When a president refuses to feed children, Uganda should demand answers

We have a president who came to power in 1986 advocating what Ugandans wanted to hear and he said it all loud and clear. He said that under his brief administration (because he had more important things to do at community and Pan-African levels) he would end the suffering of all Ugandans children included. In his eagerness to drive the point home, he blamed all previous regimes for failure to take good care of the people of Uganda. The welfare of children was a recurrent theme in his speeches as was the empowerment of women including through reduction in maternal mortality. One of the themes he stressed with implications on children was food and nutrition security. He talked clearly about balancing agricultural production for domestic consumption and export markets. Museveni knew that all parents regardless of their status want good education and health for their children. And he knew that they know that children need to feed adequately in order to study well and stay healthy. So when Museveni talked about the welfare of children including good education, healthcare, decent shelter and clothing including shoes and food and nutrition security he endeared himself to the people of Uganda particularly women who take care of children most of the time.

Uganda belongs to all Ugandans

The discussions taking place at home and abroad about the future of Uganda are encouraging. When people with diametrically opposed views begin to engage, that is a good sign. The meeting organized by FDC in London late last year (2011) that invited all political parties and groups is commendable and should be emulated. As we progress along this worthy path, we need to remind ourselves about the difference between principles and strategies. By and large principles remain the same; strategies change in response to prevailing circumstances. Let us begin with outstanding principles?

First, we must remember at all times that all Ugandans are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Nobody is born more equal and with more rights and freedoms than others. For example, all Ugandans have a right to adequate and balanced diet, equal and quality education and remunerative employment, decent clothing and shelter and pursuit of happiness. Every adult has a right to elect freely his/her representatives and to recall them before the next elections should that become necessary.

Second, Uganda belongs to all Ugandans. Ugandans must therefore share equitably what the country produces. A political party that wins elections must govern for all Ugandans. Apart from specific political positions, all other positions in government must be filled on the basis of competence. The winner-take(s)-all practice must be abandoned.

When a president refuses to feed children, Uganda should demand answers

We have a president who came to power in 1986 advocating what Ugandans wanted to hear and he said it all loud and clear. He said that under his brief administration (because he had more important things to do at community and Pan-African levels) he would end the suffering of all Ugandans children included. In his eagerness to drive the point home, he blamed all previous regimes for failure to take good care of the people of Uganda. The welfare of children was a recurrent theme in his speeches as was the empowerment of women including through reduction in maternal mortality. One of the themes he stressed with implications on children was food and nutrition security. He talked clearly about balancing agricultural production for domestic consumption and export markets. Museveni knew that all parents regardless of their status want good education and health for their children. And he knew that they know that children need to feed adequately in order to study well and stay healthy. So when Museveni talked about the welfare of children including good education, healthcare, decent shelter and clothing including shoes and food and nutrition security he endeared himself to the people of Uganda particularly women who take care of children most of the time.

Maintaining good relations with donors has been costly to Uganda

Obote became Prime Minister at Uganda’s independence with the tacit backing of foreign interests. During the initial years he pursued an economic policy based on the World Bank’s recommendation to continue a colonial economic policy of growing and exporting raw agricultural materials in exchange for manufactured products. He would also allow foreign companies to continue business as before October 1962 when Uganda became independent. Besides, being Protestant Obote was preferred to Kiwanuka who was Catholic (W. O. Oyugi et al., 1988).

In the second half of the 1960s Obote began to make adjustments in economic policy including partial nationalization of foreign enterprises. Foreign business interests and their governments were not happy and Obote’s government was shown the exit in January 1971. A gentle giant and pliable Amin was installed. When Amin like Obote before him nationalized private companies, he incurred the wrath of the British and the UK government cut off $58 million of credit to Uganda.

What would be his legacy if M7 retired today?

When the president came to power in 1986, Museveni had a clear vision for Uganda and he conveyed it with a simple message. He wanted his presidency to be remembered inter alia by the eradication of poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, subsistence agriculture, dependency on foreign aid and raw material exports, sectarianism and corruption. Above all he wanted to eradicate Obote’s record by performing better. This vision was conveyed in his speeches delivered at home and abroad. I have read most of his major speeches and heard his statements delivered at the United Nations General Assembly Hall in New York.

President Museveni was convinced that he would eradicate poverty in Uganda because the country has what is necessary to do the job – fertile soils, good rainfall, natural resources and resilient people. With good leadership and a clean government the job would be easy. Since he was convinced he would eradicate poverty, Museveni refused to use the word “reduction”.