President Museveni seeks to tame a growing and unrelenting opposition
President Yoweri Museveni’s approach to containing a growing and unrelenting opposition to his rule appears to be a double-edged sword.
While his “containment tactics” provide him short-term relief to execute his aims, say, like eliminating or at least minimising any interruptions on the day he takes the oath of office, they put the judiciary and security organs tasked to execute them to an unnecessary test as they reignite questions over their impartiality.
The tactics include an interim court order that falls short of outlawing the opposition altogether, a Cabinet directive banning media coverage of the opposition’s activities, and increased deployment of security personnel on streets to quickly and forcefully break up any protests against President Museveni’s rule.
In the face of unwillingness by both the state and the opposition to soften their seemingly inflexible stands on how to resolve the prevailing political dispute, arising from the February 18 election, analysts say the current standoffs and violent confrontations are likely to become a common feature throughout the course of President Museveni’s seventh term.
“Shortly after the elections, President Museveni said his target over the next five years will be to wipe out the opposition completely.
What this actually means is using state machinery to oppress anyone who attempts to expound any ideas that are opposed to the government,” said Sabiti Makara, a senior political science don at Makerere University.
“If indeed this happens then we will have entered a full dictatorship because if you talk about a regime that will silence all other views that is a dictatorship. There is nothing else to call it as the cloak of civility will have completely been removed,” added Dr Makara, who researches on governance and electoral processes in Uganda.
READ: Ugandan opposition chief Kizza Besigye condemns month of house arrest
ALSO READ: Ugandan opposition leader Besigye arrested again
As a matter of necessity, Dr Makara said a compromise must be sought to diffuse ongoing political tensions that are potentially harmful to the economy and distractive to governance and both contending sides need to review the way they engage each other.
“There is no harm in bringing the discontented party to the table to talk. Even if ‘winner takes all’ is the practice of politics in this country, how you win is also important.
“On the other hand, if the opposition is truly discontented they should try a silent campaign instead of their preferred confrontations, which have adverse effects on the public as they trigger the state to react violently.
“Quiet mobilisation and campaigns to encourage supporters to work to strengthen the party might yield more results than calling people to the streets, which often results in injuries or even death,” said Dr Makara.
Although both the ruling NRM party and the FDC, the largest opposition party, have claimed to be open to dialogue, each side’s tough conditions cast doubt on their supposed willingness.
The NRM said FDC must first acknowledge President Museveni as the duly elected president and renounce their so-called defiance campaign — a position that runs counter to their core demand for an independent, internationally-supervised audit of the 2016 presidential elections.
Such an audit, FDC insists, would establish who truly won the February 18 polls whose final outcome — as declared by the Electoral Commission — remains contested even if the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it.
While the FDC has conceded to the government’s argument that there is no constitutional provision for the audit, it also argues that, “neither is the illegal detention of a candidate, raiding and taking over party offices, or illegal detention of hundreds of party leaders and officials,” wrote its former flag bearer Kizza Besigye, whom the police has put under house arrest again “until further notice.”
The FDC’s demand is at the heart of nationwide demonstrations the party had planned to begin on May 5. But on Thursday, April 29, Deputy Chief Justice Steven Kavuma issued an interim order to stop them after hearing the application to grant it in the absence of the respondents: FDC and Dr Besigye.
The order, which was granted a day after the application was made, also roped in any other activities — processions, public meetings, media campaigns or pronouncements — related in any way to the furtherance of the party’s so-called “defiance campaign.”
Six days later, on Thursday May 5, Information Minister Jim Muhwezi announced a Cabinet directive banning all media coverage of any activity under the said campaign, which appeared to be aimed at reinforcing Justice Kavuma’s orders.
Predictably, both actions drew widespread condemnation. According to the Uganda Law Society, Justice Kavuma’s orders went against standing practice in hearing and determining complaints involving civil rights and liberties.
“We do not see any justification for hearing such a politically charged application where the Attorney-General is the Applicant ex parte,” said Francis Gimara, the president of the Uganda Law Society.
“The ban on live media coverage of Besigye’s defiance campaign is illegal, unnecessary, disproportional, unacceptable and unjustifiable even in a society like ours that is neither entirely free nor fully democratic,” said Peter G Mwesige, the executive director of the African Centre for Media Excellence, a media training and advocacy NGO.
