Are poor people easy to govern in perpetuity?

Years ago, a Uganda official reasoned that well educated and paid people are difficult to govern, implying that poorly educated and paid Ugandans are preferable because their daily problems keep them too busy to exercise their rights. What the official did not know or chose to ignore is that poverty is one of the root causes of political and many other forms of instability. Making or keeping people poor so they are governed in perpetuity without difficulty can be counterproductive as developments in Uganda are beginning to show. Under the NRM government many Ugandans have sunk into deep poverty which was hidden under economic growth and per capita income figures until it manifested itself through diseases of poverty.

The NRM came to power determined to govern indefinitely. One of its strategies right from the start was to impoverish citizens in the short, medium and long term. In the short term, the NRM government of Museveni took 30 percent of Ugandans’ meager savings as a service charge for changing old into new currency. Many lost their businesses right away. Some of those who survived have not fully recovered 25 years later.

President Museveni’s scary statement should be opposed

President Museveni’s speech delivered at Hoima on June 11, 2010 is very scary indeed. Ugandans and their friends must not allow his scary remarks to be repeated or put into action.

When President Museveni, a head of state and chairman of the ruling party, talked about cutting someone’s head for entering his olubimbi (territory) was he saying, for example, that:

  1. opposition parties cannot aspire to form a government in Uganda with a new president
  2. poor people cannot aspire to become rich
  3. illiterate people cannot aspire to be educated
  4. women cannot aspire to inherit their parents’ properties
  5. women cannot aspire to work outside of the home and earn an income
  6. raw material exporting countries cannot aspire to industrialize?

If our understanding of his message is correct, then President Museveni is advocating a static division of labor or comparative advantage which is very difficult to accept. For example, Uganda cannot and should not accept to remain a producer and exporter of raw materials because we do not want to enter the lubimbi or territory of industrialized countries. This lubimbi concept explains why under Museveni’s leadership Uganda has de-industrialized.

Why it is hard to forget the ill-treatment of Bairu in Uganda

Some of the readers of my article on “Why Bahima will not marry Bairu women” and Ms. Phionah Kesaasi’s response titled “Bahima-Bairu theory is short on evidence” have advised that we forget Bahima-Bairu antagonism and move on. Others including Kesaasi have wondered “why a highly educated man like Kashambuzi” should spend time on minor issues like intermarriage. Here are some reasons why I have difficulties forgetting the past which has crept into the present.

First, in 1863, John Hanning Speke, a British explorer, wrote that he was told by Bahima (Wahuma) that all the people who occupied their land bordering Victoria Lake were given the name of Wiru (Bairu) or slaves. Bairu had to supply Bahima with food and clothing etc. Speke’s book was reprinted in 2006 and has become a text book in schools and universities around the world.

Because of comprehensive intermarriages (both ways) between Bahima and Bairu in Bunyoro, Toro and Buganda the ethnic differences have disappeared and people in these areas are living in relative peace with one another. Sadly in southwest Uganda (in former Ankole and Rujumbura of Rukungiri district where the limited intermarriage has been one way, the inter-ethnic or inter-tribal antagonism has remained very strong – let us be honest about it.