HOMEGROWN DEMOCRACY
I read Dr. Moses Khisa’s article in the DM of April 17/21 entitled; “The Problem of Promoting Democracy” and extracted three interesting premises which I thought are worth a rebuttal.
The first premise was that the reductionist act of casting a vote and enthusiastically supporting one’s candidate while unaware of the socio-political context in which such an exercise was designed, simply aid in afflicting the mind of an overzealous nation with utter delusion. The second premise was that democracy cannot be an import. It must be grown from inside, organically, through protracted citizens’ activism and struggles. The third premise, and perhaps a classical observation was that a viable democracy depends on a viable state.
I found Dr. Khisa’s piece evocative. There are more versatile political scientists who could, perhaps, rebut this piece. On my part, I am compelled to respond to the three premises as follows.
Premise 1 – on derision and delusional anticipation of change through the reductionist act of casting one’s ballot as democracy, I do agree with the author. Indeed, democracy is not merely validated by an event of voting or running crazy after a sloganeering candidate of choice. This observation has been the convergence point for many of us who, for the longest time, dissuaded the legitimate section of Uganda’s opposition from validating sham elections disguised as “democracy” where the habitual candidate and incumbent organize it behind closed doors.
The opposition must not wait for the next elections to begin organizing and engaging the fascist regime in a meaningful dialogue. We have learned that most last-minute deals have degenerated into transactional politics – the dominant means of survival among the “Abazukulu” politicians.
With the many draconian laws that curtail human liberties and freedoms to organize, the Ugandan version of democracy has become an illiberal ritual of validation. Indeed, participating in this kind of democracy makes prominent politicians compete with invalid votes because the incumbent already holds the leash to the “valid” outcome.
Premise 2 – On growing democracy organically from within, I disagree with the author. In the era of neoliberalism, foreign interests such as multinational corporations have amassed for themselves so much power, influence, and privileged situatedness with sacrosanct legal rights. In an authoritarian environment like Uganda, multinational and transnational corporations have enough dirty money to write the course of “democracy”, to shape public policies without input from the people.
In the Ugandan scene, I hear a cacophony that the small Indian businesspeople pay more taxes than all Ugandans combined. In another, that MTN - a multi-national corporation is a top taxpayer in the country. Ironically, a 2019 Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) study found that domestic investors in Uganda pay more taxes than multinationals.
The cumulative impact of this propaganda is to undermine citizens’ capacities to nurture democracy through legitimate civil activism and holding the authorities accountable. The space for exercising civil rights is already violently curtailed because the state, itself under captivity from the armed junta, considers citizens as unworthy elements in shaping the nation’s destiny. The state survives on taxes. If the taxpayers are foreign investors or multinational or transnational corporations, that shifts the allegiance of the state to the ones who pay taxes. Neoliberalism itself is anti-statist for its exploitative agenda. It, however, expects a strong state intervention when the marginalized masses threaten its exploitative nature.
Further, democracy as an idea, ideal, or practice is inherently alien to and highly contested in the continent. The nations that might grow their in-house democracy, are nations that chose democracy as a compromise over annihilation from anti-imperialist wars. Democracy is not “native” to any of them.
End.
No comments:
Post a Comment