Second appearance to Ugandans on Radio Munansi – Kashambuzi

Fellow Ugandans and friends

1. There is no doubt that we had a fruitful discussion yesterday. It was substantive, participatory and action-oriented and I learned a lot. I hope we shall maintain this momentum and spirit after the elections.

2. At the end of the debate yesterday someone contacted me and suggested that since my complaint was about Uganda policies, I should address the NRM government and not Museveni. I responded that in Uganda there is no government as such. Museveni is the government and the government is Museveni. Therefore it is appropriate to use Museveni as our point of reference.

3. Let me summarize and amplify a bit what I said yesterday in my native language for those who did not understand since this was my first oral communication with Ugandans and our friends in Uganda and abroad.

4. We must all understand as clearly stated in Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.

Where did all the generous development donations to Uganda go?

The rapidly deteriorating economic, social, cultural and ecological conditions as manifested in the diseases of poverty, ecological deterioration and a breakdown in moral values to make ends meet have raised questions about the destination of massive donor development (as opposed to security and defense) aid money to Uganda. Since 1987 when the government signed an agreement with the IMF that opened the door for contributions, donors (bilateral, multilateral, UN and NGOs) have generously extended a helping hand. Additionally, Uganda was the first country to get debt relief under HIPC (Highly Indebted Poorest Countries) initiative on the understanding that the funds released would support critical poverty eradication programs such as primary education, primary health care, rural feeder roads, agricultural extension and water supply.

Donor funds were released on the basis of meeting aid conditionality (including zero-tolerance for corruption), drawing up, monitoring and evaluation of comprehensive rehabilitation and development programs.

Regarding development programs, Uganda developed excellent blue prints that received international recognition and praise for their quality in design and comprehensiveness. Here are the objectives of five of these development programs that were prepared in consultation with all stakeholders including development partners.

Museveni has violent and feudal characteristics

The people of Uganda are resenting Museveni because of his increasing use of violence which he studied in Tanzania and has been encouraged to apply at home by some donors to maintain ‘stability’; his implementation of the philosophy of metamorphosis designed to transform beyond recognition Uganda’s ecological and demographic landscape (having more cattle than crops and more foreigners than indigenous people and another Ivory Coast in Uganda); and his consolidation of feudalism of lords (Bahororo) and serfs (the rest of Uganda) and Tutsi empire disguised as East African political federation with western encouragement.

Through the application of harsh anti-sectarian and anti-terrorism Acts and with tacit donor support, Museveni has violently silenced dissent apparently in the name of political and economic stability. Meanwhile suppressed dissent built into frustration and anger and then into enlightenment and dialectics. Ugandans thus no longer regard Museveni as a leader with divine right whose word is taken at face value. Instead, Ugandans are asking questions and demanding satisfactory answers (enlightenment) and are spending more time in archives and libraries and on the internet unearthing what was hidden (dialectics). Supporters of Museveni at home and abroad should not be surprised at what has hit them.

Comparison between Museveni and British colonial chiefs in Uganda

The comments and questions I am receiving from readers of my books and blog have rekindled hope that Uganda might exit from the current neo-colonial, private sector dominated and market oriented model to a truly poverty-reduction paradigm based on building viable and lasting institutions and infrastructure (rather than governments and individual leaders) and promoting public and private partnership. But for this to happen, leaders in Uganda must have a different political economy profile from those in power today.

Museveni has failed the people of Uganda and pleased his western sponsors because he has had two conflictingstrategies. On the one hand, he has told Ugandans the right things such as transformation of Uganda’s economy through industrialization and improving the living standards of all Ugandans etc. On the other hand, he has in practice implemented what western powers have demanded – integrating Uganda into a global market economy embodied in the Washington Consensus (WC) similar to what Britain demanded during the colonial period. The WC model requires Uganda leadership to adopt policies and strategies similar to those in the colonial days under the indirect rule system. In essence Museveni has behaved like an indirect rule chief under the direction of western powers including the World Bank, IMF and especially Britain. Let us review a few examples to show that Museveni has served western and not Ugandan interests.

Museveni’s use of force has become counterproductive

There is consensus that Museveni is a leader guided by a unique philosophy based on the use of force and fear, dependence on foreigners and regional focus that has made his presidency counter-productive, calling for his defeat in 2011 elections. Museveni’s defeat is very important for Uganda, neighboring countries and development partners in order to avoid heavier losses in the future. Thick clouds are gathering on the political horizon and if they are not dissipated quickly they could unleash a very destructive storm. If preventive steps had been taken Ethiopia and Zaire could have avoided the adverse impact of 1974 and 1996/7 events respectively. To prevent the possibility of such events occurring in Uganda, we need to adopt a preventive strategy because it is always cheaper than cure. We should at all times avoid emotions about what Museveni has done for or against us. We should be guided only by considerations of dignity, liberty/freedom and equality of all Ugandans. We should seek and tell the truth because a diversion will be catastrophic. For easy reference let us review the rationale behind Museveni’s philosophy.

Explaining the unique importance of 2011 elections in Uganda

Let me make two observations at the start of this article to clear the air. In my writings I have referred to Museveni as president, not in his personal capacity. Second, you cannot meaningfully talk about NRM government without talking about Museveni – for all intents and purposes Museveni has become NRM government. I do not hear much from ministers or senior civil servants. And in the absence of a government spokesperson, we are left with Museveni.

In a month’s time, Ugandans will elect a president, members of parliament, district councilors and mayors. These elections are taking place in unique circumstances which voters must be very familiar with before they cast their votes. Voters must therefore choose leaders that will genuinely represent their interests. The last twenty five years were dominated by structural adjustment (macroeconomic stability) and national security (defense of the state from external threats) at the expense of human security (protection of individuals economically and socially).

Museveni must be accountable for his government failures

Museveni behaves as though he does not understand the concept of accountability even though he grew up in an environment where accountability is very well understood. For example, in western Uganda culture – where Museveni comes from – when your cows destroy a neighbor’s garden when your son was tending them, it is the father who is accountable and pays the fine. Similarly when Museveni’s employees (national or foreign) make mistakes he should be accountable and accept the consequences. Instead Museveni blames others. But before coming to cases where Museveni and those who support him have blamed others, let us examine briefly why Museveni has done poorly with a view to drawing lessons for future leaders and whoever forms the next government after February 18, 2011 elections.

1. Museveni’s school performance through undergraduate studies was not bright. This can be deduced from his own writings and reports (subject to confirmation) that he obtained a pass at the university of Dar es Salaam. At that time a pass was like a certificate of attendance. He did not pursue graduate studies that introduce students to analytical tools and research methodology. So he has a deficit at the academic level. And he became president when the world economy had shifted from Keynesian to neoliberal ideology known as the Washington Consensus that requires a lot of adjustment from state to market forces and laissez-faire capitalism.

Has Museveni’s bad governance of Uganda been deliberate?

Wherever you look – economic equitability, food and nutrition security, quality education and healthcare and biodiversity protection etc – you see deficits. That is why even those at the UN, BWIs (World Bank and IMF) and bilateral partners are quietly distancing themselves from Museveni’s development failure and ruthless dictatorship.

Museveni came to power at a time when Uganda was ready for positive change. Ugandans wanted change that would help all of them put food on the table, send their children to school, find remunerative and decent jobs, move out of subsistence economy, enjoy healthy lives, good neighborly relations and protect their lives and properties earned intellectually (an article posted on the internet for example) or through physical labor etc.

Bahororo women are destroying Bairu nation

Readers who are not used to this kind of exchange might be disturbed. However, if you have an open mind you will overcome it once you understand the tricks Bahororo are using to keep Bairu down and by extension the rest of Uganda. I know there are some Bairu who will object to this kind of conversation in large part because they are benefiting from Museveni regime and do not want trouble.

The primary objective of writing this and other stories is not to make friends (it will be good if that happens) but to share my research findings with a wider public. I have tried to be as factual and as balanced as possible because I know that any story about the relationship between Bahororo and Bairu is bound to be controversial and emotional. If you do not agree challenge me with facts and not emotions. We are not going to let a whole nation be destroyed because we do not want to upset a few people.

A message for 2011 and beyond

Fellow Ugandans

As 2010 folds and 2011 unfolds I want to thank you all and share with you a few principal points.

Twenty ten (2010) has been an important year of reflection and debate made easy by the internet. Twenty eleven (2011) should be a year to launch real action to implement for present and future generations the outcomes of the 2010 debate. We shall need collaboration with friends, neighbors, well wishers and partners to put Uganda onto a growth and development path that is equitable, sustained and sustainable taking into consideration the following points.

First, a society that develops and matures must enjoy all the rights and freedoms that include good education, healthcare and adequate and balanced diet; decent jobs, housing and clothing as well as freedom of expression and assembly. These rights and freedoms can only be enjoyed through a free and fair political system, an independent judiciary and a security system that protects citizens’ lives and properties through established peoples’ institutions and rules.