Russian women: “They were just tired” – lessons for Uganda

I know that change is coming to Uganda. But what kind of change: peaceful or bloody change; change from below or from above? Although some readers have distorted my message for whatever reason, I have consistently pleaded orally and in writing for peaceful change – to the discomfort of those who want war – so that every Ugandan lives in peace, security, equality, prosperity and happiness. I have encouraged mixing at all levels – political, economic, social and cultural – to minimize conflicts. But to make appropriate changes we need to know what is happening in our society first. It is reporting the findings of what is happening that has caused discomfort in some quarters. And from these quarters we are getting name calling, intimidation and distorted messages. But the impartial analyst has to report research findings. And that is what we have been doing in the great lakes region. Hopefully we shall all end up on the same page.

National stability has trampled individual freedom in Uganda

Museveni became president in 1986 with a message of democracy, free and fair elections, freedom and prosperity for all contained in the ten-point program which he dropped in 1987 in favor of structural adjustment program (SAP) with stiff conditions. The unpopularity of SAP which was being experimented in Uganda after some countries like Ghana and Chile had found it costly and adjusted it, and the threat of terrorism in the East Africa region created a pretext for Museveni to introduce measures that have trampled individual freedom. In 2002, an anti-terrorist law came into force with a broad definition of terrorism as the “use of violence or threat of violence with intent to promote or achieve political, religious, economic and cultural or social ends in an unlawful manner”.

Painful structural adjustment at home and Uganda’s intervention in countries of the greater lakes region including alleged genocide of Hutu in DRC and plunder of Congo’s resources made Museveni unpopular, causing him to become authoritarian in order to cling to power because in a free and fair election he would lose.

Why ethnic tensions are intensifying in southwest Uganda

My career has enabled me to interact with many people from and outside Uganda and to hear many stories (many of them distorted) about who is who and who is doing well and not so well economically in Uganda. There is a general feeling that all south westerners are doing well at the expense of other Ugandans since Museveni came to power in 1986. In other words they think that all south westerners are Bahororo, Bahima, Batutsi and Banyamulenge (all represented in Uganda). This is the group of Nilotic Bantu speakers led by Museveni that has made tremendous progress in wealth accumulation. The other group of Bantu speakers known by the epithet of Bairu (slaves) or commoners in south west Uganda is extremely poor because of historical exploitation by the Nilotic Bantu speaking group since the two groups interacted about four hundred years ago.

I know some readers are not comfortable about this Bahororo and Bairu diatribe. I do not like it either. Actually it was dying out until Museveni came to power and re-established hostilities by suppressing Bairu through the implementation of structural adjustment that has pushed many back into poverty. Museveni is a divisive leader that seems to enjoy the suffering of others. This may explain why he has refused to support school lunches for kids from poor families but he has money for funerals – how else can you understand it.