The silent human catastrophe in Burundi

The principal cause of conflicts in the Great Lakes region is ethnicity. Minority Tutsi – some ten percent of the total population – are trying to restore domination they enjoyed from the 15th century to 1962 when they were defeated in pre-independence elections of 1962 in Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda (Ankole).

Because they are minority they collaborate with foreigners in order to dominate others. In Rujumbura Makobore collaborated with Arab and Swahili slave traders to defeat Bantu people that were subsequently dubbed Bairu (slaves or servants). Makobore then sold members of defeated Bantu groups into slavery (“The [Indian Ocean] coastal traders were also employed in interstate raids for slaves. For example, Makobore, the [Tutsi] king of Rujumbura, employed them in his raids against Butumbi and Kayonza. The important social effect of the coming of the coastal traders on the peoples of south-western Uganda was the arms trade. Weaker societies were raided for slaves while interstate warfare was rampant” (B. A. Ogot 1976). Bantu grazing land was confiscated and Bantu short horn cattle were replaced by Tutsi long horn cattle and Bantu were reduced to cultivators largely for the benefit of Tutsi consumers. That is how Bairu came to be known as cultivators while they were wealthy mixed farmers combined with manufacturing products before interaction with Tutsi.

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.

How Museveni is silently turning Uganda into another Ivory Coast

It has been reported that migrant workers have triumphed over indigenous population in Ivory Coast’s presidential and parliamentary elections – essentially taking over the country. Museveni in collaboration with or under the direction of foreign advisers is methodically, silently and incrementally turning Uganda into another Ivory Coast. This is being done by increasing migrants through favorable policies and reducing indigenous population through birth control measures. I have already written an article (posted on home page of www.kashambuzi.com) arguing that immigrants will soon outnumber indigenous Ugandans. Let us see how Museveni is doing it beginning with policies that are encouraging foreigners to enter Uganda under conditions that are not clear to the public.

First, Museveni’s decision to adopt the shock therapy version of structural adjustment or economic recovery in 1987 was not an accident. It was designed to introduce unpopular decisions quickly before opposition groups organized to resist them. They also required dictatorial methods of governance which have been tacitly endorsed by Museveni’s foreign backers and conveniently described as bold leadership.

The guerrillas gave us NRM and are taking our land

The task of a researcher is to identify problems and make recommendations for policy makers to act on. A lot has been written and published about Uganda but much more remains to be done to identify challenges especially those related to globalization and East African community and the associated influx of foreigners looking for land to own.

Uganda is a country whose economy and livelihood of her people depend on land for food and foreign exchange. The land has been worked and owned by peasants for centuries. British colonial authorities respected and protected that age-old tradition. In 1986, NRM government presented a people-centered ten-point program confirming that land belongs to the people. It gave an assurance that peasants who lost their land due to political instability and/or faulty policies would get it back.

In 1987, the government launched structural adjustment with a major policy shift and a potential adverse impact on peasants. Private sector and market forces would drive Uganda’s economy and the distribution of assets. Studies were conducted that emphasized large-scale farming as a more appropriate model for speeding up economic growth and transformation from subsistence to commercial agriculture. In other words, peasants were presented as less productive than large-scale farmers and should give way to the latter. Other studies supported rapid urbanization as the fastest path to Uganda’s development, implying rural-urban influx to create room for large farmers. Free mobility and settlement would be facilitated through various instruments.

What can Uganda learn from Europe’s development experience?

Ugandans and their governments have attempted – since independence in 1962 – to transform their economies and societies to improve the quality of their lives, live in peace and security with one another and enjoy their human rights including the right to elect their representatives and hold them accountable. They have attempted development planning, ugandanization – by expelling foreigners – nationalization and privatization of the economy, have worked abroad and diversified exports to earn adequate foreign exchange to import technology and modernize the economy. On the political front they have attempted multi-party and no-party political systems with a view to finding a formula appropriate to Uganda’s diverse interests and past experience.

After nearly 50 years of experimentation, Ugandans are beginning to feel they have been riding on a wrong bus. They are at a crossroads wondering which turn to take as they enter the second decade of the 21st century. Against this background, it may be worthwhile to review Europe’s development experience and adopt lessons – if any –relevant to Uganda.

The development of Europe was driven by many factors including the emergence of the middle class and revolutions in agriculture, population, industry, commerce, transport, politics, scientific thinking and western values.