Success or failure is a matter of strategy

Too often people involved in the struggle for change confuse the goal and the strategy or the means to achieve the goal. The goal remains the same but the strategy adapts to changing circumstances. Let us take South Africa as an illustration. The African National Congress (ANC) was formed in 1912 to end a white minority system of government (the goal) by non-violent means based on Gandhian principles and tactics (the strategy). However, following the massacre of peaceful demonstrators at Sharpeville in 1960, ANC changed the strategy from nonviolent campaign to armed struggle. The goal or the principle remained the same. The war got prolonged and became very destructive and expensive on both sides. Under the mature and wise leadership of Mandela and de Clerk and perhaps assisted by a hidden external hand, ANC and apartheid government decided to negotiate a settlement. The ANC suspended the guerrilla war and began negotiations (a new strategy) to end the white minority system of government (the original goal). In 1994 after hard negotiations of give and take the white minority government system was defeated at the negotiating table and black majority rule was achieved with Mandela as president, Mbeki as first deputy president and de Clerk the last president under the white minority government as second deputy president. In the course of the negotiations the whites were assured that they would not be thrown into the ocean. Three further observations are in order. First, it is important to note that negotiations cannot take place until both sides have agreed to the solution. A third party working covertly or overtly may be needed to create an environment for a decision to be taken and negotiations to begin. Second, negotiations must be conducted with honesty by all stakeholders and implement the agreement reached. Third, negotiations must continue notwithstanding obstacles that may even lead to a temporary breakdown until an agreement is reached.

Museveni’s carrot and stick strategy has backfired

Museveni who was used to accolades of success story, star performer and darling of the west has not yet adjusted to the new reality of humiliating failures in Uganda. The country’s focus has shifted from the glory of taming inflation, boosting economic growth and reversing HIV & AIDS to diseases of poverty underpinned by jiggers and malnutrition, environmental crisis led by Kampala City floods, alcoholism and associated traffic accidents, rampant corruption in high places and blatant sectarianism, allegations of genocide against Hutus in DRC, witchcraft and associated human sacrifice. Organizations that praised Uganda and its leader Museveni sky high in international conferences have gone silent or are blaming Museveni for the messy situation.

In order to reverse this disquiet and return to a normal development path, Museveni should accept full responsibility for what has gone wrong, distance himself from ‘yes men and women’ and pay more attention to critical and constructive advice.

Uganda needs a multi-sector development strategy

Reports coming in about Uganda’s development record since 1986 are very troubling, to say the least. There are many reasons for this very poor performance. Two of them stand out prominently – the Hamitic myth and guerrilla mentality as well as single sector approach to development. To move onto the right development path will call for an honest and critical analysis of the status quo.

Without any offence intended, Museveni and his Bahororo, Batutsi and Bahima advisers came to power in 1986 with the long-discredited Hamitic myth that they are from a superior (white) race, intelligent, physically fit and attractive and born leaders. That myth bred over-confidence and complacency. Museveni used to tell reporters confidently that there was no problem his government would not handle, adding that the big problems had already been dealt with – successfully. Ugandans inside the country who criticized government policies and method of implementation were branded bankrupt or noisy empty tins in the opposition camp bent on sabotaging government development efforts and sabotage would not be tolerated. Ugandans who commented from abroad were described as people living on another planet and out of touch with the reality in Uganda. Foreign commentators were simply accused of interfering in domestic affairs of a sovereign state. The very poor 25-year record of economic, social and environmental performance hopefully has convinced Museveni (a Muhororo) and his Batutsi and Bahima cousins beyond any reasonable doubt – as confirmed by others many years ago – that they are not superior and more intelligent than other Ugandans and therefore not born to rule others in perpetuity. Most donors, however, turned a blind eye and deaf ear while mistakes were being made by NRM government because of Uganda’s role in regional geopolitics. Geopolitical interests overshadowed those of Uganda citizens. Continued external support to Museveni and his government will only prolong the long suffering of innocent Uganda citizens.