Comparing No-Party Participatory Regimes : Why Uganda Succeeded and Others Failed

Abstract: The objective of this dissertation is to evaluate the performance of the no-party participatory regime (NPPR) model in a few selected countries. Such a regime, it was claimed, would give rise to a real and true democracy, would serve the people better, and would protect them against what many leaders saw as divisive party politics.This study investigates the extent to which these no-party participatory regimes were able, through mass institutions of mobilisation and participation, to involve people in public affairs, to capture the popular will, to promote people’s power, and to serve the population in at least a fairly efficient and effective way. More precisely, the study seeks to evaluate how responsive and effective the rule of regimes in Uganda, Pakistan, Libya and Ghana actually was, and to elucidate how the performance of said regimes was linked to a measure of legitimacy and stability. With regard to the main case, that of Uganda, the purpose of the book is to assess—by examining the performance of the Movement Regime Project (i.e., the system of reformed local government based on local councils)—the degree to which the stated goal of responsive and effective rule was achieved. The regimes in the historical cases (Pakistan, Libya, and Ghana) varied in how they performed against this model, but all of them chalked up a history of failed projects. The regimes in question simply became dictatorial; indeed, it is to such an outcome that the model has historically gravitated. Uganda, however, is a unique exception. The Movement project managed fairly well, at least up to 2005, to achieve responsiveness, a degree of effectiveness, legitimacy, and stability. To become fully democratic, however, it needs to take radical steps—above and beyond what it does today—in the furtherance of political freedom.