AFRICANEWS

Uganda

Hostile to democracy

Human rights

For the last 13 years the regime of president Museveni has been a darling of the West. This is despite its oppressive political structures. A recent report sheds light on how Museveni's Movement system has proven to be an obstacle to democracy in Uganda.

At the time President Yoweri Museveni and his National Resistance Movement (NRM) took power in Uganda in 1986, the country was more known for massive civilian killings and other human rights abuses. These had been perpetrated during the military dictatorship of Idi Amin (1971-1979) and the second regime of Milton Obote (1980-85). Museveni's regime halted most of these, but thirteen years down the line the regime stands accused of being hostile to democracy. This is by a 164-page report released on October 12, by the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) group. The report says: "Through a carefully managed political system, the NRM has been able to effectively neutralise political opposition which it characterises as sectarian, divisive, and at odds with national unity."

HRW's foremost concern is the proscription of any organised political activity in the country. In its thirteen years in power the NRM has not hesitated to resort to repressive measures when the legal restrictions it has set for on political activity have been challenged. Numerous political rallies by its opponents have been halted through force and political activists harassed.

Through crafty schemes the government has set a complex web of legal restrictions that limit the operations of any political opposition in Uganda. Though the new Ugandan constitution, adopted in 1995, allows political parties to exist, it also bans the same organisations from carrying out activities normally associated with political parties. As a result the organisations have been barred from opening and operating branch offices, holding delegates' conferences or public rallies. Further, they have been prohibited from "sponsoring or offering a platform to or in any way campaigning for or against a candidate for any public elections."

However, the most serious handicap has been another clause, which has prohibited the political organisations from "carrying on any activities that may interfere with the movement political system for the time being in force." All these severe restrictions are set to be supplemented by the Political Organisations Bill that is currently being discussed by Parliament. The Bill if enacted, says the report, will not just regulate political parties but rather render them ineffective as it has retained many of the restrictions on political party activities as outlined in Article 269 of the constitution.

But if that is the trend that political activity in Uganda is taking, there is one political organisation in the country that has been exempted from the strict regulations, the NRM. "The NRM has effectively excluded itself from regulation by characterising itself not as a political party but as a "movement," fusing its structures with those of the Ugandan state, and creating a pyramid of "movement" structures from the village level to the national level," says the report. As a result of this arrangement all Ugandans belong to the "movement," even those who oppose it. These "movement" structures are state-funded and are administered at the national level by a National Political Commissar, who is responsible for the political mobilisation and education of the population.

By denying that the NRM is a political party, the NRM avoids being forced to comply with the regulations imposed on opposition political parties, and by fusing its structures with the Ugandan state. The NRM gains direct access to state funds and the powers of state mobilisation. "Since the NRM is not officially a political party, despite having the characteristics of a ruling political party in a single-party state, it has sought to create the illusion that Uganda is a "no-party" state. Such semantics obscure the basic reality of the NRM's partisan dominance of the political process in Uganda," says the report.

The "movement" posts filled by the July 1998 elections are not the only structures used by the NRM to influence public opinion and mobilise public support. Since coming to power, the NRM has used a state-funded programme of political and military education called chaka-mchaka to spread its message that political parties are destructive sectarian organisations responsible for Uganda's past woes. " Chaka-mchaka thus serves to rationalise the NRM's denial of political rights of freedom of expression, association, and assembly," says the report. Other structures used by the Museveni government in its campaign are the local councils (LC) and the Resident District Commissioners (RDC) both which often create a hostile climate for advocates of pluralism.

The report has dismissed the public referendum that Museveni has promised next year to debate whether to continue with the "movement" system or return to a more pluralist political system. The reason being that 'human rights are universal, and not subject to a majority mandate.' It adds that it is doubtful whether the NRM is willing to create the environment in which a free and fair referendum can take place. Most advocates for pluralism in Uganda view the referendum as the final step in a carefully constructed consolidation of power by the NRM, and have refused to participate in it.

Non governmental organisations (NGOs) are neither safe as the government exercises considerable control over them by delaying or threatening to withdraw their registration, that must be sanctioned by a government-controlled board. Although the NGO Registration Statute sets no such requirements, NGOs must function as non-political and non-sectarian organisations, and practice a significant amount of self-censorship of their programmes. Some NGOs have faced significant interference from the government.

For example the government has refused to register the Uganda National NGO Forum since 1997 and declared its 1999 general assembly an "illegal meeting." The National Organisation for Civic Education and Elections Monitoring (NOCEM), a coalition of 12 NGOs which sought to engage in civic education and election monitoring had to wait almost three years for its registration, apparently because the government was concerned that the organisation included advocates of democratic pluralism. The Uganda Human Rights Education and Documentation Centre (UHEDOC) had its registration arbitrarily terminated after hosting a widely attended seminar on corruption in Uganda.

Although it allows an independent press, the government continues to regularly detain, interrogate, and criminally charge journalists for their reporting. Common charges include the publication of false news and seditious libel, under legislation dating from the colonial era. Since 1995, the editors of the Monitor, Citizen, Crusader, The People, Rupiny, Uganda Express, Uganda Confidential, Assalaam, and Shariat have all been detained and questioned about stories in their respective papers, and some have been charged with criminal offences. The media is strictly controlled through the 1995 Press and Journalists Law which grants the government Media Council the power to suspend journalists and publications.

Then there is the charge of treason, which carries a mandatory death sentence in Uganda. Despite its gravity, it is abused as a convenient holding charge, providing for the incarceration of a suspect for up to 360 days without bail. More than 1,000 persons, most of them from rebel areas of Uganda are currently in jail awaiting trial on treason charges. While the charge is brought in cases of suspected involvement in armed rebel groups, treason charges have also provided the basis for the detention of non-violent political dissidents.

While vigorously advocating democratic reform and respect for civil and political rights elsewhere in Africa, the international community has remained remarkably quiet on abuses of political rights in Uganda. The US has on occasion called for a more pluralistic democratic system in Uganda and spoken out about the need to respect fundamental rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. However, these calls have rarely been followed up by action, and have had little impact on the human rights situation in Uganda. Other influential countries like Britain have been even more muted in their comments on the NRM's hold on power. This virtual silence has continued as the same countries continue to pour in millions of dollars of aid into Uganda.

Various reasons have been advanced why the international community has remained largely quiet about the abuse of civil and political rights in Uganda. Some Western leaders view President Museveni as a crucial leader in the volatile Great Lakes region and a power broker in regional conflicts. His role in containing the Islamist government of Sudan through support for the Sudanese Peoples' Liberation Army (SPLA) is also in line with the policy objectives of some Western leaders.

There is also another aspect that the NRM administration has ushered in significant economic growth and relative stability, rebuilding Uganda from the wreckage left by the brutal governments of Idi Amin and Milton Obote. The international community also evaluates the human rights record of Museveni's government favourably in relation to the dismal and discouraging records of its predecessors and of most of its neighbours. Thus, it seems the human rights abuses which continue to take place under the movement system have to go largely unchallenged by the donor countries.

| CONTENTS | AFRICANEWS HOMEPAGE |

AFRICANEWS - Koinonia Media Centre, P.O. Box 8034, Nairobi, Kenya
tel: +254.2.576175 (voice) Fax:- +254.2.577892 (fax-modem)
AFRICANEWS on line is by Koinonia Media Centre