Museveni’s criticism of MPs a matter of form
Recently, President Museveni and Speaker Rebecca Kadaga clashed over the Covid-19 funds that Parliament had allocated itself.
The President argued, and rightly so, that the Parliamentary Commission undermined his authority when it included itself on the list of beneficiaries contrary to his initial plan. What I failed to comprehend, however, is his assertion that the decision by Parliament was morally reprehensible.
If we base on Western textbooks, or the perspective of Ugandans who do not beg MPs for food, then MPs acted in bad faith. If we also genuinely believe that MPs got that money for personal use (say to buy themselves jewellery), then the President is right. But is anything in life ever that simple?
It’s no secret that our President moves around with sacks of money, donating to all manner of causes. If we were purely academic, we would ask: Is it moral for a President to donate Shs5m to a wedding of a high status couple when some maternity wards lack medicines? At first glance, it looks like an obvious no. But when you consider that politicians have to balance many contending forces, the answer becomes less obvious.
Politicians, in essence, are in the business of being liked by the majority. To achieve this, they conform to societal demands. This means that their ultimate behaviour is a reflection of society, and not necessarily their own. So, although certain criticisms of MPs are justified, sometimes the real culprit is society.
If we recall, the British did not entirely replace our native systems with theirs when they colonised us. Consequently, we ended up with a medley of both British and native institutions. Our political system was not spared. On paper, it resembles the Western political system but in practice, it is a ‘katogo’ of local and Western ideas. This can lead to contradictions.
For example, our Western-style Constitution posits MPs as legislators but voters perceive them mostly as benefactors. Subsequently, MPs end up with two sets of duties, one from the Constitution and another from voters.
Of course the misconception ought to stop, and Parliament is sensitising the public about the ‘true’ role of MPs. However, changing mindsets takes time. For now, constituents run to MPs for immediate relief with a profound sense of entitlement.
Now, society demands leaders to have both short term and long term solutions to problems. With poverty, for example, government has invested in infrastructure and education. However, a leader cannot tell a mother who is starving about a five-year poverty eradication programme and leave it at that. Hunger is an acute problem and that leader may need to offer immediate relief (e.g. money).
Government’s Covid-19 response has left so many of us with limited means of survival. This means that elected local leaders such as MPs are demanded, now more than ever, to provide ‘immediate answers’.
In the end, MPs needed ‘facilitation’, and they got it, one way or another. What the President was fighting about was form (who they got it from and how they got it), not the substance (if they got it). Suffice to say, this was a matter of politics, not morality as the President would like us to believe.
The writer is a socio-political thinker
[email protected] Twitter: @kkaboggoza
