A dictators survival guide

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/22/the_dictators_survival_guide?page=0,1&wpisrc=obinsite

On draconian Law and development.

Introduction

It is my contention that the modification of the constitution especially in light of the bail debate and the creation of vague nebulous crimes such as economic sabotage will do nothing to make this country more stable. If anything, the closure of political space and the elimination of legitimate avenues for citizens to raise their voices and be heard on issues they consider important could backfire with violence, even extreme violence considered a more viable alternative.  The proposals to my mind are akin to a man who abuses his wife and children at home while disallowing complaints about his behavior and somehow to his mind he believes the absence of complaint somehow makes him a good husband and father.

In an article in the Monitor of July 21st 2011 the president is quoted as saying ‘“We need development in the country which can only be achieved through a stable country. A country that is free from demonstrators,” The premise of these reform measures is political stability which is necessary for development.   In an article in the New Vision of July 28th 2011 Dora Byamukama argued ‘As the debate rages on, what is obvious is that the riots promote a negative image of our country; drive away tourists and investors and thus cause economic sabotage which factors contribute to underdevelopment and scarcity of resources and thus riots’ .

While the pure legal implications are beyond me and have been exhaustively debated elsewhere, proponents of this law are promoting a false nexus between draconian legislation and development. Said nexus does not exist.

Genesis.

When the results of the elections of February 18^th 2011 were announced, that which most people had known for a while was formally declared, president Museveni had won a fourth term. For his perennial opponent Kizza Besigye, political analysts, even those normally sympathetic to him were writing his political obituary. Besigye was finished. For the movement diehards, this was a moment to be savored, that was until Besigyes fortunes were resurrected by the seemingly innocuous walk to work campaigns.

The walk to work campaigns brought to the fore the intellectual poverty of the leaders of this county. While some of them were happy to spout gibberish about the liberal minimalist state, they seemed oblivious to the fact the aforementioned could not be reconciled with the over governed nature of our glorious banana republic.

The campaign zeroed in, uncomfortably so, on the nature and the role of the state. While the government seems happy to extract resources, it shows as much competence as an armless goal keeper when it comes to key service delivery.  The state was manifestly impotent in the wake of the challenges it faced, seemingly wringing its hands like an anxious father outside the labor suite, with one key difference, the father actually cares about what is happening in the labor suite. 

When the government reacted, yes reacted not responded, it was swift and brutal, the brutality was sometimes overshadowed by the comical attempts of the various spokespersons to explain what a genuine and a non-genuine walk was. To borrow the soccer analogy, the government scored so many own goals, it practically ensured it lost the PR battle.  Many a time the government spokeswoman came across as a summa cum laude graduate of the Comical Ali School of public relations. The ministers of internal affairs looked like something out of Didi’s comedy show as they were consistently tied in knots when they tried to explain damning video evidence.

Through it all, even as it shot itself repeatedly in the foot, the government was obsessed with maintaining its external image.  It went ahead to ban live coverage of any of the protests an act that reminds me of a lady of the night, immodestly dressed protecting her face from a prying press camera.

The reaction of the presidency was the announcement of a raft of measures that would form part of his work plan in his new term of office. Among the proposals for constitutional and legal reform are the introduction of new offences such as economic sabotage, the removal of bail for such an offence, as well as many others already in the Penal Code, and a whole raft of suggestions on how to tame the media—both print and electronic.  The stated aim of these measures as alluded to earlier is to create a stable country conducive to development and favorable to investors.

Will Draconian regulation make us more stable, a more favorable destination for investment?

Stability, both political and economic and a stable regulatory framework are key factors that investors factor into their decision making framework. In other words political risk the possibility that shifts in the political landscape will affect the security and or profitability of their investments is something investors’ consider important. 

Amendments to the constitution send the wrong signal. Whatever else, it pays to know that the state plays by the rules.  The constitution is the rule book, analogous to the Biblical God it ensures that the sun shines on the Roman and the Jew. It sets the standard for fairness and sets the benchmark for what justice is.  Changing the rules simply because they are seen to be helpful to your opponents sends the wrong signal.

Amendments to the constitution have no bearing on the external environment in which we find ourselves.  They will not create a more stable Southern Sudan or Eastern Congo nor will they stabilize Somalia all three countries in tandem have the potential to create and arc of instability reaching from the red sea downwards which could deter investment.

The amendments will do nothing to comfort especially long term investors who study the political environment and wonder if God suddenly called the president to his side would there be a peaceful transition of power.  How would a system that is dominated by interests and identity largely unchecked by institutions respond to a sudden drastic change?

For the long term investor the concern could be how environmental degradation and climate change could exacerbate social tensions that exist. Or how the aforementioned if unchecked would affect the nation’s income seeing as virtually all our exports are agricultural in nature and largely dependent on the largesse of nature. The long term investor may be concerned about the influence of environmental degradation on the nation’s ability to generate energy (also dependent on the largesse of nature) and how that would affect their business.

Conclusion.

When the current government chose the option of violence as a means of changing the state of things they did so in part because they believed the law through the petition and or appellate process offered no real solutions to the problems which afflicted Ugandan society then. In contrast Besigyes decision to petition the courts reflected a shift in thinking, a belief that the law could remedy the ills of society, more power to him for accepting the verdict even if it did not go his way entirely.

The aforementioned is the unique function of the law, it mediates social tensions allowing not unlike the valve on a pressure cooker the controlled release of tension and anger. More to the point the law reflects the aspiration of society, through its complex workings ensures that the conglomerated aspirations of all society influence individual behavior.

Let us not be fooled, these laws will have no bearing on development and in their worst form will only increase instability to the extent to which they make the legal system unattractive as an arbiter of societal conflict.

On the death of God.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

The foregoing is probably the most popular quote attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche the German philosopher who in the winter of his life lost his mind. I will admit ,I have never read the full text of the work from which this quote is taken but, a couple of years ago it did form the basis of a very spirited debate between myself and several friends from work. 

What occasioned this debate was a book I was reading at the time Night by Elie Wiesel Holocaust survivor and Nobel peace Laureate. The book essentially chronicles his time in the concentration camps and it in a way charts the death of God, his God anyway. It is a small book, one hundred and thirty pages long and in those one hundred and thirty pages, God is murdered.  But, how is that even possible?

Well, the argument is premised on the notion that God is an idea (not so radical thought).  Our view of God is formed formally, mainly through organized religion and formally sanctioned texts, and personally, through the interaction between our experiences in the real world and what we are taught God is.  For Wiesel, nurtured on the Torah the idea of God that was painted for him was the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac.  A God of kindness and compassion, a God of planning and vision,  a God who provided and protected, a God who was not above intervening directly in the lives of and on behalf of his chosen people, the Jews.

To this day the God of the patriarchs’ is still an idea that is propagated by formal religion even though the evidence in the real world is not entirely obvious.  Moving back to Wiesel’s story, when the signs of Hitler’s less than charitable intent were written on the wall, the Jews in his hometown fell back on their faith; their God whom they believed would protect them.  Hope can well and truly paralyze sometimes. 

The long and the short of it is the experiences of the concentration camps killed God. In his text he states ‘Never shall I forget that night, the first night in the camp, which turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke; Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever. Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things even if I am condemned to live as long as God himself. Never.

It is impossible to adequately capture the anguish that Wiesel had to deal with and is maybe still dealing with. For any of us, the loss of a key paradigm upon which our lives a built would be traumatic in the extreme.  And it was from this perspective, that I approached the discussion with my friends.

It goes without saying that the views differed, but the battle was split between two opposing forces, my idea of a God who changes as we get to know him and the other idea of a fixed and unchanging God who irrespective of all that is happening in the world today is still a kind and compassionate God even though the evidence of this is harder to see every day. I suppose I can say that for those that argued against a fluid definition of God, accepting this construct would be a paradigm shift, not in the line of Wiesel’s experiences but certainly one that would alter the way in which one sees the world.

As it is with matters of faith, our discussion was inconclusive with neither side landing a killer punch in a manner of speaking.  Every once in a while I go back and read that little book, it does and has given me some solace when I have needed an anchor through my crises of faith, when I have needed to know that the anger and the disappointment and the fear that God can and will let me down (from where I stand) is normal.