Is today’s Uganda better or worse-off?

Before Ugandans head for the polls on February 18, 2011 to elect a president, members of parliament, district councilors and mayors, it might be helpful to consider the following developments.

1. The general standard of living of Ugandans has not reached the level attained in 1970.

2. Fifty two percent of Ugandans live below the poverty line of $1.25 a day (HDR 2010).

3. Some twenty percent of Ugandans in the lowest income bracket have become poorer.

4. Economic growth has fallen short of 7 or 8 percent required as a minimum to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015.

5. Seventy percent of Uganda’s GDP is generated in Kampala and its vicinity with a population of some two million. The remaining 31 million Ugandans contribute a mere 30 percent of GDP.

6. Household income distribution is highly skewed with 20 percent in the highest income bracket taking over 50 percent while 40 percent in the lowest income bracket taking 15 percent. Urban areas have performed relatively better than rural areas and southern has performed relatively better than northern Uganda.

Museveni has begun metamorphosing Uganda into a new landscape

If we Ugandans do not put our act together quickly, we are going to lose Uganda as we have known it. Museveni who began preparations as early as 1965 (Bahororo failure to get a separate district in Ankole at independence and political ascendancy of Bairu in Ankole disturbed him) came to power with a clear mission known to himself and his inner core of Bahororo people – (1) the ascendancy of Bahororo in Uganda’s political economy and great lakes region (Tutsi Empire), and (2) metamorphosis of Uganda into a new landscape.

Museveni was also aware that these transformations would take a long time to be realized. That is why he initially asked for a fifteen year mandate which has turned out to be inadequate. During an interview on New Year’s Day (2011), Museveni declined to indicate when he would quit Uganda’s political stage. The impression he gave left no doubt that he is still around for a while possibly by force should Ugandans refuse to re-elect him. What he has not admitted is that he thought (wrongly) that he would quickly trample on Ugandans through wars and impoverishment and reduce them to insignificant vulnerable minority and transform Uganda into a new landscape ecologically, economically, demographically and politically without difficulty. Ugandans have turned out to be resilient in the face of wars, pandemics, epidemics and impoverishment and are still kicking with considerable force that cannot be ignored.

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.

Britain has caused too much trouble and suffering in Uganda

Since John Hanning Speke (later described as a patronizing and incompetent man who wrote detailed reports on unfamiliar terrain {H. Hanbury-Tenison 2010}) set foot on what later became Uganda in mid-19th century, Britain has caused too much trouble and suffering to the people of Uganda because of its biased racial, economic, military, ethnic, refugee and political approaches. The following are illustrative highlights of British biased actions.

A message to voters in Rujumbura constituency

Next month (February 2011) you will exercise your right and elect a president, a member of parliament and district councilors for the next five years. The purpose of elections is to choose people that will represent the interests of all the people in their respective constituencies through for example building schools (and providing school lunches), hospitals and clinics, constructing roads, providing affordable energy, improving agriculture, storage and processing facilities. Representatives should implement development promises they make during campaigning time. When a representative does not deliver as promised he/she should not be re-elected.

Like other constituencies in Uganda, Rujumbura has had elections since 1961. For most of the time (some 95 percent) Rujumbura has been represented in parliament by Bashambo clan of Bahororo people.

By way of background information, Bahororo are Batutsi from Rwanda (not Bahima as previously thought. There are no Bahima in Rujumbura) who came to Rujumbura around 1800 as refugees when Bahima overran their short-lived Mpororo kingdom (after it had disintegrated) in present-day Ntungamo district. In collaboration with Arab slave traders who came with superior European weapons, Bahororo managed to defeat and enslave, exploit and marginalize Bantu people they found in the area. Bantu people who were dubbed Bairu (which means slaves) lost their short horn cattle and industrial enterprises. They were reduced to cultivators growing food for and providing free labor to the new masters in a master/serf relationship as existed in pre-colonial Rwanda and medieval Europe. Punishments were severe to prevent rebellions or when they occurred.

Why Museveni is not trusted as leader of Uganda

There are good and bad leaders. Good leaders have characteristics including persuasion that make them popular and eliminate resort to force. Leadership qualities – good or bad – are detected early in one’s life. A good leader even among children persuades, a bad one bullies. Good leaders are trusted and are well known in their communities and therefore popular. When they arrive in a village all people are eager to meet and welcome them. Bad leaders lead to debates about who should meet them because none likes them even many of those working for them.

Throughout his school days, Museveni did not exhibit qualities (intellectual and social etc) that would qualify him as a good leader. And people who know him very well including some of his teachers will tell you that Museveni was driven into politics by the desire to dominate others not to serve the interest of the general public. He wanted to dominate by impoverishing or marginalizing subjects as we have witnessed over the last 25 years of his rule. This conclusion and his actions together with uncertainties surrounding his place of birth have made Ugandans to judge Museveni as unpopular and a poor leader. That is why he has gained positions by default and/or through rigging elections (EIR 1997 and John F. Clark (2002). Consequently, Museveni has failed to win the hearts of Ugandans for the following illustrative reasons.

Why has Museveni’s birth place issue resurfaced?

Without realizing it, Uganda has entered two somewhat related phases: the enlightenment phase and the dialectics phase. The enlightenment phase involves reasoning: asking questions and demanding convincing answers. The dialectics phase means that Ugandans are scrutinizing Museveni statements like never before to demonstrate that the truth of his intentions is in that he does not say. In other words, Ugandans are trying to make the absent the present because the greater part of the truth is in that which is absent.

Based on his actions during and since the guerrilla war a rapidly increasing number of Ugandans have concluded that Museveni is a foreigner whose intentions are to marginalize indigenous Ugandans economically, demographically and politically working in close cooperation with foreigners especially Britain, Uganda’s neocolonial master.

The following harsh actions (some of them repeated for easy reference) taken by Museveni are used as illustrations that only a foreigner can impose on a people he does not belong to.

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.

On school lunch Besigye is right, Museveni is wrong

In Uganda the idea of school lunch is very popular throughout the country. If Besigye who supports it musters the right skills and sells it, it could carry him shoulder high to state house in 2011!

There is indisputable evidence from developed and developing countries that school lunches work. They increase attendance especially of girls (which is in line with MDG 2 on universal primary education) and improve performance. Children from poor families are less likely to attend school than those from rich ones in part because of lack of school lunch.

In fact, in Uganda over 80 percent of children drop out of primary school largely for lack of school feeding programs. Studies from Kabale district have confirmed high dropout for lack of school meals. On the other hand studies from Ruhiira in southwest Uganda where school lunches are provided attendance and performance have improved significantly.

Museveni must therefore have other reasons for rejecting government support for school lunches for children from poor families that cannot afford to bring packed lunch from home.

Museveni wasn’t God send – he was delivered to Uganda by Satan

While on vacation in Rujumbura in southwest Uganda my neighbor fell sick. I visited her and found that she had been in bed for three days without medication. Her health was deteriorating. I suggested that she should be taken to hospital. But her relatives were reluctant. I discreetly found out that they did not have money to cover transport and medical bills. She was rushed to Nyakibale hospital when I offered to cover most of the expenses. She had malaria and recovered fully after four days of hospitalization.

While at the hospital I met a woman in the corridor and she looked troubled. Apparently she knew me and so we quickly connected. During the brief conversation she stood stiff, cleared her throat and made a statement so clearly as though she had been practicing for quite some time. She said in the local language “Museveni ogu hona nomuntu? Obworo bwaturetaire nibuza kutumaraho. Sitani akashanga nkahi Museveni. Ahabwenki Sitani yamuresire Uganda?”. In English translation she said “Is Museveni a true human being? The poverty he has brought will destroy us. Where did Satan find Museveni and why did Satan bring Museveni to Uganda?” This sentiment in one form or another has been expressed by others. When a cross section of Ugandans tells you that Amin’s overall performance was better than Museveni’s, they are saying the same thing as the lady in the hospital said except in a less dramatic way.