Political radicalisation: A huge stain in Uganda’s multiparty democratic jewel

______________

OPINION

By Dr Lawrence Sserwambala

Uganda’s return to multiparty democracy in 2005 was embraced by many political actors and democracy seekers not only within the country, but also in the international community.

This was seen in light of the fact that the transition from the movement system to multipartyism was one of the moves that put Uganda on the path to full democratisation.

However, despite the merits of the transition, this process was not well managed. It was such a hurried one to the extent that a sizeable number of people involved in the referendum vote on the return of political parties did not possibly understand what multipartyism entails.

The movement system, which some scholars described as a ‘one-party state’, was characterised by a ban on political parties and promotion of individual merit.

The transition required a deliberate process that would help Ugandans be re-oriented on the practice of political parties given that for a long time, these were in suspension with arguments such as one advanced by President Yoweri Museveni that Uganda’s tumultuous past political problems were caused by divisive sectarian politics advanced by political parties.

It is, therefore, deductible that Uganda had not actually tasted multipartyism for 24 years save for a brief spell under which the 1980 elections were held after the fall of Idi Amin.

All through this period of suspension, political parties, apart from being casually talked about, they were unable to mobilise, campaign, recruit and reach out to their potential followers.

All Ugandans, by presumption belonged to the movement system. The opening of the space in 2005 would later fall onto Uganda with a thud that the political elites at the time were apparently not prepared for.

Instead, the excitement of being allowed to openly belong and practice took centre stage skirted by the desire to survive in the new environment.

This new reality and need for survival in a new political set up would gradually give birth to an ugly baby that has since grown to not only threaten its nurturers, but also Uganda’s democracy.

Radicalisation and/or political extremism that had been contained under the movement system was now given an opportunity to come to the fore expressed both in non-violent pressure and coercion and in actions that deviate from the norm and show disregard for life, freedom and human rights.

The unfortunate bit is that unlike elsewhere, the trend of radicalisation in Uganda started from the leadership of the political groupings, a reversal process of radicalisation elsewhere.

Leaders, fully aware of the dangers that come with such a trend, remain gatekeepers to containing such behaviour in any democracy, developed, growing or nascent.

Today, the seeds of political radicalisation, characterised by a complete disregard to the opinions of others, the unwillingness to co-exist and the entrenchment of a mentality of ‘you are either with us or you are our enemy’ have taken root and describe our politics.

The advent of social media has exacerbated radicalisation. The use of these platforms to spread messages and narratives that incite violence and hatred should be cause for alarm.

To the shock of many, even leaders are not exempt as they too have at times out rightly attacked and character assassinated whoever does not subscribe to their thinking labelling them all sorts of names, a behaviour that is copied and taken to unprecedented levels by their followers.

Even when they keep quiet, the followers have tended to run past their leaders and act unabated, a huge stain in our democracy.

The leadership of IPOD holds strong and is deeply concerned about this trend. The IPOD Summit of March 2021 extensively discussed radicalisation alongside polarisation as imminent threats to Uganda’s democracy. Radicalisation cannot be entirely blamed on a single push factor, it is multifaceted.

Firstly, Ugandans, especially the younger ones, have had little or no orientation to understand the operations of political parties. Who would orient them anyway when a majority of their leaders were never oriented given that these became politically active when political parties were banned?

Our leaders, especially those who managed the transition from the movement system to multipartyism should have had this foresight of putting in place a transition period during which Ugandans would be taken through what it meant to embrace political parties as opposed to the manner in which it was done, throwing people in the deep ends of multipartyism to swim against the tide.

Secondly, political parties have not done enough to prevail over members showing signs of radicalisation or extremism. They have not acted against these tendencies, probably because it benefits them in dealing with their adversaries.

There is urgent need for parties to embrace and make effort to train their followers that political belonging is an individual choice based on values, beliefs, ideology and vision, among others, and not excitement, which is short lived.

Political belonging as a result of excitement explains the inability to engage others at a level of mutual respect and co-existence. However, some leaders are not willing to go this route because they firstly lack a coherent ideology, but it also comes at a cost, which many are not willing to pay including loss of a support base.

All right-thinking Ugandans, regardless of your political affiliation should seriously think about where this country is headed in the face of this radicalisation and look out for manifestations of radicalisation such as populist leaders that want to thrive in environments of discontent, and identity politics among others.

The fluidity of politics makes it hard to fully ascertain command of the support base, radicalised or not.

A political grouping today may enjoy the support of people that viciously attack, abuse, or character assassinate anyone that says, does or believes in something contrary to what they believe in.

However, they need to know that the same party may not be in position to determine if they will command the same base and whether if they lost it, they are insulated from the attacks that they encourage either by commission or omission.

The leadership of IPOD has more often than not emphasised the need to strengthen the capacities of political parties to guide and direct their followers by, among others, strengthening internal party discipline and conducting trainings on leadership including political culture and system.

Once discipline becomes a luxury in a political organisation, it is a matter of time that society will be rid of value-based leadership and in the essence of time, both the leaders and the followers will eat up each other owing to impaired reasoning.

Processes such as counter radicalisation that address this worrying trend should be supported. This may involve social, political, legal and educational prevention programmes designed to discourage disgruntled and perhaps already radicalised young people from becoming terrorists.

Moderate political actors are what this country needs. We all need to put our efforts together to change the cognitive framework of individuals that are already radicalised with a view to discouraging them from getting involved in violence and re-integrating them into a society of moderates.

It is not only moral, but also strategically imperative for leaders to take lead in deflecting, especially the young people away from radicalisation/extremism to embrace moderate positions to political differences.

If this fails, it is then a matter of time that the political trajectory of Uganda will be characterised by huge levels of hatred and utter disregard of differences. We must work together to prevail over any efforts like radicalisation that seek to bastardise our multiparty democracy.

The writer is the Executive Director of IPOD