Post-Museveni Parliament: A Legacy of the Power of Patronage

ELIAS BIRYABAREMA


In the 22 years that Mr. Yoweri Museveni has led Uganda, his has been largely an imperial presidency with his hand literally in every pie. Just about every important state institution has long gotten used to his frequent personal intervention which has come to influence the functioning (or malfunctioning) of these institutions. They have more or less been modelled in his image and there’s not much clarity and understanding on how these institutions might operate in case the person, on whom their very existence has revolved, exits power. In a new eight-part series I delve into some of the key institutions and government policies and show how they will change or not change in a Post-Museveni Uganda.
The First which runs today tackles Parliament.

**********


KAMPALA--For all the rhetorical bluster and bumble that occasionally issues from the “dissident” sections of members of parliament, the legislature under president Museveni’s 22-year administration, has largely been conformist and pliant all through.

Under the quaint individual-merit Movement system starting with the 6th Parliament in1996, there prevailed a presumption that the legislators had unencumbered latitude to pursue independent thinking and perform their work free from the corrupting influence of the executive. However, as Museveni’s regime entrenched itself in power and sought tighter control of all state institutions, the legislature was slowly pulled and enmeshed in the web of executive manoeuvres, which soon handed president Museveni powerful levers with which he controlled parliamentarians, their debates and their outcomes.

That relationship has been sustained by a convenient trade-off between the MPs (majority of them) who have allowed their minds to be stewarded by Museveni’s whims in return for a copious flow of endless patronage in form of money, plum appointments and, for some, guarantee of impunity. This symbiosis between Museveni and a large section of parliamentarians has produced one of the most twisted and duplicitous democracies in the region, with the parliament , the most paramount check on the executive, appearing robust and effective while it is in fact hopelessly hamstrung, busying itself with rubberstamping the president’s wild wishes and fantasies.

The climax to this strange pattern of behaviour was the brazen bribing of MPs in late 2005 to acquiesce in Museveni’s “life-presidency” ambition by deleting the two-term cap on incumbency in the constitution.

If there’s any noticeable legacy thus—regarding the respect and fostering of the role of parliament as a pillar of a strong and well governed state—that President Museveni’s administration will bequeath to the successive leader when he eventually quits power, it will be one of venality and political sleaze, according to Prof. Fredrick Ssempebwa. What Museveni has demonstrated, according to analysts, is how a leader can masterfully use money and privilege to sedate stubborn but economically vulnerable House members and this evolving political culture will characterise parliament for some time in future.

“What has been most outstanding in president Museveni’s relationship with Parliament is his broad use of manipulation and patronage to steer the latter to his political ends,” Ssempebwa said.

To be sure, just about every leader in the world uses patronage to extract loyalty and support for himself. But, according to observers, Mr Museveni’s form of patronage is highly personalised, inimical to development and politically polarising. Most other leaders spread their patronage amongst masses, for instance spending money on public works for which they turn around and claim political capital. “Obote for instance built the 22 hospitals which were in part used to re-energise his support across the areas where those hospitals were located,” commented one senior politician confidentially.
“So over and above his political goals, those hospitals served to improve health care for the masses. This is different Museveni type of patronage where he directly hands out cash to his loyalist MPs.”


Future leaders, according to Ssempebwa’s prognosis, have learned from Museveni how best to extend their overreaching power to parliament and prevent opposition elements from gaining wide support and presenting formidable obstacles to executive requests. There’s one particular technique that Museveni has long adeptly exploited to manoeuvre his way around parliamentary oversight—hosting and feting MPs at State House and his country home of Rwakitura.

It is now almost standard practise: a bill is facing mounting opposition in parliament; some Movement legislators are voicing discontent, a budget request is facing rejection by a House committee, a financial scandal is swirling in the House; the President will quickly invite respective MPs for “tea” at Nakasero or Rwakitura at the end of which MPs are seen to soften their stance on the matter in question or even switching positions altogether.


When Museveni desired a more luxurious (and costlier) presidential jet (G555), in December last year for instance he invited members on the Presidential and Foreign Affairs Committee to Nakasero and cajoled them into succumbing to his unpopular request even as it looked certain to provoke a groundswell of anger.
Still, Museveni prevailed at the end of the day in part because the parliamentary committee supposed to be the people’s first line of defence against executive excesses had yielded perhaps in the face of Museveni’s intimidating gaze at Naksero.

Ex legislator, Mr Nobert Mao summed up Mr Museveni’s manipulation of MPs, “he’s managing a multiparty parliament using movement software.” In a post Museveni Uganda he forecast a brutal backlash against legislators who displayed fierce loyalty to Museveni because, he said, future leaders will not want to be encumbered by the baggage of NRM’s past wrongs. “There will be a purge of loyalists and I think once Museveni departs, Uganda’s parliament won’t be dominated by the NRM,” he said.

Ultimately, the integrity of parliament which has vastly eroded under Museveni’s Movement and NRM administrations will depend on the personality of whichever leader succeeds the incumbent.
What is less in doubt though is that if that leader lifts a page from Museveni’s parliamentary playbook, there’s plenty that should worry Ugandans in trusting their legislators to guard their interests against executive sleaze and corruption.