Why has Museveni divided up Uganda into many districts?

One of the outcomes of UDU conference in Boston in October 2011 was recognition that there is an acute shortage of information about Uganda’s history, its place in the Great Lakes geopolitics and domestic political economy. It was decided that one of the main follow-up activities of UDU secretariat be civic education within the framework of the National Recovery Plan (NRP). I have consistently argued that:

1. You have got to identify the root cause(s) of the problem before attempting a solution;

2. You have to present research findings as truthfully and honestly as possible;

3. You have to study the actions of actors dialectically by looking for that which is not said because that is where the main motive is likely to be located;

4. You should not shy away from telling the truth for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. For instance, a doctor would do a disservice if he treated a patient with a sexually transmitted disease without disclosing the cause of the problem to avoid hurting feelings. The right thing is to tell the truth and ask that the partner also comes in for treatment so that the disease is cured once and for all, assuming that the two partners won’t engage in extra relations.

Why Uganda must worry about the future of her children

Writing from the heart and directed by conscience

Those who have read my work since my first book was published in 1997 will have realized that I am writing from my heart with no grudge against anyone. I am not writing to be praised. I am providing information as a basis for debate. My conscience and observations tell me that something is wrong in our country and society under the leadership of Museveni. I see a country that has lost direction and with no prospects for recovery under the current government. To find a solution we must get to the heart of the matter which is corruption, sectarianism and Museveni ambition to create a Tutsi Empire using Uganda as a spring board. I have advocated peaceful means for solving our problems. Force can only be used in self-defense. I call on all Ugandans do discuss these sensitive and controversial topics substantively, constructively and in a civil manner. Furthermore I call on all Ugandans regardless of their profession to work towards finding a peaceful solution so that we create a solid foundation for all our children.

Hidden agenda

Why has Museveni divided up Uganda into many districts?

One of the outcomes of UDU conference in Boston in October 2011 was recognition that there is an acute shortage of information about Uganda’s history, its place in the Great Lakes geopolitics and domestic political economy. It was decided that one of the main follow-up activities of UDU secretariat be civic education within the framework of the National Recovery Plan (NRP). I have consistently argued that:

1. You have got to identify the root cause(s) of the problem before attempting a solution;

2. You have to present research findings as truthfully and honestly as possible;

3. You have to study the actions of actors dialectically by looking for that which is not said because that is where the main motive is likely to be located;

4. You should not shy away from telling the truth for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. For instance, a doctor would do a disservice if he treated a patient with a sexually transmitted disease without disclosing the cause of the problem to avoid hurting feelings. The right thing is to tell the truth and ask that the partner also comes in for treatment so that the disease is cured once and for all, assuming that the two partners won’t engage in extra relations.

Museveni has sold Uganda to foreigners – land is next and final deal

In early 1980s a few countries including Britain decided that Museveni would be the ruler of Uganda (Peter Phillips 2006) because Obote considered to be a socialist was not trusted (Vijay Gupta 1983) to take care of foreign interests. Museveni who was a Marxist was judged to be flexible and could easily be converted into a supporter of capitalism – which he has turned out to be. Britain led a visible effort in preparing Museveni for that role and has sustained him in power since 1986.

Before considering how Ugandans might lose their land to Britain and other foreigners, let us outline the steps that have been taken to enable Britain re-colonize Uganda through Museveni. The process started in the early 1980s during the guerrilla war. How was it carried out? Tiny Rowland provided finance, William Pike communication and media connections and Linda Chalker under Thatcher government political cover. According to Andrew Spannaus “Museveni, ever since he began fighting to take power in Uganda in the early 1980s, was backed by Baronnes Lynda Chalker, former Minister for Overseas Development of the Empire “ (EIR September 1997). His intellectual credentials which were previously considered insignificant were boosted by foreigners – African and non-African. Gerry O’Kane reported that Museveni was described as the intellectual who picked up a gun and used magical powers in his guerrilla war against Obote government (New Africa March 1986).

If Museveni is re-elected, Uganda will enter a very delicate phase

Ugandans, development partners and friends must understand fully that Museveni’s goal – and one goal only – is to impose Bahororo hegemony over the people of Uganda through democracy at gun point. Democracy is needed for international recognition of his goal otherwise Museveni would simply use force and impose it. If Museveni is re-elected (I have advocated vigorously that he should be defeated to avoid troubles ahead), he will use the next five years (because time is not on his side) to force a conclusion of his project or lay a solid foundation for his handpicked successor to complete it. His push may provoke resistance that could result in a political and /or military confrontation and possible explosion. To prevent this from happening, we need to disaggregate the components of his power base and understand when, where, why and how his journey began. This is a tough and dangerous job but someone has to do it. I will do it for the future of all Uganda children. Those who have described me as a divider and advised Ugandans to ignore what I am saying are trying to divert your attention from Museveni’s plan for Bahororo hegemony. Bahororo (Batutsi from Rwanda) are people (whose base is in Ntungamo and Rukungiri/Rujumbura in southwest Uganda) that were represented at a meeting Museveni convened at his home in Rwakitura on March 15, 1992. The meeting was convened to agree on a road map for Bahororo hegemony. The report of that meeting and participants has been widely circulated.

Museveni underestimated the people of Uganda

Museveni came to power with a feudal mentality of governance. Feudalism was a system of political, economic and social organization in medieval Europe made up of three classes: the clergy who prayed and cared for the souls; the lords who governed and fought; and the serfs or peasants the majority who worked for the other two classes through exploitative tribute and tithes.

The feudal system was introduced in the great lakes region by Batutsi in Rwanda (especially) and Burundi, Bahima in Ankole and Bahororo in Rujumbura. Batutsi, Bahima and Bahororo were the lords and fighters and Bahutu and Bairu (slaves of the lords) the workers who paid exploitative tribute to the lords in foodstuffs, drinks and free labor including carrying lords and their family members in litters and/or their luggage when they travelled. The clergy and tithes were added to peasants’ burden during the colonial rule. As in medieval Europe the clergy preached peasants (and still do) not to worry about earthly material things and to suffer pain on earth for their rewards are in the kingdom of heaven. The story of a camel going through the eye of the needle conveys this message of hardship on earth very well.

Who are Bahororo – Revisited ?

I have received many requests to elaborate on what I have written or posted on my blog www.kashambuzi.com about Bahororo. While many people have some ideas about Bahima and Batutsi, they are not sure who Bahororo are, how they are related to Bahima and Batutsi and how and when they entered Uganda. This brief will try to provide a clarification. But first let me summarize the relationship between Bahororo on the one hand and Bahima, Batutsi and Banyamulenge on the other hand.

1. It is now established that Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi have a common Nilotic and Luo-speaking ancestry. The Nilotic Luo-speaking people entered Uganda from Bahr el Ghazel in southern Sudan with long horn cattle. It is not clear what caused them to move. However, conflict with Dinka people (whom they resemble) over grazing land and water has been mentioned as a contributing factor. They crossed the Nile in phases into the grasslands further south. In Bunyoro, Toro and Buganda the Nilotic cattle herders mixed extensively with Bantu speaking people and formed new communities based on mixed farming of cattle herding, crop cultivation and some manufacturing largely of iron products. They adopted Bantu language.

Bahima must accept their Luo ancestry, stop military adventurism and psychological warfare

People all over the world are proud of their ancestry and culture. Those who do not know their ancestry and culture are busy reconstructing them and making necessary changes including names.

On the other hand Bahima and their Batutsi, Bahororo and Banyamulenge cousins are busy hiding their Luo ancestry and their nomadic and militaristic culture. They are doing so because they do not want to lose the advantages they have enjoyed since aristocratic Europeans from Belgium, Britain and Germany falsely described them as intelligent and superior white people born to rule others.

They are afraid that if they accept their Luo ancestry then they cannot continue to claim that they are white people because Luo are black people. If they accept that they are Luo people then they cannot continue to claim that they are intelligent and responsible for civilizations that Europeans found in Uganda. They are afraid that if they accept that they are Luo then they cannot continue to claim that they are born leaders.

They are afraid that if they accept that they are Luo from southern Sudan then they will accept their nomadic and warlike culture and low level of civilization. They are afraid that if they accept their Luo ancestry then they will lose western support.

Bahima were painted a picture opposite of who they actually are

In geography we were taught to match what we read with what was on the ground. Besides reading widely, we studied maps, interpreted areal photographs and conducted field visits. I carried with me the geography methodology of matching reading with observation into the history subject. The history I read about Bahima (read Batutsi, Bahororo and Banyamulenge as well because they are cousins and behave the same) did not match what I knew about them. I grew up, studied and worked with them.

Because of racial theories aristocratic Europeans had concluded that black people (Negroes) were intellectually inferior to have a civilization or history of their own. Without history Africa was a ‘Dark Continent’. The first Europeans to visit what later became Uganda were from aristocratic families. They were shocked to find sophisticated civilizations. Instead of admitting that they were wrong about black people and give them credit for the civilizations they found, they decided to ‘invent’ Europeans who would be credited with that remarkable history. They looked around and found Bahima who looked like Europeans physically. They concluded that Bahima were of the white race and responsible for these civilizations.

Demystifying Bahima’s origin, race and civilization

Bahima’s history has been shrouded in mystery for a long time. The mystery stems from John Hanning Speke who wrote in 1863 that Wahuma (Bahima) were white people, more civilized than black people or Negroes and entered Uganda from Ethiopia occupied by a ruling white race. Other Europeans added that Bahima were more intelligent with superior qualities and born to rule. Colonial explorers, missionaries and administrators like Samuel Baker, John Roscoe and Harry Johnston in Uganda shared these views (G. Prunier 1995).

Because of racial prejudices against blacks or Negroes Europeans concluded that the civilizations they found in Uganda were developed by white people. They gave credit to Bahima simply because they resemble whites physically such as sharp, narrow, pointed and long noses. Bahima have hidden their true history of precarious nomadic life and absence of material wealth to take advantage of these attributes so that they continue to dominate other Ugandans. Before attempting to demystify the myth let us understand this: