The Election Management Committee (EMC) of the National Unity Platform (NUP) recently made public the results of its candidate selection exercise.
Highlight of the exercise: Mr Medard Sseggona was denied the NUP flag for Busiro East. However, there is also the curious case of Zahara Luyirika.
Ms Luyirika applied to be the NUP candidate for Kampala City Woman MP. But the EMC returned her as the aspiring candidate for Makindye West. Even the CIA and Mossad can’t decode the committee’s wisdom.
The joke now is: What if Byabakama were to declare Mr Robert Kyagulanyi as the winner of a race he never sought to participate in? In a quintessential ‘Zahara Luyirika Effect’, what if the Byabakama-led Electoral Commission declared Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu as the (winner of) president of Kenya?
From the beginning, NUP lacked moderation of agency. I gave up on NUP as a political group to lead the national drive for change when a senior official said Dr Kizza Besigye’s kidnap in Nairobi, Kenya, was drama.
What we see now is a party limiting its outlook to holding electoral positions (and thereby making the tag of a struggle rather incompatible with the party). What we see now is a party beholden to an individual whose interests and vision are limiting in ideological outlook and purposefulness.
But how did we reach here? I blame Mr Museveni.
People are asking: why and how can NUP choose Mr Mathias Walukaga over Mr Sseggona? My answer: it is the same reason NUP chose Kyagulanyi or his brother Fred Nyanzi Ssentamu over other ‘supposedly’ more qualified aspirants. Some people are saying this rupture could be the beginning of the fall of NUP. A friend was asked to give reason as to why he thinks NUP will fall.
Dear reader, we don’t need a reason (the why or how) to express fear that this may lead to the downfall of NUP. What we need is a look back at the history of political parties in post-independence Uganda. Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) never recovered from the (1964?) Gulu National Conference, where Grace Stuart Ibingira was pitted against Party Secretary General John Kakonge. Plus: the FDC seems to have never recovered from the Patrick Amuriat victory over Mugisha Muntu.
With these two examples, it is evident that internal party cohesion is the outcome of the moderation of agency. Failure to accommodate diversity in opinion may engender disruptive tendencies in all socio-political identity groups. But on a serious note, we are in what most Ugandans see as a major transition (likened to the 1954-1962 period), but these NUP people are involved in petty issues (driven by personal egos).
During any transition, you are better off with serious bargainers at the table than just numbers. Case study is 1979-80: whereas Mr Museveni’s was in the least a minority view, the outlook of his leadership balanced him in. That’s why the actions of most UNLF members, in one way or another, always sought to accommodate him and his views.
But why should we blame Mr Museveni for mishaps in NUP? Because under his wise leadership, political leadership has become the only profit-making industry. That’s why it is now a matter of life and death. As a result, we have reduced the seriousness of national politics.
This reduction was captured well in an audio-visual clip in which Mr Walukaga said the Shs200 million for his parliamentary vehicle allowance will be shared among the sub-counties of Busiro County East. Maybe it is this promise that won him the NUP flag? Mr Sseggona, do you copy?