Mixed bag of reactions to State of the Nation speech

President Yoweri Museveni had started talking about illegal fishing on Ugandan lakes and rivers only to be interrupted by the Opposition Members of Parliament who started waving placards. Photo by Dominic Bukenya 

In Summary

Economy at glance. Critics say the speech was rhetoric and academic as government maintained it focused on spurring development

To President Museveni’s critics, the State-of-the-Nation address is supposed to be more than political theatre. In other countries, it is “serious business” to the extent that in preparation for the speech, thousands of words are crossed out and many sentences re-written.

President Museveni’s address to the nation on Tuesday has been poorly received, with critics saying it was neither anywhere near giving accountability to the nation nor sufficiently articulating the way forward.

Some of the architects of the 1995 Constitution who talked to Daily Monitor share the view that the purpose of the address is for the President not only to report the condition of the nation, but it also allows him or her to outline his or her legislative agenda and his or her national priorities.

While some of the people who drafted the Constitution praised the President’s address, others were of the view that if the purpose of the speech is to advance the President’s agenda in a meaningful way – to give accountability to the nation and get important things done without repeating the previous mistakes, this year’s fell short in some respects.

Prof George Kanyeihamba, a retired Supreme Court judge and former Attorney General, observed that the speech glossed over so many things that none or few will be remembered a week from now.
State House and NRM officials, however, talked of a “carefully planned” speech which laid down the foundation of how to propel Uganda to middle income status by 2020.

Asked why the President’s address left out the key issues, Senior Presidential Press Secretary Don Wanyama said: “In the State-of-the-Nation address, the President could not have talked about everything but he articulated what is at stake and provided the way forward, including what we need to do as a country to attain middle income status by 2020.”

His colleague, Mr Richard Todwong, the deputy NRM secretary general and a former member of the 1995 Constitutional Review Commission, further explained that this annual address seeks to update the nation about social, political and economic issues in the country. By its very name, he said: “It’s an opportunity for the President to tell Ugandans the status of the country.”

Mr Wanyama also explained that the President focused his address on issues that should spur growth and development, which largely is export promotion and import substitution.

Mr Museveni’s critics, however, noted that he mainly provided accountability in agriculture sector, particularly in the fisheries area, unlike other sectors of the economy.

Pending issues
“These issues are at the heart of unemployment and fighting poverty because they mean more investors, more skills and more jobs. We also have a Budget speech coming up next week; the President will address some of those other issues. But there is no debate, this address was on point,” Mr Wanyama said.

Prof Kanyeihamba, however, disagreed with Mr Wanyama and Mr Todwong, insisting: “The President’s State-of-the-Nation address was academic, full of rhetoric and made listeners sleep. It means nothing to Ugandans. [The address] should review what has gone right or wrong and indicate solutions to the challenges facing the nation.”

Though the address is also meant to provide a platform for the President to rally support of Parliament for his post-election agenda, Mr Museveni, in his post-election speech did not update the country on health and education, the key ingredients of human development.

By ignoring these sectors, his critics say, made the address look like a regular speech. The significance of 2016-2021 NRM manifesto, a key policy document for his government was also not touched in his speech to Parliament.

The President amplified four seemingly unrelated areas: political reforms, corruption, petroleum and dependence on imports.
He, however, failed to connect the dots in a way that would have signalled the import of Article 101 (1) of the 1995 Constitution, the article which provides for this annual address.
And in the end, his critics say the address was big on aspirations, but fell short in means and ways.