DOCSLIB.ORG

Strengthening Multi-Party Democracy: End-Of-Project Evaluation Report Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strengthening Multi-Party Democracy: End-Of-Project Evaluation Report Final Report STRENGTHENING MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY: END-OF-PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT FINAL REPORT September 2011 This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID/Uganda). It was prepared by The Mitchell Group, Inc. for the Uganda Monitoring and Evaluation Management Services, herein referred to as UMEMS, Contract Number 617-C-00-08-00012-00 SMD End of Project Evaluation Report | i Strengthening Multi-Party Democracy Prepared for United States Agency for International Development USAID/UGANDA Team Members: Pieter du Plessis Susan Cowley Dr Sabiti Makara Dr Nansozi Muwanga Patrick Oloya Jackline Arineitwe The Mitchell Group, Inc. 1816 11th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 DUNS#: 17528-5121 TIN#52-1467119 Telephone: (202) 745-1919 Facsimile: (202) 234-1697 Internet: www.the-mitchellgroup.com Kampala September, 2011 SMD End of Project Evaluation Report | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 1-INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 SMD INTENT AND RATIONALE ................................................................................................... 5 2-EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODS ................................................................... 5 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND KEY QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 5 2.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 7 3-EVALUATION FINDINGS...................................................................................................... 7 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF THE INTENDED RESULTS OF SMD PROJECT ....................................... 7 3.2 EVALUATION FINDINGS ON THE ELECTORAL PROCESS ................................................... 23 3.3 FINDINGS ON ELECTORAL VIOLENCE .................................................................................... 24 3.4 EVALUATION FINDINGS FOR SMD’S PROGRAM OF CIVIL SOCIETY SUPPORT ............ 25 3.5 PARTNERSHIPS, COLLABORATION AND SYNERGIES ......................................................... 33 3.6 PROGRAM DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................................. 35 4-CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 CONCLUSIONS ON SMD’s POLITICAL PARTY SUPPORT ..................................................... 39 4.2 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT SMD’s SUPPORT TO CIVIL SOCIETY ............................................. 42 5-RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 44 5.1 GENERAL........................................................................................................................................ 44 5.2 POLITICAL PARTY SUPPORT ..................................................................................................... 44 5.3 CAUCUSES ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.4 CIVIL SOCIETY SUPPORT ........................................................................................................... 46 5.5 SUPPORT TO THE UGANDAN ELECTORAL PROCESS ......................................................... 46 6-LESSONS LEARNED AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES................................................. 47 6.1 LESSONS LEARNED ..................................................................................................................... 47 6.2 MISSED OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................ 52 7-ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................ 53 ANNEX 1: SMD EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................... 53 ANNEX 2: MAP OF IMPLEMENTATION DISTRICTS..................................................................... 61 ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR POLITICIANS ........................................................................... 62 ANNEX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DISTRICT CSOs ....................................................................... 65 SMD End of Project Evaluation Report | iii ANNEX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MENTOR CSOs IN UGANDA ................................................. 70 ANNEX 6: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR YOUTH CSOs IN UGANDA ................................................... 75 ANNEX 7: QUESTIONNARIE FOR PWDs CSOs IN UGANDA ....................................................... 79 ANNEX 8: QUESTIONNARIE FOR PARTY INTERNS .................................................................... 83 ANNEX 9: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DISTRICT CSO FORUMS IN UGANDA ................................ 84 ANNEX 10: UGANDA POLITICAL CONTEXT ................................................................................. 88 ANNEX 11: KEY ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED BY CSOs .............................................................. 94 ANNEX 12: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED .............................................................................. 107 ANNEX 13: RESULTS ACHIEVED BY SMD PROJECT ................................................................ 132 ANNEX 14: LIST OF DEMGROUP ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED BY SMD PROJECT .................. 143 ANNEX 15: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ........................................................................... 144 SMD End of Project Evaluation Report | iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACFODE Action for Development ADINGON Arua District Non-Governmental Organization Network ADS 203 Automated Directive System 203 ADS 578 Automated Directive Systems 578 AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome BYM Bushenyi Youth Network CA Cooperative Agreement CAO Chief Administrative Officer CDOs Community Development Officers CEPPS Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening CHOGM Commonwealth Heads of State and Government COL Change Initiative Limited CP Conservative Party CSOs Civil Society Organizations CV Curriculum Vitae DDP Deepening Democracy Program DEMGroup Democracy Monitoring Group DG Democracy and Governance DP Democratic Party DR District Registrar DVP Development Partner EC Electoral Commission EU European Union FAD African Development FDC Forum for Democratic Change FES Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung FGDs Focus Group Discussions GIS Geographic Information System GOU Government of Uganda HIV Human Immune Deficiency Virus ICT Information Communication and Technology SMD End of Project Evaluation Report | v IFES International Foundation for Electoral Systems IPC Inter-Party Coalition IPD Inter-Party Dialogues IPOD Inter-Party Organization for Dialogue IRI International Republican Institute IUIU Islamic University in Uganda JEEMA Justice Forum KAS Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung KIs Key Informants LCs Local Councils LCV Local Council Five LRA Lords Resistance Army LRM Lords Resistance Movement LTO Long Term Observation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MPs Members of Parliament MPD Multi-Party Democracy MUST Mbarara University of Science and Technology NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NAWOU National Association of Women Organizations in Uganda NDI National Democratic Institute NED National Endowment for Democracy NGOs Nongovernmental Organizations NIMD Netherlands Institute for Multi-Party Democracy NRA National Resistance Army NRM National Resistance Movement NURRU Network of Ugandan Researchers and Research Users NUSUF Northern Uganda Social Action Fund PD Program Description PDG Partners for Democracy and Governance PDP’s Project Development Plans PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan PPP Peoples Progressive Party SMD End of Project Evaluation Report | vi PWDs People with Disabilities PYLT Young Leaders Training Program RYPLA Regional Youth Political leadership Academy SACCOs Savings Credit and Cooperative Organizations SMD Strengthening Multi-party Democracy SMS Short Message Service SOW Scope of Work SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats TDF Tanzanian Peoples Defense Forces TDS Transformational Diplomacy Strategy ToTs Training of Trainers TV Television UBC Uganda Broadcasting Corporation UGX Uganda Shillings UJCC Uganda Joint Christian Council UK United Kingdom UMEMS Uganda Monitoring Evaluation & Management Services UPC Uganda Peoples’ Congress URTAF Uganda Roundtable Foundation US United States USAID United State Agency for International Development USD United States Dollars USG United States Government UWONET Uganda Women’s Network VRA Voter Registration Audit WDN Women’s Democracy Network Y+PN Youth Plus Policy Network YN Youth Network YSU Youth Sport Uganda. SMD End of Project Evaluation Report | vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to Request for Application 617-07-005 (RFA), USAID/Uganda contracted the National Democratic Institute (NDI) as lead partner in cooperation with the International
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NIMD Fostering Multiparty Democracy in Uganda
    NIMD fostering multiparty democracy in Uganda The Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD) works to promote peaceful, justice and inclusive politics worldwide. Today, as the organisation is celebrating 10 years of operations in Uganda, Daily Monitor’s Paul Murungi, spoke to Mr Frank Rusa, the Country Representative who also doubles as the Executive Secretary of Inter- Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) Council. Below are the excerpts: political platform. We have therefore, for the last shape the agenda and give technical support. I build dialogue, you have to continue building trust 10 years, focused on working with political parties provide support to the secretariat to ensure that I by showing concern over the issues raised. I need to build internal organisational mechanisms for oversee that staff is responding well to programme to tell you that the current chairman of the IPOD conflict resolution, strong accounting systems, objectives and outcomes that we seek to achieve Summit, Mr Asuman Basalirwa has been going robust women and youth leagues, and the way in Uganda. around political parties calling for another summit, political parties should function. and he has informed me that the FDC president, Uganda’s multiparty political landscape has Mr Patrick Oboi Amuriat has expressed willingness Tell us more about the composition of Inter- grown exponentially since 2005 to include many to attend the next summit, so I believe with time, Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD). political parties. Why is it that some political we will build trust and parties’ commitment shall In 2009 IPOD was formed on a Memorandum of parties are not part of IPOD? increase.
    [Show full text]
  • KAS Democracy Report 2009
    62 KAS Democracy Report 2009 uganda Sallie Simba Kayunga i. generaL information Political system uganda has a presidential system. The president and members of the ugandan Parliament (mPs) are elected separately. While the president and parliament each have different constitutional responsibilities, some of their responsibilities are interdependent. The president is both head of state and government and performs both the titular and executive functions. The president appoints ministers, ambassadors, the inspector general of the government and the inspector general of police. furthermore, he or she appoints, on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, the chief justice, his or her deputy, the principle judge, judges of the Supreme Court, judges of the Court of Appeal and the panel of judges of the High Court. Whereas such presidential appointments are subject to parliamentary approval, there have been only rare instances when parliament has rejected a presidential appointee. As in other presidential systems, the president has, for example, the prerogative to declare war and also has the prerogative of mercy. The constitution also provides for the position of a prime minister, who is the leader of government business in parliament and who also coordinates the implementation of government policies, but without any executive powers. The prime minister is appointed by, and is accountable to, the president. Some of the common characteristics of a parliamentary system can also be identified in the ugandan political system. most of the ministers are, for example, appointed from among mPs to the extent that out of the 332 mPs, 69 or 21 per cent are active ministers.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Abbreviations
    HRNJ - Uganda Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda (HRNJ-Uganda) Press Freedom Index Report April 2011 2 HRNJ - Uganda Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................... 5 Part I: Background .............................................................................................. 7 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 Elections and Media .............................................................................................. 7 Research Objective ............................................................................................... 8 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 8 Quality check ......................................................................................................... 8 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 9 Part II: Media freedom during national elections in Uganda ................................ 11 Media as a campaign tool ................................................................................... 11 Role of regulatory bodies ................................................................................... 12 Media self censorship ......................................................................................... 14 Censorship of social media
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda Program Summary Political Party Strengthening Disabilities
    Uganda Program Summary Uganda’s return to multiparty politics following a 2005 referendum created new opportunities for political participation and competition. Nineteen years of de facto one-party rule however, created significant obstacles to peaceful political competition and the establishment of effective, representative political institutions. To support the people of Uganda as they establish a functioning, multiparty democracy in the face of these challenges, the International Republican Institute (IRI) designed a program to strengthen political pluralism, increase the involvement of women, youth, and persons with disabilities in political processes, and to support the development of political parties and organizations. Political Party Strengthening IRI works with political parties to develop strategic plans and to strengthen party structures. Party activities supported by IRI include promoting internal party democracy, increasing communication between party organs and improving internal party organization, so that vital party functions are carried out and established between elections. At the district level, parties have opened offices, recruited volunteers to staff their offices and increased publicity activities. Additionally, the Institute has sponsored an information and communications technology project for parties to establish interactive web forums at www.parties.ug and communicate with their members via SMS technology, the internet and radio. IRI also supports the policy development process of political parties through its work with the parties and their affiliated foundations. For these programs, IRI partners with the four largest parties in Uganda’s parliament: the National Resistance Movement, the Forum for Democratic Change, the Uganda People’s Congress and the Democratic Party. The Institute has also provided limited assistance to two other parties represented in the legislature: the Justice Forum and the Conservative Party.
    [Show full text]
  • UGANDA COUNTRY of ORIGIN INFORMATION (COI) REPORT COI Service
    UGANDA COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION (COI) REPORT COI Service Date 20 April 2011 UGANDA DATE Contents Preface Latest News EVENTS IN UGANDA FROM 3 FEBRUARY TO 20 APRIL 2011 Useful news sources for further information REPORTS ON UGANDA PUBLISHED OR ACCESSED BETWEEN 3 FEBRUARY AND 20 APRIL 2011 Paragraphs Background Information 1. GEOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 1.01 Map ........................................................................................................................ 1.06 2. ECONOMY ................................................................................................................ 2.01 3. HISTORY .................................................................................................................. 3.01 Political developments: 1962 – early 2011 ......................................................... 3.01 Conflict with Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA): 1986 to 2010.............................. 3.07 Amnesty for rebels (Including LRA combatants) .............................................. 3.09 4. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................................................... 4.01 Kampala bombings July 2010 ............................................................................. 4.01 5. CONSTITUTION.......................................................................................................... 5.01 6. POLITICAL SYSTEM ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • HOSTILE to DEMOCRACY the Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda
    HOSTILE TO DEMOCRACY The Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda Human Rights Watch New York $$$ Washington $$$ London $$$ Brussels Copyright 8 August 1999 by Human Rights Watch. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 1-56432-239-4 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 99-65985 Cover design by Rafael Jiménez Addresses for Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10118-3299 Tel: (212) 290-4700, Fax: (212) 736-1300, E-mail: [email protected] 1522 K Street, N.W., #910, Washington, DC 20005-1202 Tel: (202) 371-6592, Fax: (202) 371-0124, E-mail: [email protected] 33 Islington High Street, N1 9LH London, UK Tel: (171) 713-1995, Fax: (171) 713-1800, E-mail: [email protected] 15 Rue Van Campenhout, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel: (2) 732-2009, Fax: (2) 732-0471, E-mail:[email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to [email protected] with Asubscribe hrw-news@ in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank). Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.
    [Show full text]
  • Same Same but Different: Parties, Politics and Ideology in Uganda
    Same Same but Different: Parties, Politics and Ideology in Uganda By Dr. S.K.Simba Paper Presented at the 1st Lunch Time Seminar organized by the Department of Political Science and Public Administration in Conjunction with Friedrich Ebert Stifftung 12th March 2015 1 1. Introduction: a. Meaning: The term “ideology” was coined in 1796 by the French philosopher Desutt de Tracy in reference to a new “science (ology) of ideas (idea). The purpose of this “new” science was to uncover the origins of conscious thought and ideas. Since that time, the concept has acquired different meanings to different people. It has been dubbed “the most illusive concept in the whole of social science”1Gerring accuses its practitioners with more than a little justice of “semantic promiscuity”.2Nevertheless several definitions have been suggested. Erickson and Tedin define it as a set of belief about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved.3From a social-scientific viewpoint, an ideology can be defined as a more or less coherent set of ideas that provide a basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power relations.4 All ideologies, therefore, offer an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a „world view”. They provide a model for the desired future, a vision of a “good society”. They outline how political change can be brought about.5 b. Political Parties and Ideology: A political party can be defined as a group of people organized to gain to gain formal representation or to win government power in most cases by electoral means.6 There is a symbiotic relationship between a political party and an ideology.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics in Uganda Today
    Politics in Uganda Today June 24, 2014 Structure of Government • National--Presidential Republic – President is head of state and government • Regions--Northern, Central, Eastern, Western • District--112 in the country (111+ Kampala) – Chairperson of the Local Council V – National gov’t appoints a Resident District Commissioner – May overlap with Kingdom government • County • Sub-county • Village(Parish)--local council I US Dept. of State Background Notes • Constitution: Ratified July 12, 1995 • Independence: October 9, 1962 • Branches: Executive--president, vice president, prime minister, cabinet • Legislative--parliament; since February 2011 375 members: 112 special seats for women, 10 special seats for military, five for youth, and five for persons with disabilities. • Judicial--Magistrates' Courts, High Court, Political Parties • 38 registered parties • Major parties include – National Resistance Movement (NRM, ruling party) – Forum for a Democratic Change (FDC) – Democratic Party (DP) – Conservative Party (CP) – Justice Forum (JEEMA) – Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) Principal Government Officials • President and Commander in Chief--Yoweri Kaguta Museveni • Vice President--Edward Ssekandi • Prime Minister--Amama Mbabazi • Foreign Minister--Sam Kutesa • Minister of Defense--Crispus Kiyonga • Ambassador to the United States--Perezi K. Kamunanwire • Ambassador to the United Nations--acting Article by Tangri & Mwenda • WHY is Museveni (like other African leaders) so determined to maintain power? • Museveni believes he is indispensable
    [Show full text]
  • Navigating Multiparty Politics in Local Governments in Uganda
    LOCAL GOVERNANCE BRIEFER A product of the Local Government Councils Scorecard Initiative Issue No.3, Febuary 2021 Navigating Multiparty Politics in Local Governments in Uganda By Eugene Gerald Ssemakula1 service delivery was at its best, all of which made the NRM quite popular” The year 2021 marks 29 years since the introduction of decentralisation policy in Uganda, and 15 years The introduction of multi-party politics in 2005 since the first multi-party elections in 2006. For local meant that political space would not only be governments, this period has been characterized by contested by various political parties at the national phases of learning, re-learning, gains and reversals level but also at the local government level. This in a mixed bag of experience in the pursuit of period also coincided with several policy and delivering the needed services while navigating the administrative changes that inadvertently weakened existing political realities. This article examines the local governments. The abolition of graduated tax phases of multiparty implementation, the practice greatly reduced the local revenue base, strongly of multiparty politics and makes suggestions on the pegging local government financial survival to the way forward. fortunes and dictates of the central government. Similarly, a number of many fiscal and administrative Phases of decentralisation reforms shifted control over key financial and human The implementation of decentralisation can be resources to the central government. The political divided into two main phases, the movement system sphere for local governments has been characterized period and multi-party system period. The first phase by an increase in the administrative units each (1992-2005) under the movement system2 period election cycle (from 56 in 2000 to the current 136 witnessed the epitome of local governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Reform Agenda – Political Parties – Political Leaders – Governments – Opposition Groups – Political Violence
    Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: UGA30810 Country: Uganda Date: 25 October 2006 Keywords: Uganda – Reform Agenda – Political parties – Political leaders – Governments – Opposition groups – Political violence This response was prepared by the Country Research Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. Questions 1. Please provide information about the group Reform Agenda in Uganda. 2. What was the situation during 2001/2002 for members of Reform Agenda in Uganda? 3. What is the current situation for members of Reform Agenda in Uganda? 4. Which political parties were in power and in opposition in Uganda during 2001/2002 and who were their leaders? 5. Which political party won the 2001 election in Uganda and who was its leader? 6. Were opposition parties subjected to violence / harassment by the government in Uganda during 2001/2002? 7. Which political party is currently in power in Uganda and who is its leader? 8. What are the names of the main opposition political parties currently in Uganda and who are their leaders? 9. Are opposition parties currently subjected to violence / harassment by the government in Uganda? RESPONSE 1. Please provide information about the group Reform Agenda in Uganda. A RRT research response dated 20 July 2004 provides a political history of the Reform Agenda group in Uganda up to that date and lists the group’s office holders in 2002 and 2004 (RRT Country Research 2004, Research Response UGA16861, 20 July – Attachment 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Aspirants' Use of Whatsapp in Uganda's 2021
    Connecting with constituents? Parliamentary aspirants’ use of WhatsApp in Uganda’s 2021 ‘scientific’ election Eloïse Bertrand, Grace Natabaalo, and Jamie Hitchen May 2021 Rights, acknowledgements and disclaimer All rights in this work, including copyright, are owned by Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and are protected by applicable UK and international laws. This work cannot be copied, shared, translated, or adapted – in full or in part - without permission from Westminster Foundation for Democracy. All rights reserved. This study Connecting with constituents? Parliamentary aspirants’ use of WhatsApp in Uganda’s 2021 ‘scientific’ election was made possible through funding received from the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The study was published in June 2021. The paper was written by Eloïse Bertrand, Grace Natabaalo, and Jamie Hitchen and peer reviewed by: Tanja Hollstein (Senior Elections Adviser), Joseph Munyangabo (Country Representative, Uganda), Zoe Oliver-Watts (Regional Director, Africa), and Graeme Ramshaw (Director of Research and Evaluation). The authors are grateful to the research assistants who conducted interviews alongside Grace Natabaalo, namely: Stephen Candia, Simon Emwamu, Lulu Jemimah, Evelyn Lirri, Brian Luwaga, Ambrose Musasizi, Johncation Muhindo, John Ken Okot, Alfred Tumushabe, James Tweny, and Philip Wafula. The authors would also like to thank all the respondents who agreed to participate in this research. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of or endorsed by the parliaments or independent institutions mentioned in the paper, nor of the UK Government. Dr Eloïse Bertrand is a Research Fellow at the University of Portsmouth. Grace Natabaalo is an independent researcher based in Kampala, Uganda.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Competition in a Hybrid Multi-Party Dispensation – an Inquiry Into Internal Party Democracy in Uganda
    Political Competition in a Hybrid Multi-Party Dispensation – An inquiry into Internal Party Democracy in Uganda Munyangabo Joseph Kitamirike Emmanuel CONTENTS Published by GLISS P.O. Box 398, Kampala Email: [email protected] 1. Introduction 1 Website: http://www.gliss.org 2. Background 2 Citation: 3. Internal Organisation of Political Munyangabo J. & Kitamirike E (2015). Political Parties in Uganda 4 Competition in a Hybrid Multi-Party Dispensation – An inquiry into Internal Party Democracy in Uganda. The Situation Room Uganda Debate Briefing Papers, No 5 of 2015. GLISS, IRI, UYONET, NTV, Kampala © GLISS 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the publisher. The reproduction or use of this publication for academic or charitable purpose or for purposes of informing public policy is exempted from this restriction. The development and publication of this policy briefing paper has been made possible by the generous support from the Democratic Governance Facility and the International Republican Institute under the Political Competition and Consensus Building Programme funded by the United States Agency for International Development. 1. Introduction ganda returned to a multiparty political party ideology and norms. For the purpose of system in 2005 following the results of this analysis, political parties and their internal a national referendum. The Multiparty democracy are not evaluated against a structural Udispensation in Uganda is premised “ideal” form of political party, but rather against on the legal framework provided for by the 1995 the internal party guidelines, basic democratic Constitution under articles 71, 72 and 73.
    [Show full text]