IPC is capable of causing regime change in 2011

A lot has been said since the Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) commenced their journey out of the Inter-Party Cooperation (IPC) by failing to pick nomination forms for IPC flag bearer, which culminated into their already anticipated official exit from the now five-party alliance on August 30.

Armchair analysts who have no field information whatsoever on the workings of the IPC have been more active these days. More virulent comments about the inevitability of the IPC collapse has come from persons who have never seen a copy the IPC protocols.

The same people that had commented in August 2008 that IPC would collapse in a few months because it had included the ‘much-maligned UPC, especially in Central Uganda, with a terrible baggage of history’, are the same people now saying that UPC’s exit is such a terrible thing for the IPC. Hypocrisy!

All anti-IPC commentators have a few lines they have been taught to repeat: “IPC has no other agenda, except to remove Museveni”. “IPC is donor-inspired, it is not home grown”. “IPC is FDC”. “The IPC component parties are so ideologically different, they just cannot stay together”. Yet, when you ask the commentator what the ideologies of those parties are, you draw a blank.

For 28 months now, IPC has remained focused on its major objectives, namely, removing all impediments in the way of democracy. They have focused on electoral reforms, pushed aggressively for a new independent Electoral Commission (EC). IPC leaders, women and youth have been beaten up by police and Kiboko Squad on uncountable occasions, there have been ‘People Power’ anti-EC protests in 24 upcountry districts, the freedom of the media and human rights.

IPC youth have written to the International Criminal Court urging them to commence investigations into the September 2009 riots in Kampala in which over 27 people were murdered by security forces in cold blood.

It is this razor sharp focus of IPC that has allowed it to move on as if nothing happened even when UPC did not turn up for nominations, and went on to hold its national conference on August 31, to endorse the IPC flag bearer, right on schedule.

IPC was established as a voluntary alliance. A political party that meets stipulated criteria can join the cooperation or walk out at will. This is the beauty of IPC. No one is held hostage. All parties, small or big, have the same representation on committees.

Ugandans have always worked together to remove major political obstacles, and have been successful on several occasions, unsuccessful in some. IPC has learnt great lessons from Uganda’s history.

UPC and Kabaka Yekka party formed a coalition government in May 1962, but the coalition lasted four years (up to May 1966). Even after the collapse of the alliance, the colonialists did not return to Uganda.

The Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF), which was formed in 1979 during the war between Uganda and Tanzania by 22 Ugandan political parties (including UPC and the Democratic Party) at Moshi, Tanzania, also collapsed. But Idi Amin did not return. His army was disbanded.

The Lutwa Junta, which overthrew the Obote II government in July 1985, included in its cabinet, ministers from the Conservative Party (CP), DP and some military groups such as Uganda Freedom Movement (UFM) and Federal Movement (FEDEMO) but it failed to sustain itself in power.

When the NRM grabbed power in January 1986, it quickly induced three political parties (CP, DP and UPM) plus the UFM and FEDEMO guerilla groups to join its first cabinet, including Moses Ali’s Uganda National Rescue Front. Even after disagreements, Lutwa did not return to power. His army was disbanded.

IPC is capable of causing regime change in 2011, and Uganda will never be the same again. What happens after will depend on the result of the intense preparations the IPC has made for a post-win, and of course, a post-loss scenario.

Mr Nyago is a researcher and e-learning expert
omarkalinge@gmail.com