What to do about Uganda

I joined Uganda politics because I was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that NRM was driving the country in the wrong direction. I also accepted the post of Secretary General in UDU to participate in civic education and diplomatic networking. I was fully aware that the silent, voiceless, powerless and suffering majority of Ugandans needed some people to speak on their behalf. I was equally aware that to do so would involve one in dealing with sensitive issues like sectarianism, corruption and violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms – issues that Uganda’s military dictatorship wouldn’t want discussed.

The hurdle we are facing is that we are dealing with a regime that thinks we are still in the feudal age of lords and serfs or an era of absolute rule and divine right. NRM hasn’t realized that we have entered the Age of Reason (Enlightenment or Intellectual Revolution) that has enabled us to develop a questioning mind and won’t take anything at face value. Charles I of England didn’t accept that change had occurred when he conflicted with British parliament but James II did and allowed the Glorious Revolution to occur. Later on Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas II didn’t understand that there was a wind of change.

Low inflation alone won’t develop Uganda’s economy

In 1987, NRM government launched a stabilization and structural adjustment program (SAP). The first three years under the stabilization component were devoted largely to cleaning up the house through reducing inflation from triple to single digits, achieving a realistic exchange rate and balanced budget and promoting exports. This was a period of belt-tightening which reduced budget allocations to social sectors of health and education as well as agriculture. After these goals had been reached within a short period, the government was expected to relax belt-tightening and begin the process of development and economic transformation and distribution of growth benefits including increased government revenue to increase funding for social sectors and agriculture. Inflation control as well as monetary and fiscal policies would be relaxed as well. But they have remained a priority area since then, limiting economic growth and job creation prospects.

In the budget speech on June 14, 2012 the minister of finance stated that “Tackling inflation remains government’s overriding macroeconomic objective in order to protect macroeconomic stability”. Therefore a tight monetary and fiscal policy will remain in place as well. This policy poses problems for economic growth and job creation. In the financial year 2011/12 characterized by tight fiscal and monetary policy, economic growth of 3.2 percent was the lowest since NRM came to power and for the first time less that the population growth of 3.5 percent. Although inflation was reduced significantly, economic growth slowed tremendously and poverty rose to the tune of 81 percent.

“It is better to reform than to have a political revolution” – lessons for Uganda

During the debate leading up to the Reform Act of 1832, Thomas B. Macaulay a Whig member of British Parliament made a memorable observation: “It is better to reform than to have a political revolution”. The successful 1830 revolution in France sounded a warning about what could happen in England if the middle class and industrial leaders’ demands for participation in the political process were not addressed. The Whigs who won the 1830 general elections “realized that concessions to reform were superior to revolution”. An election reform bill was introduced and became the Reform Act in 1832. The law gave explicit recognition to the changes that accompanied the Industrial Revolution including creation of the working class. The Reform Act of 1832 together with repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 saved Britain from the 1848 revolutions that swept across Europe. The working class demands that were not accommodated in the Reform Act were taken care of in the second half of the 19th century.

External reporting on Uganda is misleading the public

The people of Uganda are hurting very badly under the NRM regime. Their conditions are getting worse. Ugandans are eating poorly, dressing poorly, sleeping poorly. When people struggle to get one meal of cassava a day; when people can only afford used clothes not even appropriate for their climate; when a whole family sleeps in one room on the floor sometimes with domestic animals; when parents force their daughters into early marriage to make ends meets that is a society in real trouble. I am describing Uganda society which is beginning to say Amin administration was better than Museveni’s. I am saying this from first-hand knowledge accumulated over many years. In my research, I have had the opportunity to interact with many people from all walks of life. I have visited churches, administrative offices, schools, homes, market places and vendors on the street. I have even travelled by bus many times between my home town of Rukungiri and the nation’s capital Kampala to hear passenger stories. I have visited homes at critical moments – at meal times, at bed times. I have also conversed with Uganda bureaucrats, politicians and donors. I have heard and seen it all: not from books but from real people. Some of the stories I have heard and things I have seen are horrible. People want enabling environment (roads, affordable electricity, etc) to struggle on their own but they are not getting it.

How peaceful demonstrations will squeeze Museveni out of power

Some Ugandans and non-Ugandans who have doubts that peaceful demonstrations alone (which I support) will squeeze Museveni and NRM illegitimate government out of power have asked me to explain the mechanism through which it will happen. Let me state right away that I have opted for peaceful demonstrations because their potential for human loss, injuries and displacement as well as destruction of property is much lower than the military option.

Uganda is a small country with a vulnerable economy dependent on external forces through exports, donations and soft loans, foreign investors, foreign experts and advisers, tourism and remittances by Ugandans living abroad. All we need to do is to convince these forces including our neighbors and all members of the East African community to cooperate with the suffering Ugandans to change the regime through peaceful means.

Sustained demonstrations and civil disobedience will create economic disruptions and security response will generate instability. These developments will constrain production of goods and services, cause supply to fall below demand, raise prices and force more Ugandans including NRM supporters to join demonstrations in protest against rising prices especially of food thereby denting the popularity of Museveni’s illegitimate government. Deterioration in economic activity will reduce the tax base and government revenue forcing it to cut back the provision of services further reducing its popularity especially its illegitimate leader Museveni.

Museveni’s absolute power and 2011 election fraud

Greetings fellow Ugandans and friends

There was a time when monarchs in Europe had absolute powers and ruled by divine right (the right to rule came from God, not from the people). In the 18th century, leading (enlightenment) thinkers in Western Europe challenged the power of absolute monarchy.

To prevent one leader or a group of people from becoming too powerful and gain total control of government, Baron de Montesquieu suggested separation of power into three independent branches. The legislative branch would pass laws; the executive and judicial branches would implement and interpret them respectively.

The independence of the legislative and judicial branches has kept the executive branch in check in mature democratic countries. Consequently executive branches do not meddle in election matters.

However, in some countries separation of powers exists in theory only. For example, in Uganda presidents have reduced the independence of legislative and judicial branches and strengthened the power of the executive branch. Legislative and judicial branches have virtually become rubber stamps for the presidency – hence opposition leaders’ decision not to go to the Supreme Court after the rigged 2011 elections.

Museveni came to power by default, has stayed by hiding vital information

By and large a decision taken when one is angry, frustrated, tired or in a hurry is likely to be wrong. In 1981, Baganda and Catholics (no offense) with backing of some western powers led by Britain decided to wage a guerrilla war because they were angry, frustrated, tired and in a hurry that Obote had returned to power. Without proper scrutiny of each other, two ideologically opposed groups: Popular Resistance Army (PRA) and Uganda Freedom Fighters (UFF) formed the National Resistance Movement (NRM) with Yusuf Lule (RIP) as chairman and Museveni as vice chairman and also chairman of the high command of its armed wing, the National Resistance Army (NRA). This became a clear case of enemy’s enemy is a friend. What was common between the two groups is that they were both enemies (opponents to use a milder word) of Obote and UPC. What both wanted was to remove Obote and sort out their differences later, if any.

Is intermarriage with Bahororo women part of a political game?

Politics is the art of gaining and retaining power by any means. In the great lakes region (southwest Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and eastern DRC), intermarriage between Batutsi, Bahororo, Bahima and Banyamulenge (pastoralists) on the one hand and Bahutu and Bairu (cultivators) on the other hand was extremely rare in pre and colonial times. On those rare occasions, a king or chief would give a woman to a good warrior or promising leader from cultivators as his wife. The husband would then be ‘tutsified’ and abandon his ancestral roots. The main purpose of this intermarriage was to deprive cultivators of men of leadership quality. Cultivators would thus remain leaderless and politically powerless.

Before proceeding with the story of intermarriage with Bahororo women, let me explain the relationship between Batutsi, Bahima, Bahororo and Banyamulenge, and the term ‘tutsified’ which appear to have caused confusion in my previous articles.

1. Batutsi is an umbrella word from which Bahima, Bahororo and Banyamulenge spring. According to Gerard Prunier (1995) and Linda de Hoyos (1997) Bahima are a clan of Batutsi.

Britain put Museveni into power, it must take him out

Britain through its citizens put Museveni into power. Tiny Rowlands funded the guerrilla war and facilitated Museveni’s travel. William Pike has led the media and publicity work for Museveni since the guerrilla war days. Linda Chalker a trusted former minister in Thatcher’s government was the first foreign dignitary to meet Museveni as president and has remained a very close adviser since then. Paul Collier has been the chief foreign macroeconomist that constructed structural adjustment program (SAP) based on Thatcherism – get socialism and state out of Uganda’s economy; focus on inflation at the expense of employment; discipline trade unions and facilitate labor flexibility to hire and fire at will and pay low wages; and privatize all public enterprises so that laissez faire capitalism and invisible hand of market forces drive Uganda’s economy and society. Structural adjustment program has been implemented by British economists in the powerful ministry of finance and central Bank. The Department for International Development (DFID) has also been active in Uganda’s economy.

Museveni lost Uganda’s sovereignty in 1987

When you examine closely what Museveni – and senior officials – says and does you find there are glaring contradictions most of the time. This is because Museveni is torn between two forces – the people of Uganda on the one hand and donors on the other whose interests are different. Museveni speaks a socialist language which is popular with Ugandans but acts in capitalist terms favored by donors and foreign business community that control Uganda mostly through British experts and the business community (most Asians are British citizens). In his speeches Museveni uses socialist/populist language based on the defunct ten-point program (which had been designed to end colonial economic structures of producing and exporting raw materials in exchange for manufactured products) which was replaced in 1987 by structural adjustment program based on capitalist principles borrowed largely from Thatcher’s ideology. At the rhetorical level Ugandans like what they hear only to be disappointed by what Museveni then implements that disproportionately benefits foreigners and Uganda surrogates mostly connected with the first family.