By Dennis Katungi
The Minister of Trade, treat http://chienyenthinh.com/plugins/user/joomla/joomla.php Industry and Co-operatives, viagra Hon. Amelia Kyambadde while appearing on a local television program last week, made some interesting revelations. Among other things, she mentioned reasons for quitting her powerful State House job seven years ago to join active politics.
Her interview raised eyebrows. First of all, not many knew that she ‘resigned’ as she claims; what is known in State House circles and elsewhere was that she retired from Civil Service to join active politics like many do.
She talked of needing to spend more time with her growing family, the heavy toll the workload entailed and the effect it was having on her health (like most of the older members of NRM she too is getting on in terms of years), as well as her strong desire to join active politics. In her own words, she realized that “Diminishing returns” had begun to set in and was affecting her performance.
However, that is not what caught the attention of her audience most; Hon. Amelia said she had also been compelled to move due to what she described as new and emerging “power centers” in State House, and complained that they were interfering with her work, and as a result, she had “lost control.”
So what, or who, were these “new power centers” that had complicated the work of Amelia? Boom! Some members of the ‘First family’, said Amelia, and that these were bringing in people, (read investors), who were not on the program (the one she had at least) to see the President, and by inference, without her “authorization.”
Quite ironically, she also acknowledged that the first family was entitled to see or meet the president whenever they wanted, and so she could not resist or complain. So why make such allegations in the first place? It was unnecessary, and only served to provide free fodder to detractors and Social Media critics.
For over two decades, Amelia served as President Yoweri Museveni’s Secretary, a position which made her the head of Museveni’s various offices (starting with when he was Minister of Defence in 1979); she was therefore in charge of virtually all of his office appointments. No doubt it was a powerful and enviable position, and this she enumerated upon for most of that interview.
It is unreasonable for Hon. Kyambade to have expected for instance the President’s wife to seek her “clearance” before she could meet her husband, never mind with whom. In church when a man marries a woman or vice versa the priest declares “What God has put together let no man (or woman) put asunder”.
Hon. Amelia would do well to remember those words. Family relations do not simply disappear when one becomes the head of state. I do not think that Hon.Kyambade would want a secretary to arrange appointments between her and her parents or her husband. It would be most unnatural and against the divine order of things. So if she expects that for herself (and her family) why does she expect anything different for President Museveni and his family? She certainly lost the argument and it came out as petty sour graping.
Hon. Amelia also commented on the ‘succession’ of President Museveni. In her words, the country will descend into “Anarchy” if the succession issue is not discussed now. Those who make this uproar obviously pay no heed to the Constitution of this republic, which clearly stipulates the order of succession in case the President is indisposed, incapacitated or no longer with us. What these ‘successionists’ are really contemplating could be equated to an unconstitutional grab of power?
Could these be wolves in sheep skins? NRM as a revolutionary party is guided by the Leninist idea of “Democratic Centralism” Probably these new prophets of NRM ideology have never heard of this concept? Let me elucidate, Lenin explained in his 1902 paper What Is to Be Done? that democratic centralism meant “freedom of discussion [within the party] and unity of action”.
That meant that they would be constructive dialogue within the party and after the highest organs of the party took decisions, party discipline would prevail. Democratic centralism was supposed to tackle the problem of ‘factionalism’ within the party. In fact, at the 10th Party Congress in March of 1921, the Soviet Communist Party instituted a “ban on factions in the Party”.
These are principles FRONASA, UPM and eventually NRM adopted and have guided it to this day. To see senior members of the Party including a cabinet Minister transgress these fundamental articles of faith makes one question whether they really ever understood the philosophy of the Party in the first place? If the NRM ever decided to go that way, one would guess that the idea of democratic centralism would guide that discourse.
A revolutionary Party like the NRM does not discuss strategic questions that affect the future of the Party and country in newspapers and TV shows.
The writer is Communications & Media Relations Manager, Uganda Media Centre