What to remember in Uganda’s 2011 elections

As we head into the holiday season and the 2011 elections, all Ugandans are being requested for the sake of our children and theirs, to think carefully about which candidates at presidential and parliamentary and lower levels you should vote for. You should not vote for a candidate because he/she is your relative or your friend or your neighbor. Instead, you should vote for a candidate you are convinced will serve the interests of Uganda best. Sitting members of parliament should be rejected or re-elected based on their record. It is better to consider someone who has a public record of service rather than gamble on fresh candidates and you regret later. Age and gender should not be the issue. In your communities you know who can deliver best. You should not be scared because a candidate is wearing a military uniform. In the final analysis they are as vulnerable as we all are.

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.

There are troubling developments in Uganda that must be fixed

A close friend of mine with many years of accumulated experience advised me on four things. First, a message must be repeated (orally or in writing) until it is properly understood. He explained that listening and hearing or reading and following a story are important but they must lead to a full understanding of the story and its implications on society. Until that understanding has been attained, the story must be repeated. Second, when a conversation is about a forest it should not be allowed to degenerate into a talk about trees. When you focus on one or two trees, you miss the larger picture. Third, during economic and political hard times, people tend to be short-term focused and miss the long-term dimensions. Fourth, three treasures must always be protected and used properly: population, land and institutions. Let us examine the fourth point with respect to Uganda.

Since Museveni came to power, Uganda has become a laboratory to test new ideas (Sebastian Mallaby 2004). Uganda provided laboratory facilities for shock therapy structural adjustment experiment starting in 1987 after it had been rejected in Ghana in 1986 as very problematic (Paul Nugent2004). The people of Uganda have paid a very heavy price. Uganda has now become a center for testing genetically modified crops (GM) and birth control.

Dear Joe

Thank you for your comment on Tutsi Empire project that appeared in my remarks in Observer this week. The idea of Tutsi Empire is not new. It has been raised at national, regional and international levels. If you have been following the debate on this subject and history of relations between Batutsi and Bahutu and Bahororo and Bairu you will understand why the possibility of Tutsi Empire is alarming.

The donor community has expressed concern about this project. Problems between Museveni and the West (donors) began when Museveni dreamt of a Tutsi empire and together with Kagame invaded DRC. The donor mood towards Uganda changed (Business in Africa April 2001). President Mugabe was drawn into DRC war primarily to prevent the establishment of Tutsi Empire in Middle Africa (J. N. Weatherby 2003). During my mission to DRC, Rwanda and Burundi early this year, the region was full of talk about the imminent establishment of Tutsi Empire and I reported this in my article in Observer. Many commentators are of the view that it will be achieved by military, political or economic means. So when Museveni pushes the E.A. Political Federation many think he has Tutsi Empire in mind. And Museveni has not denied it.

Adjustment and anti-terrorism policies have saved Museveni presidency

First and foremost, Museveni is president of Uganda to advance his own interests. In true democratic sense Museveni is not popular because of corruption and sectarianism as can be deduced from elite and peasant comments. He has used a combination of security forces, impoverishing Ugandans and collaborating with western powers in structural adjustment and anti-terrorism – areas that are not popular in the Horn and Great Lakes regions – to stay in power.

When structural adjustment ran out of steam in Ghana, the experiment was transferred to Uganda in 1987. Museveni adopted the extreme version (shock therapy) of structural adjustment favored by western sponsors the implementation of which required an authoritarian leader who would not tolerate riots. Museveni was also needed in great lakes geopolitics that resulted in changing governments in Rwanda in 1994 and in Zaire in 1997.

In return Museveni was saved from early multi-party politics which were imposed on others, allowed to strangle pre-independence Uganda Peoples’ Congress (UPC) and Democratic Party (DP), received huge amounts of money and training for his security forces and consolidated military, economic and political power in his hands. He threatened Ugandans that he would go back to the bush and cause another hell if not elected president in 1996. Most development partners did not raise a finger when all these things were happening because they did not want to upset a reliable ally.

Taking stock of NRM’s performance on the eve of 2011 elections

As Uganda heads into another round of multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections, this is the right moment to take stock of what the governing NRM party has achieved since it came to power 25 years ago. The NRM under the leadership of Museveni launched a credible and well thought out development blue print compressed into the ten-point program subsequently expanded to fifteen. This program put Ugandans at the center of development. Therefore NRM’s performance must be assessed against this principal goal.

By contrast the development program was not matched by a cadre with sufficient expertise and experience. A large number of NRM cadres did not have the requisite qualifications much less experience. Afraid of being swamped by the experienced Ugandans who did not fight the guerrilla war from 1981 to 1985, the NRM government chose not to invite qualified and experienced Ugandans in the diaspora and marginalized those at home. To fill the gap while it learned on the job, the government invited a wide range of foreign experts most of them young, inexperienced and ignorant of Uganda’s overall environment.

Time has come to rewrite Africa’s great lakes history

Since the leaked report alleging that Rwanda and Uganda troops committed genocide against Rwanda and DR Congo Hutu in DRC, Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation and government spokesperson Hon. Louise Mushikiwabo has been talking negatively and discouragingly about rewriting the history of Africa’s great lakes region. In contrast, many believe that the region is and has been unstable precisely because the history of the region was not properly written.

Influenced by European race theories that put a black person at the bottom of the race pyramid and the white person at the top, aristocratic explorers, missionaries and colonial officials in the great lakes region (Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi) credited all the magnificent civilizations they found in the region to Bahima and their Batutsi and Bahororo (Batutsi from Rwanda) cousins whom they described as ‘white’ people who got lost in the region and turned dark because of tropical sunshine. Further, they described them as intelligent, physically attractive and born leaders to indefinitely rule others in the region. On the other hand, Bantus or Negroes (especially Bahutu and Bairu) were described as a race of ugly and unintelligent human beings without leadership qualities and only fit for menial work. They were denied the civilizations they had developed in a region that had been described as part of the ‘Dark Continent’ without a history and civilization.

Are poor people easy to govern in perpetuity?

Years ago, a Uganda official reasoned that well educated and paid people are difficult to govern, implying that poorly educated and paid Ugandans are preferable because their daily problems keep them too busy to exercise their rights. What the official did not know or chose to ignore is that poverty is one of the root causes of political and many other forms of instability. Making or keeping people poor so they are governed in perpetuity without difficulty can be counterproductive as developments in Uganda are beginning to show. Under the NRM government many Ugandans have sunk into deep poverty which was hidden under economic growth and per capita income figures until it manifested itself through diseases of poverty.

The NRM came to power determined to govern indefinitely. One of its strategies right from the start was to impoverish citizens in the short, medium and long term. In the short term, the NRM government of Museveni took 30 percent of Ugandans’ meager savings as a service charge for changing old into new currency. Many lost their businesses right away. Some of those who survived have not fully recovered 25 years later.

As I see it – Yoweri Kaguta Museveni

In March 1986, a month after Museveni became president of Uganda, Africa Events magazine published some articles including two by Yusuf Hassan and Yoweri Museveni on Uganda. The two articles are so linked in their messages of hope that they need to be considered together to see the extent to which what they contained has been upheld.

Yusuf Hassan observed that the triumph of the National Resistance Army (NRA) signaled a return to sanity in Uganda, which was ushered in with unlimited joy and jubilation. The NRA conveyed “Its message of a comfortable today and a better tomorrow”. Suddenly there was freedom from fear and instant death. The NRA reintroduced respect for human life, property and democracy. And NRA’s message was loud and clear; “If you kill a citizen, we’ll kill you”. Museveni formed a broad-based government which included all political movements in the country. Hassan concluded by observing that the way the new Ugandan leadership went about its functions bode well for the future of Uganda.

Controversy about Rukungiri municipality

July 22, 2010

Chairman,

Rukungiri District Council

Dear Mr. Chairman

Controversy about Rukungiri municipality

As you know, I have complained to the President through the Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, the Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament about the irregularities surrounding the upgrading of Rukungiri town to a municipality. I have also sent to you two correspondences on this subject. I have received a response from the Leader of the Opposition. My complaints which still stand include the following:

First, for Rukungiri unlike other towns the Minister of Local Government who has responsibility for towns and municipalities did not issue a notice in advance that Rukungiri town was being considered for upgrade to municipal status. Accordingly, there were no consultations whatsoever between district council representatives and their constituents especially those that are going to be affected directly.

Second, you, as chairman, convened an emergency session of the District Council when you knew that the people who would have sounded the alarm were attending a function in Kagunga sub-county which according to our culture you should have attended.