Waiswa Batambuze
In this 21st century, a person like Dr. Kihura Nkuba cannot begin proposing voting by lining up behind candidates. This idea which outrightly sounds barbaric can never work. It raises the question of whether civilisation is going backwards or it is us going back to the stone age period.
On Tuesday April 7th, New Vision published a commentary by re-known Pan African(ist) Dr Kihura Nkuba criticising the clergy saying they have no right to preach electoral reforms.
To back up his case, Dr. Kihura Nkuba goes ahead to narrate history and lists examples right from the ancient times showing how the clergy and clerics from across the Christian and Muslim worldviews, have never been duly elected by the faithful majority jumping to a conclusion that religious leaders who are never voted for by people but rather a minority class, are by far the unsung dictators across the modern world.
On the surface, Dr. Nkuba has a point. In law, one of the maxims of Equity, states that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. This maxim, bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct (either in the past or present) in the matter at hand thereby emphasizing integrity.
It does not disapprove only of illegal or immoral acts but will deny relief for bad conduct that, as a matter of public policy, ought to be discouraged. Therefore, to link it to the rants by Dr. Nkuba, the clergy may be estopped from demanding for electoral reforms.
On the other hand, am not a clergy nor a muslim cleric. This to a section of people in relation to the above maxim, raises questions of moral authority whether me inclusive, i have the right to defend or have a say on what, how, why and when do the clergy have to be concerned with electoral democracy.
But we need to also ask ourselves these questions: Do they also participate in voting exercise of our leaders? If they vote, don’t they have a right to complain? Are the policies made by the elected politicians not affect them as citizens? Are they not supposed to say anything when something is wrong? To be fair and objective as a Ugandan, every citizen has a right to participate in the affairs of this country. It does not matter whether one is a clergy, prostitute or a pan African(ist) if we are to go by Articles 1 and 17 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda in reference to sovereignty and duties of a citizen respectively.
As a result, the clergy are not trying to enforce themselves into politics neither are they after establishing theocracies of nations and playing a temporal role as politicians or opportunist. They are simply voicing out the concerns of the majority of the people that change is necessary and needed when it comes to service delivery being hindered by poor electoral structures.
To begin with, Uganda is a very diverse country. Dr. Nkuba thinking that the clergy want to take over politics is not only far-fetched but abhorrent, frivolous and fictitious. Many religions are recognised in this country and thinking that a certain religious section execute a coup against the current political class, is actually more impossible than a camel passing through a needle.
Before accusing clergy for lack of integrity in the matter at hand, we need to first ask ourselves why they are getting concerned about electoral corruption anyway. It is no news that bad political decisions in any society, date back to the mistakes we make at the time of voting our leaders into power.
Voting is a right best exercised by people who have taken time to learn about the issues. Democracy is not just voting for leaders; it’s really premised upon ordinary citizens understanding the issues. It is therefore, a broader concept determining the destiny of the masses.
By voting, we add our voice to the chorus that forms opinions and the basis for actions in the affairs of a country. However, if the voting processes and structures are manipulated by one party in its favour, it defeats the whole purpose of voting as it turns out to be a mere circus and vicious cycle of insanity as we do not end up practicing democracy but rather experimenting democracy.
Elections without objective consensus on procedure and fairness, in turn lead to poor service delivery as in the end, it is the tigers which end up taking power to take care of goats. The result of this does not require one to be a rocket scientist to understand.
This again, defeats Dr. Kihura Nkuba who in his article on May 30th 2011 in the same newspaper titled Our problem is poor service delivery not democracy, stated that we should be more concerned with what the leader does with the power he has than how he leads. So if the leader performs poorly, should we be blaming him or blaming the root problem of the system he used?
But again from a wider interpretation, Dr. Nkuba agrees that there is a problem as regards to electoral democracy which needs urgent reforms. His attack on the clergy and in the end giving a solution to this elections fracas by proposing voting by standing behind a candidate, clearly shows that even if he is against the clergy, he is not against the principle that we need electoral reforms.
At this stage, we should not be concerned with who is spearheading the campaign for electoral reforms but we should be beginning an honest conversation based on the status quo and not in any way linking and putting the blame on history, church, religion and imperialism.
We should instead, be debating on how best to take our country forward by questioning the powers of the president, this pseudo-democracy and neo-liberal tendencies of the people we vote as leaders mostly the president, parliamentarians and the Electoral Commission of Uganda itself.
Consequently, we should not be discussing personalities but rather coming up with more suggestions in relation to good governance in Uganda. If am to go by the reforms suggested by the civil society and different stakeholders whose ideas are backed up by reasoning and successful stories from other countries, they are credible.
In this 21st century, a person like Dr. Kihura Nkuba cannot begin proposing voting by lining up behind candidates. This idea which outrightly sounds barbaric can never work. It raises the question of whether civilisation is going backwards or it is us going back to the stone age period.
For example, how sure are we that people will not be bribed to stand behind candidates? How many people will get the confidence to do that? Which guarantee do you have that people will not fight each other? And how sure are you that voters will not be intimidated?
Therefore, finding solutions to the current electoral reforms debate is not about who is behind the debate or what procedure is being used. We need to first sit down and agree there is a problem which needs to be addressed before we embark on criticizing people otherwise, we will just be postponing the inevitable– the law of unintended consequences.
