The real hypocrisy of Uganda's treason trials is that M7 himself conspired with members of his current government to overthrow an elected government to come to power!
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Hypocrisy of Uganda's Treason Trials!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
M7 could safeguard his legacy by charting a transition process!
“ ... like any leader in power for a quarter of a century, Mr Museveni delivers diminishing returns.”
“The suggestion by cronies and some western officials that he is irreplaceable as a force for stability in the region was always self-serving. In light of the uprisings in the Arab world, it sounds absurd. “
“Before it is too late, Uganda’s western allies should be urging him to prepare the ground for his succession during the elected term he began ... – the fourth he has won on a less-than-level playing field. Mr Museveni could safeguard his own legacy by charting the transition himself.”
Original source: Financial Times
Sunday, October 23, 2011
A candid look at Uganda's opposition!
Tensions between the opposition and M7's government came humiliatingly to a head once again this past week with the preventive detention & house arrest of FDC leader Dr. Basigye.
Wikipedia defines preventive detention as an imprisonment imposed not as a punishment for a crime, but in order to prevent a person from commiting a crime, if that person is deemed likely to commit a crime.
After the opposition defied the governments order not to demonstrate during the week when students where sitting for their national Olevel exams, the government basically threw the book at the opposition leader. Knowing the number of tools and leverage available to the governmet under such circumstances, you begin to wonder why the opposition did not see this coming!
Since the oppositions lopsided lose to M7 in the last presidential election, this is just another episode in a string of setbacks the opposition has suffered with more sobering dimensions. Its had to see how the opposition can overcome this current setback without some sole searching for real concessions to at least some of the governments demands.
There is a great deal wrong with M7's government and his overetended stay in power, but comparisons to Gadhafi are a bit exaggerated.
Unlike Gadhafi's Libya, Uganda retains democratic trapings with periodic presidential elections albeit all won by M7 on a less-than level playing field. Uganda also has an elected parliament, with opposition members and a functioning judiciary that has just indicted a former vice president and several current cabinet ministers on corruption charges.
If the opposition has genuine grevicences, why cant it use the judicial process?
Friday, October 21, 2011
M7's Attrition war!
M7 has so far, successfully played a war of attrition and the oppositions reluctancy to use the judicial process simply places the opposition in a position exactly where M7 wants them to be! Stuck, like deers under headlights in the dark, not exactly sure which way to go.
The only best choice for them is the " interest-based negotiation"; but so far they're stuck in their fixed win or lose bargaining position, which the govt is taking full advantage of with it's attrition approach.
With all the instruments of power and time, M7 has the leverage advantage.
It's very unlikely the Arab spring could happen in Uganda because most of the population is largely rural uniformed peasants whom M7 copouts with largesses! With the security forces still behind him, it's advantage M7 at this point and M7 is hopping his attrition war wears out his opponents!
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Positional Bargaining wont solve Uganda’s current political crisis!
The fixed positions win-lose pitched battles we are witnessing between the opposition and government is not going to solve anything.
The government with all the might and instruments of power at its disposal ( all at taxpayer expense! ) can feel in control by suppressing, locking up, indicting and vanquishing the opposition. But this is only a band-aid to the underlying interests of the opposition and the country at large.
By the same token the opposition can continue to tune out the governments position and interests and this too, is only a costly approach to getting what they want from the government.
The opportunity costs to both sides are going to be incalculable.
For the government, scarce resources at a time of economic stress are being diverted to this avoidable crisis, let alone it's reputation around the world. At home seeds of resentment are being planted now.
For the opposition their time and effort is being diverted to this avoidable stalemate, let alone their personal safety and lives are at stake!
This stalemate can only be mitigated if both sides are engaged in utilizing interest-based negotiation. An approach developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project.
Interest-based negotiation requires antagonists to list the interests behind their positions or demands.
Interests can be satisfied in many different ways. Which is why working with interests leads to many more options than positional bargaining.
In addition, satisfying interests is psychologically much different than caving into another person’s position or demand.
When you end up with satisfied antagonists involved in a dispute, you end up with a joint sense of well-being and pride at having jointly solved a problem. Its a Win-Win solution for all!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Without mediation Uganda is headed into a political crisis abyss!
M7’s government and the opposition are once again caught in a classic battle of positional bargaining impasse rather than the utilization of interest-based negotiation.
A position is a demand that you are making on someone else. No one likes to be told what to do by someone else, so positional statements tend to get people angry.
Interests on the other hand are those things that underlie positions. They are the reasons justifying the positions.
The opposition’s current position is to assert its constitutional right to hold peaceful demonstrations. M7’s government’s current position insists that the opposition cannot hold those demonstrations at a time when O’level national exams are taking place.
Examples of the governments interests underlying its position might be to prevent the opposition from starting an Arab Spring type of revolution; another is its desire to have the opposition formerly inform & negotiate with the police about their demonstration plans.
The oppositions interests underlying their position might be a guarantee from the government not to interrupt their freedom of movement and have their constitutionally guarantied right to peaceful demonstrations with dignity. The list can go on!
Experts suggest that taking positions has many limitations. “Battles can leave you weakened.” The vanquished( in this case the opposition ) can become perpetual enemies.
With mediation and a cooling off period, the government & the opposition would separately write down their interests that underly their positions, i.e. the reasons justifying their positions. The mediator would then have each side separately review each sides statements of interest after which a preliminary meeting of a specific number of each party delegates would sit down and develop options to satisfy all opposing interests.
Its in the interest of both the government and the opposition to come to a peaceful and lasting resolution to this intractable dispute.
Positional bargaining is a common mode of negotiation in conflicts. People incorrectly believe that not revealing any information is strong, while disclosing information is weak. The basis for this belief is based on a preconscious risk assessment we make in every social situation. Generally speaking, we fear loss more than we desire gain. We will therefore adamantly state our own position, expecting others to listen. Of course, we don’t want to listen to the other person’s position, so we tune it out. Why is it that we expect people to listen and accept our personal positions when we are reluctant to listen and accept theirs? Is there any wonder why conflict can escalate so quickly?
The conflict arising from positional bargaining can be avoided by utilizing interested-based negotiation. This idea was first developed by scholars at the Harvard Negotiation Project and published in the 1981 book “Getting to Yes.” Interest-based negotiation asks people to ascertain the interests beneath their positions. Interests can be satisfied in many different ways. Consequently, working with interests leads to many more options than positional bargaining. In addition, satisfying interests is psychologically much different than caving in to another person’s position. When we have satisfied both our interests and those with whom we are negotiating, we have joint sense of well-being and pride at jointly solving a problem. When we are forced to concede to another’s position, we feel coerced, frustrated and angry over our loss of autonomy.
Unfortunately, interest-based negotiating is not our default method of dealing with differences. Because we have been taught by example that coercion is expedient and efficient, we tend to use coercive negotiating techniques without thinking. We argue, threaten, promise, and wheedle to get our own way.
However, people skilled in interest-based negotiation tend to be superior in conflict resolution, are able to achieve satisfaction of their interests without acrimony, and are able to leave important relationships intact.
Sources for this article: Positions vs. Interests changingminds.org
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Opposition should Focus on Interests, Not Positions
Its sad that Uganda’s opposition is caught up in this vicious but avoidable conflict of positions impasse with a more powerful adversary when in fact there is ample empirical approaches on the web for an amicable solution to this impasse! Focus on Interests, Not Positions
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday, October 12, 2011
Uganda's Paternalistic leadership Burden!
The burden of paternalistic leadership( the implicit practice of entrusting the leadership of Uganda to only one fatherly figure rather than a periodic diverse pool of leadership talent turnovers ) will eventually work to the detriment of our democracy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
