This why contenders should invest a lot more in responsive manifestos prior to the 2016 elections
There
is a general assertion that the Ugandan electorate is feeble when it comes to
discussing real policy issues especially during political campaigns. Candidates
vying for various positions normally take advantage of this inherent supposition to
churn out campaign content which is less on policy issues but high on
sensationalism and spot-on when it comes to posturing personality over
politics. However, if the above presumption is anything to go by, then it
may be somewhat inconsistent with (again) the much-peddled narrative that Ugandans
have in previous elections ‘voted’ for those candidates who have consistently
sold security as their main campaign platform.
Whatever
the case may be, the truth remains, the rhetoric of previous political
campaigns has been very light on real issues affecting Ugandans. I use
the word ‘rhetoric’ precisely to stress the point that many times there is
always a glaring disconnect between what is contained in candidates’ manifestos
and what candidates actually articulate when they get on to the campaign
trail. This is partly because many of the manifestos are actually ‘boardroom
manifestos’ – drafted and sealed by small groups of people who sit in boardrooms
to write them – without necessarily drawing from any form of scientific
research or studies around what affects their constituencies.
I
remember in previous election cycles, a local political party was caught with
its ‘pants down’ after copying a manifesto of one of the parties in the western
world – word for word? Now, how would you expect the prescriptions
contained in such a manifesto to be anything tailored to the Ugandan
‘clientele’ or context?
Because
there is little or no time dedicated to understanding/studying the real issues
that affect citizens, candidates in many instances develop manifestos as a
matter of obligation and protocol rather than as tailored campaign tools.
And that is why candidates find themselves trapped in the vicious cycle of the ‘quick
fix campaign alternatives’ – they end up constructing campaign narratives
around attacking fellow contenders or they deliver ‘hand-outs’ to voters and
ask them for reciprocated votes or they deploy threatening/intimidating
maneuvers or ‘better still’, they mix all the above to get a menu that will
guarantee them an easy vote.
May
be, this is the time for those intending to stand for positions of leadership
to give their manifestos or campaign projects real thought. Candidates ought to
invest more – in terms of time and resources in appreciating what the
electorate needs, what is good for it and how best to legitimately deliver that,
which the voters want.
Just
this small logical flow would ideally demonstrate to each potential candidate
that making a responsive manifesto is not just a cup of tea, but a hard
investment that calls for thorough interaction with the electorate.
Now
that in a few months a number of candidate identification processes will
kick-off, those with intentions should already be undertaking coherent
groundwork in respect to establishing their constituency’ issues – a basis of
which process should inform their manifesto content.
If
candidates develop their manifestos in a more responsive manner, then they will
not have problems articulating the issues therein to the public.
Am
very worried that shouldn’t we raise the bar of political campaigns in this
country, then we’ll all be headed for doom; we will continue to trade the cheap
barter politics – mpa, nkuwe, or the politics of intimidation or the politics
of outright theft – rigging, ballot stuffing and manipulation.
This
of course does not portend well for the country.
If
such habits are not arrested NOW through promoting real issue-based politics,
then, elections may become more and more meaningless – mere gimmicks that will
only outmaneuver the electorate.
But
nevertheless, each one of us has the duty to shun ‘the politics of hoodwink’
and promote issue-based real politics!
Comments
Post a Comment