What the next Uganda leader must have and pledge to do

It is no longer a debatable issue even among once staunch supporters of NRM government at home and abroad. Uganda has become a divided, corrupt, sectarian and retrogressive state. It has remained absolutely poor, hungry, thirsty, sick, illiterate and degrading very fast environmentally and diplomatically.

Uganda image in the Great Lakes region, in Africa and in the rest of the world has been dramatically tarnished. Museveni is no longer regarded as the dean of the new breed of African leaders, peace maker, star performer and blue eyed boy of the west but as a dictator who has presided over a failed state now characterized by resurgence with vengeance of diseases that had disappeared including scabies and jiggers which are undeniably external manifestations of absolute poverty, notwithstanding economic growth, export diversification, privatization of public enterprises, downsizing public service and controlling inflation.

That Uganda is in trouble came out clearly during the Jubilee message on October 9, 2012 when the president could not record in any meaningful way what NRM has done to raise the overall standard of living in view of the fact that it has been in power for more than half of Uganda’s fifty years of independence.

What kind of revolution was Museveni talking about?

When Museveni graduated from Dar in Tanzania, he began to talk about revolution. This led into the 1981-85 guerrilla war that toppled the government of Okello (not of Obote which was toppled by Okello in July 1985) in January 1986. He continued to talk about revolution. Many Ugandans thought he was talking about the familiar development revolutions: agricultural, industrial and technological. And many gave him support. Museveni suggested that he needed at least 15 years to accomplish this revolution that would in the end metamorphose Uganda’s economy and society.

As time passed, revolutions in agriculture, industry and technology were not happening. While Museveni kept Ugandans waiting for the promised fundamental changes, he embarked on a different kind. Here are a few illustrative cases.

First, he toppled (or it is alleged) governments in Burundi (1993), Rwanda (1994) and Zaire (1997).

Second, Museveni silently handed over Uganda’s economy to foreign ownership, arguing that nationalization was a wrong policy. That is why – justifiably or not – an increasing number of Ugandans think that Museveni is a foreigner working for foreign interests. They reason that a true Ugandan cannot hand over the entire economy except land which he is likely to sell if re-elected.