When Museveni hands over power…

Author: Moses Khisa. PHOTO/FILE

What you need to know:

But this transition cannot be meaningful if it’s a partisan NRM affair, worse if it ends up being a family matter

Uganda’s most critical and consequential question today, indeed for the foreseeable future, is how and when President relinquishes power. This is not a hypothetical or theoretical dilemma, it is patently a practical and concrete matter.

Uganda has lived with the jinx of violent changes of government since independence, with exception of the rather perfunctory transition in 1980 when Paul Muwanga and the Military Commission junta handed power to Milton Obote, for whom they were only holding fort.

Peaceful transfer of power is not a magic wand that turns around the socioeconomic fortunes of a country. Our neighbours, Kenya, just had another presidential turnover, a peaceful handover at the top.

By dint of this change, Kenyans are not necessarily destined for a better tomorrow. Yet from a long-term perspective, the kind of political stability and continuity Kenya has evolved will likely serve the country well.

President Museveni (and Musevenists) have repeatedly argued that who leads, and whether there is change at the top, doesn’t matter. Rather, having a clear-headed and strategic-thinking leader, regardless of how long he/she stays in power, is what should count.

This is a self-serving argument, but even if we grant that a ruler can stay in power perpetually as long as he/she has the will of the people and is doing a terrific job for the public, there are at least three points that puncture any justification of Museveni’s continued stay at the helm of Uganda.

First, comparatively, revolutionary leaders who have turned around their countries have not been in power longer than Museveni’s now close to four decades of rulership. After 30 years of uninterrupted rule, it is hard to see how a ruler can do extraordinary and monumental things not done heretofore.

Quite to the contrary, the reverse happens: any impressive performance is quickly chipped away by decay, dysfunction, and a path to socio-economic and political collapse, precisely the path Uganda is on now.

This leads me to the second point. At a minimum, especially in the last 10 years or so, Museveni has been presiding over steady decay and decline, making justification of his rule untenable. Uganda has had years of impressive GDP growth, no doubt, and Museveni has adeptly if disingenuously underscored how Uganda’s economy has expanded dozens of times since 1986. Hyperbolic.

A more accurate picture is that our economy has done modestly well in some respects, but no way can one argue that there has been an economic miracle or that Museveni is doing wonders that justify his life presidency.

As I have argued in this space, our GDP growth has been superficial, not transformational. Given the rapid population growth, we need sustained double-digit growth to meaningful grow the economy, create opportunities,  and structurally turnaround Uganda, socioeconomically.

The neoliberal miracle under Mr Museveni is a mirage. Much of the growth has been in services, whose contribution to the jobs pool is paltry and which is largely controlled and dominated by multinational/foreign capitalist interests.

The final point against justifying Museveni’s rule is that there is always a tomorrow for which to prepare. Anything can happen. Yet, heads hidden in the sand, the rulers insist we have a Constitution and laws that govern political processes. Fair enough, only that ours is a country where the Constitution and other laws are defied and conveniently ignored.

What is more, given our chequered history of political and constitutional instability, and having been under one ruler for four decades, change of leadership has to be properly planned and deliberately charted.

President Museveni loathes being asked about succession plans precisely because it appears he never contemplates one as he sees himself being president for as long as nature allows him. But for the country, we cannot avoid thinking about how and when the current president leaves the stage. The implications are enormous.

We are a country on the edge and can rapidly descend to where we dread – breakdown of order and civil strife. This is by no means a far-fetched possibility. The long rule of Mr Museveni has meant eviscerating the institutional landscape in ways that have left Uganda vulnerable to implosion.

Without strong and autonomous public institutions that can carry the weight of a country’s stupendous problems, especially during times of intense political crisis, there is a high likelihood of a small fire triggering a cascade that leads down an utterly dark alley.

All this is of course on President Museveni. He has the master key. He can take a decisive step and set in motion a transition from his rule that can save the country and allow the space to rethink, reform, and repair our basic socio-political fabric.

But this transition cannot be meaningful if it’s a partisan NRM affair, worse if it ends up being a family matter. A true transition will have to be out-rightly national and inclusive.