Post-London conference philosophy should be fundamentally different from NRM’s

NRM came to power at the height of the Washington Consensus ideology based on market forces, laissez-faire capitalism, economic deregulation, macroeconomic stability and trickle down mechanism, etc. Government was seen as part of the development problem and not the solution.

The Washington Consensus was declared over at the G20 Summit in London. Since then the economically troubled world with high unemployment and slow economic growth has been influenced largely by a return of Keynesian model of demand management. Governments have returned to stimulate the economy working strategically in partnership with the private sector and civil societies and addressing imperfections of the market mechanism including deregulation.

Although NRM government abandoned the Washington Consensus or Structural Adjustment in late 1997 and replaced it with a five-year development plan, implying an active but strategic role of the government in the economy, in practice the government has continued to implement many of the Washington Consensus elements.

Post-NRM government will give greater weight to social protection

Sooner or later the NRM government will fall under the heavy weight of its incompetence, corruption, sectarianism and marginalization of capable citizens. NRM has no capacity for adjustment to the unfolding challenges.

NRM started off well with a mixed economy model combining aspects of neo-liberalism (laissez-faire capitalism) and neo-Keynesianism (demand management). This was a popular and pragmatic program that had been crafted by many Uganda stakeholders with different perspectives and ideologies.

Then in mid-1987 – suddenly and without public warning – came the Washington Consensus (WC) or structural adjustment program (SAP) that was imposed by the Bank and the Fund on a bankrupt government. WC stressed small state, private ownership of public enterprises, deregulation and liberalization, export diversification, balanced budget and primacy of the invisible hand of market forces – all to be implemented simultaneously. Sequencing was ruled out and NRM absorbed WC lock, stock and barrel. It was hoped that market forces would distribute equitably the benefits of rapid economic growth – itself a function of foreign direct investments – to all classes and regions and everyone would live happily thereafter.

NRP won a ‘Gold’ medal at UDU Boston conference

Under the overall theme of “What is Acceptable in a Free and Democratic Society”, the first conference of United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) took place at Boston College (USA) on October 8, 2011 – on the eve of Uganda’s independence anniversary. The National Recovery Plan (NRP) was presented as an alternative to the failed policies of NRM, noting that since the official termination of the failed structural adjustment program (SAP) the government is at a loss about what to do next. The National Development Plan adopted in 2009 to replace the abandoned structural adjustment program has not taken off yet.

Without exception all commentators in formal and informal conversations praised the NRP for its high quality and relevance to Uganda’s current situation. The question was “What are the next steps”.

NRP won a ‘Gold’ medal at UDU Boston conference

Under the overall theme of “What is Acceptable in a Free and Democratic Society”, the first conference of United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) took place at Boston College (USA) on October 8, 2011 – on the eve of Uganda’s independence anniversary. The National Recovery Plan (NRP) was presented as an alternative to the failed policies of NRM, noting that since the official termination of the failed structural adjustment program (SAP) the government is at a loss about what to do next. The National Development Plan adopted in 2009 to replace the abandoned structural adjustment program has not taken off yet.

Without exception all commentators in formal and informal conversations praised the NRP for its high quality and relevance to Uganda’s current situation. The question was “What are the next steps”.

In Uganda religious leaders can make a difference

Our doctrine is that Ugandans will liberate themselves from Museveni’s military dictatorship and the NRM failed system via a wide range of instruments including mass media and collaboration with religious leaders. The international community is called upon to level the playing field as Ugandans embark on a journey to freedom through peaceful demonstrations which are an integral part of our human rights including the right to self-determination and crafting a governance system that accommodates specific interests. That the European Union and Commonwealth observer teams concluded that the February 18, 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections were ‘not free and fair’ is a commendable beginning.

From time immemorial religious leaders have played a vital role (and some of them paid a heavy price) in easing the suffering of people meted out by their leaders. For example, John Ball a follower of John Wycliffe contributed tremendously through speeches and writing (e.g. “All men by Nature Were Created Alike”) in support of English peasants that had suffered exploitation. The peasants revolted in 1381 resulted in the abolition of the poll tax imposed in 1380 which sparked the great revolt.

Uganda has failed because of lack of tested leaders

Uganda has everything except good, dedicated, tested and patriotic leaders. When someone suddenly jumps out of a ‘corn field’ onto a political stage and then quickly becomes head of state chances are that that country will experience tremendous difficulties.

Look at Uganda since independence in 1962. Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and Kabaka-Yekka (KY) political parties were formed virtually on the eve of independence, allowing no time to test the leaders. The UPC/KY alliance was a marriage of convenience – not of conviction to unite and lead Uganda to greatness. The alliance was hurriedly put together for the sole purpose of preventing Democratic Party (DP) from forming a government at independence. In this rush thorny issues like the head of state and ‘lost counties’ which could have prevented formation of a UPC/KY alliance were not resolved before independence. The rush gave us a complex constitution with serious repercussions. What happened after independence did not surprise those who followed the negotiations in London or who knew the ideological differences between UPC and KY leaders. We ended up with 1966 catastrophe, a pigeon-hole constitution and Amin in 1971.

The primacy of nonviolence in Uganda’s regime change should remain our focus

I want to thank commentators on my two articles that appeared in Ugandans at Heart website last week and are still being discussed including on the radio. Exchange of views in a substantive way is a very important first step towards finding a right path to unseat NRM regime. The discussions so far have been civil in tone and hope they will continue that way.

In the two articles an attempt has been made to demonstrate that we should – in the first instance – use nonviolent means to unseat NRM regime (other options are not ruled out) because they minimize costs, unify diverse people and make it relatively easy to bring about national reconciliation. The destructive and divisive experience of wars in Uganda is still fresh in our minds. Wars should therefore be avoided – not ruled out.

Studies have shown that since 1900 three out of four nonviolent campaigns have succeeded (Chenoweth and Staphan 2011). We know that to succeed Ugandan nonviolent campaigners will need support of neighbors and the rest of the international community through for example reducing financial, technical and diplomatic support to NRM regime and imposing targeted sanctions. We should, however, not expect the international community to send troops to Uganda to unseat NRM government unless a situation similar to Libya’s develops whereby Museveni tries to destroy Uganda citizens by military means as Gadaffi tried to do to Libyans.

Ugandans need to practice what they preach

As a researcher I have interacted with many Ugandans at different social levels. All want children to do better than their parents. All want to be treated with respect. All those opposed to NRM want unity to succeed etc. However, the surprising part is that there are very few people acting individually or collectively through institutions that practice what they preach.

Look at the NRM government. It has preached modernization of agriculture but practiced very little. It has preached industrialization of Uganda but in practice the country is de-industrializing. It has preached environmental protection and sustainable management of natural resources but is threatening to give away a portion of Mabira forest for sugarcane plantation. It has preached good education in quantity and quality but cannot even provide lunches that keep children in primary school and make them perform better especially girls.

In rhetoric many Ugandans – married or not – feel that Uganda’s population is growing fast and needs to be controlled, but very few are willing to practice birth control. They feel their ‘neighbors’ should do so first.

Ours will be a liberal democracy

Liberal democracy has two main components. First, it is based on free and fair elections which are held regularly so that all eligible citizens choose their representatives and form a government. Second, a liberal democracy guarantees that rights for individuals and groups are protected and ipso facto cannot be taken away by government. Put another way, liberal democracy is a form of government that combines representative institutions of government including free and fair elections with liberal values in terms of individual rights and responsibilities.

It is important to stress that it is citizens that vote in a free and fair environment. And government cannot take away inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens.

In writing chapter two of the National Recovery Plan (NRP) which was released to the public for comment last week, United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) committee examined the elections and governments in Uganda since 1961. All of them did not meet the two components of a liberal democracy. Citizen participation in elections and government has been less than satisfactory, elections have not been free and fair, foreigners have been allowed to vote and governments have violated human rights and fundamental freedoms of Uganda citizens.

Report of the Secretary-General

Boston Conference October 8, 2011

Birth and Christening of UDU

Madam Chairperson

Fellow Ugandans

Ladies and gentlemen

I thank you all for attending the first ever United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) conference.

I thank in particular Ugandans in the Boston area. Since the stolen February 18, 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections, the group has championed demonstrations that have taken place in Washington DC, New York City and several times here in Boston. The group participated actively in the Los Angeles conference where the umbrella organization was born and christened United Democratic Ugandans (UDU).

The first chairman of UDU Mr. Mubiru Musoke is from Boston as well as the leader of gender affairs Ms Dorothy Lubowa Stweart. Mr. Joseph Magandazi a UDU committee member who is also from Boston and represents FDC has championed work that has established networks here in the United States and between UDU and FDC.

The Boston group is hosting the first conference of UDU. We thank them for the warm welcome that has been extended to us. Please join me in giving them a round of well deserved applause.

The UDU committee was mandated to: