When a president refuses to feed children, Uganda should demand answers

We have a president who came to power in 1986 advocating what Ugandans wanted to hear and he said it all loud and clear. He said that under his brief administration (because he had more important things to do at community and Pan-African levels) he would end the suffering of all Ugandans children included. In his eagerness to drive the point home, he blamed all previous regimes for failure to take good care of the people of Uganda. The welfare of children was a recurrent theme in his speeches as was the empowerment of women including through reduction in maternal mortality. One of the themes he stressed with implications on children was food and nutrition security. He talked clearly about balancing agricultural production for domestic consumption and export markets. Museveni knew that all parents regardless of their status want good education and health for their children. And he knew that they know that children need to feed adequately in order to study well and stay healthy. So when Museveni talked about the welfare of children including good education, healthcare, decent shelter and clothing including shoes and food and nutrition security he endeared himself to the people of Uganda particularly women who take care of children most of the time.

Why Museveni has run into difficulties the army won’t help him solve

There is consensus that Uganda is in real trouble – politically, economically, socially, morally and ecologically. These are challenges that Museveni and NRM set out to solve and they appeared to have confidence to do that. Instead Uganda has turned into a failed state on their watch and has disappeared from the global radar of success stories. Before recommending a solution, we need to understand why Museveni has not succeeded in managing the affairs of Uganda. Here are some of the reasons.

NRM can easily be unseated on four conditions

The popularity of NRM among Ugandans at home and abroad including many in NRM itself has sunk to the lowest level. The uncaring attitude of NRM to the suffering of Ugandans particularly women and children especially during the current economic hard times so soon after NRM was re-elected for another five-year term has driven the point home that Museveni – who is the de facto government of Uganda – does not care about Ugandans. He only uses them in pursuit of his imperial ambitions including changing the demographic composition of Uganda by increasing immigrants, ultimately turning indigenous population into a minority in their own country.

What to do with the failed NRM government

Uganda has been described as a failed state under a military dictatorship disguised as democratic. Many of those supporting the NRM government publicly have misgivings when contacted privately. The question that has occupied center stage in discussions about the future of Uganda is what should be done to turn the country around before it is too late. Five ideas have been proposed.

First, there are those who are still committed to NRM for whatever reason and want it to stay. They are suggesting that pressure should be applied to NRM leadership to make the necessary changes and reverse the current failed trajectory. But the changes they are suggesting such as restoration of presidential term limits, ending corruption, sectarianism and mismanagement, formation of an independent electoral commission, limiting advantages of incumbency, restoration of independence of the judiciary and keeping the military out of politics will ensure defeat of NRM at the next elections. NRM is not a popular party and it is these malpractices that have kept it in power. In free and fair elections NRM cannot win. Therefore NRM is unlikely to go along with this advice. NRM has become like a very sick person that cannot work anymore and has to be retired. In other words NRM does not have the will and capacity under fundamentally changed economic circumstances – from neo-liberalism to public-private partnership – to turn the country around. If allowed to stay in power, NRM, crippled with all sorts of problems, will only make matters worse and the damage will be more costly down the road.

The rule of the jungle in Uganda is coming to an end

We are writing these stories, incredible or controversial as they may be, for the sole purpose of finding a lasting solution to Uganda’s daunting challenges so that all Ugandans have peace and stability in which to create wealth and enjoy happiness. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the history of Uganda and philosophy of our leaders. Those who reason that going into history is unnecessary or counterproductive and we should therefore forget about it and move on forget that the past impacts the present in significant ways. There are also those who argue that we should not focus on one leader but the institution. They too forget that history is full of examples of one man rule who decides what to do and how to do it and the rest just toe the line or get sidelined or fired or worse if they don’t. Therefore understanding Uganda’s problems begs a comprehensive analysis of its history and the philosophy of its leaders. Failure to understand Amin as a man of split personality with a brutal past and medical problem resulted in some 300,000 loss of lives in the 1970s.

The economy is Uganda’s source and symbol of strength

There have been debates whether a country should consolidate its political or economic base first. On balance the consensus is in favor of the latter – the economy should form the foundation upon which to build the nation’s democracy and governance. The importance of the economy was recognized from the early days of Uganda’s protectorate. In his letter dated July 1, 1899 appointing Sir H. H. Johnson as Special Commissioner for Uganda, the Secretary of State, The Marques of Salisbury, stressed that the main object in Uganda was to organize the administration on lines that would facilitate the development of the economy to meet the requirements of the Protectorate. The issues of land tenure, agriculture, transport, trade and currency occupied center stage of the Commissioner’s work during his stay in the country.

Although a trade unionist, Obote understood the importance of the economy in Uganda’s post independence development. During the early part of UPC I (1962-1970), apart from being Prime Minister Obote also served as Chairman of the Planning Commission. He stressed the importance of economic independence through rapid economic development. Agriculture and rural development the source of livelihood of the majority of Ugandans, raw materials for industries and export earnings were given pride of place in Uganda’s first 5-year development plan (1961-1966). During UPC II, Obote did not lose sight of the importance of the economy in Uganda’s development. That is why he added the post of minister of finance to that of the president.

Time has come for Uganda youth to protest and open the door for reforms

The path to democracy, liberty, justice and dignity through the ballot box has not produced the desired results in Uganda and will not unless major reforms are undertaken. In developed societies institutions and laws permit citizens to elect representatives and hold them accountable. When they do not perform they are either recalled or voted out at the next elections. In Uganda these institutions and laws have been virtually destroyed. The NRM government has returned Uganda to the law of the jungle where strong animals do what they want with weak ones with impunity. Currently, in Uganda the weak are losing land to the strong, the weak are denied quality education and healthcare which are provided to the strong, the weak are going to bed every night on empty stomachs while the strong are busy exporting Uganda food and the weak are unemployed while the strong are importing workers through a liberal immigration policy etc.

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.

Three ideas that have failed in Uganda

Uganda is at a crossroads economically and politically. If we do not take the correct path, the country will under-develop rather than modernize. Three ideas namely comparative advantage, structural adjustment and the ballot box have been tried in Uganda. All three have failed to deliver the desired outcomes. We need to examine each one and recommend a way out.

Comparative advantage means that a country should produce the good (s) in which it has an advantage over others, trade with others and obtain what is not worth producing at home. When the British arrived in what later became Uganda, they found that the people were engaged in a wide range of economic activities according to their natural resources. Some were herders, fishers, crop cultivators, hunters and manufacturers of a wide range of products that included pottery, wooden, iron products and cloth from hides and skins and bark cloth. These producers exchanged (bartered) their goods in local and regional markets in Eastern and central Africa. Production and barter benefited equitably those involved. On balance, the terms of trade were favorable.

NRM can be unseated by peaceful strategies

There is general consensus that NRM has reached a point of no return. It has been bedeviled by rampant corruption, sectarianism, human rights abuses and infighting. It is therefore rotting away and features of decadence are there for all to see. The economy is in a comma – or very close – and social sectors are dying – if not dead already witness some hospital wards that have turned into hospices – and the environment is drifting towards desert conditions as warned by a United Nations agency not so long ago. NRM propaganda based on economic growth and expected social benefits from oil has not convinced the public so has the argument that external factors are responsible for Uganda’s economic, social and ecological illness. NRM has lost the will and capacity (in part because the government is broke) to adjust to the wind of change. Ipso facto, it has tenaciously clung to the discredited and subsequently abandoned neo-liberal economics which failed in many respects including trickle down mechanism to distribute equitably the benefits of economic growth.