Museveni-Besigye dialogue: Who wins or loses?

When Dr Kizza Besigye authored a critical letter at the close of the 20th Century laying down sticky issues he felt were afflicting the National Resistance Movement and plunging it off course from the ideals it proclaimed as the basis of its ascension to power, the course of his own history and that of President Museveni was thrust on a fresh page.

In no more than five years, for instance, Mr Museveni watched senior party members disembark from the ‘yellow bus’ owing to disagreements on the course of the country’s constitutionalism with the amendment of the Constitution in 2005 to lift the term limit that restricted a president to two five-year terms, making Mr Museveni ineligible for election in 2006, taking centre stage.

Since then, water of all colours has flown down the bridge. The only constant that remains are the layers of contradictions that get thicker by the day with the jumping out of ship by former prime minister and Mr Museveni’s blue-eyed boy, Amama Mbabazi marking yet another turning point for his ability to keep intact his own political forces, especially those grounded in the party’s ideals and share his early vision.

He is not growing younger either, although his appetite for power, critics assert, seems not to be taking a downward spiral.

In the middle of these contradictions is a Constitution that bars Mr Museveni from offering himself for office come 2021. Such hurdles are not unique and have been tested. In 2005, Parliament helped somersault Mr Museveni past the constitutional hurdle when it lifted term limits.

Sceptics and analysts alike such as political researcher Golooba-Mutebi opine he has what it takes to pull the same move 12 years later and get the supreme law of the land tailored to suit the political circumstances of the day.
And yet the forces of change, as the 2016 general election reminded all and sundry, are growing more potent.

There are many questions on the battered economy, inequitable growth and development, a near-broken social services sector – going by indicators in the health and education arenas – and above all, an army of young people desperate for jobs in their hundreds of thousands in an economy that has at least 8.5 million people affording a meal a day.

For Museveni and his handlers, therefore, the regime survival and longevity-in-power project faces many challenges that give credence to the Opposition’s chorus argument, ‘remove Museveni and you will deal with Uganda’s problems’.

When this newspaper reported on Monday that plans to get Mr Museveni and Dr Besigye to a round table were registering positive results, the reception from Ugandans across the political divide, at least those whose opinion was sought and spoke their mind to the press, was that the two principals ought to get talking, if anything, to deal with the bitter contestation that hits maturity every election cycle and plunges the country in losses to the economy, a tirade of human rights violations and in isolated incidents, deaths of especially Opposition supporters and mobilisers.

There is a deadlock, the proponents of the dialogue argue, that only a sober and honest reflection, conversation and consensus can heal.

In an opinion article published by this newspaper on May 18, 2016, Mr Crispin Kaheru, the coordinator of Citizens Coalition on Electoral Democracy, opined: “The existing political stalemate presents Uganda with an opportunity not only to address the historical and political causes of the prevailing situation, but also to discuss and, through a national dialogue and consensus, pave a new political and electoral path for Uganda.”

He added, “A number of stakeholders have recognised the need, and are calling for a people-to-people national conversation as a platform to tackle the escalating tension. This national conversation is indeed critical if the country is to move forward. It is incumbent upon all political actors to ensure every effort to address the political challenges in Uganda is through peaceful means.”

What dialogue means for Uganda
Without delving into the detail of that process, if the optimism of those working towards that process yields fruit, what does that mean for NRM, Forum for Democratic Change and the greater Opposition? What are the stakes and who are the winners and losers likely to be?

To appreciate the question, however, the reality of the possibility of that dialogue and possible dynamics is as important to appreciate as are the make or break issues that will shape its direction as this informs the outcomes, if any.
Former Leader of Opposition in Parliament and now MP, Prof Ogenga Latigo, says: “Firs of all, I doubt if that information is genuine. But if that is the case, the country benefits from dialogue of any adversary. Who wins or loses depends on the outcome. Let us forge a bare minimum of what we must respect and adhere to in terms of equity in development and democracy.”

“Dialogue is important even in the worst situation. I have heard people say engaging Museveni is a waste of time, but if you don’t engage, your supporters blame you and I think it is okay to give it a try. If you discover it is a show you can always cut it.”

Some of the conditions, as this newspaper reported this week, include gaining consensus from either side; the need for an independent mediator of international stature detached from either party, but also a guarantor of the outcomes of the process.

Makerere University Political Science don Sabiti Makara says, “It is very tricky, first of all it may never take place. The two principals don’t have common ground for meeting, each thinks he is important and is full of pride.”
“I don’t see a give and take which is necessary for that common ground and with Museveni’s way of doing things, there has never been a single thing of dialogue he has honoured. So even if he sat there, the chances of honouring the outcome are zero.”

His fear is shared by analysts and Mr Museveni’s contemporaries who have the benefit of experience with him before and after ascending to the reins of power.
Mr Makara’s fears are grounded in reality informed by experience of the Nairobi Peace Talks, later derided as peace jokes in 1985 when Gen Tito Okello Lutwa and Brig Bazilio Okello ousted president Obote and called on Museveni, who then led a rebel outfit for dialogue on nation building and addressing the conflict that saw thousands get butchered in the Luweero triangle.

Ambassador Bethuel Kiplagat, Kenya’s former foreign affairs ministry permanent secretary and now with the Africa Peace Forum, recounts the events of the Nairobi Peace Talks in a paper titled, ‘Reaching the 1985 Peace Agreement’.

Those talks lasted a gruelling four months and ended up unsuccessful for reasons which could come into play this time round if a similar exercise were to play out.
“They began the talks by hurling insults at each other and continued to do so throughout the proceedings. Museveni denounced previous regimes in Uganda as primitive and backward. He initially refused to negotiate with the Military Council delegation, dismissing them as criminals. He then failed to show up for three consecutive days having left for Europe through Dar es Salaam,” Kiplagat writes.

On his return, Museveni and NRA demanded to raise new items on the agenda.
“Once agreement was reached on the agenda item, Museveni would change his position the next day or put forward new demands on the same matter. For instance, at one point he insisted he was the head of the NRA, Tito was merely the commander of another factional army, not a head of state although Okello’s status had been agreed upon earlier as the basis of the negotiations moving forward. President Moi considered this demand disrespectful and dismissed it,” he reveals.

Above all, either side played the holier-than-thou card, with Museveni ridiculing the Lutwa group for co-opting former president Idi Amin’s soldiers from South Sudan in their anti-Obote plot. He based on this to dismiss the Military Council as a bunch of criminals.

He had only worsened the situation. “He was confronted by Olara Otunnu, then minister of Foreign Affairs for the Military Council who pointed to Museveni’s own pact signed in Tripoli, Libya with former pro-Amin soldier Brig Moses Ali. Also a former senior minister under Amin, Abubaker Mayanja, ranked high in the NRM hierarchy,” Kiplagat writes.

“Museveni is reported to have retorted that Otunnu simply didn’t understand the art of revolution and criticised Otunnu’s defence of Obote’s human rights record when he was Uganda’s ambassador to the UN in the early 1980s.”

The ceasefire which had been agreed upon collapsed and on January 25, 1986, and NRA marched into Kampala victorious, in part because the peace talks had been thrown out of the window and the consensus that Lutwa remain chairman of the Military Council with Museveni as his vice, among a raft of other points of convergence, was forgotten.

This background is important in appreciating the dynamics that could potentially play out in this round of talks, if ever they happen.
For instance, one of the reasons the Nairobi Peace Accord was blown in flames was the losers vs winners issue.

At one point, the team brokering peace travelled to Kabale in south western Uganda to meet Museveni’s then ragtag troops from where the agreement was shredded by Museveni’s team which couldn’t accept the possibility of sharing power with generals they did not have respect for, but also because they stood to lose fat positions that would have to be shared among UNLA, FEDEMU, UFM and NRM/A.

This piece of history is not lost on us today with several FDC and NRM members growing goose pimples at the possibility of Mr Museveni and Besigye agreeing basics that will shape and change the country’s course of history.

When this newspaper broke the story of Mr Amama Mbabazi’s eldest daughter Rachel Kiconco meeting Mr Museveni with the blessing of her father, signalling a possibility of reunion of two old political friends, sections of the President’s inner circle expressed misgivings internally.

So in a Mbabazi-Museveni fallout are as many winners as there are losers. The same is true with Besigye in a country so deeply politicised and polarised that one swims best against the tide with the right political force behind them, be it in business or competitive politics.

An agreement that seeks to bury the hatchet would, for instance, leave some Opposition politicians lost in the web of the changes that would transpire, even if it doesn’t necessarily operate in the context of power sharing.

“Who benefits depends on the issues on the table. I don’t see the transition question being dealt with by such a process because if Museveni still wants power then the transition will not feature. The only thing they can achieve is say this is his last term and he must go peacefully,” Prof Makara avows.

Political scientist and researcher Dr Golooba-Mutebi too expresses his scepticism, but rules out the impossibility of dialogue. “I believe there can be talks to resolve points of difference between Museveni and Besigye personally and NRM and the Opposition groups but the political forces are much wider than these two.

Besigye says Uganda’s problems can only go away when Museveni leaves power, so if that is his belief is he going to emphasise that to him?”

“If the question of transition arises, certainly Museveni has an edge because he can refer it to a referendum or Parliament which he can use to lift the age limit. So what exactly will the two discuss and agree on?” Dr Golooba-Mutebi wonders.

Appearing on local television NBS’ Frontline talk show before he flew out for the swearing in ceremony of Ghana’s new president, Dr Besigye emphasised the conversation the “rulers” must have with the Opposition is about a peaceful handover of power and the mechanics of a safe exit that would ensure the country remains intact. If not, he swore, “they will be in hot soup.”

This stance, if it carried potency to the dialogue process, could potentially zero down on the transition question as the heart of the dialogue. It has implications which, as happened in 1985 in Nairobi, leave either party with little room other than stick to their guns.

There are actors, in business and politics, to whom Mr Museveni’s continued grip on power is a matter of death and life, much the same way there are actors in Besigye’s camp, to whom change of actors and reconfiguring the arena of power, is a matter of life and death.

The possibility of power sharing as happened in Kenya after the 2007 post-election violence between Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki or Zimbabwe between Morgan Tsvangirai and elderly statesman Robert Mugabe, is a dream as far-fetched as the 1985 experience in which sharing power between Lutwa’s Military Council and Museveni’s NRA/M was proposed.

Former prime minister and now presidential adviser, Prof Apolo Nsibambi, says: “I am sceptical. The whole country benefits from dialogue because Besigye is wasting a lot of time thinking he can cause turmoil though of late he has been reasonable, maybe he discovered that he actually lost the election. We need to deal with more serious issues that are urgent such as the drought situation.”

He agrees though that the transition question must be answered comprehensively, but whether the dialogue is the best platform is debatable.

“Museveni said this is his last term, we should believe him and the Constitution says so. I think the age limit should remain,” he says.

Either way, considering the level of guardedness between the two sides with high profile actors hardly in the know of the basics of the process to get the two principals talking, the stakes are high with the losers and winners watching the space with as much bated breath as those looking to the skies for a sign of hope for a peaceful resolution to differences at the top of power since 1962.

What leaders say of talks

Prof Apolo Nsibambi, former prime minister and now presidential adviser :
“I am sceptical. The whole country benefits from dialogue because Besigye is wasting a lot of time thinking he can cause turmoil though of late he has been reasonable, maybe he discovered that he actually lost the election. We need to deal with more serious issues that are urgent such as the drought situation.”

Sabiti Makara, Makerere University Political Science don:
“It is very tricky, first of all it may never take place. The two principals don’t have common ground for meeting, each thinks he is important and is full of pride. I don’t see a give and take which is necessary for that common ground and with Museveni’s way of doing things, there has never been a single thing of dialogue he has honoured. So even if he sat there, the chances of honouring the outcome are zero.”

Prof Ogenga Latigo, former Leader of Opposition in Parliament and now MP:
“Let us forge a bare minimum of what we must respect and adhere to in terms of equity in development and democracy. Dialogue is important even in the worst situation. I have heard people say engaging Museveni is a waste of time, but if you don’t engage, your supporters blame you and I think it is okay to give it a try. If you discover it is a show you can always cut it.”