DOCSLIB.ORG

When Elections Consolidate Power: the Futile Fight of the Ugandan Opposition in the 2011 Elections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
When Elections Consolidate Power: the Futile Fight of the Ugandan Opposition in the 2011 Elections CMI BRIEF May 2011 Volume 10 No. 2 When elections consolidate power: The futile fight of the Ugandan opposition in the 2011 elections Recent elections in Uganda produced the outcome “everyone expected”: President Museveni and the NRM-party won. After 25 years of Museveni in power, the opposition has failed to pose any significant and real challenge to President Museveni’s rule. Rather than a democratic contest for power, elections in Uganda appear to be tools for consolidating power. The election reflects the NRM and Museveni’s continued control of the political game. Albeit internal weaknesses in the political opposition, we argue that a hostile operating environment makes it impossible for the opposition parties to compete. The international community, monitoring teams Six years after the re-introduction of multiparty and the opposition have all lamented that there politics in Uganda, the opposition parties have not managed to attract enough members and voters due to poor party organisation wasthe election an uneven results playing also field revealed in the a 2011 fragmented elections, and that the results were fraudulent (box 1). Yet, andparties infrastructure. have been compounded Lack of access by to within-party both anddistribution weak opposition of voting inmaterial Uganda. to While the polling claims of financialsplits, making and human already resources fragile organisations within the ballotstations, stuffing, dominated a faulty the voters’ discussion register on electionand uneven day, the large difference between the NRM candidates and the candidates of the other parties in both weaker.also failed With to createthe failure a credible, of the Interpartymonolithic the Presidential and Parliamentary race, seems Cooperationopposition alternative (IPC), the toopposition the NRM parties(see box have to indicate that the opposition failed to mobilise voters to challenge President Museveni and the opposition parties to attack each other rather 2). “Opportunistic ambitions” have caused the NRM. than to unite against the NRM. CMI BRIEF MAY 2011 VOLUME 10 NO.2 WHEN THE ELECTIONS CONSOLIDATE POWER Table 1: Results of Uganda Presidential election 2011 Table 2: Results of Uganda Presidential election 2011 by party: directly elected MPs Candidate (party) Number Percentage Party Regular Women Total of votes of votes MPs MPs Yoweri K. Museveni (NRM) 5,428,369 68.38% NRM 164 86 250 Kizza Besigye (IPC) 2,064,963 26.01% Independents 30 11 41 Norbert Mao (DP) 147,917 1.86% FDC 23 11 34 Olara Otunnu (UPC) 125,059 1.58% DP 11 1 12 Beti O. Kamya (UFA) 52,782 0.66% UPC 7 3 10 Abed Bwanika (PDP) 51,708 0.65% JEEMA 1 - 1 Jaberi B. Ssali (PPP) 34,688 0.44% CP 1 - 1 Samuel Lubega (Indep) 32,726 0.41% Total 237 112 349 Source: Electoral Commission of Uganda decentralisation has been a goal of the Ugandan opposition in Uganda, there have been positive government and international donors since the While this might paint a bleak picture of the of the parties have held delegate conferences developments since previous elections. Most late 1980s, research has shown that NRM and schemes to broaden their resource base, they President Museveni enjoy significantly higher withhave internalshown a elections.willingness Through to spend new, some inventive of electoralThe single-member support in districtnewly created plurality districts. electoral their resources on building an organisation system for Parliament creates a candidate- centred system where many opposition Party Cooperation shows that there are ongoing thatinitiatives in time within can reach the opposition across Uganda. to create The aInter This creates disgruntled losers and spreads candidatestheir resource, campaign which againstis detrimental each other. for the opposition cooperation has been successful in credible alternative to the NRM. This kind of opposition.this has also A haunted split opposition the NRM-sponsored simply cannot manyAccording other to African the Afrobarometer, countries. when voting competecandidates with who the have monolithic faced former NRM. NRM While for president, voters consider personality and leadership skills more important than ability Box 1: Monitoring to deliver on issues like employment and Independents, it has highlighted the splits both reports within and between opposition parties. Commonwealth Observer Group: development. The candidate’s party affiliation is “The Political Parties and Organisations Act” “The country is still in the less important. The opposition failed to convince restricts fundraising. It is poorly and selectively process of consolidating its votersBesigye they did couldnot manage ensure to peace convince and security.voters he implemented.Simultaneously, Public the law funds contains supposed clauses to be that multi-party political system Without support from a powerful coalition, givencan be to used presidential to disband candidates and prosecute were delayed.political … Some serious concerns parties and individuals if they do not comply remain. Of particular note couldThis seeming beat Museveni failure ofand the be opposition, a strong leader. we will with the regulations, thus making it an effective are the overwhelming lack Votersargue, isdid a resultnot buy of Besigye’s Museveni vision and the of NRMchange. of a level playing field and using the state apparatus and their incumbency the “commercialisation of advantages strategically to distance the “threat-mechanism”.is appointed and funded Finally, by the the government Electoral politics”. As a result, the Commission lacks legitimacy. The Commission 2011 elections in Uganda taken control of the electoral contest? conducts elections without addressing previous did not fully meet national, electorate from the opposition. How have they and thus dependent on it. The Commission regional and international standards for democratic A “hostile” operating failures.The use of state resources elections.” environment A fusion between the state and the NRM party EU Observation Mission: creates opportunities for the NRM to use and “The 2011 Ugandan general The legal and institutional framework elections showed some improvements over the The manipulation of the legal and institutional distribute state resources. These resources are previous elections held framework surrounding the election process has eitherThe importance used to buy of votes,money positions in politics or in policy. Uganda in 2006…. Furthermore, the power of incumbency The number of electoral and bureaucratic NRM has been named top vote buyer in both was exercised to such an contributeddistricts has toincreased a “hostile” dramatically operating environment.since is increasing, and vote buying is pervasive. extent as to compromise severely the level playing surveys as well as focus groups. Money is field between the compet- electionselection and were of reintroducedparticipation inbecause 1996 (seethe numberbox funnelled through the State House, which has ing candidates and political 3).of positions This has increasedthe opposition the costs has toof competethe actual for anpolicies item inand the projects budget to called regions, to “Presidential districts or parties.” Gifts”; the President himself can grant increases. This hurts opposition parties with individuals. This was used in the period before 2 weakly developed party structures. While the campaign. The importance of the public CMI BRIEF may 2011 VOLUME 10 NO.2 WHEN ELECTIONS CONSOLIDATE POWER sector for the economy in Uganda, has created an environment where the private sector is Box 2: The failure of the IPC • The Interparty Cooperation (IPC) was an attempt to create a unitary increases the importance of being on sound Ugandan opposition for the 2011 election. dependentfooting with on the public ruling contracts party, and to prosper.the risk if This • The initiative was supported and funded by the international community. oneAs the is associatedruling party, with NRM the controls opposition. the creation • It originally included the following parties: FDC, DP, UPC CP, SDP and JEEMA. of positions as well as the loyalty of those • DP quit the IPC in early 2010 and by August UPC has quit as well. Both nominate their own presidential candidate instead. of both the local, regional and national employedgovernments in the and state bureaucracies apparatus. are The extensive size • SDP quit the Cooperation after seeing FDC support Independent candidate Erias Lukwago for the Kampala Mayor’s race, after initially supporting and nominating SDP leader Michael Mabikke as the IPC’s candidate. andwhich growing can provide (See box you 3). with This the means resources that itto is 1) important to be associated with the party can provide other party sympathisers with the state apparatus, the opposition mobilised win elections, and 2) that the winning party non-elected positions. This is compounded by youth wings to “protect the vote”. The use and thelocal large and salariesregional enjoyed government by public structures officials. and misusemilitary of and the the term police “vigilante to intervene group” in and opposition “youth TheRegional legacy District of the Commissioners“Movement” system has created on brigade” create both fear and space for the many non-partisan government structures responsible for security during the elections that are loyal to the NRM and, more often than mobilisation.because the army The policeis under was the supposed command to of be paid from public funds, and should thus be role in the organisation of the security aspects not,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EISA Technical ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT UGANDA The
    EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT i EISA TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT UGANDA THE UGANDAN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS OF 18 FEBRUARY 2011 ii EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT iii EISA TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT MISSION REPORT UGANDA THE UGANDAN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS OF 18 FEBRUARY 2011 2012 iv EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT Published by EISA 14 Park Rd, Richmond Johannesburg South Africa P O Box 740 Auckland Park 2006 South Africa Tel: 27 11 381 6000 Fax: 27 11 482 6163 Email: [email protected] www.eisa.org.za ISBN: 978-1-920446-36-9 © EISA 2012 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 the prior permission of EISA. First published 2012 EISA strives for excellence in the promotion of credible elections, participatory democracy, human rights culture, and the strengthening of governance institutions for the consolidation of democracy in Africa. EISA Technical Assessment Mission Report, No. 41 EISA OBSERVER MISSION REPORT v CONTENTS Acknowledgements vii Acronyms and Abbreviations viii Executive Summary ix Terms of Reference of the EISA Technical Assessment Team x Methodology of the Technical Assessment Team xii The EISA Approach to Election Observation xiii 1. Historical and Political Overview 1 1.1 Historical background 1 1.2 Political and electoral background 3 1.3 Elections in Uganda 4 2. Constitutional, Legal & Institutional Framework 7 2.1 Constitutional and legal framework 7 2.2 Electoral framework 9 2.3 The Electoral Commission of Uganda 17 2.4 Other institutions involved in elections 19 2.5 The electoral system 19 2.6 Challenges 20 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda Presidential and Parliamentary Elections, 23
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Account of the mission to observe the presidential and parliamentary elections in Uganda 23 February 2006 Leader of the delegation: Mr Johan Van Hecke 16 March 2006 INTRODUCTION By letter dated 6 December 2005 the Ugandan Electoral Commission invited the European Union to observe the elections to be held in Uganda on 23 February 2006. At its meeting of 9 February 2006, the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament authorised a delegation composed of seven members to observe these elections, to be appointed by the political groups in accordance with the continuous d'Hondt system. In the event four members were appointed (see below). A Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission, on behalf of the European Union, and the Government of the Republic of Uganda on the observation of the 2006 elections was signed, after which a core team and long term observers (LTOs) went to Uganda under Mr Max van den Berg, MEP, Chief Observer. The European Parliament delegation to observe the elections consisted of: Mr Johan Van Hecke (ALDE) (appointed leader of the delegation on 15 February 2006) Mr José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (EPP-ED) Mr Filip Kaczmarek (EPP-ED) Mr Fernand Le Rachinel (NI) the delegation was accompanied by Mrs Armelle Douaud and Mr John Bryan Rose of the European Parliament secretariat, Directorate General for External Policies. ARRIVALS Mr Van Hecke and Mr Le Rachinel arrived in Entebbe on 20 February 2006 at 22.50 hrs on flight SN481. Mr Kaczmarek arrived in Entebbe on 21 February 2006 at 11.00 hrs on flight ET809.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 a Political Chronicle Of
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Moving Forward, Backward or Staying the Same? Citation for published version: Murison, J & Lwanga, D 2012, 'Moving Forward, Backward or Staying the Same? The Political Chronicle of Uganda', L’Afrique des Grands Lacs . <https://www.uantwerp.be/en/faculties/iob/research-and- service/centre-for-the-study/l-afrique-des-grands/> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: L’Afrique des Grands Lacs Publisher Rights Statement: © Murison, J., & Lwanga, D. (2012). Moving Forward, Backward or Staying the Same?: The Political Chronicle of Uganda. L’Afrique des Grands Lacs . General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 23. Sep. 2021 A POLITICAL CHRONICLE OF UGANDA 2011: MOVING FORWARD, BACKWARD OR STAYING THE SAME? By Jude Murison and Doreen Lwanga Résumé En 2011, l’Ouganda restera dans les mémoires surtout pour les élections présiden- tielle et parlementaire tenues en février. Alors que les élections elles-mêmes n’ont pas été marquées par des violences importantes à l’époque, les mois qui ont suivi ces élections de février resteront dans les mémoires au plus haut niveau de violence, en particulier celle de la police nationale et de l’armée qui ont répondu lourdement à la campagne de « marche au travail ».
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme
    5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO. O1 OF 2016 (CORAM: KATUREEBE, C.J, TUMWESIGYE, KISAAKYE, 10 ARACH AMOKO, NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA,OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JJ.SC.) AMAMA MBABAZI …………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 15 YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI ……………. 1stRESPONDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION ……………… 2ndRESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………… 3rd RESPONDENT PROFESSOR OLOKA ONYANGO & 8 ORS………..AMICI 20 CURIAE DETAILED REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The Petitioner, who was one of the candidates in the presidential 25 election that was held on the 18th February, 2016 petitioned the 1 5 Supreme Court under the Constitution, the Presidential Elections Act, 2000 and the Electoral Commission Act, 1997 (hereinafterreferred to as the PEA and the ECA, respectively). He challenged the result of the election and sought a declaration that Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the 1st Respondent, was not 10 validly elected and an order that the election be annulled. On the 31st March 2016, we delivered our decision in line with the Constitutional timeline imposed on the Court to render its judgment within 30 days from the date of filing the petition. We were not, however, in a position to give detailed reasons for our 15 findings and conclusion. We found that the 1st Respondent was validly elected as President in accordance with Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 59 of the PEA. Accordingly, we unanimously dismissed the petition. We made no order as to costs. 20 We promised to give the detailed reasons at a later date, which we now give in this judgment. Background The 18thFebruary 2016 General Elections were the 3rd since the re-introduction of multiparty politics in Uganda as the country 25 shifted from the movement system.
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda Presidential and Parliamentary Elections
    Report of the Commonwealth Observer Group UGANDA PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 18 February 2011 COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Chapter 1 ...................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 Terms of Reference .......................................................................................... 1 Activities .......................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 ...................................................................................................... 3 POLITICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 3 Post-Independence Politics ................................................................................ 3 Re-emergence of multiparty politics ................................................................... 4 2006 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections .................................................... 4 Consolidation of Multi-Party Democracy ............................................................. 6 Recent Developments ....................................................................................... 6 Engagement with the Commonwealth ................................................................ 9 Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The After Month of Eletoral Democracy in Uganda
    Quest Journals Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science Volume 6 ~ Issue 11 (2018) pp.: 54-73 ISSN(Online) : 2321-9467 www.questjournals.org Research Paper The After month Of Eletoral Democracy In Uganda Nabukeera Madinah* Lecturer Kyambogo University Faculty of Arts and Social Science Department of History and Political Science ABSTRACT:The purpose of this paper is to analytically connect the post management of elections and electoral democracy in Uganda. In particular I focus historical and political synopsis of Uganda-from colony to “one- party state”, conceptualization of elections, majority rule and minority rights, pillars of democracy, types elections, who votes in Uganda, making decisions regarding political participation a theoretical explanation, detention of main opposition leader, state of fear for war after elections , crime preventers, army and policy deployment across streets, election violence, religious leaders, defiance message, strategies for defiance and court petition.. I used a historical perspective to locate the linkage between elections and democratic processes. The squabble of the paper is that, while elections are essential condition for democracy, they do not establish democracy per se. The sardonicism is that, democracy cannot exist without the elections process taking place, although elections that have taken place in most of the African countries including Uganda since the 1996; have been self-governing deficits and setbacks in Uganda. This research was purely library based where the research kept track on issues of 2016 elections before and after from all types of media i.e newspapers mainly balanced independent papers rather than government owned.The videos, radio and television talk shows and tweets where the public expressed their views.
    [Show full text]
  • African Union Commission African Union Election
    AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION AFRICAN UNION ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION TO THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2016 GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA FINAL REPORT JUNE 2016 AFRICAN UNION ELECTION OBSEVERVAION MISSION REPORT: UGANDA !"#$ TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 The AUEOM also made recommendations for the improvement of future elections in the Republic of Uganda. These recommendations include: ........................................................................ 5 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 II. OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 2 a. Objective .............................................................................................................................................. 2 b. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 2 III. PRE-ELECTION FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 4 a. Political Context of the 2016 Elections ............................................................................................ 4 b. Constitutional and Legal Framework ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UGANDA GOVERNANCE PULSE a Public Perception Survey
    UGANDA GOVERNANCE PULSE A Public Perception Survey -JULY 2020- A Publication of the Independent Expert Peer Group (IEPG) Published by Independent Expert Peer Group (IEPG) P.O Box 398, Kampala Email: [email protected] Citation: IEPG., 2020: The Uganda Governance Pulse, Kampala, July 2020. 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 written permission of the publisher. The Independent Experts Peer Group is hosted by the Great Lakes Institute for Strategic Studies and its work is supported by generous donations and grants from a variety of charitable foundations and other funding partners. Reproduction or use of this publication for academic or charitable purposes or for informing public policy is therefore exempted from this general restriction. ISBN: 978-9970-529-01-8 Members of the Independent Expert Peer Group as at June 30, 2020 Godber Tumushabe is associate director at Great Lakes Institute for Strategic Studies. He is a lawyer, a development policy analyst and a social entrepreneur. Godber is the Convener of the Independent Expert Peer Group. Rachel Ciconco Mbabazi is a development policy specialist with wide experience in business, governance and politics. She is a graduate of business administration with over 20 years of work experience. She is a passionate farmer and holds board membership in a wide range of organizations in the fields of farming, water and sanitation. Stephen Muyinza is a development economist and founder of Muyinza Foundation - a community-based organization with key interests in social justice and development.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Coverage of the 2011 Presidential Elections
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Research Papers Graduate School Fall 11-9-2012 Media Coverage of the 2011 Presidential elections in Uganda: A comparative content analysis of New Vision and Daily Monitor newspapers Bob Roberts Katende [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp Recommended Citation Katende, Bob Roberts, "Media Coverage of the 2011 Presidential elections in Uganda: A comparative content analysis of New Vision and Daily Monitor newspapers" (2012). Research Papers. Paper 318. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/318 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Papers by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE 2011 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN UGANDA: A COMPARATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE NEW VISION AND DAILY MONITOR NEWSPAPERS by Bob Roberts Katende B.A. in Mass Communication, Makerere University, 2010 A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science In the Department of Mass Communication and Media Arts Southern Illinois University Carbondale December 2012 RESEARCH APPROVAL MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE 2011 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN UGANDA: A COMPARATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE NEW VISION AND DAILY MONITOR NEWSPAPERS By Bob Roberts Katende A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the field of Professional Media and Media Management Approved by: Karan Kavita, PhD, Chair Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale November 7, 2012 AN ABSTRACT OF RESEARCH PAPER OF BOB ROBERTS KATENDE, for the Masters of Science degree in PROFESSIONAL MEDIA AND MEDIA MANAGEMENT STUDIES, presented on December 15, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Council Elections
    Uganda Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Council Elections 18 February 2016 European Union Election Observation Mission Uganda Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Council Elections, 18 February 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APRIL 2016 The 2016 elections in Uganda took place in a challenging political environment, exposing significant division between the state apparatus and large parts of the population. Voters expressed a remarkable determination to engage in the democratic process. Civil society scrutinised the campaign environment and election day and firmly called for state actors’ accountability. For the first time in Uganda’s political history, a presidential debate with all candidates including the incumbent took place. The campaign period was vibrant, and election day was generally calm and peaceful, with a few notable exceptions caused by the late arrival of electoral material. At the same time, the Electoral Commission (EC) lacked independence and transparency, whereupon the elections fell short of international standards for the conduct of democratic elections at key stages. Furthermore, state actors were instrumental in creating an intimidating atmosphere for both voters and candidates, and police used excessive force against opposition, media and the general public, justifying it as a “preventive measure”. This violated fundamental freedoms of movement, expression and assembly, and curbed access to information. The third multi-party elections were held against the backdrop of a long-standing overlap between the ruling party and the state. President Yoweri Museveni, the leader of the ruling National Resistance Movement’s (NRM), who has been in power for 30 years, was standing for his fifth consecutive term and had access to funding and means, including public media, which were not commensurate with those available to his competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPLANATORY NOTE This Is the Report of the Commonwealth
    EXPLANATORY NOTE This is the Report of the Commonwealth Observer Group which was present for the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in Uganda, held on 23 February 2006. The Group’s report is reproduced here in the form in which it was signed by the Observers prior to their departure from Kampala on 3 March 2006. It was transmitted to the Commonwealth Secretary- General on Wednesday 8 March. During the following week he sent it to the President of Uganda, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Uganda, the Secretaries-General of the main political parties and Commonwealth governments. It was placed on this web-site and released to the media on Wednesday 15 March 2006. Printed copies are available from: Democracy Section Political Affairs Division Commonwealth Secretariat Pall Mall London SW1Y 5HX United Kingdom Tel: +44 207 747 6407/6397/6398 Fax: +44 207 930 2189 • Please note that the page numbers shown on the contents page relate to the printed version of this report. Uganda Presidential and Parliamentary Elections 23 February 2006 REPORT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OBSERVER GROUP Commonwealth Secretariat CONTENTS Page Letter of Transmittal CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 1 Invitation 1 Terms of reference 1 Activities of the Group 2 CHAPTER TWO – POLITICAL BACKGROUND 4 Historical background 4 Post-independence politics 4 Post-1986 politics 5 Recent political and constitutional developments 6 Political rights 6 Independent candidates 6 Human rights 6 Youth 7 Women in politics 7 Civil society 7 Overall political, social and economic context
    [Show full text]
  • SADEV Report 2009:3.1 Uganda
    Party Cooperation in a Results Perspective Country Study: Uganda n SADEV 2009:3.1 REPORT Swedish Agency for Development Evaluation P. O. Box 1902, SE-651 19 Karlstad, Sweden SADEV REPORT 2009:3.1 Party Cooperation in a Results Perspective Country Study: Uganda Authors: Eva-Marie Kjellström, Sabiti Makara and Peter Sjöberg Copyright: SADEV SADEV Reports are available at www.sadev.se Printed in Karlstad, Sweden 2010 ISSN 1653-9249 ISBN 978-91-85679-18-8 PARTY COOPERATION IN A RESULTS PERSPECTIVE INTRODUCTION Acronyms CIL Change Initiative Limited CIS Center Party International Foundation/Centerpartiets Internationella Stiftelse CP Conservative Party DDP Deepening Democracy Programme DP Democratic Party FDC Forum for Democratic Change FES Friedrich Ebert Stiftung IDEA Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance IPC Inter-party cooperation IPA Inter-party alliance IRI International Republican Institute JEEMA Justice Forum JHS Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation/Jarl Hjalmarson Stiftelsen KAS Konrad Adenauer Stiftung KIC Christian Democratic International Centre/Kristdemokratiskt Internationellt Centrum NDC National Delegates Conference NDI National Democratic Institute NGO Non Governmental Organisation NIMD Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy NRM National Resistance Movement PAO Party Affiliated Organisation PPP People’s Progressive Party RYPLA Regional Young Political Leadership Academy Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Silc Swedish International Liberal Centre 1 PARTY COOPERATION IN A RESULTS PERSPECTIVE INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]