“War of the flea” tactics will send NRM into extinction

Ugandans with support of friends and well wishers should craft a strategy for defeating NRM that suits local conditions. We should not emulate Egyptians, Tunisians, Philippinos, Ethiopians and Iranians etc if circumstances in Uganda are different. However, we should draw lessons from their struggles. One lesson is very clear: they all overcame fear and sectarianism. Egyptian Muslims joined hands with Christians, for example. Similarly, Ugandans must overcome fear, selfishness and parochialism. We should be guided by modesty and truth, not lies and deception. We should put Uganda and the future of our children first so that they can live happier and fuller lives than we have because that is what development or modernization is supposed to be. We should use our comparative advantages because every Ugandan has something to offer in this post-2011 elections liberation struggle that has just begun. Furthermore, we should be pragmatic and not idealistic.

Uganda’s post-independence political challenges

Radio Munansi English program February 17, 2013

This is Eric Kashambuzi communicating from New York.

Greetings fellow Ugandans at home and abroad, friends and well wishers and welcome to the program. We look forward to your active participation in this interactive session.

We have been requested to spend some time discussing Uganda’s political challenges since independence. There is hunger for knowledge as Ugandans get more engaged than ever before in affairs affecting their lives.

We study history to understand what happened in the past and what lessons we have learned and how we have applied them to make life better by discarding bad practices and building on good ones. There are those who think we should move on and not look backward because we may discover things that should not be disclosed to the public. However, many Ugandans are demanding to know the history of their country as far back as possible. For this program we shall examine the circumstances surrounding the birth of Uganda as an independent state and how those circumstances have shaped the last 50 years of independent Uganda.

Uganda’s birth as an independent nation took place in a very difficult environment and many important issues were rushed through or delayed as negotiators had to meet a deadline of October 9, 1962. In this session we shall consider the period immediately before independence and up to 1970. In the next session we shall discuss political developments from 1971 to the present.

(more…)

Why have Ugandans continued to support NRM?

There is a general agreement even among staunch supporters of NRM that things have got worse for the vast majority of Ugandans (even the wealthy ones are worried about the mushrooming clouds of serious potential insecurity and instability). Yet election after election NRM is winning. Is it because the opposition parties have not offered a convincing alternative in terms of leaders and/or policies? Or is it because elections are grossly rigged or a combination of both? Notwithstanding, why is it that in the most recent by-elections FDC and DP are defeating NRM even in the latter’s back yard? One may venture to suggest that Ugandans are beginning to understand that their suffering is caused directly by deliberate NRM policies. What are these policies that have contributed to endemic suffering? Here are some of them.

First, when NRM took over power in 1986 it introduced a new Uganda shilling to replace the old one. To get the new shilling every Ugandan who had money in the bank and/or in the house lost 30 percent as service charge – a decision that was taken against professional advice. The government also knocked off two zeros from the old shilling, meaning that for every 100 old shillings you got one new Uganda shilling. A combination of these two deliberate policy decisions constituted a significant loss of purchasing power especially for retired citizens.

“War of the flea” tactics will send NRM into extinction

Ugandans with support of friends and well wishers should craft a strategy for defeating NRM that suits local conditions. We should not emulate Egyptians, Tunisians, Philippinos, Ethiopians and Iranians etc if circumstances in Uganda are different. However, we should draw lessons from their struggles. One lesson is very clear: they all overcame fear and sectarianism. Egyptian Muslims joined hands with Christians, for example. Similarly, Ugandans must overcome fear, selfishness and parochialism. We should be guided by modesty and truth, not lies and deception. We should put Uganda and the future of our children first so that they can live happier and fuller lives than we have because that is what development or modernization is supposed to be. We should use our comparative advantages because every Ugandan has something to offer in this post-2011 elections liberation struggle that has just begun. Furthermore, we should be pragmatic and not idealistic.

Uganda’s 2011 elections are illegitimate

There is consensus that the elections results from presidential to the lowest level are illegitimate for two main reasons: disenfranchising some five million Uganda voters and allowing an equal number of foreigners to vote for NRM candidates including the president. The Commonwealth Observer Team concluded that the electoral cycle lacked a level playing field.

The disenfranchised voters are demanding that a transitional coalition government be established to prepare for fresh free and fair elections. In this regard, we applaud the efforts being made by religious leaders to bring the opposition parties and NRM to work out a mutually acceptable political arrangement. The discussions must therefore focus on a transitional government. The idea of giving cabinet posts to opposition presidential candidates with a view to forming a government of national unity is not acceptable. Ugandans also demand that the discussions must be transparent and the terms of reference made public. Secret deals are not welcome.

Uganda’s 2011 elections results are illegitimate

Greetings fellow Ugandans and friends

Let me begin with good news. The United Nations and the international community in general have increasingly shifted focus from support to governments and national sovereignty to people and their search for freedom, liberty, dignity and equality.

In 2005, the United Nations adopted a resolution on the Responsibility to Protect. It means that if a government is unwilling or unable to protect its people against crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, the international community has a responsibility to respond and restore order.

Thus, as we struggle to prevent Museveni from forming an illegitimate regime, we need to realize that the international community is on the side of Ugandans who have rejected the recently held elections. To facilitate our discussion this morning about the illegitimacy of elections, let us remind ourselves of the following points.

1. For elections results to be legitimate there must be a level playing field to allow a free and fair electoral cycle. While peace on polling day is necessary, it is not sufficient to render elections results legitimate as some people have argued.

The worst electoral fraud in Uganda’s history

The presidential and parliamentary exercise that ended yesterday fell far short of expectations. It is unprecedented in Uganda’s elections since 1961. This was not an election in the true meaning of the word. Elections follow norms or standards with minor unintended irregularities here and there which can be excused. The whole electoral cycle was a fraud. The electoral commission chairman’s remarks that irregularities occur in young democracies should not be accepted. To facilitate debate, here are some illustrations of what went wrong throughout the electoral cycle.

1. The Electoral Commission was partial. Museveni refused to appoint an independent commission implying he planned to rig the election.

2. Inflated voter register was compiled by a partial electoral commission. In Museveni’s home area of Ntungamo district where his wife contested a parliamentary seat, there were more than 2 million registered voters. This is outrageous! Earlier warnings that the register in Ntungamo had been inflated were denied. In Kawempe a small residential area in Kampala City another outrageous voter figure of more than 1 million was recorded.

Museveni’s address to journalists on eve of 2011 elections

Reading his address to journalists one gets the impression that Museveni had in mind ignorant people who have no clue what has happened in Uganda over the last 25 years. How can he transform Uganda into a second world when he has driven it into a fourth world? Uganda was a third world country when he came to power in 1986. For all intents and purposes, Uganda is now a fourth world using the yardstick of diseases of poverty that have spread to all corners of Uganda. We had some manufacturing enterprises that created jobs when he came to power. They are mostly gone. Uganda has de-industrialized and is now dominated by neglected agriculture using hand hoes and no fertilizers and services based in Kampala and dominated by foreigners.

Instead of pushing forward Museveni has been driving Uganda backward –possibly deliberately to create a marginalized and easily exploited society. Structural adjustment that was supposed to drive Uganda from third to second world failed miserably and was abandoned in 2009. Since then he has no plan to talk of, in any case, the government has been declared broke. God knows where all the donor money that was poured into the country from bilateral and multilateral sources a few months ago besides export earnings has gone. Ugandans and donors must demand a full account of what has happened.

Explaining the unique importance of 2011 elections in Uganda

Let me make two observations at the start of this article to clear the air. In my writings I have referred to Museveni as president, not in his personal capacity. Second, you cannot meaningfully talk about NRM government without talking about Museveni – for all intents and purposes Museveni has become NRM government. I do not hear much from ministers or senior civil servants. And in the absence of a government spokesperson, we are left with Museveni.

In a month’s time, Ugandans will elect a president, members of parliament, district councilors and mayors. These elections are taking place in unique circumstances which voters must be very familiar with before they cast their votes. Voters must therefore choose leaders that will genuinely represent their interests. The last twenty five years were dominated by structural adjustment (macroeconomic stability) and national security (defense of the state from external threats) at the expense of human security (protection of individuals economically and socially).

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.