Why Uganda is implementing a different kind of revolution

The political wing of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) crafted its propaganda message targeting different communities during the bush war. NRM propagandists spoke and wrote about what Baganda and Catholics wanted to hear. They painted the ruling Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) Party led by Obote as a ‘thief’ that had robbed Buganda of its districts during the referendum on the ‘Lost Counties’ and handed them over to Bunyoro. UPC added an injury to Baganda wounds by overthrowing their kingdom. For Catholics who support the Democratic Party (DP) they focused on the ‘rigged’ 1980 elections that robbed DP of its victory.

To bring to NRM camp a large chunk of UPC supporters, the NRM strategists blamed the suffering of Ugandans, during the Obote II regime in the first half of the 1980s, on the government’s adoption of structural adjustment with its harmful economic and social conditionality and maintenance of a colonial economic structure that condemned Uganda to the production and export of cheap raw materials and import of expensive manufactured products which could be easily produced in Uganda, create jobs and increase incomes.

Uganda’s democracy has become counterproductive

When you talk with people – Ugandans and non-Ugandans – who support the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government led by President Museveni, you are told that Ugandans must be grateful to their leaders because the days of Obote’s and Amin’s dictatorship are over and there is no turning back. They quickly add that Uganda has now become a full-fledged democracy. So what is democracy?

According to the World Book Encyclopedia democracy means rule by the people. It is a form of government that Abraham Lincoln described as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. According to Robert Maynard Hutchins democracy is the only form of government that is founded on the dignity of man, not the dignity of some men, of rich men, of educated men but of all men (and women).

The citizens of a democracy take part in government either directly or indirectly. In a direct democracy people meet in one place and make the laws for their community. That is what happened in ancient Athens. In a large group it is impossible for all people to meet and pass laws. Consequently they periodically choose representatives to represent their interests. This is indirect or representative democracy.

Why Uganda is in deep trouble

When people engage in human sacrifice, excessive alcohol consumption, unprecedented domestic violence; when men abandon their families, citizens commit suicide, the vulnerable are taken advantage of, security guards arrange to steal property they are guarding, neighbors demand payment to push your car out of a ditch, girls are afraid to go to school for fear of being molested, people attend public functions to steal or cause trouble; when some officials are paid to attend meetings but do not show up in conference halls; officials blame unemployment and poverty on laziness and drunkenness, leaders mislead their people, progress is measured in the number of vehicles in towns, the number of international conferences hosted and officials react to evaluation of their performance by development partners rather than their citizens, then you know there is trouble. I could go on. Uganda has undoubtedly reached this level.

Bahima and their culture of winner takes all

To understand why corruption has reached an unprecedented level in Uganda’s history and there are no signs that it is subsiding, Ugandans and their development partners need to understand the pastoral culture of Uganda’s present leaders. From time immemorial pastoralists including Batutsi, Bahima and Bahororo (Batutsi from Rwanda) live in hostile environments marked by shortages of pasture and water, droughts, epidemics like the 1890s rinderpest, bovine diseases and cattle theft.

In the Great Lakes Region pastoralists lived in fragile ecosystems which rendered them vulnerable and forced them to engage in fighting for survival. Most of the wars in the region since the arrival, in the 16th century, of the Nilotic Luo-speaking Bahima and their Batutsi and Bahororo cousins have been related to land and cattle. They have fought to expand territory and increase their herds, dispossessing the losers. Accordingly, they developed a mentality of winner takes all which has been carried over into governments in Uganda and Rwanda.

The scramble for Africa is being repeated in DRC

Just as Ethiopia participated in the scramble for and colonization of Africa with European nations, Rwanda is participating in the scramble for and re-colonization of DRC with Western nations. During the scramble for Africa European nations were particularly interested in raw materials. Ethiopia which was originally a small territory (Abyssinia) wanted in particular to expand its territory. Western nations are interested in DRC for its raw materials. Rwanda which is a small country is interested in DRC in particular to expand its territory like Ethiopia did during the first scramble of the 19th century.

Western arguments for breaking up DRC and steps being taken

During a mission to DRC in January/February 2010, meetings were held with representatives of some European embassies, United Nations and International NGO organizations and Congolese from all walks of life. All foreigners contacted complained that DRC is ungovernable because it is too big. If one goes by that criterion alone, then the order of breaking up large African states should start with Sudan, the largest (2,505, 813 sq. km) followed by Algeria, the second largest (2,381,741 sq. km) and then DRC the third (2,344,885 sq. km). Right now there are some voices in favor of keeping Sudan together. I have not heard talk about breaking up Algeria.

Mounting evidence of Hutu genocide by Tutsi in Rwanda and DRC

First let us recall the definition of genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The Convention entered into force on January 12, 1951.

Article II of the Convention states “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (Human Rights Volume I (Second Part) Universal Instruments United Nations 2002).

The targeted killing or genocide of moderate Hutu and Tutsi that took place in Rwanda in 1994 shocked the world. There is ‘guilt of omission’ to act. The international community did nothing to prevent the genocide when sufficient advance warning had been made available (Mary Robinson A Voice for Human Rights 2006: 222).

World Bank needs balanced approach to Uganda’s development efforts

On May 6, 2010 Sylvia Juuko reported in the New Vision (Uganda) that the World Bank effective July this year will focus its assistance on the oil sector, urban development and governance. While these are no doubt important areas one wonders what criteria were used in selecting them over rural development and agriculture – which is Uganda’s economic mainstay and the World Bank’s recent announcement that it would direct more resources to agriculture which had been neglected – unemployment, nutrition, health, education, school feeding program, industrialization and environment.

Kundhavi Kadiresan, World Bank representative, reported that Uganda is one of the largest recipients of soft loans from the World Bank, noting that Uganda’s portfolio of International Development Assistance (IDA) financed operations stood at $1.3 billion. Instead of reporting dollar figures, it would have been more helpful if Kadiresan had presented outcomes of these investments and the extent to which they have helped to reduce poverty. It is known that much of World Bank resources go to pay high salaries, allowances and travel costs of foreign advisers and consultants who then deposit the money in their home bank accounts.

Maintaining good relations with donors has been costly to Uganda

Obote became Prime Minister at Uganda’s independence with the tacit backing of foreign interests. During the initial years he pursued an economic policy based on the World Bank’s recommendation to continue a colonial economic policy of growing and exporting raw agricultural materials in exchange for manufactured products. He would also allow foreign companies to continue business as before October 1962 when Uganda became independent. Besides, being Protestant Obote was preferred to Kiwanuka who was Catholic (W. O. Oyugi et al., 1988).

In the second half of the 1960s Obote began to make adjustments in economic policy including partial nationalization of foreign enterprises. Foreign business interests and their governments were not happy and Obote’s government was shown the exit in January 1971. A gentle giant and pliable Amin was installed. When Amin like Obote before him nationalized private companies, he incurred the wrath of the British and the UK government cut off $58 million of credit to Uganda.

Reprinting chapter 9 of Speke’s book has reignited Bahima and Bairu (master-slave) controversy in South West Uganda

John Hanning Speke a Bitish explorer wrote a book “The Discovery of the Source of the Nile” published in 1863. It was reprinted in 2006. The book is now available in all institutions of learning around the globe.

In chapter 9 titled “History of the Wahuma [Bahima]” and sub-titled “The Abyssinians and Gallas – Theory of Conquest of Inferior by Superior Races – The Wahuma and the Kingdom of Kitara – Legendary History of the Kingdom of Uganda – Its Constitution, and the Ceremonials of the Court” (Speke 1863).

Speke described Bahima collectively as Abyssinians or Gallas. Speke added “It appears impossible to believe, judging from the physical appearance of the Wahuma, that they can be of any other race than the semi-Shem-Hamitic of Ethiopia” noting that Abyssinians in Abyssinia are more commonly agriculturalists, the Gallas are chiefly a pastoral people co-existing with each other just as he found the Wahuma kings and Wahuma herdsmen co-existing with the agricultural Wazinza of Uzinza, the Wanyambo of Karague, Waganda of Uganda, and the Wanyoro of Unyoro (Speke 1863).

Mismanagement similarities between Mobutu and Museveni

As a citizen of Uganda I have followed developments in that country since Museveni shot his way to power in a military coup of January 1986 with external backing. As a researcher on the Great Lakes Region I have studied Zaire (now DRC) under Mobutu who also shot his way to power in a military coup of November 1965 with external backing as well.

There are similarities between the two presidents in initial domestic and external popularity, efficient management of the economy and society during the early years of their rule, participation in expensive international events and increasing authoritarianism and mismanagement largely through corruption and disproportionate spending of public money on themselves, their families, relatives and staunch political supporters (kleptocratic elite).

Yet the international community insisted until 1990 that without Mobutu there would be chaos (witness the famous title of a book “Mobutu or Chaos”) and up to the present (2010) the international community is still insisting albeit in subtle ways that Museveni is irreplaceable. Remarks by visiting dignitaries from multilateral and bilateral institutions including British ministers and experts and lavish allocation of donor money on Uganda confirm strong support for President Museveni. This conclusion cannot be denied because it is obvious. Let us begin with an assessment of Mobutu who came to power earlier than Museveni.