Beti Kamya has lost me with her latest article
on Uganda’s Parliamentary sovereignty and Bahati’s Nazi Bill.
I have read her piece a couple of times and remain quite confused.
And the main reason I am confused is that Beti Kamya now seems to think that Uganda is a democracy and Uganda’s Parliament is relevant. But isn’t she on record on numerous occasions saying that Uganda is a dictatorship? Isn’t that actually one of the reasons she formed the Uganda Federal Alliance – to protest against the undemocratic nature of Uganda’s politics?
And don’t we have ample evidence from the Bahati bill she has nailed her Parliamentary colors to that Uganda is indeed a dictatorship, and that Parliament is irrelevant? After all, the only reason why the bill has still not been brought up for debate in Parliament despite widespread support from that house is that Museveni poured cold water
on it after being prevailed upon by Western donors. Isn’t that the definition of a dictatorship; the president overriding what Parliament unanimously wants and imposing his singular will on legislative processes? What Parliamentary sovereignty is Ms. Kamya talking about then?
And if she, too, admits that the Parliamentary dignity in Uganda is, to use her own word, “fake”
, why would she want to hang on to it?
Is that contradictory or what? Perhaps Beti’s article is tongue in cheek and ought to be read as such.
AfroGay knows that Bati Kamya is not an enemy of gay people. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Beti is the one Parliamentarian who wouldn’t harbor that kind of sentiment. My concern is that she has in the past argued that Uganda’s Parliament is irrelevant (something I quite agree with) and now seems to think that because the West is pushing Bahati around, Parliament is relevant after all.And, finally, is a Nazi bill of this sort really the kind of legislation that Kamya feels deserves her wholesome attention to reaffirm Parliament’s supremacy? Sink or swim with a bill that so blatantly seeks to abuse the human rights of a cross-section of society so that a point about Uganda’s Parliamentary sovereignty can be made?
Coming from Beti Kamya, that, too, seems like a contradiction to me.