The successes and challenges of constitution-making in Uganda: Lessons for South Sudan

Constitutional governance has its roots in a philosophical debate between Plato and Aristotle about the nature of good government. Whereas Plato said it involved the rule of good men, Aristotle proposed that it involved the rule of good laws. Aristotle’s ideas inspired John Locke, whose views form part of contemporary conceptions of constitutions. Uganda has taken these ideas onboard in having come up with four written constitutions since independence, namely those of 1962, 1966, 1967 and 1995. On the one hand, constitution-making has offered hopeful prospects, including for the recognition of the principles of justice, human rights, and popular sovereignty; on the other, it has legitimised the self-interests of elites. One way or the other, many lessons can be learnt from Uganda’s experience. Among them is that constitution-making ought to be founded on the ideals of justice and people-centeredness. Another is that, that since human nature tends to be guided by self-interest, those who are directly involved in making and amending a constitution should adopt a ‘veil of ignorance’ or, where this impossible, declare a conflict of interest in order not to impair faith in the constitution. The chapter critically discusses these lessons by highlighting the ideals on which a good constitution-making process ought to be founded. The overarching questions are: What should constitution-making and amendment entail? What have Uganda’s successes and challenges been? What lessons could South Sudan learn from Uganda’s experience? To answer these questions, the chapter explores the work of thinkers whose ideas are relevant to the subject.