Tag Archives: response

Comments on Robert Response on Gt. Lakes developments

I am basically a researcher and writer. In doing so, I provide well researched information as a basis for discussion on the way forward. My focus of research and writing is on the Great Lakes region. As such you cannot avoid writing about inter-ethnic conflicts which have been of a zero-sum game: “I am in power and you are out”. I am trying to create space for dialogue so that we engage in a win-win discussion to permit all people in the Great Lakes region to live in peace, freedom and dignity. And what’s wrong with that?

Apart from 1959 to 1994, the history of Rwanda since the 15th century is one of Tutsi dominating, exploiting, impoverishing and marginalizing Hutu people. When Kayibanda became leader of his Hutu party in the 1950s, he approached Tutsi and suggested power sharing in a win-win arrangement. Tutsis refused because to them power sharing with Hutu is impossible (Kagame dismissed the Hutu president, prime minister and other ministers whom he used when he captured power in 1994 before he was able to control Hutu population).

Read the full post
Posted on by

Response to David’s comments on Museveni’s fading star

I thank David for his contribution to the debate on the above subject. If David had carefully and objectively read the article he would have noticed that the first and in fact the larger part of the article is about Museveni’s rising global star.

The rising star was based mainly on Musevenis adoption of structural adjustment which had been designed to be a new development model based on market forces and private sector as the engine of economic development and social transformation which would lead to the improvement of the standard of living of all Ugandans. However, the failure of the model as reflected in rising functional illiteracy, unemployment, diseases of poverty ( jiggers, malnutrition and neurological abnormalities, etc), as well as environmental degradation forced the government to abandon structural adjustment in 2009 causing Museveni’s star to fade.

Secondly, his rising star was also based on the exemplary manner Museveni exhibited in preventing the spread of the HIV and AIDS pandemic by especially recommending condom use. His subsequent switch to abstinence is believed to have contributed to the rising HIV infections thus eroding his star.

Read the full post
Posted on by

“I will go back to war” – A Response

The Sunday Vision online dated August 7, 2010 published an article about remarks made by President Museveni at a rally in Kanungu district where there have been clashes within the National Resistance Movement (NRM) party along religious lines. Museveni is reported to have reminded the audience at the rally and all Ugandans and indeed the whole world through the media that sectarian tendencies (ethnic, tribal, religious) forced him to fight previous regimes. He added that he will go back to war to fight people sowing seeds of disunity. He then advised religious leaders “to preach to followers how to get to heaven and told politicians to educate people on how to fight poverty without necessarily involving religion”.

With due respect, I disagree with President Museveni on the need to go back to war and on the comparative advantage he spelt out between religious leaders and politicians.

When Museveni became president in 1986 after the bushwar he preached in broad daylight, loud and clear that he would end sectarianism in Uganda once and for all. Everybody – Ugandans and others – applauded because sectarianism had done great harm to Uganda since colonial days when chiefs were favored over commoners and Protestant followers over followers of other faiths. To overcome this problem, Museveni reasoned, and subsequently announced that merit would be the only criterion for nominations, appointments, assignments, promotions in public domain and awarding of scholarships. Who could disagree with this innovative and appropriate leadership approach?

Read the full post
Posted on by

Response to a reader on my comments

A reader made comments on my response to Jim Muhwezi’s statement (published in Observer June 2010) about alleviation of poverty in his constituency of Rujumbura.

The reader’s observations, if I understood them correctly, are that:

1. I have dwelt on the ethnic divisions of Bahororo and Bairu of Rujumbura.

2. Jim Muhwezi, Rujumbura’s MP, is popular in because he has done a lot for the people in his constituency.

3. Focus should be on improving household incomes rather than dwell on the Bairu/Bahororo divide.

Let me explain why an understanding of the plight of Bairu in Rujumbura cannot be achieved without considering a historical interaction between Bahororo and Bairu. A good doctor traces the history of his patient’s illness, disaggregates the possible causes, conducts lab tests and finally identifies the cause before prescribing appropriate medication to heal the patient.

Similarly, a good political economy analyst traces the history of the problem in a particular area, disaggregates possible causes, conducts research and identifies the cause or a combination of causes before recommending solutions.

You cannot adequately analyze the poverty of Bairu in Rujumbura without understanding the 210-year interaction between them and Bahororo. Therefore a brief history of their interaction is in order and here it is for easy reference.

Read the full post
Posted on by