Moses Kayz Osiya. PHOTO/FILE/COURTESY
The recent campaigns for the Kawempe North by-election revealed something often neglected but very important in our political discourse – debates by candidates. It started with the National Unity Platform (NUP)’s quest for the party flagbearer, where they subjected all the aspirants to a debate as one of the steps the party would use to select the best candidate for the flag. Indeed, the debate brought out some interesting aspects of the candidates, which contributed greatly to the marks the aspirants had to score in the race for the party card.
As the political and media landscape evolves in Uganda, with the use of social media platforms like X, TikTok and Facebook expanding to all spheres of audiences, candidates' can appeal to so many people through debates. Morden leadership is serious business, which comes with lots of pressure, and daily public scrutiny. It should, therefore, be left to competent individuals who are smart thinkers, ready to articulate various issues on various subjects to serve the interest of their electorates.
Public debate would be an ideal institutional framework to prepare such candidates. Unlike in the past, for instance in the 1960s and 1970s, where leaders did not entertain public criticism, today’s technological advancements have made life hard for such leaders. With the coming on board of the Internet and its minions like social media, criticism of leaders can come from all corners. Leaders who underwent public debates develop thicker skins to handle such criticism.
The current norm on the Ugandan political scene is that once a candidate is nominated by the Electoral Commission, the next stage is open campaigns. Our typical campaign methods involve candidates moving door-to-door convincing the electorates to vote for them or holding public rallies, which are often marred with both entertainment in the form of music shows or violence, especially for Opposition candidates when they clash with security forces.
However, these methods do not give Ugandans enough time and chance to listen and scrutinise the manifestos of the different candidates. There is even little or no room for the electorate to interrogate the candidates on some of the policies that they advance. This is where public debates come in. Public debates could also influence voters to vote for quality leaders rather than quantity brought about by political waves. In the 2016 General Election, presidential candidates were subjected to TV debates.
Although President Museveni snubbed the first debate, saying debates were for school children, he participated in the second one. That debate, and indeed the election, attracted international media such as the BBC and Al Jazeera. Ugandans in the diaspora followed the debate, and much as they did not vote directly, they may have influenced some of their relatives back home to vote for certain candidates basing on that debate, thus enabling them to participate in the electoral process back in their country.
Government can, for instance, through its institutions like the Uganda Communications Commission, amend the electoral laws to enable public debates, especially for candidates aspiring for national positions, to have free airplay on TVs and radios for a given period during the electoral season.
This will enable Ugandans, especially those who may not be able to interact with the candidates physically, to make informed decisions when choosing their leaders. I believe this would be a great step in strengthening our democracy. In the last general election, only about 11 million, out of the 18 million eligible voters, decided our current leaders. This rather low voter turnout could be an indication that Ugandans have lost interest in elections, a trend that I believe could be checked with public debates for candidates. Public debates would also prepare candidates for public speeches since most of their roles demand them to speak in the public.
If a leader cannot, for example, articulate issues in a public debate, how can such a leader speak, for instance on the floor of Parliament? Where then would such leaders present the views of their constituencies? In conclusion, public debates remain an essential component of our modern democratic dispensation, offering candidates a chance to present their views to a wider audience, challenge their opponents and engage with both their supporters and critics, thereby shaping public opinions in a significant way. In this era of modern technology and political polarisation, public debates would cut through the noise and provide voters with clear comparison of candidates, and help weed out incompetent leaders who cannot articulate issues of national importance.
Mr Moses Kayz Osiya is lawyer/
businessman.
