Monthly Archives: January 2012

Uganda: Let us mean what we say about national unity

We have heard calls for national unity for a very long time. Yet national unity has not been realized. If anything national division has become the norm witness the division of Uganda from 18 districts at one time to over 100 districts today operating virtually as independent entities. One day you hear some commentators on radio or in private conversation claiming they belong to their tribe or region first and the next day they preach Uganda first.

National unity should be preached out of conviction, not out of convenience. There is enough evidence that “unity of convenience” to solve immediate problems has caused medium and long term troubles, some of them very serious. We should constantly remind ourselves of these experiences in order to do better. Elections for whatever office, assignments and promotions should be based on merit, on what individuals have accomplished and what they can offer to Uganda not on empty promises or who they are or where they come from or what faith they follow or their age or their gender.

Read the full post
Posted on by

What we have learned about Obote and Museveni leadership

It is now recognized that the quality of a leader and development perspective can make or break a nation. This matter came up in one of the discussions at the United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) conference in Boston in October 2011. Requests were made for a study of the background and leadership qualities of Obote and Museveni and draw lessons that might help in selecting future leaders.

Obote was born in Lango. Museveni’s birthplace has remained unclear, raising many questions. Obote and Museveni have a common ancestry of Nilotic and Luo-speaking people (sometimes referred to as River and Lake people) who entered what later became Uganda from Bahr -el-Ghazal in South Sudan, not from Ethiopia as originally suggested. Obote was a member of the Oyima group; Museveni is of the Batutsi/Bahororo group. Ipso facto, Obote and Museveni are distant cousins.

Museveni and Obote have played high politics in Uganda rising to the level of head of state and government and commander in-chief of Uganda’s armed forces.

Read the full post
Posted on by

UDU condemns arrest and detention of Uganda political leaders

Press release

United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) condemns in the strongest terms the arrest of Uganda’s political leaders for expressing their opinions. Ugandans like other citizens of the world have a right to assemble and express their opinions freely without intimidation, harassment, arrest and detention. These rights and freedoms are enshrined in national, regional and international legal instruments.

The arrest of Ugandans for expressing their views is frustrating efforts by all concerned to resolve disputes and conduct reforms by peaceful means. It must be understood that no amount of violation will force Ugandans to abandon the struggle for liberty, justice, equality and dignity.

We call on Uganda authorities to release those arrested and detained without further delay. We also call on the international community to take concrete actions to demonstrate their concern over the gross abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Uganda.

Eric Kashambuzi

Secretary-General, UDU

Posted on by

What we have learned about Obote and Museveni leadership

It is now recognized that the quality of a leader and development perspective can make or break a nation. This matter came up in one of the discussions at the United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) conference in Boston in October 2011. Requests were made for a study of the background and leadership qualities of Obote and Museveni and draw lessons that might help in selecting future leaders.

Obote was born in Lango. Museveni’s birthplace has remained unclear, raising many questions. Obote and Museveni have a common ancestry of Nilotic and Luo-speaking people (sometimes referred to as River and Lake people) who entered what later became Uganda from Bahr -el-Ghazal in South Sudan, not from Ethiopia as originally suggested. Obote was a member of the Oyima group; Museveni is of the Batutsi/Bahororo group. Ipso facto, Obote and Museveni are distant cousins.

Museveni and Obote have played high politics in Uganda rising to the level of head of state and government and commander in-chief of Uganda’s armed forces.

Read the full post
Posted on by

NRM has nowhere else to go but negotiate reforms

The National Resistance Movement (NRM) thought that it had created a favorable permanent situation and developed immunity against challenge after 1987 when it signed a stabilization and structural adjustment program (SAP) with the IMF, started to enjoy rapid economic growth (in large part because of excess capacity inherited in 1986 now almost exhausted) and established macroeconomic stability by keeping inflation in single digits through raising interest rates, balanced the budget by removing subsidies and dismissing public servants, accumulated foreign currency reserves in the central bank to guarantee continued imports for the rich and received massive external support.

NRM speeches were full of confidence and vibrancy stressing that market forces, laissez faire and trickledown would solve all problems. All NRM needed to do was to make sure that opposition was not allowed to say anything negative. The military, police, intelligence and prisons were expanded to deal with dissent. Lack of demonstrations was interpreted by the outside world as a sign of stability. Invitations to make speeches about Uganda’s success story at UN and G8 summits blinded NRM government to creeping signs of exhaustion and possible failure. Museveni even declared that there was no problem he could not solve.

Read the full post
Posted on by

2012 must be a year of real reforms in Uganda

Message for Members of Parliament

Hon. Members

United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) wishes you, your families and constituents a Happy and Successful New Year.

2011 was a year of elections and extraordinary economic and social hardship, calling for reflection and consultation on the way forward. The time for promises is over. Now in 2012 is the time for real reforms to bring about real and positive change in the quality of life of all Ugandans.

Addressing Uganda’s challenges will require contribution from everyone including development partners under your leadership because you represent the people. You have a duty to promote, protect and defend their interests.

As part of its contribution to the debate on reforms UDU prepared a National Recovery Plan (NRP) and circulated it widely for comments. The draft was amended accordingly and presented at the UDU conference held in Boston (USA) on October 8, 2011 for debate after which it was adopted. The final version is posted at www.udugandans.org

UDU believes in resolution of conflicts by peaceful means in the first instance and in inclusiveness and full participation. It also believes in real reforms with win-win outcomes. For a start, in 2012 parliament should consider and adopt reforms in the following areas.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Banyankole are not responsible for the suffering in Uganda

Accusations have increased in frequency and intensity that Banyankole have sole responsibility for the suffering being experienced in Uganda, implying punitive measures when the time comes. There were reports that after the brutal manner in which the demonstrators were handled in Kampala in 2009 by security forces, some people vowed that Banyankole would pay a commensurate price including innocent ones that had nothing to do with the disproportionate use of force. Anybody coming from southwest Uganda has been defined as a Munyankole and some of them have been assaulted. Banyankole are therefore wondering on which side to stand: with a tiny group of rulers from Ankole who are causing the chaos and suffering in Uganda or those who are opposed but have vowed to punish any Munyankole when the time comes.

Warnings have gone out that those who accuse Banyankole either in their individual capacity or as representative of groups should check their facts first to avoid harming innocent people. Southwest Uganda has a complex history of indigenous and migrant people and of rulers and ruled. Since the late 1950s many immigrants have crossed into southwest Uganda and pose as Banyankole or Bakiga. Some have joined the rulers from Ankole and are contributing to the suffering of the majority of Ugandans. We therefore need to know who is who from southwest Uganda and who is doing what. Without this disaggregated information innocent Banyankole and Bakiga or even immigrants and their properties may come under attack for nothing.

Read the full post
Posted on by

NRM must be unseated by peaceful means

Ugandans and the international community need to get together quickly to stop NRM and its leadership from driving Uganda into permanent darkness – it is already in darkness economically, socially, politically, morally and environmentally. The NRM and its military wing NRA applied brutal military force with core support of mercenaries to unseat UPC government through Okello in 1986. Ipso facto, one would be tempted to suggest use of force to unseat NRM government. However, the lesson we learned is that force is very costly in human and non-human terms. Force should therefore be avoided – unless in self defense – in removing NRM from power.

It is now recognized that NRM leadership is bent on staying in power indefinitely by force including through the ballot box witness the overwhelming use of the military during the 2011 elections. Waiting for 2016 to unseat NRM through elections is therefore a bad investment bound to yield heavy losses once again. In these circumstances removing NRM government from power can be achieved in three other ways – first, through the emergence of a de Clerk in the NRM, a Mandela in the opposition camp and a Macleod (British colonial secretary) in the international community to lead their constituencies in negotiating a genuine, lasting and mutually acceptable deal. De Clerk and Mandela worked against all odds to effect constitutional changes that facilitated black majority rule to prevail in South Africa. Similarly Iain Macleod worked against all odds to speed up decolonization in East Africa, averting potential violence. If this option does not work, the second one is to make Uganda ungovernable through civil or non-violent resistance. The third option which is preferable is to pursue both options simultaneously.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Further reflections on East African integration and federation project

Following publication of my article titled “It’s time to rethink the East African integration and federation project” some commentators have advised privately that there is need to look more closely at the ‘real’ motive(s) behind the federation or closer union project in East Africa. The instruction by the Burundi East African Summit for fresh guidelines has rekindled interest in the need to reexamine the entire project going as far back in history as available information allows. Questions of nationalism, immigration and citizenship, land ownership and jobs, nation-state and a supranational authority etc have been raised.

The idea was first made public by Harry Johnston when in 1899 he called for closer union between Kenya and Uganda. With Tanganyika falling under British influence after WWI, the idea gathered momentum. Many aspirations were expressed by individuals and officials for creation of a ‘New Dominion’ to include Kenya, Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar. The geographic area would run from the Limpopo to the Nile. The hidden agenda was to create a (white) settler-dominated, self-governing federation. Lord Delamare and Cecil Rhodes among others expressed this interest. To present it openly would have created a problem in Africa and possibly in Britain and elsewhere. So the economic and administrative justification for a closer union was substituted.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Why & how nonviolence worked in the Iranian revolution – lessons for Uganda

The political, economic, social and moral developments in Uganda that have been accumulating since the 1990s made worse by the stolen elections in 2011 and economic hard times might trigger a regime change or increase instability and violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those in favor of regime change are either campaigning to use force because according to them that it is the only language NRM military dictatorship understands or civil resistance. Besides working, nonviolence is less destructive than war. The example of a successful nonviolent resistance that toppled the Marcos regime in the Philippines has already been presented. Marcos went into exile. The Iranian civil resistance that toppled the Shah of Iran in 1979 is another. These two examples should convince those Ugandans still bent on the use force. Targeted assassinations and guerrilla tactics were tried in Iran and did not work.

Before presenting the nonviolent methods that were applied, let us review the conditions that triggered resistance to the Shah and his regime. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941. He lost power to the elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq between 1951 and 1953. With help of western powers the Shah regained control of the country and ruled with an iron fist thereafter, jailing political activists, intellectuals, members of the religious establishment etc. He shut down independent newspapers and employed extensive security instruments including the dreaded secret police (SAVAK) and the military to eliminate dissent.

Read the full post
Posted on by