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!

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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 Content

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!

Sphere: Related Content

The Dichotomy of M7's rule in Uganda!

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts: jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts. In Uganda's case this dichotomy is exemplified by M7's adoption of the trappings of democracy alongside the pitfalls of despotism for the sole purpose of overextending his stay in power. M7 has in fact adopted "two divergent impulses": one that seems to promote civil rights and political liberties; and another that virtually curtails those same rights and liberties with violence and repression on a whim!

Sphere: Related Content

The Best Narrative of M7's Autocracy in Uganda

Click here to read this book's author's introduction If every Ugandan read this book, M7's perversion of our democracy would be ended. Its similar to but more detailed than Dr. Kobusingye's book, "The correct Line? Uganda Under Museveni", both of which came out at about the same time, but successfully dismissed and ignored by M7's government just a few months before last year's elections. Ugandans have plenty of time now to read and digest the critical information in these books and see in clear perspective the avoidable cliff M7's overextended rule is taking our democracy! In 2009, a documentary about Mubarak's Egypt was broadcast by the BBC world service about the effects of Mubarak's overextended stay in power was having on the country's democracy and Mubarak and his government dismissed and ignored it. Two years later Mubarak's government imploded. Its doubtful M7's overextended stay in power is immune to the realities of a modern informed democracy!

Sphere: Related Content

"Watered Down Democracy!"

There is an interesting article about the recent protests in Africa, in the July - September 2011 issue of Focus on Africa magazine, in which BBC Focus on Africa gathered "three thinkers in Cyberspace" to debate the ramifications of those protests. This included Uganda's managing director of the New Vision newspaper Mr. Robert Kabushenga whose opinions I found not suprising, but peculiar!

Focus on Africa is a subscription only magazine, so I cannot reproduce the entire article here. I will only highlight particular sections:

On the question of whether the days of benign long-serving autocrats are numbered: Uganda's Kabushenga has an emphatic: No. he goes on to say the following: "in Uganda you have an opposition leader - Kizza Besigye - who lost an election and was about to loose the leadership of his party and faced the prospect of an end to his career. So he incited a group of people to turn to violent protests." Professor Stephen Chun, another pannelist in this forum had the following response: " ... Noth Africa will appear more progressive than Eat Africa, where Uganda President Museveni simply doesn't have the imagination to rule with a modicum of flexibility, .. " On the question of whether governments have turned these social protests into political ones as in Uganda. Pfrofessor Chun had the following to say: "The reaction of the Ugandan government turned what was largely a social and economic demonstration into a political one. The luck of dynamic change and new ideas enabled some political undercurrents in the protests. Mr. Kabushenga still insisted that: "What was going on in Kampala was a well organised violent protest by a political section of the opposition. The issue of food prices was just an excuse! Mr. Kabushenga called Besigye a sore perpetual looser; to which professor Chun had the following response: "Robert's point about the sore loser, in Uganda's case the perpetual loser, needs to be balanced with the determination of the perpetual winner to keep perpetually winning. There is a problem about rotation of elites in Uganda. In Egypt, Mubarak kept winning elactions as well. What strikes me about Uganda is the mantle Museveni sometimes dons of having been a "liberation" leader. ... to the effect that liberation leaders are somehow irreplaceable ... "
In a colomn by Ghana's vice president Mr John Dramani Mahama: there is the following quote: The hopes and aspirations of an entire nation are no longer invested in one individual"

Sphere: Related Content

M7's Democratic Masquerade !

Over extended stay in power is an untenable premise in a democracy. It can only be maintained through coercion & manipulation of the democratic process. Unchecked, it's bound to implode soon or later like we've witnessed in the middle east!

In Uganda, M7 continues to masquerade as a democratically elected leader when in fact he is a nuanced version of the middle east despots that have just fallen.

M7 has overseen the changing of the constitution that favored his stay in power.
He has basically perverted our democracy through patronage, largess, and violence against any group that demonstrates against his regime.
M7 recently compared Ugandan's fundamental right to demonstrate peacefully to rioters.
He has imprisoned opponents on trumped up charges.

Sphere: Related Content

The Unresolved imperative of Big-man Rule in Uganda!

The issue of Big-man Rule remains the unresolved democratic imperative in Uganda two years after Obama raised the issue on his first trip to Africa.
Even in Democratic countries with no term limits, M7's uninterrupted 25 year rule raises serious doubts about the means he has used to stay that long in power.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. Young's advice for Uganda's opposition!

I like your suggestions Mr. Young, but you cannot dismiss the EU observer team conclusion that:

" the electoral process was marred by avoidable administrative and logistical failures which led to an unacceptable number of Ugandan citizens being disenfranchised. Furthermore, the power of incumbency was exercised to such an extent as to compromise severely the level playing field between the competing candidates and political parties.

First, we need some real fundamental  changes in the electoral process & restore term limits.

Second, even if the opposition applied all of your ideas, M7's entrenched culture of clientelistic networks that is well documented in  Professor Aili Mari Tripp's book  leaves the opposition at such a disadvantage in Uganda much as it did in a nuanced way in Egypt for Mubarak or any other despot.

Third  the electoral commission & it's chairman should be under the control of all stake holders and not the whims of the president.

Sphere: Related Content

Uganda’s elections marred by avoidable failures

By Baroness Catherine Ashton EU Vice President
and High Representative | Daily Monitor February 22 2011

Click this link to check out the interim report by the EAC-COMESA & IGAD observer team!

The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) has been present in Uganda since January 15 following an invitation from the government of Uganda and the Electoral Commission. The EU EOM is led by Edward Scicluna, Member of the European Parliament. The EU EOM deployed 120 observers from 27 EU member states and Norway.

The observers were deployed throughout Uganda to observe and assess the electoral process in accordance with international and regional standards for elections. The EU EOM was joined by a four-member delegation from the European Parliament, led by Joachim Zeller, Member of the European Parliament, which endorses this preliminary statement.

On Election Day, observers visited 643 polling stations and district tallying centres in all the Districts of Uganda to observe voting, counting and the tabulation of results. The EU EOM will remain in country to observe postelection developments. This statement is preliminary; a final report including recommendations for future elections will be published in May 2011. The EU EOM is independent in its findings and conclusions.

Preliminary conclusions

The 2011 Ugandan general elections showed some improvements over the previous elections held in 2006. However, the electoral process was marred by avoidable administrative and logistical failures which led to an unacceptable number of Ugandan citizens being disenfranchised. Furthermore, the power of incumbency was exercised to such an extent as to compromise severely the level playing field between the competing candidates and political parties.

Notwithstanding a number of incidents of violence and intimidation, especially on Election Day, the electoral campaign and polling day were conducted in a peaceful manner. Restraint in campaign rhetoric as well as a generally improved performance by the Ugandan police force contributed to this.

The lack of trust by stakeholders in the fundamental building blocks of the electoral process, namely in the Electoral Commission itself and the National Voter Register, dominated debate at the expense of policy issues, which would normally be at the centre of an election campaign and led to a breakdown of effective communication between the Electoral Commission and many of the stakeholders.

The Electoral Commission is to be commended for meeting best international practice by publishing election results polling station by polling station, which ensures full transparency as well as greater confidence and trust in the results for Uganda’s citizens.
The introduction of electronic transmission of results from district tally centres to the National Tally Centre marked a further improvement. In a further effort to improve transparency and confidence, the Electoral Commission arranged for political party representatives to join Electoral Commissioners in overseeing the printing of presidential and parliamentary ballot papers.

Uganda’s legal framework establishes comprehensive and detailed electoral provisions which provide a workable foundation for the conduct of elections, generally in line with Uganda’s international commitments and obligations. Recent amendments to the Election Acts provide for additional safeguards against electoral offences, but they have addressed neither the main concerns of most national stakeholders, nor the core recommendations of the 2006 EU EOM, such as reform of the Electoral Commissioners’ appointment process.

The campaign was conducted in a fairly open and free environment, in which the freedoms of expression, assembly and association were generally respected. Candidates and parties campaigned intensively, and were mostly able to move freely throughout the country. The distribution of money and gifts by candidates, especially from the ruling party, a practice inconsistent with democratic principles, was widely observed by EU EOM observers.

Citizens, candidates and parties have frequently sought recourse to the courts to resolve critical issues concerning the applicable legal and constitutional framework with regard to elections. Despite being under-resourced, the courts have demonstrated a considerable degree of independence in upholding the rule of law and respect for human rights. The higher courts’ decisions frequently cite international law and precedent, including jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Although the police issued repeated warnings against election-related protests, it is regrettable that no significant effort was undertaken by any state body to educate the public about electoral malpractices and the criminal sanctions they attract. Such failure is prone to instil a sense of impunity.

The state-owned broadcaster, Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC), failed to comply with its legal obligations to treat each presidential and parliamentary candidate equally, with its television channel giving the incumbent president and the ruling NRM party substantially more coverage than their nearest rivals.

The government’s dominance of state-owned radio, the only broadcasting network covering almost all areas of the country, was not balanced by private radio stations established outside the capital, which generally provided opposition candidates with very limited access.

Baroness Ashton is EU Vice President
and High Representative

Sphere: Related Content

"Museveni goes from big bully to artful dodger" - Daniel Kalinaki .

"What we have witnessed in this election is the transformation of Museveni from the soldier who bullies and batters his opponents to the politician who buys and bribes out his rivals" - Daniel Kalinak


MY VIEW: Museveni goes from big bully to artful dodger


By Daniel Kalinaki | Daily Monitor Thursday, February 17 2011


If President Museveni wins tomorrow’s election he will not just etch his name in the longevity books but will also have completed the second most tactical shift in strategy since he dropped his Communist-Marxist ideology for Capitalism/Free Market theory.

What we have witnessed in this election is the transformation of Museveni from the soldier who bullies and batters his opponents to the politician who buys and bribes out his rivals.

So in many ways we have made progress from the 2001 and 2006 elections where violence and intimidation were the key tools used to mobilise fear and support but then also gone back to the days of the Obote II government where political opportunism thrived.

President Museveni came into this election at his weakest, with runaway corruption endemic in his inner circle, a culture of impunity that has allowed services to fall apart, and a general incompetence in government that has led many citizens to try and survive inspite of government, rather than thrive because of it.

President Museveni has spent most of his campaign time hiding from the failures of his government in a mastery of the political game of “pass-the-buck”.

Is it bad roads? Blame the weather or the donors who impose conditions on the money they give or lend us to build them.

Is it poor education under the UPE and USE systems? Blame the absentee teachers (many of whom are too busy running side businesses because they are poorly paid).

Is it lack of medicines in government hospitals? Blame it on the doctors who steal the drugs and sell them in their private clinics to make a living.

At a meeting with Commonwealth Observers this week Andrew Mwenda described how Mr Museveni had, during a rally in Masaka, reduced the failures of the NAADS farmer extension programme into the responsibility of the programme coordinator in the district.

There was no mention of the agriculture minister perhaps because that could then raise the question of who appoints them and what it says about their own leadership and management skills.

The Old Man has pulled another rabbit from the hat by turning himself into a victim. Many voters, especially in the villages, believe ‘Mzee’ means well and wants the best for them but is constantly let down by technocrats and bureaucrats. That strategy has been supplemented by a massive spending spree, which we do not have to revisit here.

However, that is a one-shot strategy. If Museveni is re-elected tomorrow and intends to run again in 2016, he cannot expect to return to voters in 2015 and hope that he will sell them the same cock-and-bull story of being let down by his people.

It means that Museveni, if he is re-elected, will have to run an efficient and effective government in which politicians, including the President, take individual responsibility for government actions rather than hide behind the cover of collective responsibility or pass the buck to technocrats.

Unfortunately, that is something the President has failed to do in his 25 years in power and one that he is unlikely to do in the fading days of his political career.

Corrupt governments are incapable of being efficient in their allocation of resources, or being transparent and accountable in their actions because they thrive in dysfunction.

Since it will be harder to beat up opponents or pass the buck in future elections, it just might be that the next President will be one who pays the highest bribe per vote. In which case we have not seen the last of NRM.

dkalinaki@ug.nationmedia.com

Sphere: Related Content

Change is a "strategic necessity" - Hillary Clinton

The following are excerpts( some paraphrased! ) from the US secretary of state remarks at the International Security Conference in Munich. She might as well have directed these remarks to president Museveni!

Change is a "strategic necessity" - it makes nations stronger and more prosperous and less susceptible to extremist ideologies.


"The status quo: "the culture of one man knows best, better than anybody" is simply not sustainable."


"Some leaders may believe that their country is an exception - that their people will not demand greater political or economic opportunities, or that they can be placated with half-measures," Clinton said. "In the short term, that may be true; but in the long-term that is untenable."

"Without genuine progress toward open and accountable political systems, the gap between people and their governments will only grow, and instability will only deepen."

"incremental steps that do not give people full freedom and opportunity only breed further discontent."

"If the events of these past few weeks prove anything, it is that the governments who consistently deny their people freedom and opportunity are the ones who will, in the end, open the door to instability."

Sphere: Related Content

Wampologoma emyaaka emeka?

Nzenina Vision yeka!

Sphere: Related Content

If it smells like campaigning it must be campaigning!

M7 denies campaign help from Kenya!! Yeah Right!

You can fool some people some of the time; But you can't fool people all the time!

Sphere: Related Content

I STILL HAVE A DREAM FOR UGANDA!

Monday January, 16th 2011 is a Federal holiday in the USA in honor of the late Civil Rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The Day is observed on the third Monday of January - around the time of Dr. Kings birthday of January 15th.
Born in 1929 and assassinated on April 4th, 1968, at the tender age of 39; Dr. King would have been 83 years old today.

Every year on this day, Americans and the world are reminded particularly of Dr. Kings most famous speech: “I Have A Dream”, in which he challenged Americans especially those in power to live up to the true meaning of the country’s creed: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.”

“I Have A Dream “ speech continues to resonate throughout the world today for all freedom loving people and especially more so for Ugandans yearning to shake the shackles of one man rule.

In a humble Ugandan rendition version of Dr. Kings speech, I like to say to all Ugandans of good conscious to dare to have a dream also.

That Uganda can live up to the true meaning of its democracy and have the courage to embrace diversity in leadership the next presidential election. And bring an end to the culture overextended Big man Rule.
That small Ugandan children of every tribe and background can grow up to realize the true potential of our diversity in leadership talent rather than than the stifling and marginalizing scourge of one man rule.

And if Uganda is to be a great nation this must become true!

And when this happens, when we allow free & fair elections to prevail, when we let it prevail from every village and every county, from every district and every town, we will be able to speed up that day when all of Uganda’s God's children of every tribe, bush war heros and none bush war heros, Protestants, Muslims, Catholics, or non believers will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the late Dr. Kings old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Sphere: Related Content

Vote For Diversity in Leadership on February 18th!

The future of the most prosperous nations belongs to those states that embrace diversity in leadership rather than the culture and bigotry of one man rule.
Vote for a new generation of leadership in Uganda that will inspire the fullest potential of our diversity and not the anachronistic & stifling oligarchy of one man rule!
Vote to End Big Man Rule once and for all in Uganda!

Sphere: Related Content

Universal Primary & Secondary Free Education, were Donor Funded Initiatives!

In a bid to gain votes M7 introduced free universal education measures as campaign promises when in fact they were funded by donors in their effort to meet their development objectives regardless of the political advantage it gave the incumbent government.

The irony of universal free education is that it was disastrous in the begining because it was hastily introduced in M7's bid to gain votes, the education system was ill prepared for the immediate and massive influx of students. This resulted in well off families sending thier kids to private schools. page 188 - Museveni's Uganda Paradoxes of Power in a Hybrid Regime

Sphere: Related Content

Why Uganda Deserves a New Leader in 2011

One major and simple reason why the time for new leadership in Uganda is well overdue is because, no single leader, however brilliant or powerful he may be, has all the answers to solving the most intractible problems of a modern day nation.

Most successful democratic nations today achieve their success by harnessing the synergies and capacity of their diversity in leadership.

M7's continued effort to cling to power is simply anachronistic and Neopatrimonialism to the democratic needs of the future of Uganda.

Sphere: Related Content

M7 is Lying about the opposition for political expediency!

Museveni on Radio Rupiny studios in Gulu district. Centre is talkshow host Rocky Menya and northern Uganda presidential adviser Richard Todwong

By Cyprian Musoke and Chris Ocowun | Newvision Sunday, 21 November, 2010

Its preposterous and disingenuous for M7 to assert that Dr.Otunnu did not help his tribesmen when they were suffering under Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army!

Dr. Otunnu courageously spearheaded the effort to bring the worlds attention to the plight of the people of Northen Uganda, especially the scourge of the wars effect on innocent children as the video below will show.



Liberating the country is often an over used excuse M7 uses against the opposition at election time to perpetuate his one man rule ideology on Uganda.

NOT THIS TIME!: Ugandans and opposition leaders that know the truth must speak out against M7's ridiculous allegetions!

M7 would not have liberated Uganda without many unsung Ugandan heros, dead and alive!

NRM presidential candidate Yoweri Museveni has castigated the opposition for saying he should “go home”. Museveni said he liberated the country while many of his critics were relaxing in European capitals.

Campaigning at Pajule Primary School in Pader district on Saturday, Museveni singled out Uganda presidential candidate Olara Otunnu who for a long time served as undersecretary for child affairs at the UN.

Museveni said Otunnu did not help his tribesmen when they were suffering under Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army

.
Read the complete article at Newvision.com

Sphere: Related Content