Behinderung und internationale Entwicklung Disability and ...

A RTIKEL/ARTICLEof labour” when gaining power and strengtheningitself. Thirdly, development cooperationsystem that is largely controlled by donors hasbeen pressuring the Ugandan disability movementto make decisions quickly and efficientlywhich is possible only by representatives.Fourthly, when it comes to legal system, it alsorequires certain procedures which are not oftenaccessible for a majority of Ugandan personswith disabilities. People in Uganda are generallyafraid to go to court (Ssengooba 2010) [3]and rather settle the cases out of court becausethey are too poor and some are illiterate, whichhelps to explain why there are so few courtcases on disability rights. It can be argued thatthe incapability of the legal system to meet theneeds and concerns of persons with disabilitieshas been one of the reasons for the emphasison the popularity of the representative politicalsystem described above.The political representation is definitely oneof the biggest achievements of the Ugandandisability movement to date. Nevertheless, themajority of persons with disabilities at thegrassroots still live in disabling environment. Inother words, self-advocacy has been largelyguaranteed by representatives of persons withdisabilities only and not by many of their constituencieson the grassroots. In this regard, thispolitical representation might be even contributingto reinforce the status quo with or withoutintention. On the one hand, the Members ofParliament have been making impacts for disabilityrights at the national level especially regardinglaw and policy enactment. On theother hand, the research project also observedthe downside of the too powerful Members ofParliament in Uganda. This part elaboratesmainly on this downside of the representativedemocracy and their elections in the Ugandanmovement today.Some Members of Parliament are playingbig roles in the disability movement becausethey have very often experiences as chairpersonsor board members in DPOs. As the NUDI­PU electoral structure for its election for boardmembers has been utilised for the nationalelection for Members of Parliament representingpersons with disabilities, board members ofNUDIPU are likely to be elected by the samevoters for elections of Members of Parliament.Hence, there have been visible interventions onDPOs by the Members of Parliament, particularlyon general assemblies of NUDIPU. Manyanonymous informants who were the delegatesof the general assembly of NUDIPU in 2008 expressedthat some Members of Parliament campaignfor candidates who would not threatentheir positions as the Members of Parliament inthe following national election. More precisely,the Members of Parliament bribed many delegatesto vote for certain candidates for such individualgains rather than for the collective gainto develop and strengthen the Ugandan disabilitymovement further.Moreover, the voters are composed of fourdelegates from 56 districts following the old districtsystem, while currently there are 112 districts.The four delegates should consist of aperson with a physical impairment, a blind, adeaf and a woman. In the general assembly ofNUDIPU in 2008, there were 243 eligible voterspresent, of which 113 were women. 116were categorised as persons with physical impairments,59 blind, 57 deaf and one representedthree DPOs, namely Mental Health Uganda(MHU), Epilepsy Support Association of Uganda(ESAU) and Uganda Parents Association forChildren with Learning Difficulties (UPACLED).Outgoing board members also had the right tovote, while two votes were additionally entitledto deaf and blind representatives each to giveaffirmative action to balance the dominance ofpersons with physical impairments. Accordingto this electoral structure, many persons withother disabilities such as persons with psychosocialand intellectual disabilities are largely excludedin a systematic manner. At the sametime, the number of voters is too few to representa vast number of persons with disabilitiesin Uganda which is estimated to be as high as20% of the population in the Uganda Demographicand Health Survey 2006. That is to say,the level of representation achieved by this representativedemocracy is questionable. In theaforementioned General Assembly, this wasquestioned but did not change the Constitutionof NUDIPU to accommodate more voters. Thisdecision is of benefit to the Members of Parliamentfirstly because it will not enlarge candidacyto persons with other disabilities and secondlybecause their supporters remain thesame.There are people trying to tackle the abovementioneddeficiencies of the system. In 2006,there was also an electoral petition by threecandidates that ran in the parliamentary elections;they alleged that the elections were notfree and fair. Later, in September 2010, theConstitutional Petition No. 40/2010 “by theDisability Movement to the Parliament of Ugandafor the amendment of Laws and Regulationsproviding for the electoral procedures for Parliamentaryand Local Council representatives ofpersons with disabilities”, prepared by a DPOLegal Action for Persons with Disabilities Ugan-Behinderung und internationale Entwicklung 3/2012Disability and International Development11