Editorial
Uganda & Zimbabwe:  
Two polls, two grand old men, two survivals - temporarily

afrol.com, 4 July -  Last week, two African presidents and their party, or movement, survived the polls. Mugabe's Zanu-PF won a narrow majority in the Zimbabwe parliamentary elections, which were followed by every TV-viewer worldwide. Meanwhile, president Museveni won the important referendum, saying that Uganda should continue being a "non-party state", thus blocking foreseen multi party elections. 

The referendum in Uganda was not monitored that closely by the international press, but the outcome widely mentioned, mostly in a comparison to the Zimbabwe elections. Why did Zimbabwe get all the attention? Three main reasons come to mind. 

Firstly, Museveni still has much more credit in the international society than Mugabe, and even the international press to some degree agreed with his principal argument, that his regime has provided Uganda with the very much needed peace and stability after the Milton Obote and Idi Amin experience. Thus, there was not a widespread opinion that Uganda was in desperate need of change, such as there was concerning Zimbabwe.

Secondly, there was a great difference in opposition profiling in Uganda and Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe MDC and its charismatic leader Morgan Tsvangirai managed to make itself a symbol of hope and change, they put in a very good fight and they won everybody's sympathy filling the victim's role in a conflict. The Uganda opposition is not unified, in lack of a charismatic leader with general credibility, and it did a great pr error - it didn't put in an honest fight and just called for a boycott.

Thirdly, and most important, Mugabe played a foul game months before the elections, calling on the attention of the world press. Mugabe's initiatives the over latest years had already made him lose all the great credibility he gained after ridding Zimbabwe off Ian Smith's racist government some 20 years ago. Unnecessary actions, like making himself the symbol the general African homophobia, couldn't give anything bout negative publicity in the liberal Western press. Such actions made Western press looking for news from Zimbabwe and its highly profiled president. Calls for making the British repay the Zimbabweans what they took from them under colonial rule, i.e. the earth itself, would normally receive sympathy in most of Western, liberal press, but not when accompanied with such actions as farm occupations and political murder. Because the press soon found what it was looking for, a link between the "war vets" and Zanu-PF, the plot was uncovered: these were Mugabe's preparations for the elections, the fist ones he could actually lose. The press and the public thus was on the MDC's side and Mugabe basically could thank himself for all the not-wanted attention.

The "Tsvangirai-effect"
Results also were significantly different, such as was the public engagement in the two countries. Ugandans didn't feel they were at a threshold, few voted and those who voted, voted in favor of their president. Not so in Zimbabwe, with record participation and an almost-victory for the opposition (which would have been a victory, hadn't it been for Mugabe's foul tricks, say many observers). This difference is based on the same reasons as the difference in international interest, but the "Tsvangirai-effect" playing a lead role. Finally there was a credible opponent, which also was not afraid to stay the course. Tsvangirai is a political leader which managed to gain support from the whole nation, raising national questions. Mugabe plaid into his hands by supporting the violent farm occupations and by sending troops into the DRC, making these to cases platform enough to oppose the government. 

It seems that it most comes down to the "Tsvangirai-effect" in Zimbabwe. Was Museveni lucky not to have a strong, charismatic opposition leader, willing to fight, or did he make sense, saying that Uganda is not ready for a pluralistic democracy? Both is somewhat right. An opposition leader like Tsvangirai might have been able to put up a good fight. He or she might have driven Museveni into desperate steps and thus gained general sympathy, both within and outside Uganda and this leader might have caused real change in Uganda. However, Uganda was not ready for that to happen. That is NOT to say that the people of Uganda were not ready for a pluralistic democracy. Who wouldn't be? No. Their politicians were not ready.

Because Museveni is right in one aspect. Peace and stability still is fragile in Uganda, and the country does not need parties or leaders emphasizing on one ethnic group, one province or one class. But Uganda also needs democracy, charismatic leaders and popular parties, which can give all Ugandans the feeling of being represented, non-regarding former conflict lines. Museveni might still, to some degree, have that quality, but not for long. There is real opposition to his policy, be it his economic policy or his adventures abroad, in the DRC. And opposition to him is general, not only based in internal ethnic differences. It should, therefore, also be expressed by a popular opposition party - when the Ugandan opposition is ready to form such a party. 

 Yours sincerely,
Rainer Chr. Hennig
the editor

© afrol.com. Texts and graphics may be reproduced freely, under the condition that their origin is clearly referred to, see Conditions.    You can contact us at rainer.hennig@afrol.com