NRM embarks on damage-control activities ahead of next elections

Challenging race. With the former head of security intelligence having sparked local and international uproar, President Museveni has a lot to do to steer his party to a successful 2016 presidential race. The Daily Monitor’s Gerald Bareebe looks at some of the issues that NRM may need to deal with.

Kampala- In the last two months or so, political manoeuvres and mobilisation events have been staged by both the ruling party and opposition groups, with the intention of framing key issues that would define the 2016 general elections.

Bruised from the media battles to contain Gen David Sejusa’s fallout, President Museveni has embarked on a mobilisation trail in Buganda and western parts of the country.

He has also been meeting his key constituency, including party mobilisers and NRA veterans in the districts of Luweero, Nakasongola, Kabarole, Mukono and Ssembabule.

The President has disguised his tours under the pretext of promoting economic empowerment, social transformation, poverty eradication and infrastructure development, well aware that these issues will form a significant component of his 2016 campaign manifesto.

Away from the so-called presidential tours, Museveni’s key confidants such as Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi, NRM Chief Whip Justine Lumumba and Attorney General Peter Nyombi have been busy hatching legal measures to limit opposition’s political moves towards and after the 2016 polls.

The trio has been the brain behind the passing of the Public Order Management Bill, a piece of legislation that would legally empower the police to use force to contain Museveni’s opponent during and after the 2016 election. The legislation has been passed under the guise of keeping law and order.

This law carries a number of implications for the 2016 elections. First, it legitimises Museveni’s use of force to stifle opponents. This is intended to avoid the repeat of electoral violence similar to what erupted after 2011.

The 2011 opposition-led demonstrations dented the President’s international image as pictures of AK47-trotting security officers, shooting and killing innocent unarmed civilians dominated local and major international media outlets.

Secondly, this law offers ammunition for the President to asphyxiate any internal rebellion against him within the NRM party.

The internal violence witnessed in the 2011 NRM primaries, the emergency of the so-called “rebel” NRM MPs and the uncertainty brought about by the unrelenting political ambitions of senior party members such as former Vice President Gilbert Bukenya and Speaker Rebecca Kadaga means that Museveni, more than ever before, needs this law to protect himself from the risks of internal revolt in his party.

The biggest challenge for Museveni so far remains on how to deal with such internal factions within the party.

The “rebel” MP’ have proved to be a big nut to crack. They have not only questioned his management style and the direction the party is taking but also continue to disagree with his policies.

“The rebellion within the NRM is real and it might intensify depending on the outcome of the court case against the rebel MPs,” says Makerere University political scientist, Mr Mwambutsya Ndebesa.

“Apart from the MPs, there are still many internal wrangles within the party. For example, Bukenya is promising to contest for the party chairmanship while Kadaga’s political ambitions remain unclear. She could decide to take on the President for the party’s top position. ”

Mr Ndebesa’s views are partially shared by Dr James Shinyabulo-Mutende, one of the architects of Museveni’s 2011 election manifesto and now state minister for Trade.
Dr Mutende maintains that factionalism within the NRM are not new and that the party ought to create a proper transparent mechanism for choosing its flag bearers. The chaos witnessed during the NRM primaries, according to Dr Mutende, has been responsible for internal factions and lack of cohesion in the party.

“Party primaries tend to cause factions and ultimately leave political parties divided. This is not a problem for NRM alone because it happens world over,” Dr Mutende said, adding, “In NRM we have individuals who lost in party primaries but refused to accept the outcome. As we approach 2016, the challenge for the party is how to bring them back into the mainstream, and how to start the process of reconciliation.”

Irrespective of the on-going acrimonious affiliation among different factions within the NRM, President Museveni continues to pull all stops to remain in front of his rivals ahead of the 2016 elections.
The President’s move to return several properties (ebyaffe) that his government had not yet returned to Buganda since the decision in April 1992 to restore the traditional institution, was a political bombshell to many political observers, given his previous inflexible stance on this matter.
Whether the agreement contained in a Memorandum of Understanding, leads to more understanding or more confusion between the government and Mengo remains to be seen.

“The Buganda question is still a problem the President cannot wish away,” said Dr Ndebesa, who has extensively researched on Mengo issues,

“First, the MoU contains several promises which are not easy to implement. He [Museveni] is promising to return property such as the masaazas. The masaaza land is occupied by people; what will he do to these people? Will he evict them? Second, he is promising that the Kabaka shall be allowed to visit wherever he wants to visit; what will he do now that the Banyala and the Baruli are saying he is not welcome to their area?”

Putting the Buganda question aside, the make or break moment for the NRM party could be how to handle the process of choosing the party flag bearer for 2016. It is arguably the most difficult and divisive political battle that Museveni will have to face.

He will most likely battle it out with his former vice, Prof Bukenya, the man who was the chief architect for his Third Term and other contenders such as Mr Mike Mukula, the NRM chairperson for eastern region, whose presidential ambition was first discussed with former American ambassador to Kampala, according to diplomatic cables released by a whistle blowing website, Wikileaks, in August 2010.
While it is indisputable that the NRM party has been bogged by internal squabbles, the opposition house, too, has been on fire. The FDC, Uganda’s largest opposition party, has failed to recover after its inner cohesion stumbled following last year’s acrimonious party presidential election, which left the party divided between two warring factions.

One faction is headed by the newly-elected party president Gen (rtd) Mugisha Muntu and the other by Nandala Mafabi, the Leader of Opposition in Parliament.
The DP and the UPC, the two oldest political parties in the country, have seen their once-strong support completely fade away due to poor organisation, lack of transparency, tribalism, cliques and failure to attract leaders with national appeal.

“Currently, there is a leadership vacuum within the opposition groups,” Dr Ndebesa said, adding, “They don’t have a candidate who can excite the population, their organisation is weak, they have no genuine person to rally behind, they have never agreed to be together and they lack focus. To be honest, I think the opposition is in disarray.”

It is not only the opposition groups that are suffering from utter disorganisation and absolute incompetence, the Electoral Commission, an organisation constitutionally charged with the responsibility of conducting and supervising elections, is as well being haunted by similar troubles.

For instance, the Electoral Commission has gone ahead to issue the electoral road map for 2016, a move that flies in the face of opposition groups and key donors who have deafeningly been demanding for key reforms in the management of the elections in Uganda.

Key among the demands of the opposition is the adoption of a Biometric Voters Register (BVR) and the re-composition of the EC to make it independent. For example, out-going head of the European Union Delegation to Uganda, Mr Roberto Ridolfi, has maintained that, in compiling its roadmap for 2016, the EC ignored some of the donor’s recommendations like the composition of the EC because “they are of a political nature.”

The previous presidential election has been described by most political observers as the most intriguing in terms of how candidates shaped and presented their electoral agendas.

Notwithstanding allegations of vote buying, falsification of results, voter intimidation and ballot box stuffing.

President Museveni scored a resounding 68 per cent but this was strange given that the President’s margin in the previous polls against his main opponent, Dr Kizza Besigye, was declining.

What has left many political analysts mystified is that Museveni’s performance from 59 per cent in 2006 to 68 per cent was achieved by the regime, which has continued to preside over gross mismanagement, corruption and poor service delivery.

Using State machinery to intimidate opponents and State funds to bribe voters is the scenario that most political watchers predict will happen in 2016 due to the colossal power of incumbency that Museveni enjoys.

“He has more resources at his disposal and all the state apparatus, including security agencies work for him against his opponents,” says Makerere University Political science academic Dr Sabiti Makara.

“He now has a new law which he can use to prevent the opposition from assembly. And if people are not allowed to assemble; then, the whole essence of multiparty democracy becomes useless,” Dr Makara said.

Emotions supersede issues

Voters have tended to make their choices based on trivial issues and emotional attachment to candidates. However, in 2011, Dr Besigye’s campaign made an attempt to move away from this dilemma.

He focused his campaign on national issues and projected his vision for the country. On the other hand, Museveni focused on issues which he deemed could potentially shore his local popularity. Interpreting this political strand is somewhat confusing, especially given that Dr Besigye’s focus on national issues did not translate into votes, while Museveni’s move to shift the responsibility of government failures to local leaders and bureaucrats paid off.

Dr Sabiti’s views are, however, contested by Dr Mutende, one of the framers of NRM’s 2011 manifesto. “We have increased investment in infrastructure and energy which was a key component of the NRM manifesto and I think that nobody can dispute that,” Dr Mutende said.

“Our next manifesto will largely focus on ways to increase household income. This is a challenge that we must work on systematically,” he said adding:
“It is not true that our campaign has not been based on issues. In the past, we had security problems and the 2016 election will be the first in Uganda to be organised when there is no war in any part of the country.”

“So, all the money that we have been budgeting for to fight wars will be spent on improving household incomes and, with that in mind, President Museveni will have nine out of 10 chances of winning the presidency in 2016,” Dr Mutende, said.

Next week: The rise of the leader of opposition Nandala Mafabi.