Is our “military democracy” workable?

The continued trial of civilians in the General Court Martial is a source of concern for human rights advocates; it was reported by Daily Monitor on Tuesday.

In the case of Olivia Lutaaya, a National Unity Platform supporter, and her 31 co-accused, the independence of the military court is in sharp focus, it was added. With the military itself being thrown into sharper relief as a result, what do we see in relation to its nurturing of democracy?

Well, the military plays a significant role as a trustee of democracy. Its bounden duty to serve and protect human dignity is without question. 

Furthermore, military democracy, or the exercise of democracy in a war-based society, is cardinal. 

Especially so as it pre-exists or exists in the annals of our history and happenstance with respect to our country’s founding and formation.

Indeed, the thinker Frederick Engels might’ve have been talking about Uganda when he said, with regard to military democracy, “The military commander, the council, and the popular assembly formed the organs of military democracy, military because war and the organisation of war were now the regular functions of life, of the people.”

Engels was actually talking about the Greek Heroic Age. However, this parallel with Uganda exposes the rub.

You see, according to other scholars, a military democracy must not only be elective but also, crucially, changeable and thus removable as its supreme chief, council of elders and popular assembly are amenable to being shown the proverbial door.

In Uganda, this is not the case. And that is why the military could potentially be a threat to our democracy.

This threat is shown by how popular sovereignty, a key feature of well-functioning military democracies, is absent.

To be sure, civil-military relations are lopsided in favour of military supremacy. As a consequence, the institutions and practices that encourage civilian controls are minimal and minimised, especially when civilians are tried in military courts.

Today, as things stand, we are experiencing a threat from a military-administrative complex as our civic decisions are continually threatened by direct military intervention. Here, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary (the three arms of government) have embraced a three-sided relationship subordinated by an autonomous military.

I say autonomous because the military plays by rules which circumscribe the activities of the State instead of being guided by them.

It has the biggest budget of all governmental agencies, having crossed the billion dollar mark. This implies political approval for military spending at the highest level and the cementing of military superiority in civil-military matters.

In politics, as we know, money is the mother’s milk of power and so the military having the biggest budget confirms its first-among-equals status in our country’s civic priorities.

By this token, democracy, which is best expressed by institutions of the vote, the courts and our representative councils, crashes on the reef of secondary consideration.

The intention here is clear: we may all kiss the President’s ring, but we must never touch his crown. If we attempt to do so, we shall swiftly learn why the military is so well funded.

This is why there is concern over civilians being tried in the General Court Martial.

Certainly, without question, Brig Robert Freeman Mugabe, the chairperson of the Makindye-based General Court Martial, is an upstanding officer. What is in question, however, is the good General’s juridical independence and this alone should give us pause.

For the very foundation of democracy is individual freedom, independent of political bias. But as civilians fall under the descending gavel of the military courts, our democracy is squashed.

Mr Phillip Matogo is a professional copywriter  
[email protected]