote of only 1,200 members of an election committee, many of them carefully vetted by the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.
Not surprisingly, the guessing game has begun about who might become “super-legislators.” Although major parties like the DAB and DP have an advantage because they are strong in the districts, popular political figures—notably minister-turned-legislator Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and some prominent business leaders—could emerge as strong contenders in a territory-wide poll.
The more radical LSD has announced its intention to boycott these elections, but all other major political parties are formulating their strategies for seeking the new seats. This contest could well aggravate an earlier split between the Democrats and the Civic Party that was later worsened when they opposed each other on the electoral reform proposal. On the other hand, it might also compel them to join forces in a Hong Kong-wide election to avoid a situation in which they might both lose.
Because final terms of the 2012 election bill are not yet drafted, it is difficult to predict what campaign strategies the two leading pan-democratic parties might choose. But their damaged relationship isn’t likely to mend anytime soon. Despite persistent calls for pan-democrats to form a grand coalition, such a united front looks unlikely before 2017 when the chief executive could be elected by universal suffrage. Until then, the pan-democratic camp will remain fragmented and fraught with discord on various political and policy issues. Only when electoral arrangements for post-2012 voting and a universal suffrage election of the chief executive are on the agenda will they have incentive enough to consider joining forces.
No Gains for Beijing’s Friends
Meantime, a sense of bitterness among the establishment parties became clear when it emerged that the Beijing-Democrats compromise did not bring the pro-government side any benefits. The DAB, for example, hasn’t gained in public opinion surveys since the electoral reform was approved. Following a major setback in the 2008 Legco elections, the pro-business Liberal Party was already sometimes ridiculed as being “half-dead”. Suffering from the exodus of four core leaders in recent times, the Liberals’ future grew even more uncertain when Michael Tien Puk-sun, a wealthy businessman who was tipped to become a party leader, quit in November. The next month he became a vice chairman of Regina Ip’s just-launched New People’s Party, which she will chair. This party, which has about 70 founding members, will follow a center-right line in social, economic and political policies, and will target middle class voters. Meantime, former Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun (Michael’s brother), who resigned after the party’s 2008 electoral defeat, was given its newly-created title of honorary chairman. His former deputy, Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, who also left the Liberals in 2008, will run for the post of vice chairman. Their political comeback is seen as a desperate move by the Liberals to survive the next two sets of elections. However, given their depleted strength, the party seems unlikely to regain its former place in the political landscape. The question Beijing and the local business sector must face is how business interests can be represented in future Legislative Councils when all seats are returned by universal suffrage.
Because an earlier and somewhat similar effort at electoral reform failed in 2005, to the dismay of both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments, Beijing should feel relieved by passage of the 2012 version. Presumably, it agreed to modest concessions—under pressure from pan-democrats and others who want improved governance—to avoid a second failure. Otherwise, its chosen chief executive, Donald Tsang, might well have faced public pressure to stand down in mid-term, just as his predecessor was forced to do over a different issue. Intentionally or inadvertently, Beijing’s surprise green-light to the package has divided the pan-democratic camp, with the Democrats portrayed as politicians with whom Beijing can do business and most others, such as the Civic Party and the LSD, considered the die-hard opposition.
Even one long-time pro-Beijing figure has said privately that he remains baffled by Beijing’s decision because the Democrat-initiated reform includes direct election for five additional Legco seats, something Beijing normally doesn’t favor. The political ramifications of the emergence of five “super-legislators” could also be profound. The political gains of the reform bill compromise, nevertheless, are clear. The Tsang administration has regained some lost popularity and the pan-democratic camp is in disarray, at least temporarily. Given a choice, however, Beijing would prefer an even more fragmented pan-democratic camp it could ignore completely, allowing more room for its own political maneuvering as both the central and Hong Kong governments acquire new leaders. It remains to be seen whether Beijing’s blessing of the 2012 electoral reforms signifies a major change of tactics, if not strategy, towards Hong Kong. The style and policies of Vice President Xi Jinping, who will succeed President Hu Jintao in 2012, and Wang Guangya, a career diplomat who recently took over the central government’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, are still anybody’s guess.
It is clear, however, Beijing is not prepared to begin talks anytime soon about post-2012 electoral reforms or a specific roadmap to universal suffrage. Top on its Hong Kong agenda during the next two years are a string of five elections. They include voting in 2011 for district councils and selecting the 1,200-member committee that will choose the next chief executive; and in 2012 selecting local delegates to the National People’s Congress in Beijing, choosing a new Hong Kong chief executive and filling all 70 seats of the Legislative Council.
On its face, passage of electoral reform in 2010 has not brought seismic change to Hong Kong’s political landscape. The political divide between pro-establishment and pan-democratic forces remains sharp and clear. The Tsang administration still faces recurring troubles in governance. Meantime, Beijing is continuing the proactive, more visible political approach it adopted following the 500,000-strong protest rally which shook its complacency on July 1, 2003.
Change, however, is in the air.
Chris Yeung is News Director of the Hong Kong Economic Journal. The article does not reflect the views of that organization.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Classic Wedding Grown
CONTACT PERSON:
HAZEL YU
RM103 Golden Plaza Prince Edward Hong Kong,
Hazel049@yahoo.com.HK,
Tel:+852 92553912
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
2012 Republican presidential candidates all have flaws
Washington Post Staff Writer
Mitt Romney can't win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
As governor of Massachusetts, he signed health-care legislation that has considerable similarities to the proposal President Obama championed - the one Republicans have fought tooth and nail
That's an emerging bit of conventional wisdom about the slow-forming GOP race. And it's right - except that it omits one very important fact: All - that's A-L-L - of the Republicans considering runs for the nomination carry at least one major flaw that could keep them from victory.
"So far, the Republican field looks conventional and flawed," said Mark McKinnon, who was an adviser to President George W. Bush. "To beat Obama, the GOP is going to have to come up with a ticket that is fresh, exciting, unconventional and free of major flaws."
Let's take a look at the Achilles' heel of some of the best-known candidates:
l Haley Barbour: The Mississippi governor virtually invented lobbying - not exactly the ideal background in a very anti-Washington Republican electorate. And his Southern roots - and the gaffe he committed late last year when he seemed to suggest that the civil rights movement wasn't a big deal where he grew up - might not play well in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, the first two nominating contests of 2012.
l Mitch Daniels: The Indiana governor drew widespread criticism among the party base when he suggested that the next president would need to call a "truce" on social issues until the country moved beyond its current economic woes. Social conservatives dominate the Iowa caucuses and the South Carolina primary - and they won't forget Daniels's truce talk anytime soon.
l John Thune: The senator from South Dakota - like many of his Republican Senate colleagues - voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program in late 2008. Many conservatives view the vote as a sort of scarlet letter, a massive government bailout that is anathema to their limited-government philosophy.
l Newt Gingrich: The former House speaker's appeals to social conservatives in places such as Iowa and South Carolina could be complicated by his very public personal life: He has been married three times.
l Sarah Palin: The former Alaska governor has done next to nothing to build a national political organization or demonstate the ability - or willingness - to grow beyond her committed social conservative base.
l Jon Huntsman: His serving in the Obama administration - albeit as the ambassador to China - won't go down well with many Republican primary voters who detest the current occupant of the White House. And Huntsman's public endorsement of cap-and-trade legislation puts him out of step with most in his party.
l Tim Pawlenty: The former Minnesota governor's biggest problem is a lack of pizazz. Can a candidate who is relatively unknown outside his home state of Minnesota and whose best trait is his "niceness" rise to the top of such a crowded field?
l Mike Huckabee: Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas - particularly his decision to commute the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who went on to murder four police offers in Washington state - is ripe for a deep opposition-research dive. And Huckabee's record on taxes as governor isn't likely to look much better in the eyes of many Republicans.
Curt Anderson, a GOP consultant who worked with Romney in 2008 but is now unaligned, argued that the candidates' pasts won't win or lose them the nomination.
"The answer to the riddle lies in the future, not the past," he said. "Who can capture the imagination of Republican primary voters? That is the question."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
