Let national dialogue focus on political question

And so it is now with Uganda’s fourth Constitution, an assemblage of articles and clauses left for reference without the life breath of a commanding supreme law. A mere piece of paper between the people and God in heaven – words indeed. As a casual glance at the preamble would confirm, many Ugandans have over the years praised our Constitution. A custom tailored document by a people cognisant of their circumstances, hopeful in their future and committed to building their assigned country into a formidable nation. But alas! As fate would have it, the Constitution’s most critical features have since been twisted.

First, the famed preamble is no longer in tandem with the body of the Constitution as well as the spirit and aspirations of the people that should own it. Secondly, the verb to amend, in its dictionary meaning, infers not simply change, but change for the better contrary to what happened to Articles 105(2) and 102(b). Thomas Jefferson contends that “The two enemies of the people are the criminals and the government, so let us tie the second down with the chain of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalised version of the first.”

Just like our CA delegates erred, Jefferson too disregards the critical Hobbesian swords prescribed by his namesake before him to secure the chain. In Uganda’s case, perhaps out of too much trust and hope, despite our fragile systems, the alarm bell was never set and as fate would surely have it, both commitment and trust were broken.

As indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the famous preamble, Ugandans are aware through knowledge and experience, of the dangers of instability – the alternative of swords without covenants and their concerns shouldn’t be ignored.
It is also important in this regard to underscore the fact that political/constitutional crises often simmer and linger on without upheaval should not only be watched, but also attended to.

It is unpleasant to explain, as has been repeatedly done elsewhere, that the political question of old is still the monkey on our back thus the urge for a national dialogue over the years.

Justice James Ogoola’s assertion on September 26 of the need for “a messianic force of salvation” requires Ugandans to sit together and design their destiny clearly implies incessant contravention of Article 1(1), (2) & (3) of the Constitution. Ugandans crave for the sovereign authority vested in them by the aforementioned article. Indigenous participation in political dialogue by Ugandans to determine their destiny can be traced from the Namirembe Conference 1955, Lancaster House 1961, Moshi 1979, Nairobi 1985 and the CA 1995.

It is imperative, for avoidance of ambiguity, that the proposed dialogue focuses on the political question and leave other key thematic areas to a national government sector(s) review that should emanate from the former. The dialogue isn’t the purview of politicians only, especially given the electoral machinations through which they emerge and their interests thereafter.

Consequently, a National Council of State with no more than 150 delegates from all sectors of society, should assemble to undertake the task. As acknowledged by many citizens, a genuinely effective dialogue would be a firm foundation for building our country into a formidable nation. The opportunity is there to take.
Robert Sebalu,
Kampala