With a few notable exceptions, it appears that Uganda has witnessed a more dramatic erosion of press freedom, including more attacks on journalists and the media, since the country returned to multi-party politics in 2006.
Under the one-party state (1986-2005), which President Yoweri Museveni and the ruling National Resistance Movement called the Movement system or no-party democracy, press freedom remained precarious, alright, but journalists and the media appeared to enjoy more freedom than today.
In fact, back then many an international visitor described Uganda’s media as the most vibrant and freest in the region.
That the condition of media freedom in Uganda has progressively deteriorated since the return of multi-party politics is not to suggest that the country should not have returned to the multi-party system of government. It's merely to point out what appears to be a disturbing relationship between multi-party politics as it is practised in Uganda and the condition of the media. And of course it confirms that multi-party politics is not necessarily multi-party democracy.
The relative press freedom in Uganda during the no-party Movement era was always intriguing given that the NRM government had not allowed wider civil liberties and political rights, such as freedom of association for political parties. Some commentators, such as my friend Charles Onyango-Obbo, argued back then that having come to power on a popular platform, the NRM took a relatively more relaxed approach to the news media in order to carve out the image of a more open and progressive government than its predecessors.
It was more than that. The NRM government seems to have used a relatively free press as a safety valve for the suppression of other civil liberties and political rights. With freedom of expression through political party platforms stifled, the media remained the major channel through which the opposition, civil society, and dissatisfied citizens could expend their political energies. In other words, press freedom became a substitute for other rights of expression and association.
In fact, Museveni’s government often cited the fact that opposition politicians appeared on news and public affairs programming on both private and public radio to justify its suppression of the political rights of association and others freedoms associated with political competition. In a newspaper article in 2003, for instance, President Museveni justified the ban on political party activity partly under the pretext that the opposition had been allowed to “propagate whatever ideas they have through radios and TV”. As far as he was concerned, the question of democracy in Uganda had been resolved.
Moreover, under the no-party Movement system, Parliament and the Executive did not always speak with one voice. A number of progressive Members of Parliament and ministers opposed their more radical colleagues every time the government attempted to rein in the media with more draconian measures.
Under the multi-party arrangement, this kind of internal dissent has all but disappeared. The ruling NRM’s Caucus generally speaks with one voice in Parliament.
The Museveni government has put its numbers to use in Parliament and ensured that it has its way ALL the time. The opposition has not been able to fight back successfully because it doesn't have the numbers. But it can still cause the government great discomfort by exposing corruption and other forms of malfeasance.
The media have remained the main institution through which the excesses of the government are exposed. The ruling NRM can use its numbers in Parliament and introduce draconian legislation or kill motions that call for more accountability and transparency in governance, but this won't stop the media from exposing the rot.
In the end, the stories and images in the media contradict Museveni's and his government's claim that Uganda is a democracy where the will of the people is respected.
Critical independent media are therefore seen as a threat to Museveni's comfortable hold on power.
As Prof. Nelson Kasfir argued nearly a decade ago, “In those situations where their personal control of governmental institutions has not been challenged, they (NRM) have supported more liberal and democratic initiatives than any previous Ugandan government or most African governments. On the other hand, where they faced serious risks, they have mostly chosen to protect their own interests rather than to adopt more open democratic solutions.”
Today, Museveni and his NRM may have defeated the opposition at the polls, but all is not well. The recent wave of protests has shaken the government, which has described them as an opposition ploy to take power through unconstitutional means.
The media have played a big role in sustaining the protests not only through publicity but also in exposing police brutality in the crackdown on the protestors. That is why the media are targeted as enemies that are being used by the opposition and others to overthrow the government.
They have been labelled unpatriotic, enemies of Uganda's economic recovery, and so on.
While some media houses have tried to stand up to the pressure, others have caved in and are now exercising high levels of self-censorship because they don't want to get into trouble with the government. They fear that they could be closed down and their licences could be suspended or revoked by a regulator that is widely seen as not acting independently from the government as international best practices require.
The media owners could challenge the government's actions in the courts, but many are business people who can't risk losing money in court battles that could last years.
But one hopes that some media houses will risk it all and continue speaking the truth to power.
***
About the Author:
Dr. Peter Mwesige is Executive Director of the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME). He has chaired the department of journalism and communication at Makerere University and is a former Executive Editor of the Monitor in Kampala.
