A warrant for future political entrepreneurs to invest in politics

A warrant for future political entrepreneurs to invest in politics, a vainglorious triumph for the ruling party, or a dishonourable and dangerous distraction to a national dialogue that would have led to reconciliation, unity and a prosperous 2018?

In countries such as Britain where parliament is supreme, the battle would not have been quite over as yet; a controversial decision by the House of Commons would have been referred to the Court of Public Opinion.

Ironically, in a country to which she bequeathed her parliamentary system; where the constitution specifically proclaims the supremacy of the people, a row as to whose wishes should have prevailed still rages on.

Understanding the relationship between loyalty to the ruling party and nationalism, where correct political vision and patriotism seems to mean unquestioning support to that party, is invariably tenuous.

But avoiding future political disasters means allocating blame accurately; and most of it lies with the kind of selfishness that allows political entrepreneurship to thrive across the political party spectrum.

Political economy can be defined as the theory or study of the role of public policy in influencing the economic and social welfare of a political unit but the adulterated Ugandan variant seems to be skewed towards selfish political entrepreneurship.

After the most contentious provisions of the Constitution have been tanked the political speculators and their touts must now brace themselves for the aftershock: a recession in the ‘political economy’ of Uganda politics from which only an incumbent can emerge winner in 2021 not because of supposed enduring popularity but a litany of resources at the disposal of an incumbent; not shared by MPs or any presidential hopefuls outside the ruling party’s approved network of successors. Few doubt that the stature and trappings of the office of the obvious beneficiary, notably the power of patronage and appointment, that give an incumbent a significant advantage.

The ruling party can discipline, albeit viciously, rebel MPs, who hype opinions contrary to those whipped by the party and their fate is sealed. Ironically, those who towed the party line are reportedly already in a worse political conundrum with their constituents.

Adding two years to their own term in Parliament demonstrates that they fully understood the consequences of going against the wishes of their constituents.

True, the party system was all too handy for the ruling party’s Whips to push through an amendment considered obnoxious by many people, including the religious leaders, who are also agonising over its passing.

The continuing row sustains the uncomfortable fiction that all laws and policies are sensible even when traduced by allegedly greedy political entrepreneurs.

Apart from giving consistency to government, political parties are supposed to give stability to Parliament and are the most effective means of democratically changing a government.

Although a particular government’s policies must of necessity be related to the wishes of the electorate, under the party system, government is by party whereby the side with the majority votes wins.

Problem is, ruling parties often become overwhelming and, in the name of patriotism quite peremptory, as happened during the age limit removal process. British Premier Benjamin Disraeli erred when he warned members of his party thus: “damn your principles! Stick to your party”!

The individual MP should not be a mere delegate instructed by his party as Disraeli impugned or his/her constituents, as to how to speak and vote in parliament. MPs are representatives who, while giving full weight to constituency interests, can and should individually vote and act in accordance with their personal judgement.

The MPs, who could not enjoy Christmas with their constituents have my sympathy but they should have known better. Political entrepreneurship has a political risk premium built into the price. Whichever bonus or perks given to those who voted yes or applauded thereafter, it still is a poor deal for nation building and political careerism.

Samuel Baligidde is a lecturer at UMU-Nkozi