Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

Never before had six political parties from Uganda sat round one table: one leader and five opposition parties. Augustine Ruzindana, head of the most important opposition party, says: “We are talking to each other for the first time.” It could elevate the Interparty Dialogue, in which NIMD acted as intermediary, to become a historic reality. One year before the Ugandans elect a new president and parliament in 2011, the parties have officially agreed to meet each other on a regular basis for informal talks. That means, under guidance of the neutral outsider (NIMD) and behind closed doors. Sensitive issues can be left to settle, politicians can ask each other about specific interests that motivate their various points of view, so that compromises can come within reach. One British diplomat, present at the ceremonial signing of the Memorandum of Under-standing on 5 February in Kampala, described it as “a breakthrough”.

The Vice-President of NIMD, Ruud Koole, also spoke at the ceremony. He said, “In a democracy you are political opponents. Not each other’s enemies. A strong democracy has a strong opposition.” Uganda has not reached that stage yet. President Yoweri Museveni and his most important challenger Kiza Besigye have not shaken hands for nine years. They never enter into debate with each other, because Museveni would refuse “as president to place himself on the same level with the opposition leader.” According to Ruzindana, Museveni’s National Resistance Movement (NRM) has always considered political opponents as “enemies who have to be crushed”. In any event the lives of the opposition are made a misery and that generates little mutual good will.

Museveni and Besigye: from comrades to political opponents

This animosity has its roots in the recent past. In 1986 the rebel army – the National Resistance Army – under the leadership of Museveni came to power. The young Museveni was idealistic. He promised Uganda a renaissance: no corruption, no dictatorship and no tribal discord. Following decades of violence, the restoration of national unity was like a balm to Uganda’s soul. To avert discord the new Uganda had no political parties. At birth everyone became a member of The Movement, the NRM. Under the guidance of the IMF and the World Bank, Museveni pursued a rigid macro-economic policy (low inf lation, stable exchange rates). This yielded him billions of dollars in Western budget support and economic growth. He kept a tight rein on politics too. As long as his position of power was not at issue, the media were permitted to rail against him openly. Museveni seemed to have secured the stability and security that he had promised.

The old political parties led a dormant existence. Obote’s Uganda People’s Congress (UPC), the Democratic Party (DP) and the Conservative Party (CP) did exist, but were not permitted to develop party activities. Party members contended for their seats in parliament in a private capacity. Political meetings were banned. It was not until Kiza Besigye broke away from Museveni’s NRM in 2001 and challenged him in the presidential elections of that year, that Museveni faced his first real democratic opponent. Doctor Kiza Besigye was a comrade from the bush war. For years he was Museveni’s personal physician. Besigye married the woman whom Museveni loved. In 2004 Augustine Ruzindana, also a former NRM member, together with Besigye established the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC). “As regards a multi-party democracy, Museveni had always contemplated the UPC and the Democratic Party”, says Ruzindana. He had not counted on a party originating from his own ranks. “The hostility towards us is therefore different from that towards the other parties.”

Elections

The presidential elections of 2001 were not particularly pleasant. Besigye challenged Museveni, but was compelled to f lee the country, accused of treason. Voting was accompanied by a great deal of violence, says Simon Osborn, who works in Uganda for the Deepening Democracy Programme. Museveni was re-elected. In 2005, under pressure from the donors, Uganda held a referendum on multiparty democracy. A majority voted in favour. Political parties were reinstated. Remarkably, women were reserved about a new political system, according to Simon Osborn. In opinion polls they proved to be concerned about stability and national unity – both priorities for mothers, who are guardians of the family here.

At the end of 2005 Kiza Besigye of the FDC returned from exile. He was arrested: charged with treason, armed resistance and rape. There was no evidence for the last charge but the charge of treason was not retracted. After being released, during the campaign Besigye had to report to court every week. According to Osborn the government was determined that the 2006 elections should be an improvement on five years previously. The violence was less overt, says Augustine Ruzindana; “only ten people were shot”. Nonetheless the violence was omnipresent. “Throughout the country people were intimidated, beaten and bribed.” Officially, Kiza Besigye won more than 38% of the votes. According to the opposition parties the election results were rigged. “Massively rigged”, claims FDC’s Ruzindana. No more than 250,000 votes, thinks Simon Osborn on the basis of voting behaviour.

But Chris Opoka Okumu of the UPC is also convinced of massive fraud. “We all know soldiers who had to vote the whole day in 2006. They filled in stacks of forms, had a quick lunch and then carried on.” Opoka, Secretary General of Obote’s party, witnessed the opening of one ballot box in 2006. “Out rolled the ballot papers five or six all folded together.” Opoka now roars with laughter. “How is that possible if everyone casts one ballot paper.” The editor in chief of Uganda’s The Independent newspaper, Joseph Were (Andrew Mwenda’s replacement, who is temporarily working at an American university), confirms large-scale vote-rigging. “In many places in the west the turnout was 120 per cent.”

In the build-up to the presidential elections in 2011 tension is mounting. Museveni wants to be re-elected. In a power struggle of divide and rule, the ethnic card is more and more frequently played. In September 2009 that led to serious clashes in which twenty-four people lost their lives. Even though “passionate hatred” prevails between NRM and FDC, Chris Opoka says that other opposition parties are also obstructed in their political work. None of the parties have open access to radio stations, the most important source of information for most Ugandans. There is a ban on meetings of more than twenty-five people on “a road, a field or in a residential area”. “How are we supposed to consult with our grass-roots support?” asks Opoka. “How can we run a campaign?”

Building trust

But the six parties did not enter into informal dialogue easily. Indeed, several attempts have been made in past years, by the Americans, among others. Following his last re-election, President Museveni also invited all the opposition candidates to tea but the FDC stayed away at the time. Little came of a consultative body. And so, not surprisingly, NIMD took a long run-up to the Inter Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD), as the dialogue is officially called. Simon Osborn recounts that, years ago, the then Dutch ambassador in Uganda, Joke Brandt, spoke with the second most powerful man in the NRM, Amama Mbabazi. On several occasions she told him about NIMD, and about the work that it has carried out since 2002 in Ghana. NIMD mediated in Ghana in an informal dialogue between the ruler and the opposition. There, too, parties share a history of civil war. In the meantime Ghana has twice succeeded in what Uganda has not, as yet, managed to achieve: a change of power without violence. In 2001 Jerry Rawlings’ party handed power over to John Kufuor’s party and won it back again in 2008. The lesson for Uganda: in a democracy you can lose power and regain it.

Mbabazi, Minister of Security and Secretary-General of NRM, visited NIMD in The Hague. The NRM was on board. But the other parties had not as yet come to the table. They were very distrustful, relates Shaun Mackay from NIMD. “They wondered whether this was an attempt by the NRM to split up the opposition. Or was the IPOD a sideshow while they were being taken for a ride once again?” The ice was somewhat broken in Ghana. NIMD took three politicians from each party to Accra. They were together for several days and talked with John Kufuor and other political heavyweights. Mackay: “The first seeds of trust were sown there.” Daudi Migereko went to Ghana on behalf of the NRM. As Government Chief Whip he is leader of the NRM party in parliament and he is the party’s spokesman on NRM’s engagement in the IPOD.

The rationale of dialogue

As far as the opposition parties are concerned, it is easier to guess their motives. They all have an interest in a fairer electoral process, a level playing field with equal opportunities and chances for all parties. Museveni has incensed the opposition by appointing an electoral committee with the same NRM faithful followers as in 2006. The first file to arrive on IPOD’s table was, not surprisingly, the amendment of the electoral laws. The FDC also hopes passionately that, via IPOD, politics will become more democratic. But Ruzindana is aiming at more: “We want to assure the leaders that they need not fear change. Many of them are corrupt, some are guilty of human rights violations. We want them to know that after the ‘changing of the guard’ we do not immediately plan to prosecute them.

The reasons for the NRM’s participation are less clear. Surely they would be the big losers in genuinely free elections? Democracy researcher Simon Osborn: “Just why the NRM is participating is a question I ask myself every day.” Joseph Were of The Independent thinks that the international donors are stepping up the pressure on Museveni. “It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend a president who has already been in power for twenty-four years.” According to Chris Opoka of the UPC the NRM stands to gain a great deal: legitimacy and stability. “The NRM has the feeling that if the elections are stolen once again, the country will ignite.” The disturbances in September 2009 showed that one small incident can spark off violence. And both friend and foe agree on one thing: Uganda must not follow Kenya’s example.

Ruud Koole of NIMD subscribes to that analysis. According to him the NRM is afraid that the achievements of the revolution will be lost. “That is a legacy of national unity. In order to safeguard this, the NRM needs the cooperation of the opposition.” Simon Osborn also speculates about “a soft landing” that the NRM hopes to organise for itself: “Having lost power you can also win it back. As in Ghana.” What does the NRM say itself? Daudi Migereko: “We want to solve the problems by means of discussion and dialogue.” And: “We wish to consolidate democracy.” Moreover, it gives the NRM the opportunity of informing the opposition about how the big issues are being tackled. It works the other way round too. Migereko: “Even if the opposition lose the elections, they can still have interesting ideas.”

The Government Chief Whip repeatedly stresses that the NRM has championed a dialogue between parties for some time. Indeed, in 2006 President Museveni in-vited all the other presidential candidates to a meeting. It is a tale told by everyone, including Augustine Ruzindana (FDC). “Of course we didn’t accept the invitation. After the electoral fraud we weren’t going to give the president legitimacy. Now the NRM is keen to make it seem as if the IPOD is a continuation of that meeting.” So far, President Museveni has not put in an appearance at the IPOD. Does the president back the dialogue? NRM’s Chief Whip argues that he does. “We report to our boss. He gives us his advice.”

NIMD’s approach

NIMD has succeeded where others have failed. According to Ruud Koole, a professor of political science at Leiden University in his everyday life, this is because his organisation has created “quite a unique niche”: party political neutrality. Why was a dialogue possible now, all of a sudden? According to Chris Opoka because of NIMD’s approach: “They bring you together and then it’s completely up to you what subjects you discuss. Not like the Americans. They push you in a certain direction driven solely by self-interest. NIMD moderates to a small extent, but remains in the background. They never push - that doesn’t help, and they know that. They have a lot of experience with a process such as this.” All the Ugandan parties around one negotiating table, that is a breakthrough. But what else can the dialogue achieve? In the short term NIMD’s Shaun Mackay hopes for peaceful elections that receive broad acceptance. In the longer term the IPOD should develop into an institute, such as the Centres for Multiparty Democracy in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia.

The reform of the electoral laws will make or break the legitimacy of the IPOD. Mackay: “At this moment in time any compromise from the government is an important gesture.” Opoka predicts that, if the electoral laws are not substantially amended, the IPOD will prove a mere symbol. The 2011 elections will show us whether the Interparty Dialogue was a cunning move in the power struggle of East Africa’s longest-sitting president, or whether NIMD has made history in Uganda.

Return to the NIMD Magazine 2010 Table of Contents.