Besigye-Museveni dialogue necessary but not sufficient

What you need to know:

  • In the 60s the UPC/KY alliance, united by their common opposition to Ben Kiwanuka and DP, attempted to impose their consensus on Uganda with disastrous consequences.
  • If nothing else, the agony of our long suffering people, the broken promises they have endured and their unfulfilled dream of peaceful change should compel us to pursue honest dialogue aimed at giving our country a new beginning.

It is said when two elephants fight the grass suffers. But as one professor once said, when two elephants make love the grass may suffer more. That is what comes to mind when I consider the shouting headlines about an impending dialogue between Col Kizza Besigye, the three time presidential flag-bearer and Gen Yoweri Museveni, the three time NRM presidential flag-bearer.
These two old comrades certainly have a lot to talk about and we should welcome the announcement that they have agreed to talk. After five years of comradeship as guerrilla fighters in Luweero Triangle, 15 years of comradeship in government, and 15 years of bitter political rivalry it is indeed timely that these two should sit down and reflect about their position in a changing Uganda. It’s is a good thing when these two gentlemen realise how much they share and use it as a foundation to discuss the issues under contention. Uganda has changed and Col Besigye and Gen Museveni have to change.
FDC has previously pressed four preconditions for talks with Museveni. First, Museveni has to accept the agenda, second, there should be an agreed mediator, third, there should be an international guarantor of the agreement and fourth, Museveni should agree to an international audit of the 2017 elections. Therefore, FDC believes that before any national dialogue takes place they should first sit alone with Museveni off camera. Perhaps that is why when a party like Uganda Federal Alliance and UPC hold bilateral talks with Museveni they earn the wrath of FDC. FDC believes that Museveni should talk to them alone first before talking to anyone else. Most Ugandans believe in an inclusive, national and future oriented dialogue. We cannot sweep the past under the carpet, but if we open a war between the past and the present, something which has been the hallmark of the NRM since 1986, we risk losing the future. We have to face the legacy of our dark past and embrace a truth and reconciliation process but our ultimate goal is to rise above our past. The past is for remembering and lessons learnt but not for wallowing in.
Though in the past we have heard of planned talks between the two old comrades that have never materialised, we hope that this time something will come out of it. We expect also that we shall avoid the South Sudan debacle where national issues have been reduced to a Kiir-Machar and Dinka-Nuer affair. Uganda’s national issues should not degenerate into a Museveni-Besigye and Ankole-Kigezi affair. Uganda is bigger than the hills of Ankole and Kigezi and definitely bigger than Museveni and Besigye. Since independence, Uganda has wandered confused in the Sinai desert of violent regime changes, lawless governments, oppressive leaders and hopelessness. That vicious cycle has to be broken. We have a foundational problem. The lack of a prevailing national consensus. The solution, therefore, has to deal with the cracks in the foundation of our country. Previous attempts at building a lasting national consensus have failed. The Luweero consensus collapsed just like the Lancaster House Consensus. The post Amin UNLF consensus likewise collapsed in a bloody heap.
Our nation is hurting. It needs healing. We need a new national consensus. Building a new consensus is the most urgent task at hand for those who care about the future of our country. This will require us to talk to one another in-spite of our disputes and differences.
If nothing else, the agony of our long suffering people, the broken promises they have endured and their unfulfilled dream of peaceful change should compel us to pursue honest dialogue aimed at giving our country a new beginning.
Therefore, any dialogue should be all inclusive. Any attempts by individuals however powerful, to exclusively agree on a narrow selfish agenda and try to impose such a narrow consensus on the people should be resisted. Fortunately, there are historical lessons about the futility of such narrow and parochial attempts at consensus.
In the 60s the UPC/KY alliance, united by their common opposition to Ben Kiwanuka and DP, attempted to impose their consensus on Uganda with disastrous consequences. In 1988 the NRA and former UNLA guerrillas reached agreement to end the war in northern Uganda but because they excluded vital stakeholders their agreement collapsed giving birth to the bloodletting between Kony’s LRA on the one side and Museveni’s NRA/UPDF on the other side. Even the talks between Moses Ali and Museveni could not pacify West Nile until Ali Bamuze came to the table. Therefore any dialogue should be inclusive otherwise it will be seen as nothing but a conspiracy to subvert the national will. [email protected]