THE UGANDA NATIONAL DIALOGUE FRAMEWORK

Transcription

1 THE UGANDA NATIONAL DIALOGUE FRAMEWORK BUILDING A STRONG VALUE SYSTEM: CONSOLIDATING PEACE, DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SHARED PROSPERITY Prepared by: Uganda National Dialogue Process Secretariat Inter-Religious Council of Uganda Plot 245 Sentema Road, Mengo P. O. Box 7502 Kampala Tel :

2 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA THE UGANDA NATIONAL DIALOGUE PROCESS FRAMEWORK PAPER THEME CONSOLIDATING PEACE, DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT TO PROMOTE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACHIEVE SHARED PROSPERITY Prepared by: Uganda National Dialogue Process Secretariat Inter-Religious Council of Uganda Plot 245 Sentema Road, Mengo P. O. Box 7502 Kampala Tel:

3 1. Introduction The goal of the Uganda National Dialogue Process is to agree on a new national consensus to consolidate peace, democracy and inclusive development to achieve equal opportunity for all. The aim of the Process is to create a platform for Ugandans, in all our diversity, to agree on a shared transformative and development agenda that accelerates the consolidation of peace and justice, sustainable development and shared prosperity. Peace, democracy and development acquire their true meaning when they create conditions for equal opportunity and shared prosperity. Achieving shared prosperity means that every Ugandan has equal opportunity to succeed and that our dreams are not limited by today s failures but by the possibilities of the future. The Uganda National Dialogue Process is therefore designed as a citizen owned and citizen led all-inclusive process that seeks to build on the gains and progress made since Independence in order to strengthen our foundations for equal opportunity and shared prosperity for all Ugandans. Uganda s tumultuous period following the attainment of independence is well documented. However, the progress attained over the last more than half a century of independence is worth celebrating. The progress made to date constitutes a source of optimism about what we can achieve as a country if we pull together, work together and strengthen our sense of nationalism and patriotism towards our country. Ugandans have articulated a vision of a Uganda that moves steadily towards the attainment of upper middle-income status by Amidst many challenges, President Museveni s unassailable record in shepherding the country over the last 30 years is a great asset that constitutes an essential building block upon which sustainable peace and shared prosperity can be anchored. The Uganda National Dialogue process provides a tremendous opportunity to protect and build on the positive aspects of our post-independence legacy. Most importantly, it is an important vehicle to mobilize Ugandans in all their diversity to move in unison in the continuing journey towards sustainable peace, consolidation of democracy and creating the necessary conditions for shared economic prosperity. 2 1

4 The process and methodology of the preparing the framework paper This Uganda National Dialogue Process Framework Paper sets out the rationale and modalities for convening the Uganda National Dialogue Process. The paper was developed through collaborative work and contributions from a variety of organizations and individual expert resource persons. The Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) and The Elders Forum of Uganda (TEFU) developed the initial elements of this process paper. The Committee of Six convened by the Office of the Prime Minister undertook additional work on the paper. Besides IRCU and TEFU, the Committee of Six includes: National Consultative Forum (NCF), Women Situation Room (WSR), and Inter-Party Organization for Dialogue (IPOD) and Citizens Coalition on Electoral Democracy (CCEDU). The process of preparing the paper was also complemented with regular consultations and reviews by a group of 16 Convening Organizations meeting under the auspices of IRCU and TEFU. 1 The Committee of Six and the 16 Convening Organizations approved the first official draft of the Uganda National Dialogue Process Framework Paper in July By approval of the first draft of the process paper, the Convening Organizations approved an informal consultation process commencing in July 2017 up to the time of the formal convening of the Uganda National Dialogue, which is projected to take place around February Building on the National Dialogue preparatory process, the informal consultations were pursued with three specific objectives: i) To collect the views and perspectives Ugandans on how to address the fundamental political, economic and social challenges facing the country. 1 Inter-Religious Council of Uganda I The Elders Forum of Uganda I National Consultative Forum I Uganda National NGO Forum I Human Rights and Peace Centre I National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda I Women Democracy Network I Uganda Youth Network I Uganda Manufacturers Association I Uganda Women Entrepreneurs Association Limited I Kampala City

5 Traders Association I Uganda Law Society I Private Sector Foundation I National Organization of Trade Unions I Forum of Cultural and Traditional Leaders I Citizens Coalition on Electoral Democracy. 3 2 ii) iii) To provide an opportunity for the target stakeholder interest groups to provide input in the content and the design of the Uganda National Dialogue Process. To disseminate information and build citizens demand and ownership of the process. By November 2017, informal consultations had been organized with a variety of stakeholder interest groups. However, the progress of the informal consultations was significantly affected and slowed down by the introduction of two contentious bills in parliament. In July 2017, Government introduced a bill in Parliament seeking to amendment Article 26 of the Constitution. Article 26 is part of the Bill of Rights enshrined in Chapter of the Constitution and protects citizens from unlawful deprivation of property. Among other things, the Bill seeks to introduce new rules regarding compulsory land acquisition, which water down the guarantees and protections currently enshrined in article 26. In September 2017, Igara East Member of Parliament Raphael Magezi (NRM) presented a bill seeking to amend the provisions of Article 102(b) of the Constitution. The current provisions prohibit any person who has attained the age of 75 from contesting for president. Although strongly denied by the ruling party, the bill is widely seen as designed to directly benefit incumbent President Museveni who by virtue of his age will be ineligible to contest under the current constitutional safeguards. On the day of the presentation of the Bill on September 26, a fistfight broke out in Parliament, several MPs opposed to the Bill were forcefully evicted from Parliament by plain clothes security personnel, several MPs sustained mild to severe injuries, and the Parliament was reconvened with only NRM MPs to pass the Bill. Attempts by MPs to consult their constituencies were confronted by hostility and disruption of citizen assemblies by police. 3

6 These events created an unstable and hostile environment that made the continued convening of the informal consultations nearly impossible for most of October-November This is the second draft of the Uganda National Dialogue Process Framework Paper, which incorporates the comments of citizens from the first round of the informal consultations. The detailed discussions and contributions from the informal consultations process are produced as separate reports for reference. 2. Background The Uganda National Dialogue process provides all Ugandan citizens an opportunity to adaptively address root causes of conflict, instability and injustices that are still dominant in the Ugandan polity today. For example, since independence in 1962, Uganda has had many false starts but also made many steps forward. Over the last half a century of independence, Uganda has attained relative levels of security and stability, the pillars of democracy have been built, and the foundations for sustainable peace and shared prosperity are in place. Under the leadership of President Museveni, Uganda has established itself as a leader in regional, continental and global politics, economics and international security. However, recent elections have to a great extent demonstrated that there are differences emerging within the Ugandan polity that may undermine the process of consolidating the security and economic gains that have been made to date. Many of these differences are largely based on the perceptions and different realities of the many different stakeholders that constitute the Ugandan society. Indeed, internal and external factors can threaten national security, peace, and democracy that have been achieved and undermine over half a century of protracted work and struggles by different Ugandan generations. The National Dialogue Process will provide an enduring nation building platform that keeps together different blocks diversities that make Uganda a nation that it aspires to be. This platform shall also provide a unique space for inclusive voices focused not on

7 positions but rather on principles that serve common good and interests of WE THE PEOPLE Building on a history of struggles: From Negotiations to Dialogue A variety of different forms of engagement and consensus building processes to address persistent national challenges can be traced throughout Uganda s history. Most of these processes were triggered by extraordinary situations including the struggle for independence (the Lancaster Conference), conventional war (Moshi Conference), military coups (Nairobi Peace Process), armed rebellions (Northern Uganda peace process) or most recently contested elections. No matter the imperfections of these processes, they enabled our country to overcome numerous challenges and continue on the painful path towards security and stability. Fortunately, the Uganda National Dialogue Process is taking place at a time when the country is enjoying relative security and stability. Ugandans may recall with trepidation the economic collapse triggered by over 8 years of brutal dictatorship under Idi Amin during the 1970s, a devastating 5-year rebellion by the National Resistance Army ( ) triggered by a contested electoral outcome in 1980, and over two decades of insurgency mainly by the Lord s Resistance Army in Eastern and Northern Uganda. Today, more than ever before, the basic conditions for development and transformation have been established. Ugandans, both at home and in the Diaspora are more educated, institutions of social, political and economic governance are in place, and new opportunities for trade and business have been opened across our borders. The responsibility we hold today, therefore, is not to agonize about the past but to draw lessons from our history so that we can shape and build a future that we want for ourselves, our children and the future generations. In 5

8 confronting the challenges before us, we have the opportunity of drawing from a rich history of negotiations and dialogue that characterize Uganda s post-independence history. With the exception of the constitution making process, most of the previous national processes were often triggered crises. Today, the unique opportunity that is presented before us is that we have a better foundation upon which to build from. But there can be no doubt that if we don t seize the opportunity, we can degenerate into a 6 deeper crisis like has happened before. Doing nothing to address the challenges at hand is not an option. Failure to take action is to betray our country and the generations to come. Through this dialogue process, we seek to face our past not to apportion blame or explain our failures but rather, to draw lessons that enable us build a future defined by peace, equal opportunity and shared prosperity. To avoid the shortfalls of our past engagements, it is important to reflect on the different aspects of our previous negotiation process, draw lessons, avoid obvious mistakes and derive inspirations Dialogue process leading to independence Most of the pre-independence struggles that helped create pressure for independence culminated into the now famous Uganda Constitutional Conference on the Constitution for an Independent Uganda, which took place at Lancaster House in London in The conference was attended by delegations representing the Government of Uganda, Uganda s political parties, the government of the United Kingdom, representatives of Buganda Kingdom, representatives of the 13 district councils 2 and the 2 urban centres of Kampala and Jinja. The most important outcome of the Conference was that the parties agreed that Uganda would attain full independence on October 9, However, a series of events, including: the attack of the Kabaka s Palace in 1966, the overthrow of the 1962 constitution and its replacement with the pigeon hole constitution of 1967, the consistent attacks and undermining of opposition political parties, and the unilateral declaration of Uganda into a republic and the abolition of the kingdom

9 governments ultimately led to the collapse of the Lancaster Conference and the overthrow of Government by Idi Amin in Lancaster was largely an elite consensus negotiated between the British colonial authorities, the Ugandan pro-independence leaders and co-opted stakeholder groups. The process therefore devoid of participation by 2 West Nile, Karamoja, Toro, Kigezi, Ankole, Bukedi, Bunyoro, Madi, Bugisu, Busoga, Teso, Acholi, Lango. 7 7 citizens and hence its ownership did not go beyond the narrow interest groups that this consensus. As the Lancaster consensus crumbled through the 1960, citizens either remained spectators or simply became victims of the conflict between completing interest groups The Moshi Conference and the Moshi Spirit Any account of Uganda s continuing struggle to achieve consensus is not complete without reference to what is popularly referred to as the Moshi Conference. The Moshi Conference, which was held in the Northern Tanzanian town of Moshi on March 24-26, 1979, brought together mainly Ugandan exiles who sought to forge a consensus in their effort to end the dictatorship of former president Idi Amin ( ). While the conference brought together over 28 groups of Ugandan exiles, most accounts indicate that the most influential groups at the Conference were: Kikosi Maalum, Fronasa, Save Uganda Movement and Uganda Freedom Union. 1 The Moshi Conference led to the formation of a political alliance called Uganda National liberation Front (UNLF) and the Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLF) as its military wing. Both the Moshi consensus and the Moshi spirit that had brought together competing political groups under a common purpose of ending the Amin 1 See for example, Balam Nyeko (1987). The background to the political instability in Uganda. Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies, 15(13). 7

10 dictatorship and establishing stability in the country did not live longer as shot-lived governments characterized the immediate post-amin period. Yusuf Lule was overthrown 2 after only 68 days in office and replaced by Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa. Binaisa was overthrown 3 in May 1980 and replaced by the Military Council headed by Paul Muwanga. There are at least four important lessons to learn from the Moshi Conference experience. First, like Lancaster, the Moshi Conference took place outside Uganda, with Tanzania playing a key convening role. There were hardly any mechanisms to ensure the full participation of ordinary Ugandans to expand the ownership of the outcomes beyond those fighting groups or the Conference participants. Secondly, the Conference took place at the peak of the war against Idi Amin. Consequently, the Conference therefore focused considerable effort on how to craft a working consensus towards the war effort and the architecture of governance in the immediate post-idi Amin period. Thirdly and most importantly, the Conference was more of an anti-amin coalition bringing together largely Ugandan anti-amin opposition formations in exile. There is no record of other Ugandan citizen formation participating in the conference. Finally, Ugandans who convened at Moshi literary had no time to broaden their anti- Amin coalition by involving other anti-amin forces and other citizens formations within Uganda. Amin s government crumbled so fast and Amin was overthrown on April 9, The Nairobi Peace Talks The Nairobi Peace Talks provide further insights into Uganda s long history of negotiations among competing fighting groups. The Nairobi Peace Talks followed the overthrow of the Obote Government by the Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA) on January 27, Upon swearing in as the new president, Gen. Tito Okello Lutwa offered the possibility of a negotiated political settlement with all hitherto fighting groups. The most prominent of these groups was Yoweri Museveni s National Resistance Movement 2 Yusuf Lule was president of Uganda from April 13, 1979 to June 20, 1979 and was overthrown in a bloodless coup on June 20, Godfrey L. Binaisa was President for the period June 20, 1979 May 12,

11 (NRM) and its military wing the National Resistance Army (NRA), which had succeeded in capturing sizeable territory prior to and in the aftermath of the coup. The peace talks were subsequently held in Nairobi (August 26 December 17, 1985) under the chairmanship of former Kenyan President, Daniel Arap Moi. The final peace agreement was signed between President Tito Okello representing Government of Uganda and Yoweri Museveni representing the National Resistance Movement. Among other things, the Nairobi Peace Agreement called for a cease-fire, demilitarization of Kampala, integration of the NRA and government forces and absorption of the NRA leadership into the Military Council. Article 17(c) of the agreement committed the parties to establish a commission of inquiry into human rights violations in 9 6 Uganda since independence. Article 7 of the agreement prescribed a national army not exceeding 8,500 in terms of personnel strength. 4 The Nairobi Peace Agreement was never implemented as the fighting escalated and the National Resistance Army overthrew Toto Okello s government on January 27, However, numerous accounts by different scholars suggest a number of reasons that explain why the Nairobi Peace Agreement failed. Like the Moshi Conference, the Nairobi peace process occurred in the midst of an escalating military conflict, displacement of people, widespread human rights abuses and collapse of state institutions. Secondly, like the Moshi Conference, the Nairobi Peace Talks were exclusively a negotiation among fighting groups, largely the representatives of the Okello Junta and groups fighting against it. Citizens organizations such as political parties, religious institutions, cultural institutions or civil society organizations were never part of the peace talks and the resulting peace agreement. Unlike the Moshi Conference where Tanzania played some form of third-party guarantor, there is no evidence that President Moi 4 For a detailed discussion of the Nairobi Peace Agreement, see Reaching the 1985 Nairobi Peace Agreement, Bethuel Kiplagat, in Lucima, et al.,

12 or the Kenyan Government played another additional meaningful role beyond hosting the talks. Like the 1979 Moshi Conference, the Nairobi Peace Talks were pursued as a political settlement focusing largely on the existing political impasse and its consequences such as abuse of human rights. The timing of these processes and the inherent limitations imposed by the obtaining conditions in the country did not make it possible to extend transactional political negotiations towards a more encompassing agenda setting national dialogue The 1995 Constitution Making Process ( ) The Uganda Constitution Making Process is perhaps the closes that Uganda has come towards engaging in what may be described as a national dialogue process. The process was initiated by an Act of the

13 National Resistance Council (NRC) on December 21, The Commission was mandated to consult the people and make proposals for a popular and lasting constitution based on national consensus. The work of the Commission climaxed in the promulgation of a new Constitution in There are at least three important aspects of this process that provide important lessons for the Uganda National Dialogue Process. First, the constitution making process had no protagonists. The National Resistance Movement Government had largely co-opted most of the traditional opposition groups and restricted political party activities. The incumbent government superintended over the process but was not a negotiating party. On the contrary, the process proceeded as a neutral platform for citizens to present their views on their aspirations for the country. The report of the Uganda Constitutional Commission and the draft constitution was debated by the Constituent Assembly comprised of 284 delegates elected on March 28, The final constitution was promulgated on October 8, Secondly, unlike the previous processes which focused on resolving the obtaining political stalemate, the Uganda constitution making process sought to address the broad range of issues: political, economic, social, environment, etc, that affect Ugandans in their day-today lives. Thirdly, the constitution making process was conducted in the form of a commission of inquiry with commissioners traversing the country seeking views and inputs from all Ugandans in their different diversities and configurations. Besides conducting a series of events in the form of public hearings, workshops and other forms of stakeholder consultations, the Commission also invited and received written submissions from all interest groups. It is therefore not an overstatement to suggest that the constitutional making process represents the first ever attempt by Ugandans to generate an overarching consensus on shared national aspirations for the country. 5 Statute No. 5 of 1988 Page 11 11

14 Indeed, the Uganda National Dialogue Process can draw inspiration from the constitutional making process by ensuring that the process is inclusive and citizen driven Post 1986 peace settlements Following the capture of state power in 1986, the National Resistance Movement Government was confronted by the emergence of numerous fighting groups of different sizes and with different fighting capabilities. Most of these fighting groups are documented in protracted conflict, elusive peace: initiatives to end violence in Northern Uganda published since Over the years, Government was able to neutralize many of these groups either by defeating them militarily, granting them amnesty or through peace negotiations and cooption. A key important lesson to learn from the post 1986 negotiated peace settlements between the NRM and the fighting rebel groups is that they are largely based on transactional arrangements. By abandoning armed rebellion, the fighting groups secure unspecified privileges, including the possibility of joining government. The settlement is largely between the incumbent president and the leaders of the respective rebel groups. Ugandan citizens do not have access to any information regarding what is contained in the negotiated settlements. Consequently, one of the challenges of the Uganda National Dialogue Process is to diminish the transactional nature of such a process and shift it to more principled negotiations and dialogue that is inclusive of all citizens Pre-2016 dialogue process Most actors in the country have long recognized the needed for a national dialogue. However, the most overt calls for a national dialogue process can be traced way back in 2006 following NRM party primaries and general elections, which were characterized by unprecedented violence. Since then, major political parties including the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), Uganda People s Congress (UPC), and the Democratic Party (DP) 6 See Okello Lucima, et al., (2002). Protracted conflict, elusive peace: initiatives to end violence in Northern Uganda. Conciliation Resources, 2002, London

15 continued to call for a national dialogue as way of addressing the challenges facing the country. Similar calls at convening a national dialogue process have been made by other segments of the Ugandan society including religious leaders and civil society leaders. It is therefore important to reflect on the efforts that have been made to date in order to draw lessons for the proposed national dialogue process. Efforts towards the convening of national dialogue process in the post-2006 period have been pursued along three distinct tracks: political, religious and civil society Political negotiations track This track brought together mainly political actors based on political party representation. The narrower version of this track involved negotiations among the political parties that have representation in parliament operating under the auspices of the Inter-Party Organizations for Dialogue (IPOD). The IPOD process was established in 2010 as an exclusively interparty dialogue process. The Uganda chapter of the National Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD) facilitates the IPOD process. IPOD provides a platform for continued political engagement among the political parties with representation in parliament. In the period , IPOD was one of the key advocates of electoral reforms for the period from 2011 leading up to the 2016 elections. It is important to recognize that IPOD is comprised of all the political parties that have representation in Parliament, including the National Resistance Movement (NRM), which is the ruling party. Consequently, the fact that the IPOD platform failed to move its electoral reform consensus from its working sessions and translate it into a legislative agenda shows the level of complexity of Uganda s political parties as the building blocks for dialogue and consensus. The more inclusive version of the political dialogue track is pursued under the National Consultative Forum for Political Parties and Organizations (hereinafter referred to as NCF). NCF is a forum that brings together all 13

16 13 Ugandan registered political parties and political organizations. The NCF is established under section 20 of the Political Parties and Organizations Act Its mandate is to encourage dialogue and communication among political parties as well as key election governance agencies such as the Electoral Commission (see section 20(4)). Although the contribution of the NCF to the national dialogue process requires more specific and methodologically rigorous evaluation, there is no doubt that the forum provides a valuable platform for ensuring a continuous political dialogue in the country. By its very nature and mandate, the Forum is designed as a platform exclusively reserved for registered political parties Civil society dialogue track Another important national dialogue track is promoted by civil society organizations; particularly the governance and accountability oriented NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs). For the last decade, NGOs launched and pursued a variety of campaigns as part of their effort to improve governance and public policy. Three key processes can be highlighted to demonstrate the commitment of Ugandan NGOs towards a national dialogue process. First, the Black Monday Movement (BMM) sought to mobilize and unite Ugandans in a struggle against the cancer of corruption. Secondly, from 2012, the citizens Manifesto process provided a platform for citizens to develop and shape the priorities of political parties. The Citizens Manifesto, a blue print of political, economic and social policy reforms is the main product of this process. 7 The Citizens Manifesto Process also provides space for various citizen interest groups including youth and women to develop interest group manifestos and engage with political parties to make their concerns part of the election agenda. However, the most comprehensive of the NGOs led national dialogue process is the National Campaign for Free and Fair Elections. The campaign was largely focused on mobilizing citizens to discuss and agree on the 7 The Citizens Manifesto can be accessed here: LR.pdf 14 14

17 nature of reforms necessary to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections in Uganda. The campaign involved nation-wide consultations and brought together all citizens stakeholders including political parties, civil society, religious leaders, cultural leaders, businessmen and women, professional and workers organizations, workers, and many others in a National Consultation on Free and Fair Elections convened in November The participants at the National Consultation adopted the Citizens Compact on Free and Fair Elections 8 outlining a series of political, constitutional and electoral reforms necessary to create conditions for conducting free and fair elections in Uganda. There are a number of key lessons that can be drawn from the Campaign for Free and Fair Elections that may be instructive for the convening of the Uganda National Dialogue Process. First, the campaign demonstrated that when there is an opportunity for participation, Ugandans are motivated to come together and seek a national consensus on issues that may look complex and polarizing. Secondly, the Free and Fair Elections campaign was mainly built from the ground up creating opportunity for a variety of stakeholder groups to provide input into the campaign and the issues at hand. The bottom-up approach proved instrumental in building both the ownership and citizens confidence in the process. The Citizens Compact today remains the most cited documents representing the citizens consensus on electoral reforms in the country. Thirdly, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) and the Government of Uganda did not officially participate in the National Consultation on Free and Fair Elections. However, the successful convening of the Consultation demonstrated that even in the absence of government participation, it is possible to have a meaningful dialogue of citizens and generate consensus on a shared agenda and action. Finally, it is important to recognize that the participation of the incumbent government in the process is essential for the implementation of the outcomes of the process. The failure to translate the consensus on electoral reforms articulated in the Citizens Compact on Free and Fair Elections is largely attributed to the failure of the ruling party and 8 Page 15 15

18 the Government to participate in and own the process of the consultations and its outcomes Religious leaders and the Elders dialogue track Religious leaders under the auspices of the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) and alders under the auspices of the Elders Forum of Uganda (TEFU) remain at the vanguard of seeking solutions to Uganda s growing political stalemate. IRCU and TEFU bring together prominent members of the clergy and senior citizens of Uganda respectively. In the run up to the February 2016 elections, the two institutions invested heavily in creating dialogue among Ugandan citizens and the presidential candidates. They convened the first ever-presidential debate, which provided a platform for Ugandans to engage with the candidates. Since the end of the elections and following the impasse over the outcomes, IRCU and TEFU were joined by the Women Situation Room to engage in shuttle diplomacy aimed at diffusing the combustive situation that obtained following the elections Lessons for national dialogue processes elsewhere Traditionally, national dialogue processes have been used in countries where there is total state failure. In such cases, the institutions of state have totally failed or suffered from vertical and horizontal malfunction. Horizontally, the capacity of the state institutions to hold each other accountable is considerably diminished and mechanisms of resolving conflicts and building consensus on contentious national issues no longer exist. Vertically, there is a breakdown of trust between citizens and government on the one hand, and breakdown of accountability between the local and central government authorities on the other hand. National dialogue processes are also important instruments for transitioning countries through conflict situations or situations of stalemate when fundamental agreements emerge among stakeholders mainly on issues of governance. In the case of Nepal, for example, the Nepalese dialogue structure ( ) was established in 2002 by the government in the form of a Peace Negotiations and Coordinating Secretariat. The dialogue process was 16

19 16 established to manage, coordinate and facilitate the negotiations between the Maoist movement and the Nepalese Government. The dialogue structure provided a management and logistical infrastructure for the formal negotiations between the main stakeholder groups. The dialogue structure also appointed a team of esteemed and credible national facilitators as advisors and chairs, who, where needed, facilitated the talks. In 2005, the Peace Secretariat facilitated the establishment of the Nepal Transition to Peace Initiative (NTTP), which became the informal dialogue and knowledge sharing mechanism among all the participating parties. In 2006, the Peace Secretariat and the NTTP coordinated and hosted both the formal and informal discussions on drafting and finalizing the Comprehensive Peace Accord and all its implementation mechanisms. In 2007, the Peace Secretariat was transformed into a formal government ministry of Peace and Reconstruction and given direct executive powers. Other functions of the Peace Secretariat included: managing and administering the formal multi-party talks from 2006 until the formation of the Constituent Assembly in 2010; establishing peace committees; and conducting consultations and jointly drafting a Truth Commission Bill. In the case of South Africa, a national dialogue process was adopted as a mechanism to transition from the apartheid era to a post-apartheid multiracial and democratic country. The main dialogue structure, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA), was established to manage and coordinate the formal talks between all the main stakeholder groups including 17

20 17 government. When the first formal dialogues failed and horrific violence broke out and claimed lives of thousands of people, the National Peace Committee and the Peace Secretariat were created. These two elements of the peace architecture were created to secure peace, mitigate conflict, prevent violence and establish an enabling environment in which formal negotiations could be conducted. Once the parties at the national dialogue reached a framework agreement on constitutional change, electoral reform and state restructuring, separate structures were created for drafting the constitution, transitional justice and reconciliation, reconstruction and development, and military integration. 18

21 Box: Common issues addressed by national peace and dialogue processes the creation of safety net structures and safe spaces for dialogue; ceasefire agreements and the creation of monitoring mechanisms for ceasefires and the management of arms and combatants; comprehensive peace agreements and the establishment of national peace structures and other relevant implementation mechanisms (land claims commissions, investigation commissions, rapid development support, local peace structures etc.); national dialogues, bilateral dialogues and the creation of support and management structures; transitional governance mechanisms and interim amendments to constitutions; the negotiation of constitutional framework agreements and redrafting of electoral laws accordingly; elections and/or referenda; the setting-up of inclusive and representative structures to draft a final constitution; new elections/referenda once the final constitution is finalized; the integration of security forces; truth and reconciliation programs; state reform; and the rebuilding of social infrastructure and advancement of economic development. 9 9 Siebert, Hannes (2012). National peace and dialogue structures: Strengthening the immune system from within instead of prescribing antibiotics, in: Barbara Unger, Stina Lundström, Katrin Planta and Beatrix Austin (eds). Peace Infrastructures Assessing Concept and Practice. Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No. 10. Berlin: Berghof Foundation. Page 19 18

22 4. RATIONALE AND AGENDA FOR THE UGANDA NATIONAL DIALOGUE PROCESS There are three fundamental reasons that make the Uganda National Dialogue Process inevitable Need to move away from negotiations to dialogue Uganda s 56 years of independence are best described as a mixed record of progress, broken promises, unfulfilled commitments and missed opportunities. In many ways, we have progressed in different fields of human endeavor. The foundations for building a strong and prosperous democratic dispensation have been built. The economy rebounded from the crisis of the 1970s and 1980s to the present day era of sustained growth and measured optimism about the future. In spite of the many challenges of quality and access that persist, there are more opportunities for Ugandans to go to school, to have access to some form of health care or have access to clean water. The single most important challenge that we face today is not that we have not made progress as a country. On the contrary, the challenge is that we are held back by our turbulent history and the apparent fear of the future. Our mission as a generation is to draw lessons from the processes of negotiation and dialogue we have been engaged in and build on the progress we have made so far to build a future that is more stable, peaceful and prosperous. Each of the processes described above were unique in many ways and was triggered or informed by different circumstances. However, there are a number of lessons we can draw from them: First, with the exception of the Uganda Constitution making process ( ) and the recent civil society and religious leaders dialogue processes, most of these processes were inherently organized as negotiation process. They were largely driven by the narrow focus and shortterm objective of achieving a political consensus or settlement among the contending interest groups. Secondly, the negotiations were pursued 19

23 16 among key political protagonists, inevitably excluding the majority of the Ugandan citizens from shaping the process of the negotiations as well as the outcomes. All these negotiations lacked the important element of citizen ownership because they left citizens on the sidelines as mere spectators or passengers on a flight where it is only the pilot and the crew who knew the destination. Consequently, the Uganda National Dialogue Process is designed differently in two respects. First, it is designed as a citizen owned and citizen driven process. The process emphasizes opportunities for all citizens men and women, young and old to participate through a variety of modalities. For example, citizens may participate through a series of informal and formal consultations, focus group meetings, fireplace conversations and other forms of followership and engagement. Students will be encouraged to participate through debates, blog posts and newspaper comics competitions, among others. Secondly, the National Dialogue Process is to be pursued as a Ugandan process emphasizing its Ugandanness all through the process. This implies adopting engagement opportunities that promote unity in diversity and creating platforms through which Ugandans can contribute funding and other resources to the process. Citizens are the primary guarantors that the consensus from the Uganda National Dialogue Process will be implemented. State institutions such as parliament, the executive and judiciary, public and private actors and every citizen will be held accountable where there is none compliance with the agreed outcomes Problem of competing narratives Uganda s long-term vision is well articulated in a series of official and nonofficial documents published by the Government of Uganda and other nonstate actors. These include: Uganda Vision 20140; the Uganda We want adopted by the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda and the Citizens Manifesto a regular articulation of citizens aspirations published by civil society organizations under the Uganda Governance Monitoring Platform (UGMP). Considered together, all these documents articulate a vision of a just society founded on socio-economic justice, popular governance and respect for the 20 21

24 rule of law. This clearly is the aspiration of every Ugandan no matter their political, religious, and ethnic, gender or any other affiliation. However, there are currently two alternatives narratives that will shape Uganda path to the vision of shared prosperity. The first narrative is a narrative of Ugandans who feel that their situation is bad and life is hard. Those who hold this narrative share the feeling that they are seated on magma that may mature into an active volcanic eruption. This magma is in the form of: increasing insecurity; apparent breakdown in law and order; ethno-cultural conflicts; economic marginalization; biting unemployment, especially among our Nation s young people; escalating human rights abuses; deepening environmental degradation; increasing food insecurity; land evictions; inequality and regional instability. There is second narrative held by a cross-section of other Ugandans who feel that that situation is good, life is better and it will get even better. This narrative is premised on a number of positive developments. These include: sustained economic growth projections witnessed over the last two decades; perceived and real improvements in public service delivery; growing investments in physical and economic infrastructure, government economic programmes such as Operation Wealth Creation (OWC), Universal Primary Education (UPE) and youth economic empowerment programmes such as the Youth Livelihood Programme (YLP). These narratives reinforce the conclusion that there is no consensus on the assessment of the achievements or the failures of the last 56 years of independence. They represent the feeling of exclusion from political, economic and other forms of civic activity that many Ugandans feel. The Uganda National Dialogue process provides an opportunity to develop a common appreciation of the past and a shared vision of the future. 21

25 20 23

26 Uganda National Dialogue Conceptual Framework 4.3. From violence to elections and dialogue For the last half a century, we took the route of violence as the only available and viable option to pursue our dream of building a just society founded on socio-economic justice, popular governance and respect for the rule of law. The war of liberation in 1978, the protracted peoples struggle popularly referred to as the Luwero Bush war ( ), the 20 year rebellion that led to the destruction of social and economic infrastructure in Acholi and Teso subregion ( ), and the most recent conflict the left the Rwenzuru kingdom on ruins are just examples of our tendency to use violence to resolve our problems as a country. The promulgation of the 1995 set for us an alternative path to pursing our dreams as a nation. The Constitution prescribed that Ugandans shall determine who should govern them through regular, credible free and fair elections. Since 1996, we have achieved the standard of regularity as elections have been held every five years as commanded by the constitution. However, every election since then has been contested, associated with violence or obscene use of money. The unprecedented deployment of military assets to secure the results of the 2016 elections point to the difficulties in using elections as a path to the desired future if sustainable peace and shared prosperity. Consequently, a national dialogue process provides an alternative path to armed rebellion and violence on the one hand, and contested elections on the other hand Mending the fault lines and building citizenship Our society is experiencing major fault lines that can only be mended through a national dialogue process that helps build national understanding and a basis for healing and national reconciliation. During the process of the informal consultations, the following fault lines were identified: - ethnic fault lines founded on our ethnic diversity; - religious fault lines founded on our religious diversity; 22

27 22 - political fault lines founded on our political diversity and political competition; - demographic fault lines driven by a hugely youthful population; - economic fault lines founded on unequal economic opportunities; and - geographic fault lines founded on unequal development between different regions. The Uganda National Dialogue Process provides the only platform through which we can explore the modalities to confront these fault lines and build bridges that tap these diversities into a national resource for development. 5. Agenda for the Uganda National Dialogue Process Through the Uganda National Dialogue Process, Ugandans seek to build on the progress of the last 56 years of independence and confront the challenges that limit our ability to build a future that is more stable, more predictable and more prosperous. Through the informal consultations process, Ugandans agreed on the following themes as creating the scope for the process A national values consensus As a people, we should engage to forge a consensus on what constitutes our national values as a country. The question of values consistently comes up in many discussions in a variety of forms. Indeed, a people that do not have shared values have no basis for building a shared culture for being each other s keeper. A National Dialogue is an opportunity to resolve this unending debate whereby we can adopt a set of values that define who we are and that can bind each one of us in a sense of justice and dignity. 25

28 Guiding questions 1. What does it mean to be Ugandan? 2. What are the basic Ugandan values and beliefs? 3. What are the distinguishing norms that define one as Ugandan? 4. What do values like God fearing, freedom, democracy, patriotism, and national unity mean for diverse Ugandans? 5. Is there a shared understanding of values such as human dignity, 23 equity, volunteerism, social justice, non-discrimination and protection of marginalized in Uganda? 6. What do values such as integrity, transparency and accountability mean for Ugandans in public sector, private sector and other facets of life? 7. Is the value of sustainable development embedded, interpreted and applied in Uganda s transformation agenda? 8. What is the place of achievement, efficiency, material comfort, nationalism, equality and the supremacy of faith, science and reason in Uganda s value system? 5.2. A political consensus The promise of a prosperous and stable future must be building upon a political system and culture that enables citizens to exercise their power as proclaimed in Article 1 of the Constitution. Citizens must exercise sovereignty over political leaders and the institutions of state while at the same time paying allegiance to God, the country and our constitution. 1. Do the current political parties represent interests of all Ugandans? 2. Is the current structure and composition of electoral commission capable of delivering a free and fair election? 3. Is the current pathway to cabinet and its composition representative of all Ugandans? 4. Is the current devolution of power through local governments working to effectively and equitably deliver local governance dividends and public services? 5. Is the role of the army in Uganda s politics resolved? 6. Is the role of cultural and traditional institutions in Uganda s politics resolved?

29 7. Is the current Constitution capable of guaranteeing, independence of State institutions, separation of powers and peaceful transition? 5.3. A diversity consensus Often times, our diversity ethnic, religious, culture, gender, etc is exploited to our disadvantage. A diversity consensus can be a powerful building block for harnessing our diversity for national development. A national dialogue is a great opportunity for a frank and mutually beneficial discussion on harnessing our diversity towards building a prosperous nation with happy people. 1. What is diversity in Uganda s context? 2. Do our laws and practice treat all Ugandans equally? 3. Are all shades of Ugandans equally celebrated and reflected in branding and other promotional images of Uganda? 4. Do recruitments in public and private services reflect diversity of all Ugandans? 5. Is there total freedom to celebrate diversity e.g. religious diversity, gender diversity etc.? 6. Do policies in Uganda encourage citizens to honor the uniqueness of each individual and do current institutions provide for mechanisms to challenge stereotypes? 7. How can Uganda benefit from positive attributes of diversity such as language, culture and philosophy? 5.4. The quality service delivery consensus In spite of all the best endeavors by government, our country faces an everdeepening service delivery crisis. After 50 years of independence, we have 27

30 failed to transform our curriculum that offers our children a colonial modeled education to an education that growth our Nation s children into productive and dignified beings. Every single day, the mothers of our nation come face to face with a largely imperfect health care system. There must be a way that we can build a partnership between the government and citizens that delivers quality public services to our people, holds each one of us accountable to do the right things, and sanctions those who unable to deliver their part of the gain. 1. How can we close the gap between providers of public services and 25 beneficiaries? 2. What kind and quality of institutions do we need to deliver efficient public services? 3. What is the role of citizens in monitoring and reporting on execution of public services? 4. What is needed to make misuse and diversion of money in service delivery risky? 5. What are key actions and reforms necessary to make basic services in health and education work? 6. What kind of services should be strictly delivered by public sector? 7. What are public service reforms needed to transform culture, attitudes ethics of public workers? 8. What are key reforms needed to increase motivation of public workers? 5.5. An economy that works for everybody Without a doubt, official statistics tell us that our economy is growing. However, many people are not feeling this growth. Their incomes have either gone down or flattened. The economy is not becoming inclusive. Worse still, it is not creating jobs fast enough to provide opportunity for a burgeoning youth population. Growing the economy in a manner that makes it more inclusive and create jobs for our young people is our collective business as a people. We need to build a new consensus on how a new economic architecture that achieves the multiple objectives of inclusive growth, creating jobs for our young people and accelerating the structural transformation of our people can be built by all of us.