By: Crispy Kaheru
We are both privileged and unprivileged to live in these interesting times where electoral politics seems to be taking the angle of an elitist pass time for a cabal of a wealthy few.

As at October 2010 when the Electoral Commission opened for nomination of directly elected MP candidates, Uganda had a population of about 34 million people with 50% of this population being above 18 years. Mathematically, this means that well about 17 or so million citizens qualified by age as potential candidates to run for elective offices.

However, out of such an enormous figure, only about 1,700 individuals offered themselves to run for the available 380 parliamentary seats. This represents only 0.01% of the potential candidates and about 0.001% of the total population.

Various reasons may have contributed to this glut. According to a friend who ran for an MP position in the Western region, one requires about three hundred million shillings to run a descent successful campaign. To many Ugandans, these figures are surreal.

Little wonder therefore that electoral politics has recently been regarded to as a game the rich play with poor people’s minds and money. During the Kampala mayoral race, one of the candidates confessed on radio how she had spent three hundred million shillings daily for all her campaign period. Whether this was a slip of the tongue or not, it left many impoverished listeners with a sense of deep confusion and despair. Due to such occurrences, the threshold of a good leader still remains widely contested; are they those who have a lot of wealth or good character? Is leadership about content or appearances? If indeed democracy runs on financial might alone, then it is a hoax and if this hoax reduces large swathes of citizens to electoral voyeurs, then it is definitely a fraud.

Against this background one would have the audacity to ask, whether crude capitalism hijacked the essence of electoral democracy leaving money the master over moral; conscience and virtue. How then do we as a nation move on with deeper humanistic convictions; principles and values? Strong structures world over have not been constructed by money but by conscience. Money and its value must be made to remain an enabler and not the core.

Very interestingly though, it’s all not lost, in previous elections, we have seen some out of the ordinary scenarios where the marginalized have competed with the wealthy and the marginalized persons have won. Parliament as it is today is over 60% youth which indicates a clear investment in future leadership. The question that arises is therefore one of quality not wealth or age bracket. The activism and vibrancy in parliament seems to be youth driven. Probably this silver lining dispels the growing adage that electoral politics is a game of those who are ready to invest in colossal sums. This further reinforces the fact that it is more to do with content, beliefs and conviction.

The duty is on us to repossess our country’s political glory. The challenge calls for daring actions to re-humanize our politics. Electoral politics should not be about demarcation, exclusivity, classification and conspiracy but should be something that fosters inclusivity, transparency, accountability and respectful.

   By: Crispy Kaheru
We are very privileged to live at a time when Uganda is experiencing high political turbulence. Even with the increasingly narrowing space for alternative voice in the country, Uganda still carries the title of a ‘good-governed, multi party democratic country.’ As you might realize, democracy has lately become like an ISO certification of quality for states. If one wants to market a product called Uganda, they are compelled to slap a seal of ‘democracy‘ to make the country more appealing to investors, tourists, donors, diplomatic calls, and possibly, hoodwink its very own citizenry about the quality of governance in the country.

Elections today have become too ritualistic, symbolic, periodic events that many times usher in premeditated leaders at the top echelon of the state. While elections must underpin characteristics of competition, surprise, and anxiety over results, here they have become a simply calculated affair for authentication of certain leaders. Those who run for elective office are lately being sieved on the basis of how much money they have rather than what manifestos they carry. Even with such shortfalls, many countries, not only Uganda continue to glorify themselves as democratic citing their practice of carrying out regular elections.

I would to some extent agree with those who say that lately democracy is regressing into a government of the few, by the few and for the few. Take an example of the 2011 elections in Uganda; out of 13,954,129 registered voters, we have a president voted into office by just 5,428,369 people. In practice it means that the five million people decide the destination of the estimated thirty four million Ugandans. Percentage-wise this reflects 16% segment of the entire Ugandan population. Is this the rule of the majority?

When Uganda moved on to multi party politics in 2005, people mainly from the political parties and civil society organizations were excited thinking that the governance jinx had been broken. Little did they know that this would probably be more of a symbolic gesture than a real maneuver. It has since become increasingly hard to divorce the party in leadership from the state structures; subsequent direct and indirect laws to curtail the ability of opposition parties to operate freely have become the order of the day; despite the passing of the Political Parties and Organizations (Amendment) Act, 2010, the government has since failed to operationalise it. Because this Act has not been operationalised, political parties have not yet accessed state funding for their operations.

Multi party politics is not just about a multitude of political parties. In Uganda, there have been unconfirmed allegations about some of the thirty eight political parties being purposefully founded by the ‘intelligence’ or the party in power as a way of duping the public that indeed the country embraces ‘multiparty democracy.’ So, is this the construct of the dispensation that we eagerly envisaged about six years ago?

The rule of law has lately become a very jelly connotation incapable of setting standard benchmarks. In Uganda just like in many other countries, there are bad laws; does this mean that the citizens must heed to these simply because they are ‘laws’? Take for instance the NGO Registration (Amendment) Act 2006 contains provisions that hinder the operations of NGOs in Uganda; many of the media laws restrict press freedom and have often led to self-censorship; the institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, 2010 makes traditional or cultural leaders personally liable for any civil wrongs or criminal offenses committed by their agents; the proposed Public Order Management Bill, 2009, seeks to grant the police wide discretionary powers to regulate the conduct of public meetings and also regulate the content of the discussion of issues at such meetings; the proposal to scrap bail for certain categories of offenders, among many other laws.

Probably it is time for us to start measuring democracy and good governance through simple values like: happiness, satisfaction, fulfillment, harmony, mutual respect, love, peace rather than complex philosophical terms such as democracy, elections, multi party system, rule of law, transparency, accountability among others. These composite descriptions are lately becoming subjectively mutilated and seem to remain farfetched for the common citizen to associate with.

   By: Gwada Ogot
Uganda has recorded significant strides in her efforts to update and streamline labor legislation with international conventions. A key objective has been to enable a legal framework consistent with basic human rights as enshrined in the 1995 Constitution.

Initiatives such as the Uganda Labor Law Reform Project, have worked to overhaul the legal framework of employment by promoting ratification of ILO Conventions, effecting principles and rights concerning freedom of association and collective bargaining, non-discrimination and the elimination of forced and child labor.

The International Labor Organization (ILO), of which Uganda is a member, pursues international labor standards to enhance legal rights for workers across the world. Other line movements similarly encourage countries to promote labor rights at the international level including fair trade policies.

Labor rights or workers’ rights are a set of legal rights and claimed human rights that relate to labor relations between workers and their employers, usually obtained under labor and employment law. In general, these rights’ relate to negotiating workers’ pay, benefits, and better working conditions.

A central tenet, though not fully operational in Uganda, is the right to unionize and collectively bargain. This includes the option of industrial action to increase members’ wages and improve working conditions. Labor rights are in context universal and apply to immigrant workers as well.

Among the key labor laws in Uganda are, the Workers Compensation Act 2000, the Minimum Wages Act 2000, the Employment Act 2006, the Labor Union Arbitration and Settlement Act 2006 and the Occupational Safety Act 2006. Some, like the Minimum Wages Act 2000, though entrenched in law are however hardly enforced.

The Employment Act 2006, outlines the conditions of employment including, contract of service, termination of contract, termination notices, and protection of wages, hours of work, rest and holidays, employment of women, employment of children and care of employees.

Likewise, the Workers Compensation Act 2000 entitles employees to automatic compensation for any personal injury from an accident arising out and in the course of his employment even if the injury results from the employee’s negligence. The Act further details that, for an injury that leads to death, the compensation should be equivalent to an employer’s monthly pay multiplied by 60 months.

From a global scope, labor rights are viewed as a core component of the modern corpus of human rights as captured in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Uganda is bound. The article, stipulates that, “everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment; everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work;

The article further states that, “Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection; and that, everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests”.

In addition, Article 24 of the Universal Declaration likewise advocates that, “everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”.

From a practical trajectory, the existing regulatory policy in Uganda- an eight-hour work day and a 40-hour work week- with extra hour’s payable as overtime, remains one of the prime products of labor movement campaigns.

Apart from general work related foci, labor rights also involve advocacy against child labor. In Uganda as elsewhere, child labor is viewed as exploitative and cruel, and often and deprives children the right to education. A report by the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimated that in 1998, 44.4 percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 in Uganda were already working.

One such group is the Elimination of Child Labor Trust Uganda (ECLATU), a private sector sponsored initiative to stamp out child labor in tobacco growing areas. The ILO leads the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC).

More recently, advocacy groups on workers’ rights have comprehensively engaged on the conditions of women workers and helped formulate gender based policies and affirmative action programs. Their efforts have not only created greater visibility for women’s issues but also the attainment of a minimum representation of 1/3 of women in Parliament.

Sustained efforts by groups such as the Uganda Women’s Network (UWONET) have also generated common advocacy positions and impacted positively on the Domestic Relations Bill; the Land Policy; the Labor Rights of Women; and the Constitutional Amendment Bill and resulted in the enactment of Gender sensitive labor laws and labor rights of women, including sixty days maternity leave, four days of paternity leave and the recognition of sexual harassment, among other benefits in the Employment Act 2006.

Though legal statutes appear well in place, challenges in implementation variously arise especially due to the lack of a cohesive trade union movement.

Crispy Kaheru, the Project Coordinator at the Citizens Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU) captures labor rights improvement in Uganda from a domestic vista, saying, “twenty years ago, a trajectory of house boys and girls below the legal employment age of 18 was a common culture, but today this situation has significantly improved and most homes now employ house helps well above the official employment age.”

   By: Crispy Kaheru
We are fortunate to live in Uganda, a country where it is easy to take the right to vote for granted. Uganda has conducted eight direct general elections at both presidential and parliamentary levels from 1961. Elections conducted between 1961 and 1980 all had a common red thread – perceptions or realities of vote rigging. The perceived or reality of rigging in the December 1980 elections was the key reason for the five year guerilla war fare.

Though relatively calm, the post 1980 elections of 1996; 2001; 2006 and 2011 have all been marred by allegations or realities of military interference, bribery, coercion, manipulation, violence and a host of other electoral malpractices – all of which have subsequently negatively impacted on citizens’ right to freely express themselves through the power of the vote.

In reflection this brings to mind a statement once made by former Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin who said:

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide northing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

Stalin’s statement provides a perspective of elections common to many African countries.

In Uganda, although the minimum electoral threshold provides for voting liberty, right, or franchise, not everyone finds the path to the ballot box easy. Many people risk losing wages for taking time off to vote. Others have childcare or transportation considerations that make voting difficult. Others do not live in the country, while some just made 18 on the polling day and therefore had not been captured on the voters’ register. Still others do not realize they need to change their voter registration information until it is too late.

However most interestingly, even many of those whose names appear on the register find it very difficult to go and vote either because they don’t believe in the whole voting ‘thing’ or they just see no plausible reason to do so. Take for instance, in Uganda’s 2011 general elections, only 58% of the 14 million registered voters turned up for the presidential and parliamentary vote. Despite the currently existing electoral law, it is still quite uncertain on whether it is the voter who matters or the officer that counts the votes. Such real or virtual perceptions go a long way in explaining the often murky type of elections that we have seen in the recent past. Fortunately, governance based civil society groups in Uganda in their post-election agenda have set out to advocate for comprehensive and fair electoral policies to make sure people are not inadvertently left out of the voting process.

Some sections think that it is too early to start talking about electoral reform when the country has just come out of an election, however, if we resolve the many issues that are a product function of the existing inadequate electoral law, then we will be providing answers to the ‘unresolved issues’ from the 2011 elections and laying a firm ground for the 2016 election cycle. To those who think that this is too grand an initiative to embark on, civil society’s resolve of working through all society configurations to achieve collective objectives is anticipated to yield positive results in form of adoption of most or all of the identified electoral reform proposals.

In this spirit of collective strength and quoting from the words of famous political speaker, Paul Davis:

The love of people must surpass the love of power. We must remember we are all interrelated and interconnected as one. None of us are as strong as all of us. Together we all accomplish more. Divided we fall apart and destroy ourselves.

It is possible and necessary to have a fair and comprehensive electoral law four years before the next election.Uganda, Crispy Kaheru, Elections, Yoweri Museveni, Paul Davis, Love of People, Love of Power, Electoral Process, Governance in Uganda, Joseph Stalin

Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU)

   By: Crispy Kaheru
I spent my eid el fitr reading literature on some of the world’s one time powerful men – Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This was not because they are my inspiration figures in any way but because I wanted to have a clear understanding of how they maneuvered to become the world’s most powerful leaders of their time; and why they later one earned themselves a position as the most hated men who have ever lived on earth till today.

Interestingly, both men rose to power as uncontested darlings of Europe and the world at large but were later stoned to death like chicken thieves by their very own citizens. Borrowing from William Shakespeare’s description of the seven stages of human life, I think there are also seven ages of a leader – the first being that where a leader is more or less an embodiment of fresh ideas, charisma, action, strength, focus and drive.

The seventh stage then describes a time where a leader is exhausted, has lost focus of long term goals, communicates poorly with his or her followers and is driven by fear of failure. The truth is that almost all leaders in the world reflect the characteristics of the first age of the leadership cycle when they have just taken up office. Some wade faster to the seventh stage other take a very long time – a decade, a quarter of a century or even half a century.

Nevertheless, taking you back to the once ‘all powerful’ Italian Duce, Mussolini spent about a quarter of a century in power in the early twentieth century. During his later years in power, he took over most of his government ministries and directly supervised as many as seven departments simultaneously. He single-handedly headed the all-powerful Fascist Party and the armed local fascist militia, the “Blackshirts”.

Mussolini progressively dismantled virtually all constitutional and conventional restraints on his power. He was no longer responsible to Parliament and could only be removed from office by the Grand Council of Fascism, a body he had personally appointed made up of his party henchmen and relatives. Much as Mussolini could have succeeded in keeping power in his own hands and preventing the emergence of any “rival”, he descended into what usually consumes everyday leaders – micro management. He got subsumed into directly managing every segment of his government and got consumed with the trivial and unimportant aspects of his state – he lost sight of what was important.

In the contemporary world, we have so many examples of such state leaders especially in Africa who have attempted to manage all aspects of government business but have ended up getting sidetracked from the long term strategic state goals. Recent events in Uganda explain this scenario better – the president seems to have lately defined himself as the sole figure of ‘solution’ in the country. It would be rather different if the Presidency attempted to identify itself as capable of solving all crises that come up. In other words the presidency might be powerless but the president is all powerful. When the teachers, traders, doctors, journalists, lawyers, have issues in their respective lines of duty, it’s not their immediate supervising authorities that have to deal with their problems but rather it takes the direct intervention of the president. Well, this would have been branded ‘effectiveness’ if the president was providing conclusive interventions but in a situation where the president’s intervention is widely perceived as a mere ‘ceremonial’ gesture, then it paints a different picture. Actually some people could possibly have been right to think that some government officials such as ministers are not professionally trusted by their appointing authorities to preside over ministerial business.

Leaders must discern the importance and the need for the existence of structures as well as credible people to work with. If a leader cannot trust his or her appointees to tackle the range of state issues, then possibly one could aptly presuppose that, that leader has crossed into the seventh age of the leadership cycle. As political analyst, Gwada Ogot puts it, “no single leader can be the all solving hammer“.