2012 must be a year of real reforms in Uganda

Message for Members of Parliament

Hon. Members

United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) wishes you, your families and constituents a Happy and Successful New Year.

2011 was a year of elections and extraordinary economic and social hardship, calling for reflection and consultation on the way forward. The time for promises is over. Now in 2012 is the time for real reforms to bring about real and positive change in the quality of life of all Ugandans.

Addressing Uganda’s challenges will require contribution from everyone including development partners under your leadership because you represent the people. You have a duty to promote, protect and defend their interests.

As part of its contribution to the debate on reforms UDU prepared a National Recovery Plan (NRP) and circulated it widely for comments. The draft was amended accordingly and presented at the UDU conference held in Boston (USA) on October 8, 2011 for debate after which it was adopted. The final version is posted at www.udugandans.org

UDU believes in resolution of conflicts by peaceful means in the first instance and in inclusiveness and full participation. It also believes in real reforms with win-win outcomes. For a start, in 2012 parliament should consider and adopt reforms in the following areas.

NRM must be unseated by peaceful means

Ugandans and the international community need to get together quickly to stop NRM and its leadership from driving Uganda into permanent darkness – it is already in darkness economically, socially, politically, morally and environmentally. The NRM and its military wing NRA applied brutal military force with core support of mercenaries to unseat UPC government through Okello in 1986. Ipso facto, one would be tempted to suggest use of force to unseat NRM government. However, the lesson we learned is that force is very costly in human and non-human terms. Force should therefore be avoided – unless in self defense – in removing NRM from power.

It is now recognized that NRM leadership is bent on staying in power indefinitely by force including through the ballot box witness the overwhelming use of the military during the 2011 elections. Waiting for 2016 to unseat NRM through elections is therefore a bad investment bound to yield heavy losses once again. In these circumstances removing NRM government from power can be achieved in three other ways – first, through the emergence of a de Clerk in the NRM, a Mandela in the opposition camp and a Macleod (British colonial secretary) in the international community to lead their constituencies in negotiating a genuine, lasting and mutually acceptable deal. De Clerk and Mandela worked against all odds to effect constitutional changes that facilitated black majority rule to prevail in South Africa. Similarly Iain Macleod worked against all odds to speed up decolonization in East Africa, averting potential violence. If this option does not work, the second one is to make Uganda ungovernable through civil or non-violent resistance. The third option which is preferable is to pursue both options simultaneously.

Further reflections on East African integration and federation project

Following publication of my article titled “It’s time to rethink the East African integration and federation project” some commentators have advised privately that there is need to look more closely at the ‘real’ motive(s) behind the federation or closer union project in East Africa. The instruction by the Burundi East African Summit for fresh guidelines has rekindled interest in the need to reexamine the entire project going as far back in history as available information allows. Questions of nationalism, immigration and citizenship, land ownership and jobs, nation-state and a supranational authority etc have been raised.

The idea was first made public by Harry Johnston when in 1899 he called for closer union between Kenya and Uganda. With Tanganyika falling under British influence after WWI, the idea gathered momentum. Many aspirations were expressed by individuals and officials for creation of a ‘New Dominion’ to include Kenya, Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar. The geographic area would run from the Limpopo to the Nile. The hidden agenda was to create a (white) settler-dominated, self-governing federation. Lord Delamare and Cecil Rhodes among others expressed this interest. To present it openly would have created a problem in Africa and possibly in Britain and elsewhere. So the economic and administrative justification for a closer union was substituted.

In Uganda eradicating poverty and implementing the 50 year master plan are mutually exclusive

Let me end 2011 with this short message in part as a response to Museveni’s end of year message.

First, Ugandans must understand the simple truth: Museveni is committed to implementing Bahororo 50 year Master Plan which was adopted at his Rwakitura residence under his chairmanship on March 15, 1992.

To realize the Master Plan, non-Bahororo Ugandans must be kept poor economically, socially and politically by denying them what would empower them such as quantity and quality education, jobs, nutrition and access to resources. It is a zero-sum game. Because of this game, poverty has remained very high – over fifty percent – and some 20 percent in the lowest income bracket have got worse.

To explain high levels of poverty, youth unemployment, hunger, disease etc, Museveni has always blamed external forces and “Acts of God” beyond NRM’s control or the opposition. And he gets away with it! It is mainly NRM’s commissions and omissions that are overwhelmingly responsible for too much suffering in Uganda – a country so well endowed to make everyone happy with a surplus. In true democratic countries Museveni and NRM would have been voted out of power a long time ago.

Conferences will not develop Uganda’s economy and society

Uganda has become a conference country. Ugandans are attending conferences or workshops at home and abroad and hosting international conferences. The international conferences are hosted largely to boost Uganda’s sagging image but are very costly in human and financial terms.

This article is a response to a request at the UDU Boston conference (October 2011) to provide information that may help to understand why Uganda despite all its endowments and generous external support poverty remains high and is deepening for some 20 percent in the lowest income bracket.

By and large, these meetings are organized or attended to analyze Uganda’s development challenges, draw lessons and recommend solutions.

A closer examination since 1986 indicates that Uganda’s development problems have been analyzed in detail, lessons learned and recommendations articulated as outlined below. Consequently, conferences could be significantly reduced, resources saved and the focus reoriented to address emerging challenges.

First, Uganda’s development challenges have been exhaustively analyzed and solutions adequately articulated. The analysis and recommendations in the ten-point program later extended to fifteen remain valid as subsequently elaborated and expanded or refocused in research findings and other documents like UDU’s National Recovery Plan (NRP) which was officially transmitted to the government and Uganda’s development partners. The Plan is accessible at www.udugandans.org.

Background to the idea of East African political federation

It has been reported that at the recently concluded summit in Burundi (November 2011), the East African community leaders have instructed the secretariat to issue new guidelines on the form of East African economic integration and political federation that is suitable for the region.

We need to understand two things very clearly:

1. The definition of a federation and how it works in theory and particularly in practice drawing on relevant lessons of federal states that include United States of America, Canada, India, Germany and Switzerland;

2. The background to the idea of economic integration and political federation in East Africa and steps taken to implement it among the three countries of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda and the difficulties that have been experienced among the three countries plus Burundi and Rwanda.

Federation or federalism is a political system in which the national (central) government shares power with local (state) governments. It derives its power from the people who must understand the merits and demerits and take informed decisions.

How should we unseat the NRM regime?

On November 25, 2011, I wrote an article on the corrosive impact of corruption on Uganda’s economy and society. I observed that corruption and NRM are inextricably interlinked that you cannot eliminate one without eliminating the other.

I concluded that both must go, using peaceful means in the first instance and resorting to war only as a last resort in self-defense.

A few people have contacted me privately to express opposition to my approach insisting that fire must be fought with fire. This group believes that a militarized NRM must be faced by a militarized response in the first instance.

Because so far I have not been convinced to support war, I wish to elaborate on my arguments in favor of peaceful means in the first instance.

My simple argument is that we should use water (peaceful means) to extinguish fire because there is ample evidence that it works, witness Eastern Europe in 1989 against communist dictators. If that fails then we have every justification to resort to war to end the suffering of Ugandans. And our friends and well wishers will understand that and extend a helping hand as appropriate. Why do I insist on peaceful means?

Corruption has stunted Uganda’s economy and society

A child who does not eat enough in quantity and quality does not grow at a normal rate including acquisition of immunity against diseases and will likely die prematurely or will be disabled in many ways.

A woman who does not eat enough will likely produce an underweight child with permanent physical and mental disabilities including brain underdevelopment which occurs in the first three years of human life from conception and will likely die at a young age or fail to learn.

Similarly an economy and society that does not get enough investments in economic and social infrastructure and institutions does not grow at a high and sustained rate and people suffer from poverty, illiteracy and disease leading to low productivity and premature death.

In Uganda since NRM came to power in 1986, investments in infrastructure and institutions such as roads, energy, agriculture, education, healthcare, housing, research and extension services have been very inadequate. Endemic corruption has been a major factor siphoning off funds and stunting economic and social development. Thus, corruption has been a silent disabler and killer. Corruption has reached an emergency level that it needs to be addressed without further delay.

Leaders’ performance depends on their intentions

In the last two articles I have contrasted General Museveni’s performance with South Korea’s General Park and Vietnam military leadership. South Korea and Vietnam have done well under their military leaders whereas Uganda has done very poorly under the military leadership of General Museveni.

I have concluded that it is leadership – not resource endowments, external factors or “Acts of God” – that makes the difference in development. In this message, I will go a step further to show with reference to General Park and General Museveni that it is leaders’ intentions or what they plan to achieve that define their performance and determine outcomes.

I am making this contribution so that Ugandans and our friends understand why Museveni despite his rhetoric to modernize Uganda, has produced opposite outcomes which he is not attempting to correct because they fit into his intentions.

Uganda is not progressing but regressing. Uganda is a failed state wherever you turn and is drifting towards a fourth world status.

How else do you explain the reemergence of diseases that had long disappeared? How else do you explain rising maternal mortality and insanity due to food insecurity and stress and how else do you explain rapid economic growth reaching 10 percent in the mid-1990s coexisting with two-thirds of Ugandans trapped in absolute poverty, etc?

It is leadership that counts

In search for solutions to Uganda’s daunting development challenges, I have studied, read and consulted widely in time and space to draw some lessons. I have examined the role of politics and economics, the role of ideologies (capitalism and socialism), the role of democratic and authoritarian leaders and the role of civilian and military leaders etc in the development process.

In economics we were taught that a country’s development would depend on the abundance of the factors of production – abundant labor, abundant fertile land and abundant capital in the form of roads, railways, harbors, machines, telephones and computers etc. Countries that were well endowed would do better than those that were less endowed.

On this basis alone, Uganda being more endowed than Kenya, Ugandans would be ahead of Kenyans in economic growth, transformation and social development. We know this is not the case, at least in terms of life expectancy and trade benefits within East Africa.

North Korea took more natural resources and industries than South Korea at the time of partition but see where South Korea is compared to North in levels of economic growth, transformation and standard of living.