In the final part of our series on presidential term limits in Africa Richard M Kavuma talks to Makerere University law professor JOE OLOKA-ONYANGO.
A renowned scholar and political commentator, Prof Oloka-Onyango places term limits in the context of Africa's struggle for democratically-accountable a leadership a struggle he predicts the people of Africa will eventually win.
After decades of autocratic leadership in post-independence Africa, term limits became an almost essential component in African constitutions in the 1990s. But we are seeing more African leaders moving to abolish term limits. Why this reversal?
The phases you have mentioned represent different stages of political struggle. In the early independence period, term limits were not a big issue because it was believed that the kinds of mechanisms you had in place were sufficient to produce political transition and peaceful succession.
But obviously it became very clear in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when you began to have life-presidencies and leaders either manipulating elections or simply staying in power by the force of arms, that those mechanisms were insufficient.
And out of that experience, you got a reaction where political actors were staying in power for extended periods of time and there seemed to be no end except through the [use] of violence. You [then] got this next phase of constitution- making [starting in the late 1980s], with the question of how many terms a president should serve becoming prominent. So, the question of term limits came with what I would call the second generation of Constitutions. Uganda was among the first countries to engage in this exercise.
There is also a degree to which term limits were pushed by external donors. But more than anything else, term limits came from the African context – on the back of single-party dictatorship or quasi life presidency and the need to put a stop to that.
Seeing how quickly they are being abolished, would you say that presidential term limits are incompatible with Africa today?
What it says really is that the revolutions of the second generation of Constitutions were incomplete. Constitutional rule is a struggle. People think that the struggle ends when you have got the document; actually the struggle begins when you have the [new constitution].
And what's the struggle? The struggle is over the values that you have in the constitution; because it is not only term limits; it is about the question of checks and balances; independence of the judiciary; protection and promotion of human rights, the position of vulnerable minorities, etc.
All these things are struggled over. And whether you get victory or defeat depends on a number of factors, socio- economic, historical and political. There is one thing in common about the countries where term limits are being removed: either you have very weak political parties, or you have
very weak civil society. In Nigeria, the attempt was made and it failed because Nigeria has a very strong civil society.
In countries like Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, unfortunately, the state machinery has been manipulated in such a way that these contending forces do not have the power to prevent those kinds of changes.
So, it's not only on term limits that we are losing. We are losing on so many other things – independence of the judiciary, which has diminished, and the power of parliament versus the power of the presidency, which has increased over time.
Another factor here is the donors. The donors have played what I would call an opportunistic game on this question. In some cases they come out to say it is not a good idea to change term limits. In other cases, they have said it is up to the people of the country to make up their minds. Which means in some respect they have been in cahoots with the dictatorships, which is nothing new because we know that these external actors were in cahoots with the Mobutus and other dictators around the continent.
Any examples of this flip-flopping?
There is the example of Uganda. When the term limits debate began, [US] Ambassador Johnnie Carson said this was a matter for Uganda to resolve. But concerning other countries he has said something else.
So, I don't think it is an African thing. I think it is a question of a struggle around democracy at a particular phase in time; but there are many different actors involved, both domestic as well as external.
That is the context: but why don't leaders want to leave power when it's time to go?
Number one is insecurity. Many of these leaders have questions they may be required to answer for after they leave power. There is no doubt that Kagame has transformed Rwanda; there is no doubt that President Museveni has transformed Uganda. But I think there is a big fear that without the protection of the office, they are going to face the Chiluba phenomenon.
When [Zambian President Fredrick] Chiluba left office, they brought corruption charges against him. That is both embarrassing and disempowering for people who have held the position of president: nobody has ever questioned your exercise of power; you have done things without thinking twice; and now you are being called to account.
Number two, now you have also got the ICC. In the case of Uganda, supposing Kizza Besigye came to power, he might be magnanimous in victory; alternatively, he may wish to bring President Museveni to account. But there are also international questions, for example in the case of Rwanda and Uganda and the DRC. In the International Court of Justice, both Rwanda and Uganda were found guilty of several transgressions of international law. The ICC could bring charges against them.
Number three is the question about megalomania: the trappings of power. The Museveni of today is not the Museveni of 1986. The Kagame of today is not the Kagame of 1994. Now, we all change, we all mature, we all become wiser. Nobody stays the same over a period of two decades.
But there are certain fundamentals which should not change, which are fundamentals of principle. Everybody knows that the major African problem is people who stay in power and do not want to leave, and President Museveni himself pin-pointed this disease in the early-1980s. That has not changed, especially now that Museveni is himself in power.
What has changed is that once you have gotten into power and there are insufficient checks and balances to hold the extent or the reach of your power, you become comfortable in it. And being comfortable in it, you become more and more reluctant to give it up when you are supposed to.
If you look at the Ugandan situation, what implications does the removal of term limits have?
In every other sphere – whether it is business, whether it is journalism, or even in academia, you need to have a transition. You can't stop change. All you can do is manage change. The rejection of term limits is what I can describe as a futile attempt to stop change.
It means that you get corruption, demagoguery, a situation where the institutions begin to decay. Just look at Uganda today: our institutions are decaying. Tell me one institution that is working well. Maybe URA. But even URA, does it collect all it is supposed to collect? And if not, why not?
The longer a regime remains in place, the more you get rot. Even if it is a transition from Museveni to Muhoozi, Muhoozi has different friends from Museveni. They have different ideas; they are of a different age; they have different experiences. Muhoozi will bring some change that will cause things to change in a different way.
Proponents of unlimited terms talk about the advantages of longevity: why change a winning team? Or the fact that Germany and UK have no term limits...
First of all, the historical circumstances are very different. Neither Germany nor the UK ever had term limits in their constitutions. But in Uganda, we began from a situation where we had no term limits in the 1962 and 1967 constitutions. We adopted term limits because of our experience. And yet we abandoned term limits before we had even tested them.
So, it is a question of principle. We need to ask ourselves: why did we adopt term limits in 1995, with unanimous approval? We did so because the Westminster systems failed to work. Yes, they worked for the Germans and the British, but they didn't work for us. We said: 'let's try term limits'. Now, we didn't give term limits a chance to work and then we abandoned them.
Number two, when you talk about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and so on, in all those countries you have vigorous systems of checks and balances, where the executives – the prime minister or the chancellor – are controlled by the party. And you can see that in the party there is serious competition and change happens there – simply look at what happened to Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and so on.
But in the NRM, what kind of change can take place, when for thirty years there has never been a competitive election for the chairman of the party? Change can't take place where you even say we must have a sole candidate; nobody can stand against our candidate. Surely, you stop seeing any possibility of democratic transition.
So, do you see more African countries abandoning term limits and returning to autocratic days?
Complete autocracy is a little bit more difficult in the African context of today, even in countries where term limits are being ditched. Take the case of Uganda which is a hybrid regime – it has some of the trappings of democracy and undercurrents of autocracy and militarism: the newspapers are relatively free, political debate goes on; but at the same time you have a fascist police force, a very militaristic approach to opposition politics... There is a tension between the two and I believe that that struggle or tension can only be resolved in terms of increased democracy.
In the cycle of history we have highs and lows. There are those lows of autocratic dictatorship, but you will have the peaks of democracy. People always struggle for increased freedoms and the leaders have to respond to that. I don't know in the case of Uganda, whether we will have another leader who serves for 30 years.
What could possibly prevent – hypothetically speaking – a President Muhoozi from emulating his father? Just a generation shift?
No! I think civil war. There is a lot of contest. Uganda may appear calm on the surface, but there are very many tensions, even within the ruling party. Even the single candidacy was fiercely contested. What did that contest produce? It produced Amama Mbabazi, and there are many others with ambitions like him in the NRM; the queue is a long one.
This shows that there is something wrong with the character of the state and of the politics that we have in operation at present. So, I believe that for somebody like a Muhoozi – there are two ways he can come to power: through the democratic path, which means he must rely on the forces that exist here.
Or he can come to power via the militaristic path. If he uses the other path, he is doomed. That means Uganda would go back to a situation of civil conflict. So, yes, you can get a Muhoozi presidency but I doubt it can last 30 years.
Your last word on term limits in Africa?
If you try to retain power by force, force will eventually force you out of power. I think it is only a question of time; we are going to come back to the drawing board and ask ourselves: what do we need to do to make sure we are spared this vice of autocratic leadership? I think it's only a question of time.
rimkav@observer.ug
Source