Greetings. In the two months since the last post on this blog, a foreign entertainer promised to launch a city on this land of Kintu, just a week before the foremost descendant of Kintu was sighted in public with an illness that got the other descendants of Kintu worried for his health. However, other matters affecting the descendants of Kintu will take precedent today.
Ugandans once again rued their chances as God “answered their prayers in another country.” The president of Chad, Idris Deby, passed away this week, and coincidentally the ensuing struggle mirrors a situation Ugandans have so desperately prayed against. Deby’s son, Mahamat Deby Itno was immediately sworn in and the young Major General spent his first days trying to consolidate power.
During power transitions in Africa, the opposition is usually ignored with calls of unity behind a solitary leader to “unite” the country. The Mahamt Deby government dissolved parliament and replaced the constitution with a charter. This abandonment of multiparty democracy is detrimental to the principle of checks and balances. Writing thirty-six years ago, Prof. Samwiri Lwanga-Lunyigo’s examination of The History of the Democratic Party provides insights into the actions of one-party movements in the likes of Chad and Uganda, as well as an understanding as to why Akon would make an insipid comment along the lines of “Africa not needing democracy.”
A multiparty system can be kept alive if all the parties are agreed that it is the best system, and most important, if the party in power for the time being allows the other parties to operate freely. For a vigorous plural political system there must be elections at reasonable intervals to enable the governments to find out whether or not they have the mandates to continue in power and to keep the populace involved and politically alert. And in a nascent democracy, such as Uganda was in 1962, it is important that there is tolerance on the part of the party or parties in government for their counterparts in the opposition. The opposition, it must be appreciated, just like the government is capable of making mistakes. There must be a set of rules that all the parties must agree and stick to or the plural system cannot work.
Our leaders at independence had had very little parliamentary experience and with the exception of some DP MPs most of this experience had been in the opposition. And where the colonial regime was being opposed no quarter was given and none expected. The stakes were very high – no less than self-determination. So our leaders who were in opposition in the colonial Legislative Council considered themselves subversive. After all, how could they have qualified as liberators and freedom fighters if they had not been subversive and brought down the colonial regime? Very few of our leaders at independence had had the experience of democratic executive authority or of any other kind of authority for that matter. And most unfortunate for democracy, many of our political leaders wanted security of tenure in their political positions and the opposition was a threat to permanence of tenure. How could we operate a Westminster model while ensuring permanent tenure of political office? This was not possible.
From 1964, hardly two years after independence the UPC began preparing the public for the one-party system using the usual arguments of the advocates of the one-party system. They explained that the multiparty system was a luxury our young poor nation could not afford; it was subversive, divisive and against African traditional political practice. The opposition was alright against the colonial government but what was there to oppose after independence? Unity, through the one-party system, was the only course available. All this sounds fine, but in many one-party states, the leader becomes the party and the father of the nation.
When this happens the citizens of the nation become children and obviously children are in no position to participate in important matters such as the choice of their leaders. The father makes such decisions.
The one-party system, or the movement, has got the advantage of making the top men permanent in power which suggests continuity and stability, but the problem with permanent political leaders is that there is so much preoccupation with preservation of their positions that considerable resources are diverted towards the achievement of permanence. Another problem is the mental fossilization of the leadership. They formulate policies and these must work at any cost; they become dogma and sacred for all time. When those policies cause economic, social and political ruin, it is not the ideas or policies that are wrong, it is the implementation that is wrong and those in charge of implementation are accused of sabotage and treachery and purges follow. And so it goes on and on. It becomes a vicious cycle and many an African nation wallow in them.
In the zero-sum, winner-take-all game of African politics the opposition is a very lonely place. The winners control patronage and dispense it both in the private and public sectors and members of the opposing party or parties are deliberately left out in the cold, however qualified they may be for certain positions. Now men attracted to politics during the colonial period were in the main not men of substance. They hoped to gain substance through politics and the winners succeeded in attaining substance. After all power and property cannot be separated for very long. Many of them were teachers who saw politics as an escape hatch from the poorly remunerated profession. They were also somehow privileged because they were the only highly educated people allowed by the colonial government to pursue politics while remaining in their pay. The highly educated Africans in the Civil Service had to resign their jobs in order to participate actively in politics and many could not afford this. These were the men of substance during the colonial period and if they had actively joined politics, maybe the structuring of our political institutions after independence would have taken a very different turn. So the atrophy of the opposition during the independence era can be explained in terms of the hostile attitude of the winner towards it and the winner’s ability to withhold and starve the opposition. In Uganda the opposition was physically assaulted as well. Opposition leaders were imprisoned indefinitely without trial and the clincher was the declaration of the one-party state in 1969, which legally stopped the opposition and the plural political system established at the inception of the independence era.
Ceteris. Paribus.
References
Lwanga-Lunyiigo, Samwiri, 1984. A History of the Democratic Party of Uganda. Kampala; Fountain Publishers. Chapter 4: Atrophy, 1962-1969; pp.83-85.
Kasujja, Allan (Host). (2021, 22nd April). What's next for Chad? [Audio podcast episode] In Africa Daily. BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09fcw5t





