“It is better to reform than to have a political revolution” – lessons for Uganda

During the debate leading up to the Reform Act of 1832, Thomas B. Macaulay a Whig member of British Parliament made a memorable observation: “It is better to reform than to have a political revolution”. The successful 1830 revolution in France sounded a warning about what could happen in England if the middle class and industrial leaders’ demands for participation in the political process were not addressed. The Whigs who won the 1830 general elections “realized that concessions to reform were superior to revolution”. An election reform bill was introduced and became the Reform Act in 1832. The law gave explicit recognition to the changes that accompanied the Industrial Revolution including creation of the working class. The Reform Act of 1832 together with repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 saved Britain from the 1848 revolutions that swept across Europe. The working class demands that were not accommodated in the Reform Act were taken care of in the second half of the 19th century.

Applauding security forces that protect demonstrators rights and freedoms

Uganda’s men and women in uniform have been reminded that, like their counterparts in other countries, their responsibility is to defend the nation against external invasion and to prevent abuse of citizens’ rights and freedoms by their governments. Demonstrations take place to draw to the attention of authorities that something is wrong and needs fixing. Demonstrations are not about overthrowing governments. Governments get overthrown when they refuse to pay attention to the needs of all the people. For example, in Ethiopia the early 1970s were marked by economic hard times and famine which the government ignored and covered up. People were unemployed and hungry. In 1974 they demonstrated not because they wanted to overthrow the regime. They wanted relief. The government did not respond appropriately. Instead demonstrators were attacked by police. Ultimately, security forces including the military which had remained neutral realized that the government had no intention of helping its citizens. The military joined in and presented its demands which too were not addressed, leading to a bloodless coup in 1974. From time immemorial, security forces have protected citizens when attacked by external and internal forces as the case studies below demonstrate with regard to internal forces.

Let us not start war against NRM government

We know that when a government fails to take responsibility for the welfare of the people, it should be removed from power. In the last 26 years NRM government has failed to deliver basic services. Ugandans have tried to remove it from power through the ballot box without success. And it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future without term limits and an independent electoral commission. Logically, some Ugandans are reasoning that since the ballot box has failed, we must resort to war. But some Ugandans have said no. This does not mean that those who do not want war are cowards. It means that they are pragmatic. Starting a war against a recognized government regardless of how it came into power will be condemned by the international community and come to the government’s rescue. In fact, NRM would welcome such attack to give it a golden opportunity to arrest real and imagined enemies of the state in the name of national security against terrorists and put them away for good. It would also help NRM divert development resources to war efforts and impoverish Ugandans further without being blamed. So Ugandans eager to fight need to understand fully the environment at home and abroad in which they are operating before definitive actions are taken.

Is Uganda ready for a political revolution through civil resistance?

Political revolutions occur principally because the oppressor refuses to address the concerns of the oppressed and the latter refuses to withdraw them. Political revolutions, like revolutions in other areas of human activity, take time to occur and have virtually similar background characteristics. When people live under constant conditions characterized as “poor, nasty, brutish and short’, they eventually band together so that their voices for reform are heard by authorities. Regarding peasants, it has been demonstrated time and again that when they get hungry and believe they are being overtaxed (broadly defined), they rebel.

Uganda: when you’re afraid of failure you will never make progress

Many Ugandans are very unhappy about the deteriorating situation in our country. However, they are unable to react because they are afraid that if they don’t succeed in regime change or make fundamental changes within NRM the consequences might be severe. They are therefore prepared to wait until time solves the problem or someone else does it for them. That is why some Ugandans are praying virtually daily for donors to come to our rescue. In life there are few, if any, improvements that occur without human involvement and sometimes sacrifices. Intervention by others is more often than not to promote or fulfill parochial agendas that could lead to more hardship for the non-participants in the process. Therefore in order to solve a problem those affected need to participate. Second, success or failure depends upon the goal one sets. For example, those who had planned to unseat NRM regime in 2011 elections and didn’t obviously failed. Those who criticized NRM economic policy succeeded because the government dropped the devastating structural adjustment program in 2009 based on the invisible hand of market forces and replaced it with National Development Plan designed to introduce a public-private partnership model. Third, there are goals that are achieved in stages. You start with producing and disseminating information in the news papers, radios and the internet as Ugandans are doing now. The information is then debated and synthesized into policy and strategy in the second phase. In the third phase the strategy is implemented. Implementation may not achieve all the goals or none at all. The momentum may be slowed or the movement even destroyed completely. History provides lessons we can draw from so that when we do not succeed or do so partially the first time we should not despair and throw in the towel. In some of my publications, I have deliberately drawn on history lessons to show that those that persist and are optimistic win in the end. Below are some lessons that discourage pessimism and defeatism.

What Uganda needs to do to achieve political stability

Uganda is at a crossroads saddled with many challenges that are tearing the country apart and could lead to civil war. Those in power are blaming the opposition for causing trouble. Those in the opposition argue that government excesses are the root cause. There are two ways of sorting out the problem: fight until one group defeats the other or compromise and every Ugandan has a share in the fruits of independence. The history of England may give us a hint on the way forward.

During the middle ages, European monarchy and nobility engaged in a bitter struggle for power that resulted in absolute monarchy in France and constitutional government in England. In France the monarchy ruined the nobility through war. In England the king and the nobility agreed to share political power. They settled their disputes through compromise rather than head for total victory. King John for a time maintained his authority by using cruel methods with support of mercenaries. However, this method would not survive a serious crisis that erupted in 1214 as a result of financial crisis due to war. Because of the king’s despotism, the barons refused to help him out. In January 1215, taking advantage of his vulnerability, the barons presented the king with a series of demands for reform and end of despotism. With no support from his subjects the king signed the document in June 1215. The petition was written in Latin under the name of Magna Carta. The petition was translated into English and issued as the Great Charter. What were the landmarks in the Charter that could be emulated?

Fight over Bachwezi ancestry and earthen works in central Uganda

Winds of trouble are gathering speed and are about to blow like a tornado across central Uganda over who Bachwezi are and who constructed the earthen works including those at Ntusi and Bigo in central Uganda. This quarrel would not have arisen if Europeans had not created the confusion. Through European race theories, blacks (Negroes) were described as people without civilizations. And as uncivilized, blacks had no history and darkness in which they lived was not a subject of history. So when Europeans visited what later became Uganda and found magnificent civilizations, they manufactured an explanation. They decided that these civilizations including earthen works in central Uganda must have been the work of Europeans. They looked at the physical features of Africans and found that Bahima had similar facial resemblance like them especially long and thin noses. They quickly concluded that Bahima were white people who created civilizations including earthen works. Europeans went further and explained that Bahima turned black because of strong tropical sum but were still lighter skinned than Negroes. From that time on Bahima and later their Batutsi cousins in Rwanda and Burundi and Batutsi/Bahororo in short lived Mpororo kingdom assumed that they were more intelligent and born leaders. Negroes were judged mentally inferior, physically unattractive and born to scratch the soil to earn a living and work for born leaders in return for protection. As uncivilized people blacks were reduced to crop cultivation. And Bahima were strictly cattle keepers, a symbol of civilization. Through indirect rule, colonialism enhanced the power of control of Bahima and Bahororo over Bantu people in southwest Uganda, a position they lost at the time of independence. They fought a guerrilla war to restore their dominance which has been extended to the entire country. Then came research findings that turned everything upside down or inside out whichever expression you prefer.

Uganda’s development needs a different approach

There are things that we shall keep in the media until solutions are found. One of the senior officials at the United Nations in New York replied to a question that conferences on the same subjects will continue to be organized until solutions are found. I agreed with him then, I agree with him now. And that is what I intend to do with Uganda until solutions to the questions raised are found. Ugandans and other readers are urged to make constructive comments on what we write in order to reorient Uganda’s development path. The purpose of development is to end poverty. Economic growth rates while necessary are meaningless unless they lead to poverty reduction. Poverty can only end by addressing dimensions that create it: illiteracy, disease, poor diet, poor housing and clothing, low productivity and value addition etc. Buildings, referenda and constitutions are necessary but not sufficient. Pass or fail depends on how much poverty has been reduced. You may have sufficient revenue and skilled people and yet fail to reduce poverty because of the way resources are used. Why has Uganda with adequate resources and skilled human power failed to address these dimensions that have kept over fifty percent of Ugandans absolutely poor? Here are the principle reasons.

How to address land fragmentation in Uganda

In chapter one of my book titled “Uganda’s Development Agenda in the 21st Century and Related Regional Issues (2008)” I wrote about the challenges connected with land tenure and land use. One of the issues I addressed is land fragmentation which is not abating. Although many Ugandans are aware of the problems connected with tiny and scattered pieces of land, they are unwilling to address them. There are many reasons for this behavior.

First, culturally and sentimentally when the head of the family passes on every son and increasingly every daughter and widow (s) wants a piece of the land. The more members in the family the smaller the piece each member gets. And given low agricultural productivity (low yielding traditional seeds and absence of organic and inorganic fertilizers and irrigation technology), the tiny pieces of land do not produce enough to maintain a family for food and cash, pushing that family into deeper poverty if there are no alternative sources of income. This problem may be overcome in the short to medium term by changing the cultural and sentimental value of land so that inheritance goes to one member or inherited land is used collectively. In the long term poverty reduction may help reduce the size of the family because poor couples produce more children than rich ones.

To solve a problem, you have to admit it exists

In Uganda, the problem is not government revenue. Since 1987, Uganda government has had adequate resources from various sources including donations, loans, remittances, debt relief, customs and tax revenue and sale of public enterprises. NRM government has received over $31 billion in donations alone. Uganda does not suffer a shortage of trained and experienced human power either. In fact Uganda has become an exporter of trained personnel. So what is the problem? The problem is President Museveni’s agenda contained in the 50 year Master Plan which is diametrically opposed to what we seek to do to achieve economic growth and development and improved the standard of living for all Ugandans – not to build schools, clinics and promote economic growth without equity. Museveni’s plan is to enrich and empower Bahororo people for control of Uganda in perpetuity. It is incredible but very true! This point must be repeated until it is understood very clearly by all Ugandans, friends and well wishers. Failure to understand this point will undermine all we are trying to do to make Uganda a better place for all citizens. It takes courage and risk to speak up like this but it has got to be done to save the “Pearl of Africa” from colonization – again. The two principle elements that underpin the Master Plan are the deliberate impoverishment of Ugandans by denying them quality education, employment and healthcare including nutrition and access to development resources such as land (without land, education and job you cannot consider yourself a full grown and respectable person) and credit as well as control of the instruments of repression, like the military. It is believed that impoverished, desperate and vulnerable people are easy to govern and they respect leaders without question. They have no knowledge of their rights and freedoms and cannot demand what they don’t know. That is why the middle class that has a questioning mind is declining through unemployment, retrenchment and brain drain. For easy reference, the Master Plan was posted on Ugandans at Heart Forum. Therefore it will not be summarized here. So the first step in solving Uganda’s political economy challenge is a recognition of the principle problem namely the implementation of the 50 year Master Plan led by President Museveni which has been facilitated by staff Museveni has hired and the neo-liberal model NRM adopted in 1987. Let us review the last two points.