We all make mistakes. We all offend someone in our lives. The longer a relationship, the greater the chance of offending one’s partner. That partner may be a spouse, another family member, a friend, a teacher or student, a co-worker, business associate, your employer such as the citizens of a country that you, their employee, are supposed to lead.

That last bit is often deliberately flipped by the leaders. The latter (employees) use the instruments of repression, and the powers that the citizens (employers) grant them, to turn themselves into rulers who terrorise and exploit their employers. 

The citizens, perhaps unaware of the roles and rights of citizenship, or just afraid of the men and women with the guns and power, surrender their rights to their rulers (employees), and even worship them as demigods. 

So, for avoidance of doubt, let it be known that the citizens of Uganda are supposed to be the employers of the president and his deputies, of the speaker of parliament and all in the legislature, and of the district chairpersons and all that report to them. The people who hold those offices, do so at the citizens’ pleasure. In a country that honours the rule of law, the citizens’ votes, if exercised properly, give the leaders temporary employment.

In mature democracies, where the leaders are beholden to the citizens, the former try to discharge their responsibilities with honour, transparency and accountability. Where they fail, and the do fail, they apologise to their employers – the citizens - who have the power to fire them at the next election. 

Where the apology is deemed sincere and full, the citizens respond with appropriate action that is guided by the damage done and the likelihood and confidence that the fault will not be repeated. Thus, the citizens may forgive their leader and retain him or forgive him and fire him. 

Where the leader’s apology is patently insincere, the citizens will almost always fire him at the next election. I have seen this happen in Canada several times. The Brits are very good at exercising that power, as are people in countries like Australia and Japan, India and Senegal. The United States used to do that. They have taken a break from the approach of demanding high standards from their ruler.

But what constitutes a sincere apology? What does it take to be taken seriously? Let me tell you what a sincere apology is not. Asking the Lord to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us” is utterly meaningless unless spoken with a genuinely contrite spirit. To stand in the church sanctuary and recite the Lord’s prayer, parrotlike because it is the expected ritual, is a mockery of God. 

Likewise, to seek forgiveness without a humbled, broken heart is to engage in meaningless speech. To seek forgiveness without true repentance and preparedness for meaningful change is to attempt to deceive and double the pain of those you have hurt. 

When we ask for forgiveness, our hope and desire is to regain the offended person’s trust. At a minimum, it requires that we state very clearly what it is we are apologizing for. “Please forgive me for anything I have done wrong” tells the offended person that we are clueless about the hurt we have inflicted on them. It reveals that we are seeking forgiveness for our personal benefit, not for the good of those we have hurt or offended. 

Having stated the offense in very clear language, one needs to accept full responsibility for the specified wrong or wrongs one has done. One must acknowledge and take responsibility for the injury that one’s specified action has caused to the person from whom one seeks forgiveness. 

It is pointless to apologize because one has been caught, or one has detected a loss of popularity and support by the offended individual or group. Most people are very wise, and they will see through the attempt to control the agenda and reclaim the victims’ affection. 

I am very nostalgic about my parents’ generation. Abalokole (born again Christians) in the East African Revival tradition, would publicly confess their sins and seek forgiveness from the Lord, from the victim and from the brethren. They made restitution and promised to change their behaviour to prevent recurrence of the sin. 

Suppose a political leader wanted to genuinely apologize to their people. I would advise them to take stock of their financial management of public resources; their fairness in resource allocation to all citizens in every corner of the country; their fight against corruption, and their own participation, if any, in the abuse of power and public trust; their use of the military and other armed organizations; their record in the country’s democratization efforts; their record on promotion and protection of the human rights of their fellow citizens, including the rights of their political opponents; and above all, their trustworthiness measured by promises made and promises kept. 

If the intent is sincere, the leaders should have no trouble apologizing and taking the necessary corrective measure with a clear conscience. If the corrective measure requires resignation, the leader should resist any temptation to perpetuate their failed rule by proxy. They can redeem their tattered reputation by supervising a very transparent transition to a new leader, chosen in a free competition and election.

Happily, the leader’s preferred successor would be as qualified to compete in those elections as his opponents. It would be a win-win situation for all, for there is nothing better than a country whose leaders enjoy the free consent of the citizens. Better to be out of power and free, than to wield power but live in a prison of fear of your fellow citizens.

© Muniini K. Mulera