Electoral and constitutional reforms: why the EU has no real power

A summary of what he proposes includes, among other things, restoring presidential term limits; replacing the position of vice president with a deputy president appointed by a presidential candidate; prohibition of elected deputies from holding ministerial positions unless they resign from parliament; the creation of both a lower house (national assembly) and an upper house (senate); reducing the size of Parliament and increasing the number of members of the Electoral Commission (EC).

Mr Kyagulanyi, speaking to the media at the party headquarters at Makerere Kawule in Kampala, suggested that Mr Mpuuga was doing two things: first, he was only regurgitating proposals that were always on the table. Secondly, he emphasized the unimportant. “Term limits are not a Ugandan problem. If Mpuuga brought something new, why didn’t he come up with an age limit rather than a time limit? Assuming term limits are resorted to, it simply means Museveni will be given the right to fight again. As a NUP, we want age limits, not term limits,” Mr Kyagulanyi said.

Civil society, donors and political parties have been calling for improvements to the electoral system for future elections for quite some time. Proposed reforms piled up with each election cycle.

The list is in fact so long that Mr. Mpuuga can only be said to have touched on a small part of it. He did not, for example, address proposals to, among other things, abolish the requirement for civil servants to resign before nominating candidates; abolishing special interest group elections; introducing a five-year ban on participation in electoral politics for those found guilty of offenses such as bribery. But even if we agreed with Mr Kyagulanyi that there is nothing new in what Mr Mpuuga is proposing, does that make his proposal irrelevant? Or would they not help clean up the mess from our electoral processes if they passed? Perhaps that will be a discussion for another day as Mr Kyagulanyi has not been able to ascertain why he seems to think Mr Mpuuga’s proposals are irrelevant or irrelevant. Or both.

Mr Joel Ssenyoni, LP, who was present at the same press conference, had not responded to questions on the same issue by the time of publication. However, it is noteworthy that Mr Kyagulanyi stressed the need for reforms that will lead to changes in the way the Electoral Commission (EC) is constituted. “The biggest challenge Uganda has faced in recent times is Museveni’s appointment of the Electoral Commission. If the commission had not been appointed by Museveni, the country’s elections would have been free and fair,” Mr Kyagulanyi said.

The formation of the EC is provided for in Chapter 5 of the 1995 Constitution. Article 60(1) provides that “there shall be an Election Commission consisting of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and five other members appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament.” Civil society, political parties and the donor community have rightly been calling for a constitutional amendment that would lead to changes in the way the EU is formed for quite some time. The argument has always been that an incumbent who is also seeking to contest an election should not appoint an EC to rule in an election in which he is a candidate or in which he is interested.

The idea that the Commission may be the biggest obstacle to free and fair elections has been around for quite some time. We may not be able to say exactly when it started, but we should remember it. In November 2015, the Commission was accused by Dr Kizza Besigye, who was the Opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) presidential candidate, of “serving the interests of Mr Museveni”.

“The EC serves as a cane for Mr. Museveni and his regime… I have nothing against the gentlemen holding positions in the EC, but we have problems with this institution. We want the Electoral Commission to be independent not only in name but in all aspects,” Dr Besigye said. Justice Simon Byabakama, Chairman of the Commission, said in a recent interview with Sunday Monitor that the Commission is trying to combat negative perceptions. about this.

“Some stakeholders have an unnecessary negative perception of the Commission. No matter how hard we try to be transparent, they remain suspicious of our behavior and activities,” he said.

He says it doesn’t help matters that some of their accusers don’t state specifically what their grievances are with the Commission.

“I expect any political party or person who has a problem with the Commission to come to us and say, ‘Electoral Commission, we have a problem with you.’ We expect them to speak up if questions arise related to the overall work or implementation of the Commission’s mandate. We can’t go and say, “Do you have a problem with us?” Can you come and talk?” says Judge Byabakama. He believes that being open with the Commission can help it improve. I’m working on improving. That’s why I say let them come and tell us,” he says.

However, if the comments made by Mr Kyagulanyi and Dr Besigye before him are correct, then suspicions that the Commission is biased and favors Mr Museveni and the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) can only be addressed by changing the way the Commission operates. Calls to change the structure of the EU have been heard for quite some time. The recommendation has always been that the EU should be rebuilt through an inclusive and transparent process in which the public and civil society, rather than the government, should play a leading role.

It has been suggested that Uganda should follow the example of Kenya, where the Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC) organizes and administers elections. According to the IEBC Act, the President is required to appoint a selection committee consisting of a chairman within 14 days of a vacancy on the commission. and eight members consisting of eminent individuals from the private sector or public service with relevant expertise.

The Commission must, within seven days of its convening, invite applications and publish the names of all applicants. He then shortlists and conducts interviews. The commission then selects three people eligible to be appointed as chairman and 13 people eligible to be appointed as commissioners and forwards them to the president, whose selection must be approved by parliament. According to the authors of the proposal, such a complex process will strengthen the integrity of the EU.

Dr Chris Baryomunsi, Minister of Information and Communications Technology and National Guidance, ridicules those calling for Uganda to emulate Kenya, suggesting it may not be an appropriate point of comparison. “Who told you that Kenya is a model country? from a democratic point of view? asks Dr. Baryomunsi.

Most of its supporters describe NRM as a mass party. Most Ugandans, some say, approve of the NWO, a shade of opinion they say is reflected in Parliament, where it has a majority of MPs. However, the question arises as to why this mass party is so reluctant to make amendments. this would help sanitize electoral processes. Or could the mass party be much weaker than people think? Dr Baryomunsi rushes to the party’s defence, saying Uganda has “adequate infrastructure to conduct free and fair elections”.

The problem is that different actors have different views and ideas about what constitutes a free and fair election. Livingstone Sewanyana, executive director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI), says elections can only be considered free and fair if they are conducted in a transparent manner. “An election like this will require election observers, digital technology and civic education,” says Mr Sewanyana.

The question now will be whether an EC constituted in the manner proposed will be able to conduct an election like the one Mr. Sewanyana is talking about, or one that will produce a result that the opposition finds acceptable. Dr Baryomunsi believes that the opposition will always fight.

Mr Kyagulanyi and Dr Besigye before him, he said, are only saying that the elections were neither free nor fair because they were defeated by President Museveni. The Minister quickly adds that they should not blame the Commission for their losses. Could you, for example, say in your heart of hearts that Besigye could not become President of Uganda because of the Electoral Commission? Or that Kyagulanyi did not become president because of the Electoral Commission? This is just a scapegoat,” says Dr Baryomunsi.

The minister insists that the current electoral system is transparent enough to allow a candidate to determine with confidence what result he will receive.

“Voting is open, people come and vote. At 4:00 pm they close and they count when everyone will be there and book them in. Everyone in their village knows how they voted at their polling station. They know that in this polling station Museveni got one thing, Besigye got another. If Besigye had won, people in a particular polling station would have known about it,” says Dr Baryomunsi.

Justice Byabakama says while it is the EC that often takes the blame when things go wrong in elections, holding free and fair elections must be a concerted effort by all involved, including the public. Free and fair elections can be held if all stakeholders work together towards one single goal. However, even though the Commission is introducing measures for a smooth electoral process, this will not be possible unless other stakeholders act in the same direction as the Commission,” he says.

Indeed, there have been cases where polling stations have been invaded and ballot papers have been confiscated, marked and thrown into ballot boxes. which results in incorrect results being declared. These are events over which the EU, he says, has no control.

In the current circumstances, it is difficult to imagine a situation where a new EC, drawn up in the proposed manner, will hold elections that would be acceptable to all interested parties.