Museveni’s image has been irreparably tarnished

Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Nelson Mandela of South Africa left power when their images as great leaders had reached a watershed. Yoweri Museveni could have joined their ranks as a great leader not only in Africa but also the world had he stepped down at the right time. Regrettably, Museveni missed that opportunity at a great cost.

After capturing power through force, Museveni quickly established himself as the ‘dean’ of the new breed of African leaders determined to break with the past by ending sectarianism and poverty, launching democracy and the rule of law and strictly observing human rights. At home, the launching of the ten-point program which had been drafted after extensive consultations and compromise marked him as a listener and pragmatic leader. The formation of a government of national unity which embraced representatives from all political parties, all religions and all regions and took into consideration the special needs of women and disabled persons erased any lingering doubt about his sincerity to forge a new Uganda. On their part Ugandans were prepared to sacrifice even more to make him succeed.

External influence has destroyed Uganda’s independence

Ugandans struggled for independence to have freedom and determine their destiny. They had seen their resources exploited for the benefit of the mother country. They had witnessed their industries and markets destroyed to make room for European manufactured products. Uganda’s demand for independence grew out of the struggle by Africans to have a stake in the cash economy which was dominated by Europeans and Asians, keeping Africans as small holder farmers.

When British authorities finally agreed that Uganda should become independent, they retained the power to decide who would be the leader and which party would form the government. The Catholic dominated Democratic Party (DP) under the leadership of Benedicto Kiwanuka, a Catholic, won the 1961 pre-independence elections. The British and Church of England leadership was not happy. They wanted a Protestant Party led by a Protestant leader. Fresh elections were held and a coalition of Protestant parties (Uganda Peoples’ Congress {UPC} and Kabaka Yekka {KY}) formed the independence government in 1962 with Milton Obote (Protestant) as prime minister and Freddie Mutesa II (Protestant) as president. The Vice President was also a Protestant. The Democratic Party complained after it lost the 1962 elections that the Church of England led by the Archbishop of Canterbury played a decisive role in its defeat.

Donors are satisfied with our record – Museveni

Years ago, I concluded that the NRM government under the leadership of President Museveni has failed to deliver on human security – Ugandans still live in fear, in want and in indignity.

At the United Nations Millennium Summit (New York, September 6-8, 2000) world leaders adopted a Millennium Declaration on peace and security; development and poverty eradication; and human rights, democracy, and good governance. They declared that (1) they would spare no effort to free people from the scourges of war within or between states; (2) they would spare no effort to free fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty and (3) they would spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development.

These declarations are similar to what is contained in Uganda’s ten-point program launched by the NRM government when it came to power in 1986. As noted above despite these declarations at the national and international levels, massive international assistance and excellent national policy documents Ugandans still leave in fear, want and indignity and the situation is getting worse. Because of space constraints, this article will focus on development and poverty eradication – freedom from want.

The relationship between Kagame and Museveni raises a fundamental question

Is Kagame a Muhororo like Museveni?

When an individual becomes a public figure citizens have a right to know who this person is and who his close allies are within and without the country. Because of the close relationship between Kagame and Museveni since the 1981-85 guerrilla war in Uganda, it is rumored that Presidents Kagame and Museveni of Rwanda and Uganda respectively belong to the Bahororo group of Nilotic people whose Luo-speaking and cattle herder ancestors entered the great lakes region from Bahr el Ghazal of southern Sudan.

Bahororo are Batutsi from Rwanda who under the leadership of Kahaya Rutindangyenzi of Bashambo clan founded the Kingdom of Mpororo in north-north-east of contemporary Rwanda and most of south-west Ankole in mid-17th century (Karugire 1980; Ehret 2002 and Chretien 2006). Before Mpororo kingdom was founded the area was occupied by Bantu people. All the people of Mpororo kingdom (Bantu ‘agriculturalists’and Nilotic Batutsi cattle herders) became Bahororo (the people of Mpororo kingdom).

Because of internal feuds the kingdom disintegrated within one hundred years. Bahororo cattle herders who came from Rwanda lost their special political positions in an overwhelmingly Bantu population and many returned to Rwanda where prospects were better. Others remained in former Mpororo kingdom or got scattered in Uganda and possibly beyond.

Museveni has deceived the world about democracy in Uganda

Not too long ago, I had a conversation with an old friend. We discussed a wide range of global issues and accidentally stumbled on Uganda. My friend confirmed what others have been saying that Uganda and Museveni have become indivisible – you cannot discuss Uganda meaningfully without putting Museveni at the center. He added a new dimension – Museveni is two persons in one. He elaborated by observing that what Museveni says about Uganda is often different from what he does. He emphasized that the difference between rhetoric and action is planned. He suggested an analysis of what Museveni says about democracy and what has actually occurred on the ground. Below are the findings.

Museveni has stressed that meaningful democracy must embrace “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. He adds that in the case of Uganda democracy must be three-dimensional: “parliamentary democracy, popular democracy and a decent level of living for every Ugandan… There should be an elected government, elected at regular intervals and such elections must be free of corruption and manipulation of the population… There must be people’s committees at the village, Muluka [parish], gombolola [sub-county], saza [county] and district level…

Ugandans did not and still do not understand Museveni’s motive

From grade five through eight I walked to school through a homestead that had vicious dogs. As there was no diversion, I had to face them every day – early mornings and late evenings – when they were unleashed. My grandmother advised me that when moving in the northerly direction, I should throw a stone in the southerly direction, and vice versa, to attract the dogs there. I would be gone by the time they realized it was a hoax. Her advice worked.

Similarly, Museveni has engaged Ugandans in diversions. Right from the start he knew what he wanted to do – to create a Tutsi Empire or something close to it such as the East African Federation. He prepared Ugandans and increasingly east and central Africans to look elsewhere – at the benefits of East African community and population mobility etc. Museveni also knew how to get there – build a strong army led by relatives, bring Baganda, Catholics and foreigners into the fold and use them against Obote whom he painted as a common enemy, and marginalize the rest. Let us trace Museveni’s plan step by step.

As I see it – Yoweri Kaguta Museveni

In March 1986, a month after Museveni became president of Uganda, Africa Events magazine published some articles including two by Yusuf Hassan and Yoweri Museveni on Uganda. The two articles are so linked in their messages of hope that they need to be considered together to see the extent to which what they contained has been upheld.

Yusuf Hassan observed that the triumph of the National Resistance Army (NRA) signaled a return to sanity in Uganda, which was ushered in with unlimited joy and jubilation. The NRA conveyed “Its message of a comfortable today and a better tomorrow”. Suddenly there was freedom from fear and instant death. The NRA reintroduced respect for human life, property and democracy. And NRA’s message was loud and clear; “If you kill a citizen, we’ll kill you”. Museveni formed a broad-based government which included all political movements in the country. Hassan concluded by observing that the way the new Ugandan leadership went about its functions bode well for the future of Uganda.

Why has Museveni survived so long in spite of serious flaws?

A while back I talked with some people who are familiar with Uganda’s political economy situation. We touched, inter alia, on the dangerously deteriorating social and environmental conditions in urban and rural areas which under normal circumstances would have created serious problems for Museveni in cabinet, parliament and the general population. Yet Museveni keeps on getting nominated for re-election. In true democratic terms where the public freely and fairly chooses the party candidate, one participant observed, Museveni would possibly not be re-nominated, much less re-elected. He has managed to stay in power by purchasing loyalty of the Uganda elites in the military and administration, and by aligning himself with western interests in economic, political and security areas.

Museveni’s philosophy and mission for Uganda

Yoweri Museveni who is a Nilotic-Muhororo was born in Ntungamo district, some forty miles from Mbarara town in southwest Uganda. Just before becoming president in 1986, Museveni was interviewed by John Nagenda. The interview was published in March 1986 in New African magazine. He articulated his philosophy and mission for Uganda. He has been president for over twenty years and he is running again for re-election to another five-year term starting in 2011.

Yoweri Museveni reported that his movement and army adopted a correct political line based on the philosophy that the people of Uganda are sovereign and anybody who is against the people is an enemy of Uganda. He added that the people of Uganda were united because they have common interests – same problems caused by natural barriers and backwardness due to lack of development hence their desire to act in concert than in conflict. Tribalism and religious conflicts were induced by leadership which pushed artificial interests rather than those of the population.

Museveni has become a liability to his sponsors

When Museveni was waging his bloody guerrilla war in the early 1980s he gave the impression that he was a uniter in contrast to his predecessors who had been viewed as dividers along sectarian lines. Consequently many Ugandans across the country sponsored his cause.

When he became president in 1986 he formed a cabinet that truly reflected his determination to unify all the people of Uganda. He even defined an economic policy that reflected accommodation of various interests. Then he announced that only individual merit would determine recruitment, assignment, promotion and awarding of scholarships. He advised that political activities would be suspended until national unity had attained a level that sectarianism would not raise its ugly head in Uganda politics. His popularity at home soared!

In May 1987, Museveni’s government entered into a stabilization and structural adjustment agreement with the International Monetary Fund and later with the World Bank. The government adopted the ‘shock therapy’ version of comprehensive and simultaneous implementation of all the elements in the structural adjustment package that was favored by the donor community. “He [Museveni] quickly became the darling of the West when he embraced the IMF/World Bank prescribed Structural Adjustment Programs, cutting down on civil service and social services expenditure and sacrificing state parastatals on the alter of liberalization” (Business in Africa. April 2001).