Since the dawn of political thought the question “who should rule?” has been a recurrent issue of argument and debate. More recently in East Africa, the referendum held on 28th of July in Uganda rekindles this interest. In the referendum the Ugandan electorate were asked to choose whether the state adopts a multiparty political system or continues with the existing mono (movement) arrangement. The result, as expected by the government was an overwhelming yes. According to the Electoral Commission chairman Dr Badru Kiggundu, 92.5% balloted yes whilst only 7.5% objected to altering the system. Understandably, without more ado, the opposition camp fittingly cited that the outcome was partly due to the fact that a large number of the 8.5 million electors stayed away from the 17000 polling stations.

As far as referendums are concerned, it is fair to say that governments tend to utilize them only when they are confident that they are in a strong position to win them. For instance in Britain, Tony Blair indefinitely postponed a planed referendum on the EU constitution, fearing defeat after it was clear that the French and Dutch nationals had rejected it. Five years ago Museveni, unlike Blair, knew that he would win when he petitioned Ugandans with the first referendum. As expected voters at that time again “overwhelmingly” rejected multi-party politics in favour of continuing with the President’s "no-party" system, the electoral commission then reported that 91% of voters favoured retaining the National Resistance Movement as the country's political system.

The purposes of the referendum for movementism in 2000 were as much the same as the now concluded referendum on multipartism. Only the ranks have been changed and the referendum question reversed. Thus they were a mere quantitative and not qualitative exercise; their real intentions designed to systematically marketise the “Kisanja project” (Museveni’s third term campaign) in time for the March 2006 presidential elections. Although the National Resistance Movement-Organisation (NRM-O) government would have Ugandans believe that the referendums were a result of yielding democracy, the reality is that external factors played a far more significant role. Furthermore, neither referendum had anything to do with enhancing the democratic franchise, in spite of the fact that the methodology employed (referendum) and the apparatus used (ballot vote) replicated a commotion in a liberal democratic system.

Today only a few people in Uganda would admit to thinking that democracy is a bad thing. Nonetheless, the emergence of more than one recognised political grouping and the appearance of multi-party politics, as is the case now in Uganda, is not necessarily the same as democracy. There is thus a hazardous tendency to call a system ‘democratic’ simply because the incumbent government (in this case, NRM-O) says that it is.

A quick perusal of the history of democracy illustrates that it is a procedure that takes time. It also took time for a mature liberal democratic state such as England to realise democracy’s fruition. During the 17th century prior to the so called first democratic revolution, elite groups in England, regarded democracy as a threat to be overcome, and not a prospect to be encouraged. Indeed not so long ago in the 1940s the unrepentant imperialist Sir Winston Churchill when about to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire went on to confess that: “democracy was the least efficient form of government but that every other form was worse”.

In Uganda, as has been the case in almost all corners of Sub Sahara Africa, the process of democratisation has been unfairly pushed by international financial institutions (IMF, WB, WTO as well as the donor community) in order to fulfil their own agenda of “opening up Africa” to the global economy.

The result is best summed up by a key Nigerian political scientist Professor Claude Oke in 1993 when he said: “What is being fostered in Africa is a version of liberal democracy reduced to the crude simplicity of multiparty elections. This type of democracy in the least emancipatory especially in African conditions because it offers people rights they cannot exercise, voting that never amounts to choosing, freedom which is patently spurious, and political equality which disguises highly unequal power relations.” This is exactly what President Museveni is doing by reengineering the constitution to permit his third term candidacy and secondly by holding a meaningless referendum.

In order for democracy to be realised in Uganda, it must firstly be allowed to naturally evolve and secondly the law must be respected by all (including the President himself) as it is a key essential aspiration for democratic ideals. Decisions ought to be taken by the people. This means that:
- The mass of the people should have some say in what they are going to be, and not just told what they are as the July referendum did;
- This say should be genuinely theirs and also not manipulated by propaganda, misinformation and irrational fears; and that
- It should to some extent reflect their considered opinion and aspirations, as against ill informed and knee-jerk prejudice. Democracy being an evolutionary process, a democratic political culture ought to be encouraged and militarism discouraged.

In Uganda since political independence in 1962 one finds that domestic socio-economic and political problems have been responsible in attracting military elements into usurping national political power. Indeed in the country’s last coup de tat in January of 1986, the incumbent president was seen as a political saviour whose NRM machination delivered Ugandans from a corrupt, and inept Dr Milton Obote’s UPC (Uganda People’s Congress) government. Resultantly, militarism has and continues to play a significant role in Uganda’s post –independence political culture. For instance the defence budget was $44m in 1991. It went up to $88m in 1996 and rose again to $155m in 2003. It was estimated at between $193 to $203m last year alone. According to tangible sources the cost of defence amounted to around 23% of the public administration to 20-23% of total expenditure. This is money that should have been better spent elsewhere, eradicating poverty and providing education and other rural!
 developments.

Thus the process of democratisation in Uganda will continue being severely hindered unless the political culture of militarism is dismantled and the rule of law respected. NRM-O’s deliberate incapacitation of Article 105(2) of the 1995 Uganda constitution - that limits presidential terms to a maximum two five years, thus precluding Mr Museveni (who has been a continuous tenant of Nakasero State House since 1986) from contesting the March 2006 general elections - should serve as an indication of the President’s candidacy for the impending 2006 elections.

The Musevenisation of the Ugandan constitution should be condemned by all not only because it is undemocratic but also on the grounds that it is insincere. The long-term ramifications for Ugandans are that any future president might use this same clause to personalise constitutions to suit their individual needs- at the expense of the Ugandan mwanainchi (citizen). This is selfish and dangerous for it is the law that defines our responsibilities to the state and vice versa. Therefore it is also the law that provides for and defines the good of society. By contrast, the democratic justification of political power is essentially legalistic, being based on the legal idea of a contract.

Mr Museveni and his strategists have revised the terms of the contract (constitution) in the absence of the Uganda electorate, subsequently infringing the state/citizen contract. President Museveni’s has to a degree served Ugandans well but his quest for an extension is undemocratic and as such the preservation of the status quo sadly means that inhabitants of the “Pearl of Africa” may sadly never experience the pleasure of seeing an incumbent relinquishing political office voluntarily, thus rendering a coup inevitable.