Give President Kabila a credit for delaying the Kampala peace deal

DRC AUTONOMY

The reading of an article by Mr. Obed Katureebe in the Sunday Monitor of Nov 17, 2013 entitled: “Kabila should sign Congo peace deal to give Congolese best Christmas gift”, smacked of typical arrogant attitude towards DRC. Mr. Katureebe claimed that by not signing the poorly worded, and perhaps an accord written with sinister intentions, President Kabila had goofed! Never mind that President Museveni had described Kabila as interested in advancing Eurocentric agenda in this conflict. 

While Katureebe pointed out correctly that DRC has many internal political problems that transcends the defeat of the M23, he fails to recognize the invalidity associated with this peace deal. I think Kabila and his government deserve credit for not rushing to sign a suspicious document which gives unnecessary concession to banditry.

The circumstances are so contrite in that the mighty M23 have been scattered, disbanded, dissolved and for now, its remnants are taking refuge in Uganda. Uganda confirms that the M23 combatants, numbering to about 1500 men and women are under the UPDF custody. The Uganda government also refuses to hand them over to DRC authority. Uganda is also protecting elements within M23 that Kinshasa accuses of crimes against humanity.

This Congo debacle is an interesting one. But the question to ask is, if indeed Uganda has no vested interest in the M23, M18 or any of the numerous proliferating rogue insurgents in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), why doesn’t Uganda let Congo solve its own internal political problems?

Understandably, Uganda’s role in this conflict is not free of bias. First, it appears as if it is Uganda that is setting terms for the peace deals. In conducting itself this way, not only does Uganda play the guardian role for the M23, but also as a spokesperson. This is not unusual considering the militaristic traditions in Uganda. However, credit ought to be given where it is due. This article apportions credit to the Kabila administration for delaying to sign the so-called peace deal with a group that no longer threatens peace in DRC.

The world woke up on November 5^th, 2013 to the news that the M23 had been subdued by combined UN and Congolese forces. Subsequently, the M23 announced that they would disband immediately. By declaring an end to armed opposition to the Kinshasa government, the M23 surrendered. This means they are not party to any Treaty/ Accord, Armistice or Truce. They should sign a Declaration of permanent dissolution.

In fact, the M23 elements in its entirety should have become refugees in Uganda deserving amnesty from Kabila’s government. Therefore, the 1500 rebels under UPDF custody should have been assigned to UNCHR or confined and compelled to apply for asylum in Uganda. None of these happened. This, perhaps, is the genesis of the misgivings that DR Congo accorded the entire “peace” plan!

Unmistakably, the defeat of the M23 implies an end to armed opposition from one group and should signal a beginning of a protracted search for political solutions to the contestations in DRC. In this circumstance, neither Uganda, nor the international community should have placed expectations on DRC to sign a peace accord. Kabila’s government has to rethink its internal political issues in concert with its opposition groups. 

This sober recollection is entirely internal and could be mediated anywhere, if required. Investment in a peace deal would mean diverting the needed attention for a comprehensive political redress to problems that create instability. The interference by Uganda and its rather belligerent behaviour therefore fall short of impartiality and good neighborliness on all these fronts. 

Uganda has a genuine security interest in the Congo, especially with the Allied Democratic Front hiding in the Congo jungles. Precisely, the absence of government in the Ituri, Oriental and the vast expanse of the Congo border with Uganda, doesn't help us, either. However, a bipartite agreement between Uganda and DRC for joint military and security activities would be secured.

This article would be incomplete without mentioning the fact that Uganda’s interest in Congo appears to be stretching beyond the ADF. Many commentators have alluded to the grand plan of creating a Tutsi dominion in the Great Lakes region, spanning Uganda, Rwanda and Eastern Congo; that, the M23 is intended to fragment Congo into several small governable states with Eastern Congo curving out for a Tutsi dominated state.

However, what is also true is that Rwanda may have an authentic security interest in the area given its history of genocide. But the sheer disrespect for Dr Congo’s territorial integrity and attempts to forcefully usurp the will of its people are highly condemnable.

The likes of Mr. Katureebe should know that Congo is not an annex of Uganda and that the Congolese political dynamic is shaped uniquely, Congo having emerged from years of docility under Mobutu. The Congolese people may appear docile, illiterate, marginalized, impoverished, and disenfranchised by their own government. However, DRC, like any other independent nation, deserves to be respected as an autonomous entity capable of self governance.

END! 

FDC defections are driven by self entitlement

POLITICAL DEFECTIONS

It’s almost three weeks since former FDC strongman, Maj Rubaramira Ruranga returned to the NRM folds. Many commentators remarked spitefully to his defection. Some of the comments and media reaction even emasculated the defection out of proportion.

Maj Rubaramira is a seventy years old man whose political clout has long diminished. His return to NRM was non-political, going by his explanation and should be treated as a mere "homecoming". For many of us, his return to NRM also signified his exit from active politics into focusing on HIV/AIDS struggle. I must hasten to state that the record of Maj Rubaramira as some wishy-washy old man who is swayed by a scintilla of opportunity was prominent.

FDC officials claimed that the departure of Rubaramira would not hurt their prospects or alter their political desires. I agree. However, the gutter media reactions to Maj Rubaramira’s “defection” were mostly uncalled for. Others have reiterated that the Major is a spent political force, and since he was not holding any elective position within FDC, his departure had zero sum effect.

Discussing the "defection" of Maj Rubaramira as an individual in this era of political opportunism will only conceal the overarching patterns of political defections generally. I think as members of the public, we have to discuss the totality of defections, whether that is injurious to our reputation as leaders or not.

This article examines defections patterns in Maj Rubaramira’s former Party - FDC. The confusions currently prevailing in FDC can be traced to the divisive politics during its recent past elections. Major Rubaramira’s politics emphasized a sense of absolute entitlement, rather than promoting social justice, equity and the will of the voters. We now know that such politics also undermines speedy reconciliation after electioneering stress.

To understand defections within FDC quarters, it is important to understand FDC’s history and the nature of its dominant membership. FDC is a merger between Reform Agenda and Parliamentary Advocacy Forum (PAFO).

Most of the drivers of this organization were former NRM ideologues and henchmen in various capacities. Their political ideals were interlaced with militarism and "liberation" attitudes as the mainstay of their ideologies. Ethnically, being from western Uganda and membership in the former NRA were intractable advantages for one to enjoy power and privileges in this Party. Irrespective of its growing national character, the FDC has evolved from the motherboard of original NRM ideology. As conservatives, they aspire to retain these original ideals.

The central argument that most current players in FDC fronted for leaving the mother Party was that it had swayed off its initial ideological stream. Whatever that translates for FDC members like Leader of Opposition, Nandala Mafabi with no roots in the original NRM Party has become increasingly clear. 

Nonetheless, the Party was able to attract to its senior ranks, those who would not have otherwise joined the original NRM with Museveni at the helm. Perhaps, talking to the likes of Hon Cecilia Ogwal, Hon Reagan Okumu, etc who valiantly opposed the original NRM could evince new insights. It may reveal that they had real problems with the unreliable person in President Museveni than the original NRM, or its current hybrid NRMO Party.

To conceptualize defections happening now in FDC and to those, yet at the brink, we have to look beyond the financial and power clouts that these defections may imply on the surface. In my analysis, it is more to do with the sense of absolute entitlement to power that drive these defections - not mere lack of Party structure - as Maj Rubaramira wants us to believe.

Obviously, those who defect from NRM to FDC endure a simple change of political positioning without a change in ideology. For them, FDC is like a ground to reinvent their political relevance once they realize major erosion in their political appeal. FDC provides them with that instant platform to reinvent; to become visible and relevant, politically.

We know that most FDC King-pins are authors of ensuing bad governance of the regime that they now criticize. In the 80s and 90s, they primed up the regime, legitimized it and participated actively in developing draconian laws to stifle dissent. The original NRM was very militaristic and intolerant of opposition. We still remember running battles in the 90s when the military police would indiscriminately fire live bullets at demonstrating students. Scores of students were murdered in cold blood during demonstrations. These tendencies are still visible today with the hybrid NRMO which has diversified its instruments of coercion to include poison, colored water sprinklers, tear gas and of course, live bullets.

Therefore, Maj Rubaramira, like others, will come and return to NRM folds since they are all driven by this sense of absolute entitlement to power rather than principles. For them, NRMO and FDC are like two houses built on the same compound by the same architect. The differences lie in their spatial locations and composition of their occupant at a given time. With that proximity, I foresee more defections and that should be treated as normal. After-all, we all turn in our sleeps!!

END