BUILDING THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF NRM FOR COMPETITIVE GROUP POLITICS ====================================================== Background First and foremost, as leaders and members of NRM we are proud and fortunate to belong to the leading and massively popular political party in Uganda. This party fought all wars and tyranny with triumph and returned the power of political decision making to the citizenry. It marked a new dawn for Uganda’s democratic governance. No matter what organizational and operational challenges NRM may face, it is still the most popular and highly trusted political group in the country. Thanks to its founding leader H.E Gen. Yoweri Museveni for this stewardship and immense sacrifices. Any institution derives its strength or weakness from the character and capacity of its founding leader. Bad leaders create bad systems (just as Hitler did) while good ones create good systems and strong institutions that live and stand the test of time. The successive victories therefore that NRM has registered as well as the confidence it has won from the citizenry over the years is largely a manifestation of its good foundational tenets well thought out and pursued by its leader. The future of NRM therefore will be shaped largely by how we the successive and emerging leaders play our part while building on that strong foundation of the revolution without deviating from those core foundational tenets of; nationalism, pan-africanism, democracy and social economic transformation. Building a house can be quite cumbersome, if its foundation is shaky and messed up. A good foundation will guarantee a strong super structure and the roof of the house for ages and ages. NRM is fortunate that its foundation was long well laid. It has acted over the years as our biggest political buffer and on which we ride to easily triumph over our opponents. We should therefore never allow weakness be it of organizational or operational nature, to compromise this strong foundation of our party. What needs to be done? We must resist schemes of our political adversaries targeting our founding leader, whose strength they know of very well and are always worried about him, in this era of multiparty/group competition, where each group strives to field its best. They obviously cannot tell us our best. We know better. Their arguments about long stay of a leader and therefore clamor for change has no justification whatsoever other than looking for an opportunity to disadvantage us (NRM) and significantly curtail our victory opportunities. Uganda’s problem right from independence was not about short or long stay of leaders. It was essentially lack of good leaders. It was also about weak political groupings without strong ideological foundations. Amin did not kill people for example because of staying for long in power. Even in a day or just hours, a dictator or any other narrow-minded leader can run the country down the gutter. Understanding the concept of Political longevity viz-viz democracy building Political Parties world over have one common agenda; that is, to contest for power and win so as to implement their plans. Without attaining victory at the polls, all their plans however good and well intentioned they may be, will be shelved. It is the party that wins and not the individual leaders. The idea therefore, of looking at ourselves as individual political entities, separate from the party and therefore working to advance personal ambitions is wrong. The party must win first and so we all win. We therefore do not need to take any chances or attempt to make trials/experiments while selecting a Presidential Flag bearer. Anybody else can wait. All we want is the one with the ability to make us (NRM) win. We are therefore safer with a “driver” who has not only demonstrated ability as the founding leader of the revolution that liberated Uganda but also managed to keep the Country together for this long, given its turbulent political history, restored our National pride, built the economy with strong Fiscal and Monetary policy instruments, guaranteed peace and stability within the Country and the Region and built a strong National, Professional and disciplined army. This “driver” is well known to us all !!!! As NRM we should stand to reject and resist firmly the well orchestrated propaganda of our opponents, sometimes spiced so well to even appeal to our own party Members and leaders from within by saying that our President has overstayed and therefore should handover power in a peaceful transition. Let no one be fooled. The strength of our leader stands out and so his opponents will invest in any possible blackmail that will deter him from running and thus give them a free ride. They are terribly defeated with him in the race. The question therefore, is not long stay per se, or changing of leaders after short intervals but rather, what the leader does for his or her Country. If changing leaders after short intervals were to be the remedy for guaranteeing a Country’s political future, then Uganda would have prospered by far between the period 1962 up to 1986 when we changed up to eight(8) Presidents. Why then didn’t we experience economic growth, stability or peaceful transition so much talked about? To the contrary, Uganda’s only real independence as well as attainment of democracy and people’s freedoms has been under the uninterrupted 28 years of NRM rule save for isolated episodes of terrorism in Nothern Uganda and some parts of Western Uganda that we have completely defeated and further built capability to decimate any groups with intentions of disturbing peace that Ugandans are ejoying. There is no logic whatsoever in this cheap and populist notion that the NRM adversaries deliberately scream so much loud about, so as to intimidate us from fielding our own best, that guarantees and boosts our party victory fortunes. They should mind the business of their own parties. History is there to prove us right. Visionary leaders that managed to build strong foundations for their Countries and transform them like the Late Melesi Zenawi of Ethiopia, Li Quan Yu of Singapore, among others, never did so by just taking short stints at the Presidency. They did so over a long period. That is how longevity can be very positive especially if the leader means so well for his/her country. Such leaders however, like the late Zenawi, were unfairly demonized for long by the traitors of Africa both from within and without, using all sorts of proxies. They managed with the support of their people to stand firm and resist those lectures of symbolic (and not real) democracy. It’s their sacrifices that today account for the rich economies of their Countries and prosperity of their people. Much as Zenawi was highly demonized by the west and their proxies, he remained unmoved and Ethiopia now prides itself in being one of the leading African countries to have decisively tackled infrastructure bottlenecks of electricity, roads and railway mainly, as the major drivers of the economy. Democracy is therefore, not built by the frequency of changing leaders. Democracy is instead built by ensuring that its core pre-requisites like “universal, free, fair and regular elections, free press, full citizenry participation, among others do exist and are deliberately promoted.” This is what the NRM did and will continue to do. Those voices screaming loud therefore, do not in any way represent the majority wishes of Ugandans. They should never intimidate us from deciding who leads our Party and who carries our flag for competitive politics. Building Capacity of NRM National Secretariat and its lower structures As earlier mentioned in this paper, the NRM’s biggest challenge is not lack of a superior ideology or a firm foundation, neither is it lack of popular mass support. Our biggest challenge is organizational and therefore operational. This is however easy to rectify. It is simply about building the capacity of our party institutions through streamlining our party laws and having committed and full-time cadres to run our party offices sustainably and on a full-time basis. Adhoc planning has not only undermined our party structures all over the country but has caused us to suffer reckless losses (that would have been avoidable) in bye-elections moreover in areas of our party’s strong membership. Understanding the Current Status of our party NRM transformed itself into a political party in 2005. The transition from the movement system to party politics in 2005 was a bit rushed at the time to catch up with the road map of 2006 general elections. This did not allow enough time to consult widely the entire mass membership of NRM across the country about its constitution and other policies. Its members also did not know much about the rules of multiparty/group politics. A few representatives (mainly the top leaders) became the promoters of NRM party and wrote a constitution that was later presented at the first delegates’ conference in 2005 for adoption. Even then the delegates never had enough time to internalize the details of the Constitution, yet it had to be adopted in readiness for 2006 elections. This is what I am calling organizational and operational challenges. They are however not fundamental, now that we have all the power and opportunity to fix them. Party Constitution One major weakness in our party Constitution is in article 16. For your ease of reference the whole article and its clauses are reproduced below; THE NATIONAL SECRETARIAT(Article 16 of the NRM Constitution as amended in 2010) 1) There shall be a National Secretariat of NRM 2) The National Secretariat of NRM shall consist of; a) The Secretary General, who shall be the head of the Secretariat; b) Deputy Secretary General c) Director of Finance and Administration d) Director for Research e) Director for Economic Affairs f) Director for International Relations g) Director for Mobilization and Recruitment and Cadre Development h) Director for Legal Services i) Director for information, Publicity and Public relations 3) The Directors shall be appointed by the National Chairperson with the approval of CEC. 4) The support staff of the National Secretariat and of the office of the District Administrative Secretary shall be appointed by the Secretary General on the recommendation of the Appointments Committee established under article 16 (5). 5) There shall be an appointments committee of the National Secretariat 6) The Appointments Committee shall consist of the Director for Mobilization, Recruitment and Cadre Development as chairperson and the directors at the National Secretariat as members. 7) Under the direction of the Secretary General, the National Secretariat shall be responsible for: a) Implementation of the decisions of the National Conference and National Executive Council; b) Implementation of NRM policies, decision and directives on a day to day basis; c) Preparing rules, regulations and procedures for approval by the respective authorities with NRM; d) Preparing relevant papers and documents which will guide NRM organs in decision making e) Disseminating information from NRM Committee and Commissions to all organs of NRM; f) Enhancing the capacity of NRM for competitive group politics g) Providing administrative and secretarial services to the National Conference and National Executive Council; h) Coordination of the activities of all organs of NRM i) Maintaining a National Register of members j) Carrying out such other functions as may be assigned to it by the Chairperson, CEC or the National Executive Council. For comparison, it is important that article 16 which provides for the National Secretariat, its composition and functions be read together with article 18 that provides for the structure of district secretariat and its functions as well. Article 18 is also re-produced here below for your ease of reference; THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY (Article 18 of the NRM Constitution as amended in 2010) (1) There shall be for every district a full time employee of NRM known as the Administrative Secretary. (2) The Administrative Secretary shall be appointed by CEC on recommendation by the District Executive Committee. (3) The terms and conditions of service of the Administrative Secretary shall be determined by CEC. (4) The Administrative Secretary shall be an ex-officio member of the District Executive Committee. (5) The functions of the Administrative Secretary shall be to: a) Co-ordinate the programmes of NRM in the district b) Liaise with all the organs of NRM within the District to ensure implementation of the vision and objectives of NRM; c) Act as the link between the District and the National Secretariat; d) Act as the focal point of information between the organs with the District. e) Provide administrative and secretarial services to the District Conference; f) Maintain a register of all NRM members within the District; g) Give effect to the decisions of the District Conference. By reading the two articles together and their respective provisions above, one clearly sees the unexplainable difference between how the district NRM office is administered, and the National Secretariat, yet the structure of governance and administration should be the same both at the national and at the lower structures. The difference would only be in cadre /staff ranks. While Article 18 of the NRM Constitution, provides for a full –time appointed employee (called the Administrative Secretary) to man/administer the NRM office at the district, at the national level the equivalent of that administrator is the Secretary General, who is part of the Secretariat and also the head of its technical staff (read article16 (2) a). One can detect the discrepancy immediately here. Why is the administrator of the national secretariat (In this case the secretary General) not full time and not an appointed employee as it is at the district level? The functions of the Administrative Secretary at the district level are largely the same to those of the Secretary General at the National level (read and compare articles 18 (5)a-g and 16(7)a-j to see the similarity). For example, in article 16(7)g, the Secretary General, with the secretariat he/she leads, is mandated to; provide administrative and Secretarial services to the National Conference and National Executive Council (NEC). On the other hand the Administrative Secretary is also mandated in article 18(5)e to: provide administrative and secretarial services to the district conference. Another example is: In article 16 (7) (i); the Secretary General is mandated to; maintain the national register of members while in article 18(5)(f): Administrative Secretary is also mandated to; keep and maintain a register of all members within the district. From these provisions of our party Constitution, it’s clear that the Secretary General is an Administrator of the National Party Secretariat and is the head of all the party technical workers/staff. His/her functions are purely administrative and are aimed at implementing the decisions of the party leadership. Just like the administrative Secretary administers the district party office and implements the decisions of the district conference and the executive committee, so is the Secretary General at the National level. He/she (Secretary General) cannot be an administrator with mandate to carry out administrative functions and at the same be a political elected leader with mandate to make policy decisions. It was fundamentally wrong to provide this ambiguity in the party constitution. While there is a post of General Secretary at the district level and the office holder is elected as one of the District executive committee office bearers, that person was not given the same administrative functions in the Constitution to carry out at the district level just like the Secretary General was given at the national level. A provision was made in article 18 for another full time employee called the Administrative Secretary. If the framers and legal experts of our party Constitution had wanted to create the same structure at the national level then may be, they would have made provision for the post of General Secretary at national level to be part of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) if they wanted, just like it is at the district level. Then the Secretary General, who is the head of the secretariat and the Chief Administrator of the national Secretariat, would have been left to be an appointed full-time employee of the party. The fact that this was not provided for, and the Secretary General was made to be both an elected leader and at the same time an administrator, the roles of management and policy decision making became fused. Consequently, our national secretariat lacked a full-time person to steer the technical team, draw and propose plans for the party top leadership (CEC) to consider. That is why Kyadondo plot 10, became more or less deserted. And when the National Secretariat is not functioning well, the lower structures will follow suit. This is one of our party’s major organizational weaknesses that we must sort out at the earliest. You may have also noted in article 16 (i) that one of the other roles of the Secretary General and the secretariat he/she heads, is to maintain a national register of all party members. A party register is a major electoral tool necessary for smooth internal elections of the party. The big question then is how a Secretary General who is also elected and therefore a direct beneficiary of that party member register, that he/she maintains, can be able to be an impartial umpire (neutral person) in this case and maintain a register of electoral integrity? He/she is already conflicted with personal interest from the on-set. Yet at the district level, the register is not maintained by the General Secretary but by an Administrative Secretary, who is a hired employee without any conflict of interest. So why did this obvious logic, only stop at the district and not extend to the national level? This is the major anomaly to rectify!!. Way Forward For purposes of having a strong and full time functional Secretariat, the technical head of the Secretariat – the Secretary General, must be a full time appointed employee and supervised by CEC on behalf of the party, just like the directors of the same secretariat he/she heads are(read article 16 (3)). This will also eliminate the obvious and glaring conflict of interest exhibited in article 16(7)I, of maintaining a party electoral register. A political contender should not in any way be part (be it directly, indirectly or remotely) of the electoral management system, he/she is going or likely to participate in. All our party work plans and strategies aimed at strengthening the party will only be worked out and implemented by a full time functioning secretariat, with capacity to supervise and support the administrative offices of all the lower structures. There is no way the offices of the lower structure can be active without any guidance, direction and support from the national secretariat of the party Headquarters. The power to fix this lies with us the delegates of NEC and National Conference. We must all therefore move to amend the party Constitution to have the Secretary General appointed. Even companies and trade Unions, only elect board members but reserve the position of Secretary General to be an appointed one, such that management and governance structures of the organization are separate and not fused. For example, the Secretary General of UNATU (Teacher’s Union) is appointed and is the head of the Secretariat. Similarly, the Secretary General of UNCCI (Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry) is appointed and is the head of the Secretariat. NRM is a modern corporate Party that must adhere to corporate management principles . Long Live NRM!!!! ENDS
Posted on: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:54:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015