Post-London conference philosophy should be fundamentally different from NRM’s

NRM came to power at the height of the Washington Consensus ideology based on market forces, laissez-faire capitalism, economic deregulation, macroeconomic stability and trickle down mechanism, etc. Government was seen as part of the development problem and not the solution.

The Washington Consensus was declared over at the G20 Summit in London. Since then the economically troubled world with high unemployment and slow economic growth has been influenced largely by a return of Keynesian model of demand management. Governments have returned to stimulate the economy working strategically in partnership with the private sector and civil societies and addressing imperfections of the market mechanism including deregulation.

Although NRM government abandoned the Washington Consensus or Structural Adjustment in late 1997 and replaced it with a five-year development plan, implying an active but strategic role of the government in the economy, in practice the government has continued to implement many of the Washington Consensus elements.

Post-London conference philosophy should be fundamentally different from NRM’s

NRM came to power at the height of the Washington Consensus ideology based on market forces, laissez-faire capitalism, economic deregulation, macroeconomic stability and trickle down mechanism, etc. Government was seen as part of the development problem and not the solution.

In 1997 the Washington Consensus was declared over at the G20 Summit in London. Since then the economically troubled world with high unemployment and slow economic growth has been influenced largely by a return of Keynesian model of demand management. Governments have returned to stimulate the economy working strategically in partnership with the private sector and civil societies and addressing imperfections of the market mechanism including deregulation.

Although NRM government abandoned the Washington Consensus or Structural Adjustment in late 1997 and replaced it with a five-year development plan, implying an active but strategic role of the government in the economy, in practice the government has continued to implement many of the Washington Consensus elements.

Museveni must be having sleepless nights

Well placed people in Uganda and abroad who have watched Museveni’s rapid rise believe he has reached the top of a hill and has begun riding down a steep, winding and slippery road in a poorly maintained vehicle with unreliable brakes.

Museveni has had four reliable allies: western powers; Baganda and Catholics; NRM; and security forces. Museveni received strong western support for his willingness to implement the unpopular structural adjustment program (SAP) and to serve as a surrogate for one western group in the Great Lakes geopolitics. IMF and the World Bank wanted a place with a bold leader to develop structural adjustment into a development model for developing countries. Uganda was that place and Museveni was that bold leader who would not tolerate complaints about the harshness of SAP.

Why Bahororo are contemptuous of Bairu

We are writing these stories on the deteriorating relations between Bahororo and Bairu people because old contemptuous habits are resurfacing. Statements about Bairu inferiority are being made at public rallies, Bairu women’s rights are being violated in many ways, arbitrary decisions are being taken with impunity, canning of Bairu has returned etc. If these developments are not checked, they may lead to unforeseen catastrophes. Those of us who believe in prevention rather than cure are speaking up before the situation gets out of control. The rushed decision by Rukungiri District Council and Uganda Parliament to designate Rukungiri a municipality stripping Bairu of their land without consulting them is the start of troubles that lie ahead.

Bahororo who erroneously still consider themselves white people with a dark pigmentation borrowed their contemptuous behavior from European colonialists based on racism that flourished in Europe in late 19th century. European Social Darwinists who applied Darwin’s evolutionary theory to human societies felt there was a major biological difference between them and other societies. Applying the doctrine of the ‘survival of the fittest’ Social Darwinists saw ‘fitness’ in white skin only. They also used pseudo-scientific studies (phrenology) of bumps on the head to demonstrate that Europeans were more intelligent than other races and therefore destined to rule over them. This sense of racial superiority was expressed in many ways in colonies including dress and social exclusion. However, social exclusion coexisted with relations of a more intimate kind including sexual encounters between Europeans and subject peoples. “Almost all relationships between colonizers and others were saturated with inequalities in power: sexual relations were no different” (M. Pugh 1997).

Why DRC may disintegrate

During a mission to DRC in January/February 2010, concerns were expressed by people from many walks of life – national and foreign – in formal and informal settings about the possibility of DRC disintegrating. A review of the underlying forces needs to go as far back as the 16th century when hunting for ivory and slaves led to ethnic conflicts and hostile relations. The political, economic and social disruptions that occurred in Central Africa made it easier for Europeans to implement a policy of divide and rule. Weaker communities that had suffered sought European protection while established rivals used European allies against their hostile neighbors.

In Congo, Leopold II and the subsequent colonial government encouraged ethnic isolation or rivalries and hostilities. Some rulers and/or ethnic groups were allowed to exercise hegemony over others. The Luba were favored and enjoyed higher status because they were considered superior to others. These divide and rule tactics created mistrust and antagonism among ethnic groups and weakened national consciousness.