Netanyahu meets the Trump of Uganda

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent visit to Africa was an opportunity for bombast from all sides.

Both Israelis and Africans spoke beyond what seemed reasonable about the importance of the trip and one another’s countries.

What was arguably the height came from the Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, welcoming Netanyahu to the commemoration of the Entebbe operation.

For those inclined to titter, the speech is worth a listen. Click here, and prepare yourself for close to a half hour from a man who also has stayed in office for too long. He wanders from mixing Palestine with Israel, several citations of Biblical text, uncertainties about history names and pronunciations, assertions of morality that counter what is known about his own long administration, and frequent assertions of his own importance.

Bibi nodded to sleep during the long exposition, and had to be prompted by Sara to appear Prime Ministerial..

Uganda is one of the world’s spots of beauty. It’s well watered and fertile, with good scenery and lots of wildlife. Yet it’s history as an independent country has been as troubled as any in Africa, with tribal conflicts, child soldiers, competing assertions of brutality, seizures of power and limitless extensions of presidential terms.

Museveni’s record has been praised and condemned, and a term of office that began in 1986 is as problematic as anything that could be said about him.

He included in his speech a reminder of Uganda’s role in Zionist history, but endorsed a common error. The name Uganda was used by British and Jewish personalities, but the term was used broadly for an area under British colonial administration, and actually referred to a less desirable place east of the present country, in what is now a Kenyan desert.

One can find in Museveni’s speech admirable concerns for a two-state solution, the rights due to each of contending people, opposition to terror that targets civilians, mixed with reverence for the Jewish people and endorsement of their roots being in the Middle East along with Africa, due to Solomon’s dalliance with an Ethiopian..

It isn’t only Uganda whose leader is more fascinating than enlightening. .

Living here and relying almost entirely on Israeli radio and television, one is protected from most of the blather associated with the American presidential campaign. Yet there have been enough clips of Donald Trump’s speeches to suggest a parallel between him and the Ugandan President.

Perhaps Museveni greatest claim is being an African Trump.

Or Trump’s that he is an American Museveni.

Bibi is better than both of them, assuming that one can admire a good speech delivered by an articulate individual, without relying on any of the promises actually being delivered.

It’s not hard to find examples coming from other politicians. Barack Obama’s bromide expressing dismay at the recent shooting in Munich was standard stuff expected from any head of state, but his offer to provide American help with the investigation of the shooting went over the edge. Could Americans do better than the Germans, who are known for a quality of administration that dwarfs the US reputation?

Alas, it seems that the Germans have adopted an Obaman solution to Islamic terror. The attack in Munich may have been that of a mad Iranian rather than an aroused Islamist, and subsequent attacks by knifing and a suicide bomber are not clearly terror.

Ranking the quality of politicians is no easy task. Dealing with the competing interests and claims that focus on any national government would challenge anyone with a commitment to candor and full disclosure. And the problems multiply for any regime with interests outside its own borders.

So perhaps it’s best, or at least easiest, to forget about judgment, and enjoy the bizarre as heard from the Ugandan President, and the Republican nominee.

Politics, government, society, and the world being what they are, it’s likely that what really comes out of an administration will bear little resemblance to what the people at the top promise as their intentions then claim as their accomplishments.

With all of that, how to select a candidate or party for one’s vote?

Currently, most Americans seem to be judging which is the least objectionable. What I hear and read indicates intense opposition to both candidates, and a lack of intense support for either.

The elevation of Trump, like those of Bush II, and Obama earlier, add to enthusiasm for a parliamentary regime, where the top dog has had to spend years climbing and acquiring experience.

But that ain’t gonna come to the United States. Support for what exists is one of the givens in politics, and the American regime has more than two centuries of song, myth, admiration, patriotism, and claims of superiority in its favor. Party primaries, which rely more on personal performance than rational discussion, have become the essence of American democracy.

In 1950, one of my professors chaired a committee of the American Political Science Association that advocated strengthening the political parties as instruments of politics whose leaders would create and present to the voters alternative programs. It didn’t propose a parliamentary regime, per se, but was modeled after the British regime of deliberations by political party activists.

What has evolved instead are the circuses of popular primaries, reaching their depth with Donald Trump, and responsible for the selection of several presidents whose strengths have been greater in stage performance than the intricacies of public policy.

*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University. He may be contacted via ira.sharkansky@sdjewishworld.com. Comments intended for publication in the space below MUST be accompanied by the letter writer’s first and last name and by his/ her city and state of residence (city and country for those outside the United States.)
*