External reporting on Uganda is misleading the public

The people of Uganda are hurting very badly under the NRM regime. Their conditions are getting worse. Ugandans are eating poorly, dressing poorly, sleeping poorly. When people struggle to get one meal of cassava a day; when people can only afford used clothes not even appropriate for their climate; when a whole family sleeps in one room on the floor sometimes with domestic animals; when parents force their daughters into early marriage to make ends meets that is a society in real trouble. I am describing Uganda society which is beginning to say Amin administration was better than Museveni’s. I am saying this from first-hand knowledge accumulated over many years. In my research, I have had the opportunity to interact with many people from all walks of life. I have visited churches, administrative offices, schools, homes, market places and vendors on the street. I have even travelled by bus many times between my home town of Rukungiri and the nation’s capital Kampala to hear passenger stories. I have visited homes at critical moments – at meal times, at bed times. I have also conversed with Uganda bureaucrats, politicians and donors. I have heard and seen it all: not from books but from real people. Some of the stories I have heard and things I have seen are horrible. People want enabling environment (roads, affordable electricity, etc) to struggle on their own but they are not getting it.

Uganda belongs to all Ugandans

The discussions taking place at home and abroad about the future of Uganda are encouraging. When people with diametrically opposed views begin to engage, that is a good sign. The meeting organized by FDC in London late last year (2011) that invited all political parties and groups is commendable and should be emulated. As we progress along this worthy path, we need to remind ourselves about the difference between principles and strategies. By and large principles remain the same; strategies change in response to prevailing circumstances. Let us begin with outstanding principles?

First, we must remember at all times that all Ugandans are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Nobody is born more equal and with more rights and freedoms than others. For example, all Ugandans have a right to adequate and balanced diet, equal and quality education and remunerative employment, decent clothing and shelter and pursuit of happiness. Every adult has a right to elect freely his/her representatives and to recall them before the next elections should that become necessary.

Second, Uganda belongs to all Ugandans. Ugandans must therefore share equitably what the country produces. A political party that wins elections must govern for all Ugandans. Apart from specific political positions, all other positions in government must be filled on the basis of competence. The winner-take(s)-all practice must be abandoned.

When a president refuses to feed children, Uganda should demand answers

We have a president who came to power in 1986 advocating what Ugandans wanted to hear and he said it all loud and clear. He said that under his brief administration (because he had more important things to do at community and Pan-African levels) he would end the suffering of all Ugandans children included. In his eagerness to drive the point home, he blamed all previous regimes for failure to take good care of the people of Uganda. The welfare of children was a recurrent theme in his speeches as was the empowerment of women including through reduction in maternal mortality. One of the themes he stressed with implications on children was food and nutrition security. He talked clearly about balancing agricultural production for domestic consumption and export markets. Museveni knew that all parents regardless of their status want good education and health for their children. And he knew that they know that children need to feed adequately in order to study well and stay healthy. So when Museveni talked about the welfare of children including good education, healthcare, decent shelter and clothing including shoes and food and nutrition security he endeared himself to the people of Uganda particularly women who take care of children most of the time.

My philosophy about Uganda

A lot has been written and said about me directly and indirectly. Given my frank involvement in Uganda’s political economy discourse, it would have been unusual for my views to remain unchallenged. I have already informed readers what triggered my interest in research and writing about Uganda in the context of the Great Lakes region. I began research in the early 1970s and my first book was published in 1997. In doing so I was guided by my faith to tell the truth and be on the side of voiceless, powerless and vulnerable people. In order to empower the voiceless, one has to understand why they are voiceless in the first place. That is why I spent many years doing research using primary and secondary sources. I obtained invaluable information through personal contacts, at times travelling by bus many times between Kampala and Rukungiri. I have done my research in a historical context, not from 1986 when NRM government came to power as some commentators have implied. I have given credit where it is due and criticized where it is the right thing to do. I have credited and criticized administrations in Uganda especially British, UPC and NRM. My belief is that to solve a problem you have got to get to the root cause and the agent that caused it otherwise you will treat symptoms and you will never get the work done satisfactorily. As a result of frank and manner of presentation of research findings some people have labeled me radical, assertive, sectarian and impatient. Let me explain what each one of these words mean from my perspective and why I feel the way I do.

Why Museveni has run into difficulties the army won’t help him solve

There is consensus that Uganda is in real trouble – politically, economically, socially, morally and ecologically. These are challenges that Museveni and NRM set out to solve and they appeared to have confidence to do that. Instead Uganda has turned into a failed state on their watch and has disappeared from the global radar of success stories. Before recommending a solution, we need to understand why Museveni has not succeeded in managing the affairs of Uganda. Here are some of the reasons.

NRM policies are ruining Uganda

Let me start with this statement by way of clearing the air. Some have raised questions, even written to me, about my motive for writing so much in so short a time: who is behind it, who are my research assistants and who is funding it? Some have even suggested that I am driven by a desire to unseat NRM government and President Museveni in particular; that I am too radical, too assertive, too sectarian.

Let me make it very clear and hopefully for the last time. Because I was uncomfortable with the way geography, economics, population and history were taught in senior secondary school and at the undergraduate university level – because what they taught did not match the situation on the ground where I was born and raised in southwest Uganda – I decided very early that I was going to study in a multidisciplinary fashion and do multidisciplinary research in order to understand the interconnections and correct distortions in those subjects. It is therefore not by accident that I studied geography, demography (population), economics, international law, international relations, sustainable development and world history. And because I did not want to be influenced by anybody in one way or another, I never asked for or accepted sponsorship, or mentor or research assistance. So I have worked alone to this point.

NRM can easily be unseated on four conditions

The popularity of NRM among Ugandans at home and abroad including many in NRM itself has sunk to the lowest level. The uncaring attitude of NRM to the suffering of Ugandans particularly women and children especially during the current economic hard times so soon after NRM was re-elected for another five-year term has driven the point home that Museveni – who is the de facto government of Uganda – does not care about Ugandans. He only uses them in pursuit of his imperial ambitions including changing the demographic composition of Uganda by increasing immigrants, ultimately turning indigenous population into a minority in their own country.

In Uganda land is a vital asset, source of wealth and symbol of prestige

We are writing these stories not because we are driven by radicalism or assertiveness as some people have suggested but because we want to save a bad situation from getting worse. For those who care to know two worrying developments are taking place in Uganda – land grabbing by foreigners and inferior education for indigenous population. These developments are reminiscent of the recently ended apartheid system in South Africa where the indigenous black population lost most of the land to the minority white population and got inferior education. It took almost one hundred years of struggle, abandoning education, loss of lives and long term prison sentences from 1912 to end this unjust system but the effects are still being felt. Let us examine the land issue as it relates to Uganda.

When we were growing up in poor families in southwest Uganda we were told again and again that our future was in education and not in tilling the land, a profession left for those who failed at school. To drive the point home we were punished at home and at school for whatever wrongdoing by doing agriculture work in school or family gardens. So Ugandans developed a dislike for agriculture and by extension land ownership. Educated people distanced themselves from rural areas and most would not even think of investing a small portion of their income in agriculture or rural development. Village life was something to be avoided.

What to do with the failed NRM government

Uganda has been described as a failed state under a military dictatorship disguised as democratic. Many of those supporting the NRM government publicly have misgivings when contacted privately. The question that has occupied center stage in discussions about the future of Uganda is what should be done to turn the country around before it is too late. Five ideas have been proposed.

First, there are those who are still committed to NRM for whatever reason and want it to stay. They are suggesting that pressure should be applied to NRM leadership to make the necessary changes and reverse the current failed trajectory. But the changes they are suggesting such as restoration of presidential term limits, ending corruption, sectarianism and mismanagement, formation of an independent electoral commission, limiting advantages of incumbency, restoration of independence of the judiciary and keeping the military out of politics will ensure defeat of NRM at the next elections. NRM is not a popular party and it is these malpractices that have kept it in power. In free and fair elections NRM cannot win. Therefore NRM is unlikely to go along with this advice. NRM has become like a very sick person that cannot work anymore and has to be retired. In other words NRM does not have the will and capacity under fundamentally changed economic circumstances – from neo-liberalism to public-private partnership – to turn the country around. If allowed to stay in power, NRM, crippled with all sorts of problems, will only make matters worse and the damage will be more costly down the road.

The rule of the jungle in Uganda is coming to an end

We are writing these stories, incredible or controversial as they may be, for the sole purpose of finding a lasting solution to Uganda’s daunting challenges so that all Ugandans have peace and stability in which to create wealth and enjoy happiness. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the history of Uganda and philosophy of our leaders. Those who reason that going into history is unnecessary or counterproductive and we should therefore forget about it and move on forget that the past impacts the present in significant ways. There are also those who argue that we should not focus on one leader but the institution. They too forget that history is full of examples of one man rule who decides what to do and how to do it and the rest just toe the line or get sidelined or fired or worse if they don’t. Therefore understanding Uganda’s problems begs a comprehensive analysis of its history and the philosophy of its leaders. Failure to understand Amin as a man of split personality with a brutal past and medical problem resulted in some 300,000 loss of lives in the 1970s.