What we have learned about Obote and Museveni leadership

It is now recognized that the quality of a leader and development perspective can make or break a nation. This matter came up in one of the discussions at the United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) conference in Boston in October 2011. Requests were made for a study of the background and leadership qualities of Obote and Museveni and draw lessons that might help in selecting future leaders.

Obote was born in Lango. Museveni’s birthplace has remained unclear, raising many questions. Obote and Museveni have a common ancestry of Nilotic and Luo-speaking people (sometimes referred to as River and Lake people) who entered what later became Uganda from Bahr -el-Ghazal in South Sudan, not from Ethiopia as originally suggested. Obote was a member of the Oyima group; Museveni is of the Batutsi/Bahororo group. Ipso facto, Obote and Museveni are distant cousins.

Museveni and Obote have played high politics in Uganda rising to the level of head of state and government and commander in-chief of Uganda’s armed forces.

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.

Uganda voters should not sell their birthright for a kilo of salt

This 2011 election will save or destroy Uganda. Re-electing Museveni will change Uganda as we have known it – make no mistake about it. The trajectory is very clear. Museveni is already negotiating with foreigners to sell Uganda’s land – the deal with Egypt is in final stages of finalization.

When Roman food crop producing peasants were forced to sell their land to large scale farmers, the latter switched from food crops for peasant consumption to grazing cattle and sheep or growing grapes and olives for rich families. Rome’s population declined in part from high mortality rate of impoverished, hungry and sick peasants. The weakened Rome was invaded and conquered by barbarians.

Similarly, through the sale of Uganda’s land to foreigners who will then grow foodstuffs to feed their own people, Uganda peasants will dwindle and be replaced by ‘invaders’ through East African economic integration and political federation. This is not a joke. The brilliant, dynamic and jovial children that Uganda has known will be gone as education standards decline and child malnutrition and associated diseases take its toll.

The Application of western concept of stability in Uganda needs recasting

The people of Uganda have really suffered all sorts of injustices – economic, social and environmental – in large part because of western advice to Uganda governments on how to establish and maintain economic and political stability. Britain’s rejection of Obote’s “Move to the Left” and nationalization of industries resulted in his overthrow in 1971 and the installation of Amin. The suffering of the people of Uganda during this period is too well known to be repeated here. But this was considered a period of stability and Amin continued to enjoy support from some western countries until he was overthrown in 1979 apparently with British involvement (New African June 2007).

Since 1981 (except a three year period from 1984 to 1986) Uganda has implemented structural adjustment policies which call for macroeconomic stability. Although macroeconomic stability means many things including balanced budgets, in Uganda it has come to mean controlling inflation to 5 percent per annum. To maintain this economic stability, money supply in Uganda’s economy has been controlled including through raising interest rates. High and variable interest rates of up to 30 percent have discouraged borrowing by small and medium enterprises and investing in labor-intensive enterprises. Many entrepreneurs who ventured and borrowed were not able to repay. They either defaulted or sold their assets including land and/or livestock or married off their daughters at very tender ages to repay the loans that left them worse off.

Museveni’s image has been irreparably tarnished

Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Nelson Mandela of South Africa left power when their images as great leaders had reached a watershed. Yoweri Museveni could have joined their ranks as a great leader not only in Africa but also the world had he stepped down at the right time. Regrettably, Museveni missed that opportunity at a great cost.

After capturing power through force, Museveni quickly established himself as the ‘dean’ of the new breed of African leaders determined to break with the past by ending sectarianism and poverty, launching democracy and the rule of law and strictly observing human rights. At home, the launching of the ten-point program which had been drafted after extensive consultations and compromise marked him as a listener and pragmatic leader. The formation of a government of national unity which embraced representatives from all political parties, all religions and all regions and took into consideration the special needs of women and disabled persons erased any lingering doubt about his sincerity to forge a new Uganda. On their part Ugandans were prepared to sacrifice even more to make him succeed.

Man of good ideas, poor implementation

In May 2004, President Musevceni addressed the annual meetings of the African Development Bank (ADB) in Kampala, Uganda. The main features of the address were captured in Omar Ben Yedder’s report which was published in African Business of July 2004. Museveni observed that while Africa had succeeded in decolonization of the continent it had failed to industrialize. To industrialize, Africa needed machines and intellectual power, stressing that Africa will succeed through an intellectual revolution. By selling raw commodities rather than finished products, Africa was receiving only 10 percent of the final price. More than four decades since independence, Africa had failed to transit from third to first world class.

President Museveni attributed Africa’s problems to endogenous and exogenous (external interference) factors. He noted that frustrating private enterprise in Africa had been a major contributor to the continent’s backwardness. The second factor was excessive government intervention like the creation of state monopolies, fixing of exchange rates and imposition of complicated immigration and licensing procedures. Inflation had risen due to uncontrolled spending. Failure to develop human resources had been caused by insufficient or ineffective education and health programs. Because Africa is not economically viable, it had become dependent on foreign aid.

Uganda’s distorted history needs to be corrected

The late Samwiri Karugire (1980) wrote that “To undertake to write a history of a country whose societies are so different, almost in all respects, is a task that imposes its own limitations. This means that the historian has to choose what aspects of history appear to be important and this judgement is inevitably arbitrary in many ways”. Historians should explain why they have taken a particular aspect but they should not distort or even lie.

Until very recently Europeans and Africans who studied and wrote Uganda’s history came from aristocratic families in Europe or were associated with royal courts in Uganda. At the time of Africa’s exploration and colonization, racial prejudice was intense in Europe. In the racial hierarchy Africans (Negroes) were located at the bottom of the pyramid and treated as people who had no history and civilization. Africa was therefore described as a ‘Dark Continent’ and darkness is not a subject of history. Africans were therefore described explicitly as people who lived in a state of savagery and barbarism without social organizations and achievements in arts and sciences.

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 desire to recapture Tutsi power in Rwanda led to genocide and more

I know some Bahutu (Hutu) and Bairu (Iru) in diaspora who supported Tutsi return to Rwanda, by force if necessary, because they had been rejected in neighboring countries – witness their expulsion from Uganda in 1982 – and Rwanda government did not want them because there was no room for more people. Habyarimana government described Rwanda as a country unsustainably overpopulated and recommended that Tutsi should stay where they had been given asylum.

In recognition of Tutsi suffering in exile, the international community put pressure on Rwanda government to negotiate a settlement with the Tutsi-dominated Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) for a government of national unity and the return of Rwandan refugees. The RPF had a different idea – the restoration of their supremacy over Bahutu as they had done until 1959 when Bahutu ‘Social Revolution’ through Batutsi out of power and out of the country.