When the National Resistance Movement (NRM) came to power in 1986, it had a clear domestic and external policy message which was compressed into the ten-point program. It was a program that had been based on compromise with national unity in mind which became a cornerstone in Uganda’s development discourse in the early years of the NRM administration.
Earlier, the late Grace Ibingira had written about the absence of national consciousness in Uganda brought about by the retention or intensification of ethnic differences during the colonial period. He observed that “Since the colonial system kept them alive through indirect rule and the policy of minimal inter-ethnic contact, the idea of Britain bequeathing a new state uniting all the divergent groups with a government of nationalist politicians from different groups, some historically enemies, generated intense fear in the country, most especially among the group that had more to lose, the Baganda” (G. S. Ibingira 1980).
Since independence in 1962, every government has expressed determination to effect national unity. The NRM government had not only the most comprehensive message but also implemented it during the first years of its administration. It constructed a government of national unity, advocated anti-sectarianism, individual merit, separation of church and politics stressing that religion was between an individual and his/her God. It even preached against balkanization not only of states but within states as well. It correctly underscored that gender gaps, skewed income distribution by class and region were detrimental to national unity and must be addressed. That is why national resistance policies from grass roots to parliament took care of all these differences and interests.
Ugandans applauded, the international media joined the bandwagon and Uganda’s stories were on front pages of most newspapers in the western world, the donor community extended a generous hand and President Museveni was declared the ‘father’ of the ‘new breed’ of African leaders who would not tolerate tribalism, corruption, dictatorship and the like. The donors’ push for multi-party democracy was even delayed to allow time for the experimentation of national resistance political system.
However, as time passed, something went wrong. Either the leadership of the NRM government was hoodwinking the public to buy time to consolidate its position militarily, economically and diplomatically or things just fell apart. Investigations tend to lead to the former. The NRM leadership knew all along that Uganda would be governed by Bahororo (Batutsi from Rwanda) for many years to come backed by Bahima and Catholic leadership. How was the project to be executed?
First, most of the best presidential advisers are historians. They have traced where all Bahororo and Batutsi who have been coming to Uganda since the 1920s as workers, refugees or illegal immigrants live in eastern, northern, western and Buganda regions. Although they adopt local names and local languages, they retain their Nilotic identity because their men do not marry outside of their Nilotic ethnic group. So when you hear announcements of appointments, promotions and transfers to key and strategic positions do not rush to the conclusion that regional balance is being pursued. Instead you should try to find out who these people are. Most likely they are Bahororo, Batutsi, Bahima or those men who have married their women and live in different parts of the country. This is not fantasy. These are facts. Check before you scream!
Second, the core leadership of the NRM, like the British colonial administration, has realized that to govern Ugandans with less headache just divide up the country along, tribal or even clan lines. Divide the country into such tiny economically unviable units that each one of them becomes dependent on central government for financial support. And squeeze concessions from these units such as hiring people or nominating political candidates recommended by the core of NRM leadership before releasing the funds. For those communities that have caused headache historically, marginalize, scatter and dispossess them through various ways and force them to come crawling for hand outs. Those who have gone through this, and are many, know what I am saying.
Third, the core leadership of NRM has established strong mutual relationships with some western powers on “You scratch my back and I scratch yours” basis. That is why some donors’ hands are tied. They know that corruption has become a serious development problem, they know that dividing up the country into so many units called districts and municipalities is not only divisive but expensive as well, they know that the economic growth statistics published on Uganda’s economy and society are incorrect, they know that the diseases of poverty are spreading and they know that the Uganda government has become authoritarian and will get worse as elections approach, but they can not do much against these abuses for fear that the compact between them and the government may be jeopardized.
These developments explain why the idea of national unity is close to death. Ugandans will therefore need to figure out how to save the situation. Or the Social Darwinists (believers in the survival of the fittest) will run the country on their terms.