Clash between Mao and Besigye misses the elephant in the room

The discussion in the opposition should be about the strategic outcome and how to get wider appeal and support for those reforms, including among NRM members and supporters.

An interesting contest is taking place within the Opposition, primarily between Democratic Party leader Norbert Mao and Dr Kizza Besigye, easily the de-facto leader of the opposition in the country.

It started several weeks ago when Mao, who is struggling to control the Young Turks in his party, accused Besigye of instigating and fomenting the dissent in DP.

Not many took notice for DP, which could easily pass for the Divided Party, has reeled from one leadership contest to another since Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere retired from the scene over a decade ago. Mao then raised the ante by suggesting that the contest is as much one of ideology and strategy as it is about individuals.

On his Facebook page he posted thus: “There are two tendencies in the opposition today. There are those who believe that political parties are irrelevant and we should embrace a personality driven struggle and not bother with the agenda we seek to achieve. Then there are those who believe that institutions matter and that political actors should relate on an institutional basis and craft an inclusive agenda.”

Mao revealed that he, alongside FDC leader Mugisha Muntu, belong to the latter category while Besigye and UPC’s Olara Otunnu belong to the former.

Assuming this is a correct categorisation, this discussion, far from a crisis within the opposition, reflects progress in the form of self-awareness and a better understanding of the different approaches available.
The debate should be encouraged, not suppressed, and it should be transformed into a national debate, not a partisan clash of personalities.

Besigye has long argued that the current political set-up does not offer grounds for a credible political contest.

He should know, having contested for the presidency thrice. Besigye’s sideways shift, from a political contestant to a political protagonist is an acknowledgment of the dominant and impenetrable position the incumbent and the NRM party enjoy.

The coercive arms of the State, which have acted as enforcer and protector of the regime during elections and other political contests, are directly under the thumb of the President. So is the Electoral Commission. And the Treasury. And an army of cadres across the State.

Even Big Business is beholden to the Big Man, offering vast campaign contributions in exchange for licenses, tax breaks and other concessions.

Even religious bodies, which can claim to appeal to a higher authority, wait on Caesar, receiving hand-outs and favours in exchange for their silence on fundamental questions of governance, accountability and inclusiveness.

In fact, I strongly believe that if Jesus Christ stood against Museveni in 2016 under the current environment he would need a miracle to win (or have God appoint his apostles to the Bench).
Political parties are relevant but what the country needs, more than anything else, are deep electoral and political reforms.
We need to get the army out of politics, we need to change the way we choose the Electoral Commission and the way it runs polls, and we need to tweak our political system, which gives the presidency too much power and directly promotes patronage and a winner-takes-it-all political culture.

We could go about it the hard way, like Kenya did, and use violence to shake up the status quo and inspire reforms. This is certainly not desirable.

Or we can go about it the easier way, like Ghana did.
The discussion in the opposition should be about the strategic outcome and how to get wider appeal and support for those reforms, including among NRM members and supporters.

As long as the calls for electoral and political reforms are seen as an opposition matter they will find no traction but who in the NRM, for instance, can deny that we need more efficiency and accountability?