After a while my blog is back to life.
It was as a result of a short spell of not visiting it due to certain unavoidable circumstances that i lost the password, inevitably sending me to a near 12 months of paralysis.
Nice to be back though and I here by hit the road again with my thought as to why Norbert Mao's parallel contest for president is good for the opposition.
Cheers.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Saturday, June 6, 2009
opposition wake up
Opposition: Together you stand divided you will fall
By Onghwens Kisangala
It was yet another round of elections – local council bye-elections on May 24, and as has become custom, another round of allegations of electoral malpractices. The Electoral Commission (EC) and the security personnel were as usual at the centre of the blame game and for the political players, especially on the opposition, very many lessons but as usual no learners!
Perhaps the most important lesson for the opposition was that cooperation among them remains one of the most important decisions for them to make if they hoped do anywhere near expectations in future elections.
Needless to say, the most heated contest was perhaps the Rubaga Division LC - III race that saw the NRM’s Peter Sematimba battle it out against three other strong opponents, Moses Makumbi of DP, Joyce Ssebugwawo for FDC and Justin Ssendikadiwa who was a DP-leaning independent candidate.
The truth or falsehood of rigging and the possible extent of either notwithstanding, many had believed that without an alliance among the opposition candidates, Sematimba, the NRM candidate would sail through with ease.
Indeed Conservative Party (CP) president John Ken Lukyamuzi, who took up the task to ensure that either Ssebugwawo or Makumbi stepped down for the oth
er says “it was clear that beating NRM was going to be hard with a split opposition. I don’t see why the FDC and DP candidates could not agree about this. Opposition supporters stayed in their houses when they saw that their candidates could not agree,” he said.
While it could be true that the disunity among the opposition candidates may have caused a sense of apathy among their supporters, it is also true that even in places that there were only two candidates, one of opposition and another of NRM, voter turnout was just as low if not even worse, indicating a possible loss of trust in elections.
But, according to Lukyamuzi, lack of unity does not only deprive the opposition of a solid vote, it creates room for easy rigging. This has been proved true in most of the bye-elections held so far since the 2006 general election. Whether in Busia in the east, or Isingiro in the west, or Kyadondo west constituency in Wakiso – central, or Kalungu East in Masaka – central, the opposition cried foul in utter hopelessness; FDC and DP both had candidates running against each other in these elections.
The inter and intra-party bickering in the opposition leaves them with little or no chance of tackling the threat of being rigged out by their rival – the NRM that uses all machinery of state. In the confusion of counter accusations against each other for spoiling the game, their supporters are intimidated out of the processes and the agents are bought off or arrested (for those that refuse to take the buy-outs) like it is said to have happened in Rubaga last week.
In the bye-elections last week, it was demonstrated in Mukono for example that unity of the opposition could deliver victory. Together they manned the security, ‘arresting’ people with ballot papers and making it extremely hard for intending election thieves to stuff the boxes. J.B Ozuma, the only opposition candidate for the LC-III seat in Lugazi Town Council enjoyed this concerted protection and won. Ozuma is from the little known Social Democrats Party. The same was true in Goma sub-county, still in Mukono were a DP candidate won the LC-III chair as two
NRM candidates wrestled each other to the ground.
In Rubaga last week, young FDC vigilantes were able to stop two well built men masquerading as security operatives who went about attacking people going to the polling stations. They bundled them up and handed them over to police but this did not stop their polling agents from being intimidated out of polling stations. Their energies were even made more useless as they did not only accuse the NRM of stealing elections, but even their-would-be counterparts in protecting their votes, DP.
At the end of the day, FDC and the rest of the opposition were left lamenting on what had befallen them – once again. By Monday this week, FDC had resolved to challenge the entire process in court. The party spokesman Wafula Oguttu said they are going to seek the nullification of the entire local council bye-elections on grounds that; 1) not enough time was given for people to prepare for nominations. They argue that the date for nominations was announced only two days
to the day of the exercise, making it impossible for those who would have wished to retire from their jobs to contest particular positions; 2) that there were no clear structures for the nomination of People with Disabilities (PWDs).
For many voters, this is an exercise in futility considering that the parties’ biggest hurdle may not be government but their failure to unite.
There is a loose cooperation of the opposition in what is known as Inter – Party Cooperation (IPC) involving CP, FDC, JEEMA and UPC. Conspicuously out of this group is DP that has always traded accusations with FDC for spoiling the game in most of the bye-elections held so far.
Be that as it may, although Sematimba ran a very smart campaign to stand above his estranged relationship with Buganda, Lukyamuzi still thinks that if either Ssebugwawo or Makumbi stepped aside for the other, “he should have found it very difficult to beat the opposition”.
As in Oguttu’s words, it is now a matter of hope. “We hope they will realise the need for us to work together.”
By Onghwens Kisangala
It was yet another round of elections – local council bye-elections on May 24, and as has become custom, another round of allegations of electoral malpractices. The Electoral Commission (EC) and the security personnel were as usual at the centre of the blame game and for the political players, especially on the opposition, very many lessons but as usual no learners!
Perhaps the most important lesson for the opposition was that cooperation among them remains one of the most important decisions for them to make if they hoped do anywhere near expectations in future elections.
Needless to say, the most heated contest was perhaps the Rubaga Division LC - III race that saw the NRM’s Peter Sematimba battle it out against three other strong opponents, Moses Makumbi of DP, Joyce Ssebugwawo for FDC and Justin Ssendikadiwa who was a DP-leaning independent candidate.
The truth or falsehood of rigging and the possible extent of either notwithstanding, many had believed that without an alliance among the opposition candidates, Sematimba, the NRM candidate would sail through with ease.
Indeed Conservative Party (CP) president John Ken Lukyamuzi, who took up the task to ensure that either Ssebugwawo or Makumbi stepped down for the oth
er says “it was clear that beating NRM was going to be hard with a split opposition. I don’t see why the FDC and DP candidates could not agree about this. Opposition supporters stayed in their houses when they saw that their candidates could not agree,” he said.While it could be true that the disunity among the opposition candidates may have caused a sense of apathy among their supporters, it is also true that even in places that there were only two candidates, one of opposition and another of NRM, voter turnout was just as low if not even worse, indicating a possible loss of trust in elections.
But, according to Lukyamuzi, lack of unity does not only deprive the opposition of a solid vote, it creates room for easy rigging. This has been proved true in most of the bye-elections held so far since the 2006 general election. Whether in Busia in the east, or Isingiro in the west, or Kyadondo west constituency in Wakiso – central, or Kalungu East in Masaka – central, the opposition cried foul in utter hopelessness; FDC and DP both had candidates running against each other in these elections.
The inter and intra-party bickering in the opposition leaves them with little or no chance of tackling the threat of being rigged out by their rival – the NRM that uses all machinery of state. In the confusion of counter accusations against each other for spoiling the game, their supporters are intimidated out of the processes and the agents are bought off or arrested (for those that refuse to take the buy-outs) like it is said to have happened in Rubaga last week.
In the bye-elections last week, it was demonstrated in Mukono for example that unity of the opposition could deliver victory. Together they manned the security, ‘arresting’ people with ballot papers and making it extremely hard for intending election thieves to stuff the boxes. J.B Ozuma, the only opposition candidate for the LC-III seat in Lugazi Town Council enjoyed this concerted protection and won. Ozuma is from the little known Social Democrats Party. The same was true in Goma sub-county, still in Mukono were a DP candidate won the LC-III chair as two
NRM candidates wrestled each other to the ground.
In Rubaga last week, young FDC vigilantes were able to stop two well built men masquerading as security operatives who went about attacking people going to the polling stations. They bundled them up and handed them over to police but this did not stop their polling agents from being intimidated out of polling stations. Their energies were even made more useless as they did not only accuse the NRM of stealing elections, but even their-would-be counterparts in protecting their votes, DP.
At the end of the day, FDC and the rest of the opposition were left lamenting on what had befallen them – once again. By Monday this week, FDC had resolved to challenge the entire process in court. The party spokesman Wafula Oguttu said they are going to seek the nullification of the entire local council bye-elections on grounds that; 1) not enough time was given for people to prepare for nominations. They argue that the date for nominations was announced only two days
to the day of the exercise, making it impossible for those who would have wished to retire from their jobs to contest particular positions; 2) that there were no clear structures for the nomination of People with Disabilities (PWDs).For many voters, this is an exercise in futility considering that the parties’ biggest hurdle may not be government but their failure to unite.
There is a loose cooperation of the opposition in what is known as Inter – Party Cooperation (IPC) involving CP, FDC, JEEMA and UPC. Conspicuously out of this group is DP that has always traded accusations with FDC for spoiling the game in most of the bye-elections held so far.
Be that as it may, although Sematimba ran a very smart campaign to stand above his estranged relationship with Buganda, Lukyamuzi still thinks that if either Ssebugwawo or Makumbi stepped aside for the other, “he should have found it very difficult to beat the opposition”.
As in Oguttu’s words, it is now a matter of hope. “We hope they will realise the need for us to work together.”
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Ogong for north
The North needs quota system – MP Ogong
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 18:16 By Onghwens Kisangala
Leaders from northern Uganda are bitter that their region is marginalised. The Independent’s Onghwens Kisangala asked the chairman of the Greater North parliamentary group to explain what their woos exactly are. Below are excerpts.
Why do you say the north is marginalised?
The facts are very clear that our people are not treated like the rest in this country. In the cabinet for example, we have the lowest number of only two misters from the entire Greater North. In the civil service, ou
r people are very few at the level of Permanent Secretary, Under Secretary, Principal Assistant Secretary and the rest. Quietly and slowly we are being edged out.
If you look at the recent promotions in the administrative structures, none of the 18 promoted Assistant Secretaries is from northern Uganda. Seven Under Secretaries also did interviews, six of them promoted, the one who was not promoted was from the north. These are the people who can now go up the scale. So, it is a clear trend that can be seen.
What is Greater North?
The Greater North covers West Nile, Acholi, Lango, Teso and Karamoja including Kapchorwa. But now the people of Elgon and Bukedi want to join us. They are saying what is happening there is happening in our area.
In that case you need to talk about North of the Nile if not the whole country?
I do not know, but if they say so, then let it be. If they feel they have all the similarities and we can speak as one voice to demand our rights, they are welcome. We are doing this in good spirit so that we work hard for the interest of developing our country.
There are many regions that are not different from the North. Why do you think the North needs special attention?
We have made the analysis and you can make your own conclusions. The poverty levels in the north are different from those in the west. An employment opportunity to a westerner is very different from that of a northerner. People from one part of the country are dominant in positions of decision making. These are the people who allocate businesses and similar opportunities and our people are not there. In the areas of economic, social, military and political empowerment, we are in another page.
What do people of the North want?
The poverty in the north is probably the highest in the country. We want more money to be put there to cater for that. Unfortunately that is not the case. We need our schools to be rehabilitated. They are in a very bad shape. Our performance is also very poor. It makes our admissions to tertiary institutions also the lowest because the quality of education in our place is too low and our people can hardly afford private education given their poverty.
Gulu LC5 Chairman Norbert Mao was the first to suggest secession of the north; Hon. Hussein Kyanjo then called the same for Buganda, both on grounds of marginalisation. Would secession help?
What we are all saying is that we need justice. An injustice committed in one place is not good for anybody anywhere. Whether in Buganda or the Greater North, all we need is fairness and equality. It is not about breaking Uganda into small pieces but we want to make it loud, the cry should be loud for every one to hear. Uganda should know that as long as we let these things continue, the future is not good for our country. Discontent and dissent will breed inevitably as long as injustice exists.
There have been many interventions to revitalise the North?
Those have not been projects or programmes; they were just relief. These have been efforts merely to relieve people of f their bad experiences. They are just like some pain killers. We need total recovery programmes, reforms and transformations for our people. And those programmes must be implemented with our full participation.
So do you think PRDP is a good plan for the North?
It is a good plan but we need a martial plan for the North. Once we have that plan talking about recovery, peace and development, then we have what we want. That is why we are now in dialogue with the government that this plan must address priorities.
The North has many highly educated people in the Diaspora. Wouldn’t they make a big difference if they returned to help their people?
Development does not only come from well educated people. Any meaningful development must be appreciated by and involve the masses. If we are to wait for people in London doing their own things to come and develop us, we will have got it wrong. It is a matter of involving and supporting the people.
You said the North is systematically being edged out, yet you and others are supporting a government that is deliberately marginalising your people?
I support the Movement because of the good things within it and I disagree with them on any bad thing that may happen in the Movement. Therefore, we want to work with everyone including the president to ensure we integrate Uganda. Let us not talk about Greater North but Greater Uganda.
Many might agree with you just as many agree that there is no political will to sort out these problems?
Once we speak with one voice, it will be very loud to even move a mountain. You can see that since we started to speak about these things it has provoked some reactions including the president. He is very concerned.
What is the way forward?
We are now demanding a quota system at every level in every department in all institutions. From sweepers to the top. Everything has to be national in character reflecting the population percentage. This is how it happens in India and it can happen here.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Reconcile Uganda
This concept paper is for a project that I designed with hope that it would heal the generational social political and cultural wounds that have plagued our society for so long. I thought the civil society woud be best placed to implement it. I went around marketing it but some how; all that I approached failed to take it up for one reason or another. Realizing that our history has been characterized by a series of many different evils, (individual, institutional and communal), I felt that a carefully planned processe of dialogue would be a good answer to these ills. The approach would have to be genuinely crafted and comprehensive to involved the whole country if would make a lasting impact.
NATIONAL DIALOGUE FOR RECONCILIATION AND DEVELOPMENT (NDRD)
CONCEPT PAPER
Back Ground:
Uganda has been at cross roads ever since colonialists came to this country. Important to note though is that after independence, what was thought to be a nationalists’ victory over oppression and divisionism only quickly degenerated into its old self.
With different political groups positioning themselves for contests, divide and rule was viewed as the cheapest means to political power. Effectively doors swung wide open for all the other political evils. The political quagmire of Uganda had only just started. The north, that the colonial administration had treated as a labour reserve force quickly became anyanyas or badokoli, the central people were regarded as untrustworthy (a good Muganda is a dead one), and at every stage in our history, one ethnicity has at least harboured an intention to fight another. The local leaders simply took over from where the colonialists left – a divided country.
All generations have since tried to solve this problem but with only lip stick solutions for what is a major social, economic and political beauty crisis. The NRM government particularly tried to address this problem in 2003 with Dr. Crispus Kiyonga as the chief of the dialogue; unfortunately it never went any far.
The failure of such previous dialogue processes and the continued attempt to have one each time a certain condition forces it is the justification of the fact that a harmonious Uganda is almost dependant on a dialogue of one kind or another. And yet, it is true that any development of substance is not going to be a result of something of ‘a certain kind’ but a well thought out idea. That is what is called here National Dialogue for Reconciliation and Development [NDRD], a concerted process of charting out the underlying factors that have retarded development in Uganda.
For how long shall we wait for somebody to act upon this hullabaloo of tribal, regional, political, economic and cultural powder cage? The thought here is that a group [of people] has to rise and make a bold move now. This move is to be a protracted national dialogue starting at local community level, grow into a regional dialogue, before a framework for national dialogue for reconciliation is found. This should set the stage for the badly needed reconciliation.
It is for this reason that this idea is put to you [that] as a major Civil Society Organisation (CSO) you are uniquely positioned to pull this country out of the abyss of social political differences once and for all. It is my conviction that given the period you worked in this country and the orientation of your work, I am sure if you can have the courage too, the implementation of this tusk should be a success.
You would mobilize ordinary people at the local level; among these may be retired civil servants, religious leaders, local Community Based Organizations’ [CBOs] representatives, teachers among others, all preferably being apolitical opinion leaders at their respective categories. These would start the process of dialogue at the district level.
Problem Statement:
In Uganda there lies social, ethnic, economic and political problems that require diligent handling with due honesty for the country to move forward in harmony. All Ugandans have to be involved.
Procedure:
The District Dialogue Committee:
The strategy is to identify apolitical opinion leaders of a specific number in all district in the country to start the dialogue at that level [30 per district].
At this stage of dialogue, the opinion leaders would identify what their social, economic and political interests are and the challenges about them; their potentials and weaknesses, opportunities and impediments and any other concerns as a district, including the points for reconciliation and how it could be done as a district. It is important to note that there are numerous problems between communities and districts especially about land that could be ironed out at this level.
They go ahead to assess how these challenges, strengths and opportunities flow into the same of the region. This would be in preparation for the regional dialogue.
The Regional Dialogue Committee
There would be two phases of dialogue at this level. The first phase would be where the regions discuss within self their concerns in the respective regions following the same subject matters and procedure as at the district.
The regional dialogue would involve members from several districts that form a region. A specific number of members from each district would compose the regional dialogue forum [4 representatives per districts].
It is important to note that there are well established regions in the country but with other parts especially in the east being a little complicated. But certain common factors and other historical importance should ease this ‘dilemma’.
At the regional dialogue, the challenges that affect the region, its interests, and how they relate to the rest of the country would be the matter for discussion.
They chart out how they can be important to each other as districts in the region and also how the factors discussed blend into national interests. They also find out the possible points for reconciliation as a region.
The second phase
This phase would be a region to region dialogue. Each region would interface with the other to chart out their differences and strategic interests vis-à-vis national cohesion and development. For example Buganda interfaces with Acholi/Lango region, Bunyoro, Bukedi and the rest, while all the others also do the same until every region interfaces with the other. They discuss how they would be or are important to each other, and how they can relate henceforth.
This would prepare all regions for the National Conference [NC]. To the NC would be two representatives per district.
The National Dialogue:
This would be the last and most crucial part of the ‘Project Reconcile Uganda (PRU)’. In consultations with the regional dialogue committees, the make up, procedure and targeted results for the national dialogue would be reached.
The Road Map:
It is planned that the formation of district committees should start at the beginning of August 2011.
• June 2011……….District dialogue committee formation complete, dialogue starts
• August 2011 ..........District dialogue complete, discussions and debates go on about it for the next two months
• Nov. 2011……….Formation of regional committees, and commencement of dialogue at that level
• Jan. 2012………..Regional dialogue complete, discussions and debates about the result of this stage of dialogue go on for two months
• April-May 2012….Region to region dialogue, results discussed and debated for two months
• August 2012, ……Preparations for the National Conference
• Sep – Oct. 2012…The National Conference for National Dialogue and Reconciliation, completion designed to coincide with independence – nation re-born
Way Forward:
The last day of the conference marks a special day for National Reconciliation. It is here proposed therefore that this day be remembered for as long as it remains relevant for national cohesion.
On this day, one person who has wronged the other reaches out specially to say sorry. An institution that has offended another agrees to make amends. Communities that have made ill of the other reach out with Olive Branches speaking peace.
Conclusion:
It may be painful and yet protracted tiresome, but that is the price to be paid for peace and harmonious development in Uganda. Unwavering courage and resolve will be a necessity for the plan to stand. Utter honesty and openness will too be required for the cause not to be misconceived for the old political posturing that Ugandans are well known about.
I have since redesigned this idea for another institution for exploration. If you have any idea on how it could be improved or any comment at all, it would of great pleasure.
NATIONAL DIALOGUE FOR RECONCILIATION AND DEVELOPMENT (NDRD)
CONCEPT PAPER
Back Ground:
Uganda has been at cross roads ever since colonialists came to this country. Important to note though is that after independence, what was thought to be a nationalists’ victory over oppression and divisionism only quickly degenerated into its old self.
With different political groups positioning themselves for contests, divide and rule was viewed as the cheapest means to political power. Effectively doors swung wide open for all the other political evils. The political quagmire of Uganda had only just started. The north, that the colonial administration had treated as a labour reserve force quickly became anyanyas or badokoli, the central people were regarded as untrustworthy (a good Muganda is a dead one), and at every stage in our history, one ethnicity has at least harboured an intention to fight another. The local leaders simply took over from where the colonialists left – a divided country.
All generations have since tried to solve this problem but with only lip stick solutions for what is a major social, economic and political beauty crisis. The NRM government particularly tried to address this problem in 2003 with Dr. Crispus Kiyonga as the chief of the dialogue; unfortunately it never went any far.
The failure of such previous dialogue processes and the continued attempt to have one each time a certain condition forces it is the justification of the fact that a harmonious Uganda is almost dependant on a dialogue of one kind or another. And yet, it is true that any development of substance is not going to be a result of something of ‘a certain kind’ but a well thought out idea. That is what is called here National Dialogue for Reconciliation and Development [NDRD], a concerted process of charting out the underlying factors that have retarded development in Uganda.
For how long shall we wait for somebody to act upon this hullabaloo of tribal, regional, political, economic and cultural powder cage? The thought here is that a group [of people] has to rise and make a bold move now. This move is to be a protracted national dialogue starting at local community level, grow into a regional dialogue, before a framework for national dialogue for reconciliation is found. This should set the stage for the badly needed reconciliation.
It is for this reason that this idea is put to you [that] as a major Civil Society Organisation (CSO) you are uniquely positioned to pull this country out of the abyss of social political differences once and for all. It is my conviction that given the period you worked in this country and the orientation of your work, I am sure if you can have the courage too, the implementation of this tusk should be a success.
You would mobilize ordinary people at the local level; among these may be retired civil servants, religious leaders, local Community Based Organizations’ [CBOs] representatives, teachers among others, all preferably being apolitical opinion leaders at their respective categories. These would start the process of dialogue at the district level.
Problem Statement:
In Uganda there lies social, ethnic, economic and political problems that require diligent handling with due honesty for the country to move forward in harmony. All Ugandans have to be involved.
Procedure:
The District Dialogue Committee:
The strategy is to identify apolitical opinion leaders of a specific number in all district in the country to start the dialogue at that level [30 per district].
At this stage of dialogue, the opinion leaders would identify what their social, economic and political interests are and the challenges about them; their potentials and weaknesses, opportunities and impediments and any other concerns as a district, including the points for reconciliation and how it could be done as a district. It is important to note that there are numerous problems between communities and districts especially about land that could be ironed out at this level.
They go ahead to assess how these challenges, strengths and opportunities flow into the same of the region. This would be in preparation for the regional dialogue.
The Regional Dialogue Committee
There would be two phases of dialogue at this level. The first phase would be where the regions discuss within self their concerns in the respective regions following the same subject matters and procedure as at the district.
The regional dialogue would involve members from several districts that form a region. A specific number of members from each district would compose the regional dialogue forum [4 representatives per districts].
It is important to note that there are well established regions in the country but with other parts especially in the east being a little complicated. But certain common factors and other historical importance should ease this ‘dilemma’.
At the regional dialogue, the challenges that affect the region, its interests, and how they relate to the rest of the country would be the matter for discussion.
They chart out how they can be important to each other as districts in the region and also how the factors discussed blend into national interests. They also find out the possible points for reconciliation as a region.
The second phase
This phase would be a region to region dialogue. Each region would interface with the other to chart out their differences and strategic interests vis-à-vis national cohesion and development. For example Buganda interfaces with Acholi/Lango region, Bunyoro, Bukedi and the rest, while all the others also do the same until every region interfaces with the other. They discuss how they would be or are important to each other, and how they can relate henceforth.
This would prepare all regions for the National Conference [NC]. To the NC would be two representatives per district.
The National Dialogue:
This would be the last and most crucial part of the ‘Project Reconcile Uganda (PRU)’. In consultations with the regional dialogue committees, the make up, procedure and targeted results for the national dialogue would be reached.
The Road Map:
It is planned that the formation of district committees should start at the beginning of August 2011.
• June 2011……….District dialogue committee formation complete, dialogue starts
• August 2011 ..........District dialogue complete, discussions and debates go on about it for the next two months
• Nov. 2011……….Formation of regional committees, and commencement of dialogue at that level
• Jan. 2012………..Regional dialogue complete, discussions and debates about the result of this stage of dialogue go on for two months
• April-May 2012….Region to region dialogue, results discussed and debated for two months
• August 2012, ……Preparations for the National Conference
• Sep – Oct. 2012…The National Conference for National Dialogue and Reconciliation, completion designed to coincide with independence – nation re-born
Way Forward:
The last day of the conference marks a special day for National Reconciliation. It is here proposed therefore that this day be remembered for as long as it remains relevant for national cohesion.
On this day, one person who has wronged the other reaches out specially to say sorry. An institution that has offended another agrees to make amends. Communities that have made ill of the other reach out with Olive Branches speaking peace.
Conclusion:
It may be painful and yet protracted tiresome, but that is the price to be paid for peace and harmonious development in Uganda. Unwavering courage and resolve will be a necessity for the plan to stand. Utter honesty and openness will too be required for the cause not to be misconceived for the old political posturing that Ugandans are well known about.
I have since redesigned this idea for another institution for exploration. If you have any idea on how it could be improved or any comment at all, it would of great pleasure.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Interview with David Pulkol
Scorecard is bitter pill for MPs to swallow – Pulkol
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 17:34 By Onghwens Kisangala
Last week, David Pulkol, the Director of African Leadership Institute (AFLI), was schedulled to present AFLI’s parliamentary performance scoreboard prior to the release of the report on the performance of MPs. The MPs protested. The Independent’s Onghwens Kisangala talked to Pulkol about the issues surrounding the matter.
What is this parliamentary performance scorecard thing?
It is a scientific tool we are trying to develop for the electorates to use to evaluate the performance of their own legislators. These MPs are chosen by their people to be their spokespersons at the national decision making arena – huge trust and responsibility placed on these individuals by ordinary men and women.
Therefore, it is important to have factual information that citizens can use especially those that are very far from parliament to understand what their representatives are doing. They need to use this information to be able to appreciate their MPs or question them and even take them on if they are underperforming. When elections come in 2011, citizens must be able to make informed decisions. This is what African Leadership Institute (AFLI) is trying to make possible, not witch-hunting MPs as some of them think.
Parliament in session
Last week you were heckled by MPs when you went to seek their views about AFLI’s parliamentary performance scorecard before the report is released, what do you make of it?
Well, for us we know what we are doing and we expected this. It is like throwing an object into a beehive, they will all be out to sting you. So it looks like we have just provoked a situation, but for us that is okay. The session was merely to consult MPs, explain to them what they should expect and be able to interpret the scorecard when it comes. It was also an opportunity for them to ask questions. Instead, there was a group of these MPs who came late and made the whole thing rowdy. It looked like the objective was not to listen but rather to quash this report and block its publication.
Why do you have to consult MPs before you publish the AFLI scorecard?
For us we thought that it was important to share a moment with the people being assessed. We did not give the results of the assessment but we simply had an opportunity to explain to them the criteria and the theory behind the parliamentary scorecard, the research we undertake to do the job and so on.
PMs complain that your assessment of them is unfair, what criteria do you use to do this?
To generate the scorecard, we study the records for example of attendance. We read the entire attendance record of the year and establish how many times each MP was present or absent and why. We also look at participation; what contribution did a particular MP make in a particular debate? We also consider the amount of influence the person may have exerted to determine the quality of his arguments. For example, who or how many people referred to your point in the ensuing debate or was it of no consequence? Whom did you lobby in pursuit of a particular Bill? The scorecard brings out the movers and shakers of business in the House. We do this at the committees and other levels up to the district council meetings where MPs from the district are ex-officials.
Does the assessment take into consideration the-value-for-money factor?
Take for example of 2006/07; parliament met only 89 times in the plenary. My God, in a year of 365 days our parliament meets only 89 times and then it takes 88 billion shillings! Is this value for money? And they say they have a backlog of issues to deal with! I think citizens should ask these questions. Interestingly, with so few days to meet, you always hear of lack of quorum for plenary business. Who loses? The taxpayer definitely.
Wouldn’t the same procedure of assessment be applicable even on the performance of civil society and other government institutions that receive and spend public money?
Indeed, like for us now when we receive money for the parliamentary scorecard, what is there to show that we have made use of that money? What is the cost of our work and how much do we actually do against what we budget to do? It would be very interesting for example to look at the Judiciary and ask: “How many cases have been pending for so much time in which court?” What is the average time of disposal of these cases, because justice delayed is justice denied? So, some other institutions would come up to score some of these institutions, otherwise AFLI can’t do all or score itself.
Do you have an office in parliament?
We have employed researchers who attend and record proceedings at plenary sessions and committees, except for our challenge of lack of enough equipment and human resources to cover all the proceedings. But it will be in the report, how many committees we were able to cover this time and those that we were not able to. We also send researchers to parliament from time to time with questionnaires to collect specific data.
What does the response to the scorecard on MPs say about leaders in Uganda?
First, it is escapism. The good thing about the attacks against me personally and AFLI by MPs is that both opposition and NRM
MPs are bashing us. They say I am biased but now biased against whom? Being bashed by both sides means we are right. All it tells me is that the scorecard is a bitter pill, which some MPs are refusing to swallow. You tell them this is good medicine for our democracy, here is water please take it and they cannot handle. They don’t want to be graded and yet they want the IGG, Electoral Commission, Auditor General, Human Rights Commission, Permanent Sectaries, the district CAOs, every one to account to them. They want others to account to them but not them accounting to citizens of Uganda. I mean it is telling of our leaders that do as I say not as I do. Oh… how?
The MPs challenged
you about the constituency you represent, might you be on anybody’s payroll in doing this job?
The MPs seemed to have no clue at all in that session. They seemed to think that this is a government of Uganda report or of parliament, they are mistaken. We are doing this for citizens of Uganda. We are developing tools that the voter should be able to use to assess and monitor their leaders so as to strengthen the civic engagement with parliament. They are questioning our mandate; we are a civil society – African Leadership Institute, a think tank. We want to hand over parliament back to the citizens of Uganda. Our mandate is there in the constitution. We want to make it possible to play an active part in the issues of governance, democracy, policymaking, legislation, and others.
David Pulkol
Do you get cooperation in the House about data collection?
When MPs are going to be missing in the House for whatever reason, they write to the Speaker seeking permission and he responds. Unfortunately, we do not have those records. We would have wished to factor in those [with] excused and non-excused absence so that we know who takes official leave and who just takes a French one. But the public needs to know that after writing to him 8 times, the Speaker has refused to give us these records and we are going ahead to publish our report without them.
Also in those committees where the public is allowed to attend, we record the proceedings and transcribe to produce committee Hansards. We produce our own Hansards because since history, they have not been able to record committee work of parliament, there is no verbatim. Where the public is not permitted like the Appointments Committee or the Business Committee, we cannot access data. Although if you asked me, I would say the public has to attend all these committees. They have to witness as ministers and other appointees are being vetted. So for us we feel that this is where parliament has cheated the public so much.
We are in a multiparty political system and some PMs say they do not speak in parliament because issues are first discussed at party caucuses to prepare the party position for the plenary where deliberators are chosen to argue the agreed position?
That we cannot talk because we came from the caucus is childish talk. MPs should not be intimidated. The people, to whom they must report, elect them. Unlike in South Africa or Namibia where it is parties that are nominated and elected, in Uganda individuals are nominated and elected directly. Therefore to allow parties to own them is not acceptable. Then we will ask whose interests they are pushing. They must also not allow certain members to dominate party representations each time something is being pushed from a common position. Participation must be broader. May be representation can be rotational per subject such that by the time AFLI comes to make its assessments, at least every one has spoken on one or two issues.
In such an arrangement, a dominant party like the NRM would have their members speak indeed once or twice at most in a whole year.
No. I told you that they are representatives of their electorates first before the party. It is a promotional and protective democracy. If for example they are talking about schools, roads, or whatever else, they have to promote the interests of their people first. Now where the rights and interests are being violated by anybody or government – ESO, ISO, CMI, the Police or the civil service, they are supposed to speak out about these issues as matters of national concern. In this way, each MP would have something to speak about where he or she is the best advocate because there will be no other person to speak for his or her people better. If in a whole year the Speaker doesn’t see you then you have a problem. Put on bright colours such that he sees you quickly.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009 17:34 By Onghwens Kisangala
Last week, David Pulkol, the Director of African Leadership Institute (AFLI), was schedulled to present AFLI’s parliamentary performance scoreboard prior to the release of the report on the performance of MPs. The MPs protested. The Independent’s Onghwens Kisangala talked to Pulkol about the issues surrounding the matter.
What is this parliamentary performance scorecard thing?
It is a scientific tool we are trying to develop for the electorates to use to evaluate the performance of their own legislators. These MPs are chosen by their people to be their spokespersons at the national decision making arena – huge trust and responsibility placed on these individuals by ordinary men and women.
Therefore, it is important to have factual information that citizens can use especially those that are very far from parliament to understand what their representatives are doing. They need to use this information to be able to appreciate their MPs or question them and even take them on if they are underperforming. When elections come in 2011, citizens must be able to make informed decisions. This is what African Leadership Institute (AFLI) is trying to make possible, not witch-hunting MPs as some of them think.Parliament in session
Last week you were heckled by MPs when you went to seek their views about AFLI’s parliamentary performance scorecard before the report is released, what do you make of it?
Well, for us we know what we are doing and we expected this. It is like throwing an object into a beehive, they will all be out to sting you. So it looks like we have just provoked a situation, but for us that is okay. The session was merely to consult MPs, explain to them what they should expect and be able to interpret the scorecard when it comes. It was also an opportunity for them to ask questions. Instead, there was a group of these MPs who came late and made the whole thing rowdy. It looked like the objective was not to listen but rather to quash this report and block its publication.
Why do you have to consult MPs before you publish the AFLI scorecard?
For us we thought that it was important to share a moment with the people being assessed. We did not give the results of the assessment but we simply had an opportunity to explain to them the criteria and the theory behind the parliamentary scorecard, the research we undertake to do the job and so on.
PMs complain that your assessment of them is unfair, what criteria do you use to do this?
To generate the scorecard, we study the records for example of attendance. We read the entire attendance record of the year and establish how many times each MP was present or absent and why. We also look at participation; what contribution did a particular MP make in a particular debate? We also consider the amount of influence the person may have exerted to determine the quality of his arguments. For example, who or how many people referred to your point in the ensuing debate or was it of no consequence? Whom did you lobby in pursuit of a particular Bill? The scorecard brings out the movers and shakers of business in the House. We do this at the committees and other levels up to the district council meetings where MPs from the district are ex-officials.
Does the assessment take into consideration the-value-for-money factor?
Take for example of 2006/07; parliament met only 89 times in the plenary. My God, in a year of 365 days our parliament meets only 89 times and then it takes 88 billion shillings! Is this value for money? And they say they have a backlog of issues to deal with! I think citizens should ask these questions. Interestingly, with so few days to meet, you always hear of lack of quorum for plenary business. Who loses? The taxpayer definitely.
Wouldn’t the same procedure of assessment be applicable even on the performance of civil society and other government institutions that receive and spend public money?
Indeed, like for us now when we receive money for the parliamentary scorecard, what is there to show that we have made use of that money? What is the cost of our work and how much do we actually do against what we budget to do? It would be very interesting for example to look at the Judiciary and ask: “How many cases have been pending for so much time in which court?” What is the average time of disposal of these cases, because justice delayed is justice denied? So, some other institutions would come up to score some of these institutions, otherwise AFLI can’t do all or score itself.
Do you have an office in parliament?
We have employed researchers who attend and record proceedings at plenary sessions and committees, except for our challenge of lack of enough equipment and human resources to cover all the proceedings. But it will be in the report, how many committees we were able to cover this time and those that we were not able to. We also send researchers to parliament from time to time with questionnaires to collect specific data.
What does the response to the scorecard on MPs say about leaders in Uganda?
First, it is escapism. The good thing about the attacks against me personally and AFLI by MPs is that both opposition and NRM
MPs are bashing us. They say I am biased but now biased against whom? Being bashed by both sides means we are right. All it tells me is that the scorecard is a bitter pill, which some MPs are refusing to swallow. You tell them this is good medicine for our democracy, here is water please take it and they cannot handle. They don’t want to be graded and yet they want the IGG, Electoral Commission, Auditor General, Human Rights Commission, Permanent Sectaries, the district CAOs, every one to account to them. They want others to account to them but not them accounting to citizens of Uganda. I mean it is telling of our leaders that do as I say not as I do. Oh… how?
The MPs challenged
you about the constituency you represent, might you be on anybody’s payroll in doing this job?The MPs seemed to have no clue at all in that session. They seemed to think that this is a government of Uganda report or of parliament, they are mistaken. We are doing this for citizens of Uganda. We are developing tools that the voter should be able to use to assess and monitor their leaders so as to strengthen the civic engagement with parliament. They are questioning our mandate; we are a civil society – African Leadership Institute, a think tank. We want to hand over parliament back to the citizens of Uganda. Our mandate is there in the constitution. We want to make it possible to play an active part in the issues of governance, democracy, policymaking, legislation, and others.
David Pulkol
Do you get cooperation in the House about data collection?
When MPs are going to be missing in the House for whatever reason, they write to the Speaker seeking permission and he responds. Unfortunately, we do not have those records. We would have wished to factor in those [with] excused and non-excused absence so that we know who takes official leave and who just takes a French one. But the public needs to know that after writing to him 8 times, the Speaker has refused to give us these records and we are going ahead to publish our report without them.
Also in those committees where the public is allowed to attend, we record the proceedings and transcribe to produce committee Hansards. We produce our own Hansards because since history, they have not been able to record committee work of parliament, there is no verbatim. Where the public is not permitted like the Appointments Committee or the Business Committee, we cannot access data. Although if you asked me, I would say the public has to attend all these committees. They have to witness as ministers and other appointees are being vetted. So for us we feel that this is where parliament has cheated the public so much.
We are in a multiparty political system and some PMs say they do not speak in parliament because issues are first discussed at party caucuses to prepare the party position for the plenary where deliberators are chosen to argue the agreed position?
That we cannot talk because we came from the caucus is childish talk. MPs should not be intimidated. The people, to whom they must report, elect them. Unlike in South Africa or Namibia where it is parties that are nominated and elected, in Uganda individuals are nominated and elected directly. Therefore to allow parties to own them is not acceptable. Then we will ask whose interests they are pushing. They must also not allow certain members to dominate party representations each time something is being pushed from a common position. Participation must be broader. May be representation can be rotational per subject such that by the time AFLI comes to make its assessments, at least every one has spoken on one or two issues.
In such an arrangement, a dominant party like the NRM would have their members speak indeed once or twice at most in a whole year.
No. I told you that they are representatives of their electorates first before the party. It is a promotional and protective democracy. If for example they are talking about schools, roads, or whatever else, they have to promote the interests of their people first. Now where the rights and interests are being violated by anybody or government – ESO, ISO, CMI, the Police or the civil service, they are supposed to speak out about these issues as matters of national concern. In this way, each MP would have something to speak about where he or she is the best advocate because there will be no other person to speak for his or her people better. If in a whole year the Speaker doesn’t see you then you have a problem. Put on bright colours such that he sees you quickly.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
My blog thesis
I am a young man, a graduate of Mass Communication from Uganda Christian University. I have been a student leader throughout my school days – from primary to university. More profound about this was championing the founding of a Mass Com. Students’ Organisation (at the university) – the Media Link.
Straight from the university, I started to work with Radio One as a part-timer, hosting the popular Talk-Show – Spectrum. I left Radio One to establish a youth project in my village before joining the Independent Magazine later in 2008.
I would like to think that I have a shrewd attention and insight into issues and events about and around Uganda. I feel it is obligatory for everyone to play his/her part fully for the desired goal of developing this country to be a reality. This means that every Ugandan has a role to play toward the attainment of this success. These roles are distinct but intrinsically linked and that is why each person needs to know that the missing link is this or that I-don’t-care-mentality. As coined in the old adage, together we stand divided we fall, the special persona difference of every two individuals and the power presented by their complimentary efforts is testimony to this fact.
In the period I have practiced journalism, I have come to realise that the desired social, political and economic change in Uganda is not going to come about only pitching rallies, workshops, writing big expository, or lobbying bureaucratic institutions but also by direct engagement of the power base of the status quo – the ordinary person in the rural areas.
Through this blog cite, I hope to establish a means of doing my part in this quest; educating the local persons that the necessary changes about this country is all them to effect. They need to understand that they have the power, the means and necessary protection in the laws of this country. By that, they should pick up the will and wear the necessary resolve to move forward. Uganda will never be the same again.
This is my long way of saying that sooner than later, Kisangala is moving to his rural base in Tororo to start a campaign that should consume this country like a wild bush-fire. Would you like to support him?
The challenges facing this country are going to require a group of aggressive thinkers, diligent planners, and rigorous actors to stand up to the times with due honestly and dedication and carry this country to the Promised Land.
Welcome aboard!
Straight from the university, I started to work with Radio One as a part-timer, hosting the popular Talk-Show – Spectrum. I left Radio One to establish a youth project in my village before joining the Independent Magazine later in 2008.
I would like to think that I have a shrewd attention and insight into issues and events about and around Uganda. I feel it is obligatory for everyone to play his/her part fully for the desired goal of developing this country to be a reality. This means that every Ugandan has a role to play toward the attainment of this success. These roles are distinct but intrinsically linked and that is why each person needs to know that the missing link is this or that I-don’t-care-mentality. As coined in the old adage, together we stand divided we fall, the special persona difference of every two individuals and the power presented by their complimentary efforts is testimony to this fact.
In the period I have practiced journalism, I have come to realise that the desired social, political and economic change in Uganda is not going to come about only pitching rallies, workshops, writing big expository, or lobbying bureaucratic institutions but also by direct engagement of the power base of the status quo – the ordinary person in the rural areas.
Through this blog cite, I hope to establish a means of doing my part in this quest; educating the local persons that the necessary changes about this country is all them to effect. They need to understand that they have the power, the means and necessary protection in the laws of this country. By that, they should pick up the will and wear the necessary resolve to move forward. Uganda will never be the same again.
This is my long way of saying that sooner than later, Kisangala is moving to his rural base in Tororo to start a campaign that should consume this country like a wild bush-fire. Would you like to support him?
The challenges facing this country are going to require a group of aggressive thinkers, diligent planners, and rigorous actors to stand up to the times with due honestly and dedication and carry this country to the Promised Land.
Welcome aboard!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
