What makes our politicians unattractive

POLITICS

Politics in Uganda is a game where the disposition of nobility is utterly mythical. In fact, one would say that becoming a politician in Uganda makes one also to become unattractive. The word “ugly” may come across as strong, but depending on how you look at the situation, there is no better word other than this, to describe the trends in Ugandan politics.

It is contestable that Ugandan politicians are among some of the most dishonest, insensitive, in-congruent, sedentary, poorly read and inexperienced, which also make most of them unattractive. It is a fact that our legislators are among the youngest in the world and yet they lead in being dishonest, superficial and unprincipled. This also explains why the budget for Parliament which has only 375 MPs is equivalent to combined budget for 15 districts in Uganda.

The International Parliamentarian Union, a consortium of Parliamentarians in the World released its’ last Global Parliamentary Report in 2012. This report shows that sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest average age for all MPs in the word, at 49 years, against the global MP age average of 53. The average age of legislators in the UK is 50 years. In the US, the average age of representatives is a bit higher, at 57 for Congress and 63 for the Senate.

So, what has age got to do with ineffectiveness and unattractive nature of our Legislators? This question is very important because the legislative branch of government has been the most misunderstood institution. It seems that neither the people who occupy it, nor those who send their representatives to it, do fully comprehend the role of this House in democratic dispensation. A correct assessment of Parliament in its current standing, whether from public stand point or structural point of view, reveals that it is a House under usurpation by the Executive. The cabinet has made the Parliament look like a mere extension.

Now, some of the MPs came to Parliament without any history of formal employment - experience in private or public sector. This in itself is a great disservice to the Parliament and to Uganda as a whole because of content issues. Occasionally, we see the manifestation of raw university mannerism on the floor of Parliament. Here, people talk a lot but when in actual sense they have not said anything - Interglot!

Many factors contribute to the unattractive nature of our MPs. Key among these is the dress code. MPs are expected to wear suits with neck ties to look formal. What appear to be of utmost imperative in the formal sector are the cosmetics of being an MP, not the quality of contributions in the House.  In sub-Sahara Africa, reasonable people should not be confined in suits and ties especially during the peak hours of 10am and 5pm when the sun and temperatures are very high. The heat and discomfort experienced during these hours affects the comfort level, disorganizes the biological functions and compromises mental capabilities.

Another factor which makes our MPs unattractive is the culture of accountability to the public. Leave alone the bravado which comes with the title and status of being an MP. MPs are called “Honorable” because they are expected to dispense honor, to be accountable and to embody the virtue of nobility as operators of the state. Our leaders decompose when required to become accountable. This makes them even more unattractive!

To understand how accountability makes our MPs very unattractive, one just has to appear at a press conference in Parliament or attend committee hearings between the hours of 10am and 5pm. The way the MPs struggle to communicate, one would easily assume that something has gone fundamentally amiss with them. The vigor, creases, lack of affect or the twitching in the face; the lack of composure, the unintelligent way of answering serious policy question and lack of consciousness about the repercussions of their foot in the mouth gaffes, simply makes them look truly very unattractive.  

Never mind my friends asking me all the time why Ugandan politicians are so aggressive and quarrelsome in their communication despite their uncoordinated mannerism. I always respond that the in-congruence is the result of cultural mode of communication that is being transmitted in English. Another grueling experience is speaking the English language. If only Parliament could permit the use of local languages, we would salvage our MPs and reduce on their degree of being unattractive!!

It is interesting to note that our MPs appear the most unattractive during budget reading and end of year Presidential speech. Here, you bear witness to some of world recording breaking cacophony. Our leaders will be sleeping, snoring, snorting like pigs and salivating on each other like real imbeciles. For their sleep, they still fetch huge allowances and salaries.

However, the most unattractive thing about our politicians is when they act deviously and dubiously during voting on contentious national issues in Parliament. What these boil down to is really that the most intricate aspect of human life is all about perception. The formulation of the perception of a person’s net-worth in the mind of another, also dictates the context in which the other is viewed and esteemed.

However beautiful or handsome a person is, a constantly negative narrative that they imbue in the collective public psyche leads to a formulation of a congruent and negative perception. If the negative narrative persists as constant disappointment, a sense of disengagement develops in existing relations between the public and such group of people. In sociology, we talk about the transformative narrative of evolving from resourced individual (donor of deeds) to recipient and eventually to a disposable object. This is the climax when the public will begin to intrinsically resist and repulse.  So far, the constant narrative of our legislators is that of disappointment and that is what makes our politicians very unattractive!

END