I have been receiving comments about why I do not support military confrontation with NRM in the first instance. In other words, why I do not want the opposition to use military means to attack Uganda first? My position is the following:
1. The mood in the Great Lakes Region, African Union and the International Community is not in favor of armed conflict. Protocol on Non-Aggression and Mutual Defense in the Great Lakes Region; African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance and Charter of the United Nations will make military attack on a government regardless of how it came into power very difficult. Opposition attackers will be condemned as terrorists and Museveni will get all the support he needs and enact all draconian laws to cause permanent damage and govern comfortably thereafter. He would welcome that opportunity. We can’t and shouldn’t give it to him. Recall what happened in a successful Mali’s military coup recently: soldiers were forced to hand over power to the civilian. The Madagascar case was also hard for the new government. Conditions when Museveni waged a guerrilla war in the early 1980s were very favorable, not now. So don’t think because Museveni carried out a successful guerrilla war you too can do it.
2. Museveni’s strength and comparative advantage is in military preparedness. You don’t attack an enemy where he is strongest. You go for areas where he is weakest. He has not prepared for widespread strikes, demonstrations etc and does not have that kind of money and boots to put on the ground throughout the country;
3. We should not entertain the idea of another military government. If we go by what Uganda has reaped from Amin and Museveni’s military regimes, none in the right mind would want another military regime.
4. I have, however, stressed that we should acquire military training and preparedness so that if Uganda military and police use excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, then we shall have a legitimate reason to use military force in self-defense and we shall likely get external help. Already the government has received warnings from many quarters to refrain from violating Ugandans’ human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Reasons for favoring non-violent resistance:
1. Where there is coordination of resistance forces non-violent resistance works. The walk-to-work has worked and that is why Uganda has recorded the lowest economic growth rate since it came to power. You don’t expect the government to tell you so. This method should be refined, localized and spread to all parts of the country and if possible take place concurrently to stretch security forces to the limit, forcing them to take a neutral position as in Iran in 1979 or join the resistance forces as in France and Russia in 1789 and 1917 respectively;
2. The demonstrations, strikes and non-cooperation countrywide will cripple the economy and create uncertainties that would force investors, tourists, development partner donations and remittances to decline. Unemployment will rise higher, government revenue will decline, salaries will not be paid or paid on time, civil servants and security forces will become angry and reduce support to the regime. As part of the contribution to resistance, farmers will cut back on food production and/or marketing causing more hardship. During the French and Russian Revolutions, peasants refused to sell food for a variety of reasons. Hungry, unemployed and angry Parisian and Russians went on the street, were joined by some soldiers and police and that is how the revolutions in the two places began in 1789 and 1917. They were never planned. Urban women and unemployed youth played crucial roles. Uganda could degenerate into this situation and make the country ungovernable.
3. Non-violent resistance is less destructive in lives, property, infrastructure and institutions than war. The lessons of destruction from Luwero Triangle, Northern and Eastern Uganda are still fresh in our minds. Another war would therefore be morally wrong, inhuman and unacceptable;
4. Should the government use disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators then the opposition can legitimately apply armed force in self-defense and would receive external support as in Libya and now in Syria.
To conclude, plan A has already begun with non-violent resistance and networking externally with good results if you have been paying attention. Security forces are beginning to realize they can’t beat up demonstrators and spray tear gas as they see fit. The Ingrid case taught then a good lesson. Pressure came in from all sides. UDU issued a strong press release and made other useful contacts. Plan B is to use force in self-defense when government uses excessive force against peaceful resistance. So, I am not against armed struggle, I am only sequencing strategies so that Plan A comes first and is already on and Plan B to comes later should that become necessary. So training for Plan B should continue for self-defense purposes.