Tag Archives: and

Whose idea is East African integration and federation?

East African economic integration and political federation is again very much in the air. This time it is neither the British nor Tanzanians pushing but Ugandans with Museveni as champion. Museveni has made it his top priority. He is not only pushing very hard but he has reversed the order putting political federation ahead of economic integration. It is like building a house starting with the roof! Some commentators are beginning to wonder what has triggered this rush in Uganda’s state house. Before examining Museveni’s rush, let us briefly examine the background to East African economic integration and political federation.

The idea originated in London. Since the Second World War, one of long-term ambitions of London had been the achievement of closer integration of its East African territories in a federal arrangement or political union probably under the leadership of Kenya (Butler 2002). To this end the three colonial territories developed common economic structures, a common market and a common currency. Britain hoped that by creating East African High Commission and the East African Common Services Organization the three territories would unify or federate into one larger nation (Grenville 1994). In the early 1950s, the colonial office intimated that it might consider an East African federation (Diamond and Burke 1966).

Read the full post
Posted on by

How peaceful demonstrations will squeeze NRM out of power

Some Ugandans and non-Ugandans who have doubts that peaceful demonstrations alone will squeeze NRM illegitimate government out of power have asked for an explanation regarding the mechanism through which it will happen. Peaceful demonstrations have worked and their potential for human loss, injuries and displacement as well as destruction of property is much lower than the military option which can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances.

Uganda is a small country with a vulnerable economy dependent on external forces through raw material exports, donations and soft loans, foreign investment, foreign experts and advisers, tourism and remittances by Ugandans living abroad. All we need to do is to convince these forces including our neighbors and all members of the East African community to cooperate with the suffering Ugandans to change the regime through peaceful means.

Sustained demonstrations and civil disobedience will create economic disruptions and security forces response will generate instability. These developments will constrain production of goods and services, cause supply to fall below demand, raise prices and force more Ugandans including NRM supporters to join demonstrations in protest against intolerable hardship, denting the popularity of NRM illegitimate government. Deterioration in economic activity will reduce the tax base and government revenue forcing it to cut back on services further reducing its popularity.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Leadership qualities

Every organization, be it a family, village or nation must have a leader. A leaderless society cannot hope to survive for long. Even animals and poultry have leaders. You can have a good or a bad leader. I will talk about the qualities of a good leader.

1. A leader must be a servant and not master of the people. The leader must have a vision or ideas about how to lead the people to greater heights in economic development, health and happiness. In crafting ideas, the leader should carefully look at the past because it impacts the present. In doing so the leader must ensure that the past is still relevant to the present. If not the past or old ideas should be repackaged to incorporate new developments.

Read the full post
Posted on by

In Uganda religious leaders can make a difference

Our doctrine is that Ugandans will liberate themselves from Museveni’s military dictatorship and the NRM failed system via a wide range of instruments including mass media and collaboration with religious leaders. The international community is called upon to level the playing field as Ugandans embark on a journey to freedom through peaceful demonstrations which are an integral part of our human rights including the right to self-determination and crafting a governance system that accommodates specific interests. That the European Union and Commonwealth observer teams concluded that the February 18, 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections were ‘not free and fair’ is a commendable beginning.

From time immemorial religious leaders have played a vital role (and some of them paid a heavy price) in easing the suffering of people meted out by their leaders. For example, John Ball a follower of John Wycliffe contributed tremendously through speeches and writing (e.g. “All men by Nature Were Created Alike”) in support of English peasants that had suffered exploitation. The peasants revolted in 1381 resulted in the abolition of the poll tax imposed in 1380 which sparked the great revolt.

Read the full post
Posted on by

The people of Uganda are demanding their rights

Enlightenment and dialectics have entered into Uganda’s political economy discourse. They have developed a questioning mind about who is governing them, why our institutions and systems (education, health, nutrition, agriculture, ecology, urban housing etc) are collapsing, why Uganda’s population growth is excluding migrants and focusing on natural growth alone (births minus deaths) which is half the story.

The people of Uganda are beginning to understand their inalienable rights – God-given rights – that no leader can take away. These are not privileges. When a leader denies the people their inalienable rights, they have a right to demand them back. And that is what the people of Uganda are demanding their rights right now. Through disenfranchisement, many Ugandans were denied their right to elect their representatives at the presidential, parliamentary and local levels.

Read the full post
Posted on by

National stability has trampled individual freedom in Uganda

Museveni became president in 1986 with a message of democracy, free and fair elections, freedom and prosperity for all contained in the ten-point program which he dropped in 1987 in favor of structural adjustment program (SAP) with stiff conditions. The unpopularity of SAP which was being experimented in Uganda after some countries like Ghana and Chile had found it costly and adjusted it, and the threat of terrorism in the East Africa region created a pretext for Museveni to introduce measures that have trampled individual freedom. In 2002, an anti-terrorist law came into force with a broad definition of terrorism as the “use of violence or threat of violence with intent to promote or achieve political, religious, economic and cultural or social ends in an unlawful manner”.

Painful structural adjustment at home and Uganda’s intervention in countries of the greater lakes region including alleged genocide of Hutu in DRC and plunder of Congo’s resources made Museveni unpopular, causing him to become authoritarian in order to cling to power because in a free and fair election he would lose.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Uncaring and iron fisted M7 faces wrath of the nation

It is known that when people are hungry and/or feel they are unfairly taxed or neglected, they get cranky. And when they do they rebel, making governments uncomfortable including the government of Uganda right now.

Museveni came to power in 1986 promising to end the long suffering of Uganda people through democracy, rule of law and equal development opportunity. He declared that the people of Uganda were sovereign and his government would be their servant. He also indicated he would step down and focus on pan-African issues as soon as the security situation improved. He called on the nation for support as he put the house in order. And support he got!

As soon as he felt fairly secure, Museveni began to behave more like a conqueror and dictator than a liberator. Earlier he had talked about different races in southwest Uganda, implying superior and inferior tribes. In 1992 Museveni convened a meeting of Bahororo (considered a superior race) at his Rwakitura country residence to map out how to dominate Uganda politically, economically and militarily for at least fifty years.

(more…)

Read the full post
Posted on by

Uganda’s main challenge

Greetings fellow Ugandans and friends

Making progress in any area of human endeavor begins with a clear understanding of the challenge and how to address it.

1. Uganda’s principal problem right now is Museveni and his political economy philosophy for Uganda and the great lakes region. It has potential for instability that will adversely affect domestic and foreign investments in the region. Bwengye said in an interview in 2005 that Museveni was given a key role in the guerrilla struggle without understanding who he was and what he exactly stood for.

2. As we know Museveni became president in 1986 without legitimacy. He was acting Chairman of NRM after the passing of Yusuf Lule. Elections to replace Lule were delayed until NRM/NRA entered Kampala and Museveni who had been acting NRM chairman became president by default. So he had no legitimacy but nobody raised it.

3. Now that we know who he is we are not going to allow him to govern without legitimacy again. That is why the current negotiations being moderated by religious leaders should not lead us into a government of national unity headed by Museveni because that will legitimize his illegitimate government of, by and for foreigners. Museveni and NRM candidates were voted overwhelmingly by foreigners who were bused in from Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and DRC as well as migrants and refugees.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Similarities between Yoweri Museveni and Oliver Cromwell

The people of Uganda are beginning to take a probing interest in Uganda’s politics. But I wonder whether we understand the potential dangers ahead. The 2011 elections have introduced worrying elements particularly the participation of foreigners in Uganda’s electoral process. If this practice is not stopped, we could easily have an Ivory Coast situation in 2016.

The purpose of this contribution is to compare Oliver Cromwell who started off as a liberator and ended up as one of the worst dictators with absolute power and intolerance of opponents. Let us briefly review conditions that led to the emergence of Cromwell as the Lord Protector of a republican government in England.

The Stuart kings succeeded the Tudor kings of England who had been very careful in dealing with parliament and succeeded in hiding their absolutism. King James I, the first Stuart King of England, subscribed to the doctrine of the divine right of kings and lectured to parliament about it. James wrote “The state of monarchy is the supreme thing on earth” and kings “sit upon God’s throne”. He added that “as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so is it sedition … to dispute what a king may do” (N. Barber 2006). Parliament objected to absolute monarchy.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Museveni’s absolute power and 2011 election fraud

Greetings fellow Ugandans and friends

There was a time when monarchs in Europe had absolute powers and ruled by divine right (the right to rule came from God, not from the people). In the 18th century, leading (enlightenment) thinkers in Western Europe challenged the power of absolute monarchy.

To prevent one leader or a group of people from becoming too powerful and gain total control of government, Baron de Montesquieu suggested separation of power into three independent branches. The legislative branch would pass laws; the executive and judicial branches would implement and interpret them respectively.

The independence of the legislative and judicial branches has kept the executive branch in check in mature democratic countries. Consequently executive branches do not meddle in election matters.

However, in some countries separation of powers exists in theory only. For example, in Uganda presidents have reduced the independence of legislative and judicial branches and strengthened the power of the executive branch. Legislative and judicial branches have virtually become rubber stamps for the presidency – hence opposition leaders’ decision not to go to the Supreme Court after the rigged 2011 elections.

Read the full post
Posted on by