Is the ideology “simply joining parliament”?

Without doubt the sight of many young and mid-aged Ugandans joining the fray of competitive politics – especially parliamentary positions – is beautiful to watch.

Many of these young people are wonderful friends of mine, and some are wholesome acquaintances: Eriasa Mukiibi Sserunjogi, Charles Mwanguhya Mpagi, Victoria Bagaya, Joseph Sabiti, Dr Okwaro Obuku, George Musisi and several others. Others I have only watched from a distance; entertainers such as Reign, and former talk-show host Zambali Bulasiyo Mukasa, among others.

While a good number have picked NRM-tickets, the country will be forever grateful to NUP president Robert Kyagulanyi for inspiring this renaissance. To a degree, this will go down as one of his lasting legacies: finally, young Ugandans and other folks who hitherto sat on the fence found inspiration to join politics en masse.

And this happened at a time when the political space was dangerously under a paranoid and autocratic president: abduction, torture and wanton killings define these times. While I celebrate this influx of young folks into politics – and rightly, profusely credit Bobi Wine – I find myself confused and conflicted on the drive and motivations of these young Ugandans.

True, Bobi Wine inspired them, but what is driving them? On the one hand, I hold the position that elective politics under Museveni is choosing to play in a sty – with all the ruthless animals in it. This position is espoused by many wonderful Ugandans including my friends, Kalundi Serumaga (author of the very illuminating essay, Parliament is the Bribe), and Imam Kasozi, who has even had to decline offers of campaign funding from supposedly serious people.

On the other, it is difficult to dissuade motivated young Ugandans not to participate in mainstream politics because it is dirty. But that they choose only parliament is a tellingly ugly sign.

In Parliament By All Means

I need to note here that while I understand their calculations – that only the NRM ticket guarantees victory in the countryside – the weight of seeing young folks, especially my journalist friends from Kampala, pick NRM tickets has been difficult to countenance. Is the objective simply winning?

If the role of an MP is mostly oversight and legislation, and experience has showed us that NRM legislators don’t need to have a mind of their own; from where do these folks get their drive? What do they mean when they chant representing their people? They could push back and say they are joining the NRM to try and reform the thing from inside.

This is the same logic that our brother, Norbert Mao, used as he hawked his Democratic Party to Yoweri Museveni. But as we know full well, Museveni always does whatever he wants irrespective of anyone around him.

Again, from where do these young comrades get their confidence? Do they feel better positioned than Mao? What becomes clearer is that the driving ideology is ‘simply joining parliament.’ By all means necessary even if this means joining the devil or losing one’s head.

It also becomes clearer that while we endlessly and collectively discussed our frustrations with Museveni’s government, these friends of mine never meant anything they said. They had only not gotten the chance to join the man’s exploitative and ruinous machine – which has finally arrived.

The Problem With Bobi Wine’s Admirers

If one sought to carefully understand Bobi Wine’s character and rise in politics, one notices two interlinked driving forces. On the one hand, he was an entertainer, which earned him clout and immense following. On the other, he was an organic/public intellectual, in the sense that his music and public character embodied the challenges of ordinary Ugandans.

He also sought to give his compatriots discourse and ways of seeing things: from HIV/Aids, family and overall politics. Indeed, Bobi Wine was the character in Okot p’ Bitek’s essay, Artiste the Ruler. Elsewhere, I have noted that he is East Africa’s Fela Kuti. (It is not an over-estimation; scholars of both men would understand this really well).

As soon as Bobi Wine became a member of parliament, and as his political star continued to rise, many entertainers and celebrities sought to replicate his trajectory: Jose Chameleone, Eddie Yawe, Ragga Dee, and a couple others.

Museveni sought to prop characters such as Butcherman and Full Figure, believing it was all about being known. The problem is that these stars deceived themselves that just being well-known was good enough. When they looked at Bobi Wine, they only saw his celebrity appeal, but not the man’s activism and (via music) public intellectualism.

Sadly, the folks that have genuinely picked his example, joined his party, five years later, are also bringing their “being well-known” as the only reason for their standing.

These are folks that have never been seen on the streets – even online – calling out anything or diligently following up on the issue of public interest, say the way Agartha Atuhaire, Stella Nyanzi, Godwin Toko or Tina Fierce have continued to do.

Even folks such as Fred Lumbuye or Penge-Penge might rank higher than our soon-to-be legislators – because these folks, in their own style, have decided to stand for something. All they are riding is their public profiles.

Dear reader, my intention is not to discourage these brothers and sister from seeking to join parliament, but I worry that they are driven simply by (a) their association with Bobi Wine, and thus a wave will carry them to the August House, (b) the fact that the public know their faces.

While I would be asking for any ideological inclinations that drive them, at this point, I barely see any semblance of commitment to good governance in its basic sense or even what is famously described as the struggle.

Curious Case of George Musisi

In all fairness, the NUP lawyer is one individual who actually should be in any serious parliament. He understands legislative matters and is articulate. But I have struggled to understand how Musisi (a) rates himself against 52-year-old Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda.

Is it eloquence? Brilliance? Or bravery? Youthfulness? (b) How does Musisi or his party understand struggles? As beauty pageants or football games?

My position is that no serious person should be in Museveni’s parliament. But if we take parliament as the only space of struggle – as we have been conditioned to believe – why seek to dislodge perhaps the most eloquent, bravest and keenest fighter of the last 10 years?

Because he hasn’t delivered victory? Look, icons of struggles should never be subject to a competition. Indeed, I never understood NUP’s logic of subjecting their leaders, including Robert Kyagulanyi, to a vote. If he had lost, would they survive his loss?

Struggles are not competitions. NUP should be selecting and placing candidates in different places. This means, they would be harnessing strengths in different places. They should be ring-fencing positions and placing candidates in constituencies even if they weren’t children or residents of those constituencies.

Yeah, it is undemocratic but power determines its opposition. (Maybe we would explore this another day). The point I am labouring to make is this: while I love the sight of young bloods jostling for positions in competitive politics, I worry that majority are driven by just the perks parliament offers, and are exploiting both Robert Kyagulanyi, and their pretty faces and public profiles.

While I understand they might learn on the job, I am also old enough to recall the wonderful performances of Hons. Ssozi Kaddu Mukasa, Peter Bakaluba Mukasa, Kazibwe Bashir Mbazira, and many others.

yusufkajura@gmail.com

The author is a political theorist based at Makerere University.