Intra-NRM violence threatens to spillover

If the NRM remains able to dominate the management of the coming elections, there is the real risk of their internecine battles spilling over into the public electoral space and even wrecking the electoral process itself.

As the parties ready themselves for the long haul to February 2011, two incidents seem to have set the tone we may expect.

In the first, an MP officiated at a fund-raising event in not his own, but a neighbouring constituency, at the invitation of constituents there who are opposed to the incumbent MP — who thereupon decided to make his presence felt, and turned up at the event uninvited.

In the ensuing melee, a nine-year-old boy was knocked unconscious by a bench being brandished as a weapon.

The incident only ended when the crowd scattered in reaction to the uninvited MP’s bodyguard firing his gun into the air.

In the second, amid accusations of fraud during a by-election in the Mt Elgon town of Mbale, supporters of one candidate were alarmed to find themselves being overtaken by a car carrying his rival’s supporters as they all raced to attend to a polling station dispute.

One of the occupants of the first car had a bodyguard who opened fire on the second car, injuring one of the occupants.

All the belligerents are active members of the ruling NRM party.

Two questions

Two questions arise: First, where did this culture of election-related violence come from?

Second: If members of the ruling party can treat each other in this manner, then how will they treat opposition members and the voting public as a whole?

Perhaps due to its original nature as an amalgam of widely differing political interests, the NRM has never been able to formulate any real cohesive political ideology, relying instead on vague platitudes and fatuous truisms.

The donor-induced return to multipartyism, coupled with media liberalisation, has created a demand for higher standards in political discourse — clearly a task beyond NRM officials abilities. Instead, we have seen the emergence of a “Plan B,” as it were.

Stories are rife of manipulation of the primaries, often with candidates being induced to step aside for personal reward, so as to make the way clear for the “more popular” NRM candidate.

There have long been complaints about this, certainly since the run-up to the 2001 elections, where (now second deputy Prime Minister) Henry Kajura openly accused the NRM election commission of cheating at the primaries.

The Supreme Court criticisms of the last two general elections are also well known.

Again, what should be of concern is the fact that those accused of these alleged malpractices are not unknown party functionaries, but some of the party’s supposedly more illustrious names.

The current pressure seems to be coming from a new determination by the NRM to consolidate its vote.

The historical record shows a average decline of roughly 10 per cent per election of the presidential votes (from 75 per cent in 1995, to under 60 per cent at the last election).

Similarly, the opposition has gradually increased its share of parliamentary seats, and narrowed the margin by which an NRM candidate does win.

Some observers see the possibility of a below 50 per cent result for the incumbent in the forthcoming presidential election, thereby forcing a second round of voting between just the top two candidates.

It was recently resolved at an NRM party conference — held in Uganda’s State House of all places — that the party should avoid splitting its vote and would therefore no longer tolerate independent candidates.

Sembabule may be the epitome of the NRM’s crisis of electoral credibility and party unity, however, similar tribulations can be expected in Kampala, parts of Bunyoro, the southwest, and much of eastern Uganda.

Perhaps the most they can do is identify their flashpoints and develop strategies to limit the damage that is going to come.

In the forthcoming elections, it would appear that there will be no opponents, just enemies.

Even in your own camp.