Last weekend, a newspaper headline from one of the local dailies stopped me in my tracks.
“Besigye Release Talks Take Shape.” Anything about dialogue, negotiation or mediation draws me in. I believe that nations, like families, cannot endure indefinitely while refusing to engage one another.
What intrigued me most was not the substance of the reported talks. It was the reaction to them. Some welcomed the possibility. Others rejected it outright. There was not much middle ground. That response told a larger Ugandan story.
We have become a country of hardened positions. It must be this side or that side. You must belong here or there. Increasingly, disagreement is treated as betrayal and dialogue as surrender. Those willing to engage across divides are branded traitors or collaborators.
Suspicion has entered our daily lives. We hear of people carrying their own tea, water or chapati into meetings for fear of poisoning. Whether every story is true is beside the point. The fact that many Ugandans find them believable reveals how deeply mistrust has settled among us. This tension is most visible in politics, but its consequences reach far beyond politics.
Over the past four decades, Uganda has travelled through war, liberation, reconstruction, constitutionalism and economic recovery. We have built institutions. They may not be as strong as we desire, but they exist.
The 1995 Constitution itself recognises our troubled history and commits the country to democratic participation, broad representation and decentralisation.
Should we not protect what we have built while repairing what has not worked well? If we can organise soldiers to successfully fight and farmers to increase coffee production, why can we not organise political disagreements? Why can we not apply the same discipline to building trust, managing competition and reconciling competing visions of Uganda?
That should be our next national assignment. History offers a reminder. During the battle of Bukalabi in February 1983, Salim Saleh was wounded and treated by Dr Kizza Besigye, then his NRA comrade.
Politics later placed the two men on different paths. But should political difference erase shared history? Must yesterday’s comrades become permanent strangers simply because they disagree about Uganda today?
That is why the newspaper headline gave me hope. The principle behind it was larger than Besigye, Saleh or any reported arrangements. It touched the unfinished business of our nation.
The liberation generation confronted a broken state. It identified the problem, organised around it and constructed an institutional response. That organising spirit helped Uganda rebuild politically, socially and economically.
Should we, the children of that liberation, not bring similar discipline to politics? It is encouraging to see a new generation organizing around patriotism, service and national purpose. Properly channeled, that energy can renew public life. Uganda does not lack political opinions. It lacks a trusted architecture for managing them.
I therefore support a structured national political dialogue towards a Consociational Democracy Agreement. And this should not become another flamboyant conference in Munyonyo or Serena. It must not be another photograph moment at Kololo. Nor should it become a scheme for sharing positions among a few political elites.
It should be a compact on how Ugandans can disagree without destroying one another or the country. Government, political parties, civil society, religious and cultural leaders, women, youth, business and security institutions must participate.
But the process must begin in our LC villages, parishes, workplaces and markets, giving citizens a voice in setting priorities and holding leaders to the compact.
The questions at these barazas must be practical and forward-looking: How do we safeguard peaceful political competition? How do we accelerate modernisation? How do we create opportunity and share its benefits more inclusively? How do we manage transitions without undermining development, security or social cohesion?
The liberation generation carries the memory of where Uganda has come from; its descendants carry the urgency of where it must go. We need both at the same table, bound by mutual respect. Elders cannot demand respect from the young while withholding it from them; continuity must leave room for renewal.
At 64, Uganda must stop surviving disagreement and begin governing it. We liberated the state from colonial rule and the country from collapse. We therefore can liberate Ugandans from fear of one another.
Those most comfortable at the political extremes should remember that a nation is built not at its opposite poles, but on the ground between them. Coming to the table is not capitulation; it is how patriots prevent disagreement from becoming destruction. We must organise for peace.
The author is a member of the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC)