National dialogue: Is consensus built during 1995 Constitution-making still holding?

The court had in the same ruling delivered on January 31 nullified “with immediate effect” all ongoing prosecutions involving civilians on grounds that the said courts do not exhibit “independence and fairness” contrary to the provisions of a Constitution that demands a fair and impartial trial for every citizen.

“Anyway, the country is not governed by the judges. It is governed by the people - all of us Ugandans who are old enough to vote. In the matter of the Constitution and other legislations, we govern ourselves by having referenda or constitutional amendments or amendments of the laws by Parliament,” Mr Museveni wrote.

Given that Mr Museveni has always presented himself as a democrat who respects the law, the statement has since elicited questions about how much of a democrat he is and whether he respects the law and institutions.

How the government will respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling will be informative.

Those developments come hardly two months after the release of the Bertelsmann Stiftung's Transformation (BTI) Index 2024.

The index – an analysis and evaluation of how developing countries and those in transition go about implementing changes aimed at moving them towards greater democracy and free market economies based on 17 indicators including, among others, political participation, the rule of law, stability of democratic institutions, political and social integration – pointed to an urgent need for a national dialogue to chart out what it termed as a “new consensus”.

“A national dialogue involving all key stakeholders is imperative to forge a new national consensus and redefine the rules of political engagement. At this juncture, only dialogue can redirect Uganda’s political trajectory toward a more positive course,” the index notes.

However, Mr Moses Byaruhanga, the senior presidential advisor in charge of political mobilisation, does not think the country needs to engage in a dialogue.

“I am of the opinion that we do not need one,” he curtly says, but his reasons evolve more around how one would go about it than whether the country requires it.

“When I hear about a national dialogue, I ask myself, ‘How would you constitute a team or group that would discuss and pass the resolutions?’ How do you disregard the elected leaders present and go for new ones? That would be a vote of no confidence in the elected leaders at various levels. Second, if the resolutions of the dialogue require amendments or additions to the Constitution, then you go back to Parliament for amendments. That would be the very Parliament you would have avoided by setting up another group to discuss the political consensus,” Mr Byaruhanga argues.

No change!

Mr David Lewis Rubongoya, the secretary general of the Opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) party, is not surprised by Mr Byaruhanga’s stand.

“Dialogue is something which we believe in and have been talking about. There is need for some bit of reflection, and dialogue would be a solution except that, of course, Gen Museveni and his people do not seem to understand the need for it. They do not seem to see the situation like everybody else sees it,” Mr Rubongoya says.

Calls for a national dialogue have been going on for a while now, but the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM)’s response to those calls has always been lukewarm.

Early in 2018, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) and the defunct Citizens Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU), a coalition of more than 800 civil society organisations and individuals advocating for electoral democracy in Uganda, called on the government to institute an independent constitutional review process that would lead into a national dialogue.

The two bodies argued that such a process would not only give the government an opportunity to act on the recommendations that were made by the Supreme Court in March 2016 when it gave its verdict on the election petition that Mr Amama Mbabazi filed seeking to annul Mr Museveni’s victory on the February 18, 2016, elections, but also open a window through which issues that were not addressed by Parliament during the passing of the constitutional amendment Bill in 2017 could be addressed.

The two called for the launch of a national dialogue to allow for a participatory approach to mapping out the country’s future.

“It is important that the culture of building consensus on issues of governance is built,” said Mr Francis Gimara, then the Uganda Law Society (ULS) president.

Col Shaban Bantariza, who was then deputy director of the Uganda Media Centre, did not think the dialogue necessary.

“What would the dialogue be about? National dialogues are held when there is a national crisis, which is not the case here. What is there to be dialogued?” asked Bantariza, who died on October 27, 2020, at the age of 57.

Looked at with the late Bantariza’s comments in mind, Mr Byaruhanga is only reading from a template that others before him have read.

In December 2018, Mr Museveni launched the process of the national dialogue during a function held at State House Entebbe.

The Inter-religious Council of Uganda, The Elders Forum of Uganda, Women Situation Room, CCEDU, National Consultative Forum, and Inter-party Organisation for Dialogue were meant to work with the Office of the Prime Minister in arranging a series of dialogues starting in March 2019. Those were meant to culminate in a national conference later the same year. They did not happen.

Mr Godber Tumushabe, an advocate and lecturer at Makerere University, who was heavily involved in the planned dialogue, blames the failed dialogue and national conference on pussyfooting by the government.

“He (Museveni) killed it after launching it. We tried to resuscitate it in 2019 and carried out a couple of activities, but the country entered a campaign period. Once that happened we were told that we could not have a dialogue amid the campaign. Government had also said it would provide money which they never made available,” Mr Tumushabe says.

Lingering question

Does the country still need such a dialogue? The Bertelsmann Stiftung's Transformation (BTI) Index 2024 suggests so.

“Uganda’s overall political system requires a thorough re-evaluation and restructuring. The minimum elite consensus established in the 1995 Constitution has eroded,” the report says.

Mr Byaruhanga disagrees. He insists that the question was resolved with the writing of the 1995 Constitution.

Dashed hopes

Mr Dan Wandera Ogalo, a former member of the CA, thinks that the hope and consensus have since been eroded.

“We need to fall back on a national dialogue,” Mr Ogalo says.

Is anyone listening to them?