The politics of Article 102(b)

Uganda was at it again this week, with the drama and confrontation between the State and the political Opposition over the proposed waiving of the constitutional limit on the age of the Head of State.
One of the major flaws about the presidential term limit clause itself is in how it was arrived at in the first place.

As with many things, Uganda’s 1994-1995 Constituent Assembly was influenced by the American constitution and the thinking that went into that.
Because the United States has a two-term limit, Uganda and many other countries decided to adopt a two-term limit without having understood the root thinking behind that.
A government in North America and Western Europe has the institutional stability, history, technical know-how and administrative competence to get basic things done over a four- or five-year period.
It takes a typical African country 20 or 30 years to get done what might take a European country three years to achieve.

Today some of the world’s largest and most-influential corporations, particularly those in the consumer technology sector such as Netflix, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple were founded by young men in their 20s or early 30s.
So those who argue that Uganda should be able to elect a Head of State younger than 30 could have a point, in theory at least.

In fact, in a world changing so rapidly on the technological front, it might be an advantage to have a president in his or her early 30s than have one in his or her 70s.
However, the argument by mostly NRM politicians and supporters for lifting the presidential term limit is not the result of this kind of reflection.
It is simply a tactical political move to maintain the long-running presidency of Yoweri Museveni.

Since we decided to have two presidential terms and an upper limit of 75 years, then we might as well respect our own Constitution.
As the DP activist Fred Mukasa Mbidde argued on 89.2 CBS FM on Thursday night, the thinking, conditions and weight of history that went into setting the presidency at two terms of five years each and an upper limit of 75 years in the Constituent Assembly have not changed over the last 22 years.
But still, Museveni will be Museveni.

He will still be the man with barely a sense of personal shame and so most observers and most of the general public believe the upper age limit will be removed.
The Western governments and political institutions like the European Union will remain caught up in their own contradiction in these matters.
As I have written a few times before, it is they that really fund and run the social and economic projects that keep Uganda afloat, but somehow they think that acting more directly in the country’s affairs is interference or even, according to 21st Century western mores, is being “racist”.
The major Western powers do not hesitate in speaking out on countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria and Iraq, but are too afraid to call a spade a spade when it comes to Africa.
Uganda urgently needs a renewal at the top of its political leadership.

However, I continue to feel strongly that much more than political change is needed for us to see a qualitative improvement in the overall society.
The video footage and live feeds by the leading television stations in covering the drama of last Thursday was as sub-standard as always.
It will remain sub-standard regardless of who occupies State House unless something drastic is done.

My view still stands that when we stand back from the day-to-day politics and government and take a broad look at Ugandan society, there is a mediocrity, a lack of imagination, a lack of comprehension of standards and lack of quality that is much deeper rooted and much more long-term than the 31-year-old NRM government.
I think we dwell too much on the politics of State House and fail to pay attention to the facts of our all-round sub-standard society.
Just visit Mbarara, Jinja, Mityana, Fort Portal, Iganga, Mbale, Masaka or Kampala on any given day. Take a look around.

The low quality of life springing from the horizons and habits of the population is quite glaring.
It is a pity that the misrule at the political level gives us the pretext to focus on elections, parliament and the presidency and conveniently ignore the reality of our collective national mediocrity.