THE PRESS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1980. Commonwealth elections

Press, 27 December 1980, Page 10

THE PRESS SATURDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1980. Commonwealth elections

Those who defend that curious institution, the Commonwealth, find in its diversity of peoples and cultures a reason for admiration. That diversity has been displayed this month as three of the smaller members of the Commonwealth have held General Elections. In each country the result was

hardly a surprise; in each the political processes would hardly be judged democratic by the standards of Britain or New Zealand. But there the similarities cease.

In Singapore this week the Government of Mr Lee Kuan Yew was returned to power for the fifth time since 1965. Singapore’s record as a democracy is hardly unblemished. Political opponents on the far Left of Mr Lee remain under restraint; opposition parties seldom enjoy the same access to the media as does the governing People’s Action Party. Yet Singapore is by ho definition a dictatorship. It has emerged as a model of stability . and economic progress, a democracy which is also a one-party State. By the standards of the Commonwealth, and the standards of elections round the world, Singapore’s poll was free and fair. The Government’s success in retaining all 75 seats in Parliament was a measure of the success of Mr Lee and his colleagues in turning Singapore into a prosperous modem society with a standard of living not. far behind that of New Zealand. For a country the size of Banks Peninsula, with no natural resources except the energy and skill of its people, that is no mean feat. New Zealand, which has close ties in trade and defence with Singapore, has reason to be delighted that the little island continues to flourish. The elections, and their outcomes, in the other two countries—Uganda in East Africa, and Guyana in South America — offer no such reasons for approval. Perhaps it is remarkable that a form of election was held at all in either country. Commonwealth observers were present in both to supervise the process. Both lots of observers objected vigorously to what they found. The rulers in Guyana and Uganda differed only in the detail of the kinds of intimidation they used to ensure that their supporters were returned to.power.

- British observers in Guyana reported “massive and blatant fraud” on the ■Apart of the Government of Mr Forbes “Burnham to ensure that it was returned to office for the fourth time in succes.’sion„ since' 1964. Guyana is beset by racial differences between peoples of African and East .Indian descent. Daunt:?ing economic: problems restrict the Government’s ability to improve . the low standard of living. The election had been delayed, illegally, for two years while a new constitution was devised which would give more power to President Burnham. Guyana remains a sad blot on any

pretence the Commonwealth may make to be an association of democratic societies. It does little credit to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Sir Shridath Ramphal, who comes from Guyana and is former Minister of Justice and Foreign Minister in Mr Bumham’s police State.

Yet'Guyana’s far-from-pretty politics seem relatively harmless when set beside what passed for an election in Uganda. Perhaps Ugandans have the consolation that, after years of Idi Amin

as dictator, almost anything else must be better. What they have, after an election campaign in which the results appear to have been dictated by the Tanzanian army of occupation and the anarchic remnants of the Ugandan Army, is Mr Milton Obote and his Uganda People’s Congress. Mr Obote has been President of Uganda before. His attempts to impose a dictatorship 10 years ago led to his overthrow by Idi Amin in a military coup in 1971—ironically enough, while Mr Obote was away attending a Commonwealth conference. Under Amin, Uganda degenerated into a murderous wilderness. On Mr Obote now falls the task of restoring a shattered economy and of bringing back a sense of trust among tribes riddled by poverty and reprisals. Almost certainly, had the election been fairly conducted, Mr Obote would not have won. Voters were intimidated, opposition candidates were prevented from entering nominations. Intimidation and mutilation by the army were used against tribes known to oppose Mr Obote. When all else failed, counting of votes was held up so that adjustments could be made to ensure the final vote went the way the army, the Tanzanians, and Mr Obote wanted. Even Mr Obote will be holding office oh sufferance for some time. If he displeases the army, or his neighbours in Tanzania, he is likely to be turfed out smartly. He has said he is a “new man,” ready to bring opposition politicians into a Government of reconciliation. His opponents remain fearful. Many of Uganda’s leading citizens — those that survived the murders of Amin’s regime —are in exile. Mr Obote is pleading for foreign investment to restore production in a country that is little better than a waste-

land. Had he been fairly elected he might have hoped for substantial support from abroad for Uganda’s plight has quickened sympathies in the Western world. Now, Mr Obote is going to have to demonstrate his good intentions towards all Ugandans before he can hope for much help. Uganda remains one of the least fortunate countries on a continent where force, not popular support, is the most common form of rule. If he uses his position to restore something like a tolerable existence for Ugafida’s people, a shred of justification will be draped over the despicable manner of his return.