In a functioning democracy, the Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed
COMMENT | PETER NYANZI | Public debate is raging over whether or not the government should allow public demonstrations against the marauding monster of corruption in Uganda to go on.
Well, it’s not my intention to give an opinion on the matter; instead, let me make an attempt to explain why demonstrating peacefully is deemed a universal human right.
Way back in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDH), a landmark document whose aim was to promote and protect fundamental human rights and freedoms for all people around the world.
Article 20 of the UNDH says; “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association,” which effectively guarantees the right of individuals to gather peacefully for meetings, protests, or demonstrations without undue interference from any authority.
To the framers of the UNDH, the right to freedom of association was deemed to be critical to the proper functioning of a democracy – the system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or through their elected representatives.
Shortly after gaining independence from the British in October 1962, Uganda also became a signatory to the UNDH, accepting to uphold all the principles outlined therein.
Additionally, Article 11 the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Uganda became a signatory in 1986, guarantees the right of individuals to assemble peacefully to hold public meetings and demonstrations without interference, as long as they are conducted unarmed and peacefully and in accordance with the law.
Here at home, Article 29 of the 1995 Constitution also guarantees the right of every Ugandan to assemble and demonstrate peacefully and unarmed, and to associate with others.
Why was this right so deeply entrenched through these national and international legal frameworks? The reason is simple; in a functioning democracy, the Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
The right to demonstrate peacefully or freedom of assembly must therefore be respected and protected because it allows citizens or individuals to collectively voice their concerns, disagreement or grievances and to advocate for reforms or demand for accountability in a non-violent manner.
Indeed, over the decades, it has been proved worldwide that allowing citizens to exercise this right has provided a mechanism for public engagement and participation in political processes, contributing to a more responsive and accountable government.
For example, many significant social and political changes in different countries have been driven by peaceful protests and demonstrations, including civil rights movements, labour rights advancement, and environmental campaigns.
Essentially, public demonstrations help to raise awareness about critical issues and injustices, mobilising support and fostering social and political change.
Peaceful demonstrations thus serve as a check on government power, ensuring that authorities remain accountable to the people.
By providing a structured and non-violent way to express dissent, peaceful demonstrations offer a critical vent thus preventing more destructive forms of resistance.
Refusing or restricting the right to peaceful demonstration is not only unconstitutional but is also counterproductive as it can have negative effects for society as a whole.
Firstly, it undermines democratic principles; a core component of which is active citizen participation and the right of citizens to express dissent and advocate for change in their community.
Without the right of citizens to protest, government officials and institutions take citizens for granted hence neglecting the need to be transparent and accountable to the people.
Secondly, denying the right to peaceful protest can worsen frustrations and grievances, potentially leading to extreme forms of resistance or conflict as citizens push to make their voices heard through whatever means.
Thirdly, suppressing of the right to peaceful demonstration can create a chilling effect on the population, whereby citizens completely shun political participation due to fear of reprisals or legal consequences. This effectively negates the real import of democracy.
Lastly, obstructing peaceful demonstrations can erode public trust in the government or other institutions, leading to feelings of alienation or disenfranchisement, which can damage social cohesion and trust in the entire political system.
Ensuring the protection of this right is therefore critical for ensuring a healthy, democratically sensitive, and responsive citizenry.
That is why countries that reject or suppress the right to peaceful demonstrations usually come under the international spotlight, which not only limits their economic opportunities including foreign direct investment and development assistance but also affects their global reputation and standing.
*****
The writer is a journalist