Let’s urgently complete the ‘unfinished business’ of electoral reforms
Four years ago we went to an
election with a lot of ‘unfinished business’. In fact, for many of the players
in that election, their participation could have been nothing but a mere
formality. The major issues that dogged the 2001 and the 2006 elections had not
been addressed. At the center, was the need to guarantee the credibility of the
voters register; address the question of people’s confidence in the election
management body as well as tackle issues around the perceived partisanship and
highhandedness of the security apparatus especially during election periods. These
challenges continued unabated in a political environment where the effects of
incumbency were lurid.
Even though there was consensus
around resolving these issues right from the 2001 elections, they didn’t make
their way to parliament for legislative interrogation until less than a year to
the 2011 elections. Even when Parliament opened up to a discussion around
electoral reforms in 2010, the substantive reforms as proposed by civil
society, political parties and some government entities did not see light of
day simply because, ‘the time was too short’ to debate them and that many of
them had a potential of ‘touching on the Constitution’. And because of these two ‘main’ reasons, the
substantive reforms that would have sort of shifted the electoral ground (for
the better) were sidestepped in favor of small administrative modifications in
the electoral process.
The net result of these maneuvers
was that Uganda yet again headed for the 2011 election with the ghosts of the
unfinished reforms hovering over it. The
blaring clamors for a ‘leveled ground’ were meek reflections of a myriad of the
unresolved questions. This could have
partly explained the 59% low voter turnout alongside close to 7 million persons
out of the 14.9 million Ugandans qualified to vote staying away from voting.
Who knows, if the longstanding
electoral issues had been dealt with conclusively, may be the fraction of the
electorate participating in the 2011 election would have been much higher; may
be the level of engagement during campaigns would have been better; may be the
election would have certainly been more meaningful than it was; or may be there
would have been higher acceptance of the results from the election. We can only imagine what it would have been
if the ‘real’ reforms had been adopted; and adopted in time to influence that
election.
A year to the 2016 election, it is
still astonishingly debatable whether we will be able to correct some of those
recurrent electoral howlers that have whelmed Uganda over the past three
electoral cycles. The uncertainty of the
kind of legal regime under which the 2016 election will be conducted is causing
anxiety amongst many stakeholders including the general electorate itself. This is already setting a bad tone for the
election.
It remains unclear whether the
answers to the fundamental question of a leveled political ground will be provided
this time round. The Ugandan electorate
has patiently waited for more than a decade for electoral reforms to happen,
but in vain. Amidst this long wait,
apathy is gaining fair ground and elections are becoming galas at which ‘those
with the money’ go round to buy votes from mainly the poor and unsuspecting
voters. In other instances, those with
access to the ‘uniform’ use it wittingly to achieve the desired electoral outcome.
To avoid similar political/electoral
downturns in 2016 (which are already being imaged in the by-elections),
Parliament needs to urgently and conclusively consider the pending electoral
reform proposals that have been on the table for a long time. This should be with a view of objectively
debating and adopting those reforms that will correct those electoral gaffes
that have previously reflected Uganda as a retrogressing democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment