Bahima must accept their Luo ancestry, stop military adventurism and psychological warfare

People all over the world are proud of their ancestry and culture. Those who do not know their ancestry and culture are busy reconstructing them and making necessary changes including names.

On the other hand Bahima and their Batutsi, Bahororo and Banyamulenge cousins are busy hiding their Luo ancestry and their nomadic and militaristic culture. They are doing so because they do not want to lose the advantages they have enjoyed since aristocratic Europeans from Belgium, Britain and Germany falsely described them as intelligent and superior white people born to rule others.

They are afraid that if they accept their Luo ancestry then they cannot continue to claim that they are white people because Luo are black people. If they accept that they are Luo people then they cannot continue to claim that they are intelligent and responsible for civilizations that Europeans found in Uganda. They are afraid that if they accept that they are Luo then they cannot continue to claim that they are born leaders.

They are afraid that if they accept that they are Luo from southern Sudan then they will accept their nomadic and warlike culture and low level of civilization. They are afraid that if they accept their Luo ancestry then they will lose western support.

NRM government must accept responsibility for its actions

On Monday April 19, 2010 President Museveni launched Uganda’s five-year development plan. During the ceremony, he stated that at the beginning of his administration in 1986, NRM had plans to introduce a development plan but it was told that planning was out of date. Instead NRM was told to control inflation, ensure macro stability and leave the rest to the private sector. He did not specify who gave this advice.

When NRM came to power, it soon realized that unless it entered into an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) first, external funding would be withheld. For almost a year and a half, the government debated various options of engagement with the IMF under Washington Consensus or stabilization and structural adjustment conditions. The debates chaired or attended by the president were dominated by two schools of thought represented by the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development. The Ministry of Finance and possibly Central Bank opted for a gradual and sequenced approach to minimize the costs of adjustment drawing lessons from Obote II government’s experience with structural adjustment began in 1981. The Ministry of Planning and Economic Development supported a ‘shock therapy’ alternative that required implementation of all adjustment conditions at once. Finally, the President endorsed the shock therapy alternative.