Political parties in the context of legislative effectiveness

by Wycliff DK Bakandonda
Forum for Democratic Change (FDC)
Uganda

Political Parties need to get sufficient time for formation, popularizing and growth for them to play effective roles in their countries. They should represent certain values for the society whose handling or mishandling becomes their strength or ineffectiveness. For most of Africa this natural growth has not been given the appropriate opportunity but there are now renewed demands that must be encouraged and supported.

Instead of strong institutions, often than not has emerged strong personalities. Whereas it easy to remember and talk about the Democrats and Republicans in America, or the Labour and Conservative Parties in Britain, on the contrary, the African Continent will easily recall names like Nkwame Nkrumah, Nandi Azikiwe, Kaunda, Nyerere, Kenyata and Obote. The few parties that still linger on are in the minds of aging and dying and these are mainly the parties that led their countries to Independence and because their contribution was tied to serious changes in the politics of those countries.

The seventies and eighties also did a lot of disservice to political parties when internal conflicts, lack of democracy and foreign interferences gave rise to military dictatorships. This easy way of assuming state power encouraged many to explore ways of taking short cuts to power as opposed to building institutions. Often than not, the military leaders were not the well educated (Amin in Uganda and Mobutu in Zaire) nor with big public or military standing (Captain Sankara and Lt Rawlings).

The cold war also had negative effects on the emergence and sustenance of political parties. As long as the dominant political system (Capitalist or Socialist) found an ally in the existing political party, it was difficult to nurture an alternative unless the balance of power was externally supportive.

Consequently, therefore, the surviving political parties that can be talked about on the continent are those that found away of fitting within the formula of the cold war and avoided military coups. A good example can be found in the CCM of Tanzania (Socialist) and Kanu (Capitalist) in Kenya. In South Africa, where the multiparty system is enviably doing well, the monster apartheid helped the nationals desperate for a solution to rally behind a mass party which stands a big chance of survival.

The world order is now changing. There is a push for democracy every where. Donor countries, which are mainly from pluralist West sometimes tie their aid to some sort of democracy where to them democracy means multi partyism. Even donor organizations like The World Bank and the IMF package democracy prerequisites to loans and grants. Poor African Nations are now in frantic efforts to establish parties even when the current leaderships don't favor them. The result is poorly organized or hurriedly organized parties that are primarily not for democratization but to qualify for donations.

There are also some genuine pursuits of party democracy. With increased levels of education and interactions across boarders, the no party democracy is increasingly facing challenges and the beneficiaries are being strained to sustain the traditional dictator ship. Either way is good for democracy. Whether given under duress, pretence or consciously, a start is being made in the right and irreversible direction. We are therefore going to witness more and more parties being formed to replace military dictatorships, single part or no party arrangements.

In Uganda, for a specific example, an interesting history summarizes the general scenario.

In the sixties, Milton Obote and his Uganda Peoples Congress banned other parties to become a one party state like his other colleagues in the region. Internal dissatisfaction and foreign interests saw him replaced by one of the most notorious dictators, Idi Amin.

The post Amin governments did little or did not last long enough to consider building multi party system. The no party and the one party former leaders plunged Uganda into yet another 5 year war that brought current leader Yoweri Museveni into power. Whereas Mr. Museveni had lead the Uganda Patriotic Movement in the multiparty elections of 1980, he chose to organize under a no party arrangement that lead to the monolithic so called all inclusive National Resistance Movement. The choice of this option, for whatever reason failed the return to a multiparty system.

Surprisingly, Yoweri Museveni received more support than any other past leaders. The failures of Obote were well amplified and exploited. Different ideology and alternative methods of delivering governance were explained as divisionism that had plunged Uganda into the past chaos. Instead of building the National Resistance Movement into a political organization to compete with others for power, which given the prevailing situation would have made it a strong party, Museveni sought to destroy the process by insisting on his no party democracy thus denying parties a chance to emerge.

When Mr. Museveni, to the surprise of many including his cadres, announced at his ruling National Council meeting that it was time to open up, the immediate opposition came from his own cadres. Why? Because for two decades they had been told that the parties were the problem and here they were faced with campaigning for their restoration. Surprisingly but honestly too, Mr Museveni made it clear that opening up was not his choice but that he was responding to donor pressure and internal agitation. Emergence of healthy and well structured parties under these circumstances therefore is a matter of debate.

In 1966, Uganda had a crisis that led to the abolition of kingdoms in the country. In 1971 Amin took over and devastated the country for eight years. In 1979 the Uganda National Liberation Front overthrew Amin and gave a lot of hope to Ugandans which hope did not last long. In 1981 to 1986 Uganda entered another war. To day Museveni who has ruled Uganda for the last 18 years is repeating the same mistakes of his predecessors despite warnings from within and without. Because of the failures of Museveni and his Movement System, a good chance is now laid for the emergence and sustenance of political parties.

The emergence of political parties in Uganda can now begin scholars on a fresh ground. There are various parties that are being formed and definitely for more reasons than establishing democracy. Some parties are lead by individuals that cannot win a village council chairman seat, but have surprisingly obtained the required signatures. Questions are yet to be answered about how guenuine they are and who has sponsored them.

Others like the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), a result of a merger of the Reform Agenda (RA), The Parliamentary Advocacy Forum (PAFO) and the National Democratic Forum (NDF) are seizing the opportunity to make a mass national party. The old Parties, The Uganda Peoples Congress and traditional rival the Democratic Party are now together in opposing the demand that they register afresh. Whatever the reason for allowing the opening of the political space, something good is happening!

What will however make these advances meaningful is how the parties arrange to democratically capture power and put an end to false hopes of the nationals by offering honest and competent democratic leadership. This they can achieve by the programs they bring forth, which programs will ensure that both the Presidential and parliamentary elections, which in Uganda will most probably be held on the day, give them sufficient numbers to take state power.

In the Uganda scenario, most likely the opposition will have to enter into an understanding leading to a single presidential candidate against the 3^rd Term chaser, incumbent Yoweri Museveni. This arrangement, which is also another `Movement' has its own weaknesses. It hampers the quick consolidation of party's chosen alternative way of governance. It also hampers genuine opposition as the allied are bound together by their election Memorandum of Understanding and delays the actual enjoyment of alternatives.

Parties whether single, merged or allied have to draw a lot of lessons from the country's history. The colonial struggles, what made them succeed or delayed independence, liberation wars, internal democratic struggles, the hopes and frustrations of the jobless and poor peasants etc. These should motivate the party leaders, members of parliament and the government in power to know that its strength is the weaknesses of the past. With this concept well received and internalized, political parties will again become the basis of getting and keeping power and losing it to competitors when badly handled.

The biggest failure of the parties can then be rooted in the circumstances that lead to their establishment. In the case of parties that have been established to address certain pressing and common society issues, like independence and internal self rule or problematic anti people governance like apartheid, the emerging parties, when given strong leadership will stand the test of time. The provision of alternative governance and the resolve not to return to the historical problems will be their driving force. Because the problems cut across society and to get over them demands the involvement of the majority, the people own the parties and the parties progressively address the challenges of changing political, social and economic situations. In these cases, it is frustrating to be on the opposition because the foundation of the ruling parties is difficult to shake, the party sufficiently addresses the needs of the people and because of its firmness, a party in power has no reasons to frustrate any upcoming opposition, there is stability and harmony in the country. This again goes for parties like the CCM in Tanzania and ANC in South Africa.

The opposition parties end up promoting and helping to strengthen the ruling party. Its majority numbers in parliament gives the party the opportunity to carry through its programs as the country steadily grows.

On the other hand, some parties lose a sense of direction and abandon the very reasons that brought them into existence. Their preoccupation now becomes holding on to power using some of the ills that they have promoted over time. These ills often include wars, diseases, poverty and lack of social services. Alternative views are stifled and independent thinking is criminalized. The leadership creates cronies, corruption is rampant and development is restricted.

In the above situation, when the world order orders change, the emerging political parties need exceptionally strong and committed leadership. Initially the opposition will be preoccupied with throwing out the incumbent. Alliances will be formed, differently perceived methods of governance will be in government at the same time and internal rivalry may result. The parliament in which the allied victors will have the majority will lack cohesion and the problems of the nation will not be sufficiently addressed. NARC in Kenya against Kanu could provide an example. In this case, the former dominant party may reorganize, taking advantage of the disorganization of the new comers and its old established structures and recapture power again. This could be a fresh start for an effective multiparty arrangement.

In Uganda however, where a no party arrangement has been at the hem for the lat 20 years, the players have to quickly address demands for accountability and other ills that have bedeviled the country. Corruption, poor social services, wars and equitable development for all parts of the country have now to be addressed through the set up and structures of the parties and their representatives in parliament. The emerging parties will take advantage of the failures of the ruling Movement Government to attract support.

These parties will however face an up hill task of competing with an organization, National Resistance Movement Organization (NRMO),that is fused with the government. This gives it un due advantage in infrastructural set up and finances. The members of parliament that have to cause changes to pave way for genuine multiparty democracy are themselves not well tuned away from the individual merit standard. Regional, continental and International organizations should prepare to help the success of transition. Support will be vital in the areas of funding genuine opposition parties and restraining excesses of the Movement in its bid to cling to power. Recent bold statements from Western leaders have been a very positive step.

It is therefore important that political players get to understand that the way to democracy and good governance is by genuinely accepting to organize through parties. No exceptions should be permitted. Defaulters should be identified and isolated like has been the case for military coup promoters. Expensive and non sustainable experiments like Museveni's no party system should be dismissed immediately they surface. Resources should be mobilized to support the pro democracy moves and Africa will democratizeand develop.

Finally, the importance of parties in ensuring democracy and accountability need no emphasis. For us in Uganda we have had the opportunity (misfortune?) of testing all the possible different methods of governance. From multiparty, to one party, military dictatorship to no party. Those who have lived long enough to tell the story know that the only time we have had a semblance of democracy was during the early sixties. Let us now consciously pursue the right course, the course that will ensure democracy, accountability and development.