The impact of immigration in Uganda

The issue of immigration has taken center stage in domestic, regional and international debates. Global economic hardship and the associated high unemployment as well as demographic dynamics have triggered the resurgence of interest in reviewing the benefits and costs of immigration. In Uganda concerns about immigrants’ disproportionate participation in the economy, politics and security forces are being expressed in various forums. Globalization and East African economic integration processes have opened Uganda gates to all kinds of immigrants with serious political, economic, moral and cultural repercussions.

Uganda’s story about immigration goes back to the 1920s. Pull economic factors as Uganda began cultivating cotton and later coffee that required a lot of labor and push political and economic factors in neighboring countries especially then Rwanda-Urundi resulted in many immigrants entering Uganda in search of work. Other immigrant workers came from Kenya and then Tanganyika. They located in areas where they could find jobs according to their skills. Those with herding skills went to cattle herding areas in all parts of the country particularly in Ankole, Buganda, Eastern and Northern Uganda. Those with farming experience found jobs in cotton and coffee growing areas in Buganda and parts of Eastern Uganda. Some workers returned to their countries of origin, others stayed. Some of those who stayed married local women, adopted local languages and culture and got completely assimilated. Others adopted local languages and names but married women mostly from their country of origin or from their ethnic groups already in Uganda and resisted assimilation or Ugandanization.

The ballot box has not worked in Uganda

The history of elections in Uganda has been a sad one.

1. The ballot box did not work in 1961;

2. The ballot box did not work in 1962;

3. The ballot box did not work in 1980;

4. The ballot box did not work in 1996;

5. The ballot box did not work in 2001;

6. The ballot box did not work in 2006;

7. The ballot box did not work in 2011

Consequently, the ballot box is rapidly losing meaning in Uganda and has come to be seen as a formality to meet donor requirements for continued foreign aid and technical assistance. The conditions that make the ballot box work such as independent electoral commission, independent judiciary and term limits do not exist in Uganda. Museveni who has become NRM and the Uganda government by concentrating power in the presidency has defied everyone. In the absence of a level playing field, regime change won’t happen in Uganda through the ballot box. Make no mistake about that. All the 2011 election observer missions reported lack of a level playing field throughout the entire electoral process – from voter registration to the announcement of results. Museveni who is bent on staying in power for life and converting Uganda into a dynasty is not going to allow:

Uganda in deep crisis; needs intensive care attention

Admitting failure is a sign of wisdom and maturity and represents flexibility to look at the situation objectively with a view to identifying the real causes of the problem and provide appropriate solutions. Uganda’s economy had been sick for quite some time but it slipped into a comma in 2011 in part because of the global crisis but more critically as the result of reckless practices during the election campaigns. But the NRM government has refused to accept the obvious hoping presumably that time will correct the situation and return Uganda to normalcy. The author wrote to the president, speaker, prime minister, leader of the opposition and minister of finance advising that Uganda’s economic health was faltering, needing urgent attention. The advice was ignored, not even acknowledged.

To appreciate Uganda’s problems one has to go back to the 1987 decision by NRM government to abandon the ten point program in favor of ‘shock therapy’ structural adjustment program (SAP). The foreign advice NRM received and adopted is similar to what was imposed on Bolivia. During the 1980s and 1990s, Bolivia like Uganda, was a poster child for Washington Consensus market doctrine. Bolivia swallowed shock therapy neo-liberalism whole. Using privatization as an illustration, Bolivia sold off the airline, trains, phone and electric companies, public water system of Cochabamba City and gas and oil fields.

What we have learned about Obote and Museveni leadership

It is now recognized that the quality of a leader and development perspective can make or break a nation. This matter came up in one of the discussions at the United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) conference in Boston in October 2011. Requests were made for a study of the background and leadership qualities of Obote and Museveni and draw lessons that might help in selecting future leaders.

Obote was born in Lango. Museveni’s birthplace has remained unclear, raising many questions. Obote and Museveni have a common ancestry of Nilotic and Luo-speaking people (sometimes referred to as River and Lake people) who entered what later became Uganda from Bahr -el-Ghazal in South Sudan, not from Ethiopia as originally suggested. Obote was a member of the Oyima group; Museveni is of the Batutsi/Bahororo group. Ipso facto, Obote and Museveni are distant cousins.

Museveni and Obote have played high politics in Uganda rising to the level of head of state and government and commander in-chief of Uganda’s armed forces.

What we have learned about Obote and Museveni leadership

It is now recognized that the quality of a leader and development perspective can make or break a nation. This matter came up in one of the discussions at the United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) conference in Boston in October 2011. Requests were made for a study of the background and leadership qualities of Obote and Museveni and draw lessons that might help in selecting future leaders.

Obote was born in Lango. Museveni’s birthplace has remained unclear, raising many questions. Obote and Museveni have a common ancestry of Nilotic and Luo-speaking people (sometimes referred to as River and Lake people) who entered what later became Uganda from Bahr -el-Ghazal in South Sudan, not from Ethiopia as originally suggested. Obote was a member of the Oyima group; Museveni is of the Batutsi/Bahororo group. Ipso facto, Obote and Museveni are distant cousins.

Museveni and Obote have played high politics in Uganda rising to the level of head of state and government and commander in-chief of Uganda’s armed forces.

Banyankole are not responsible for the suffering in Uganda

Accusations have increased in frequency and intensity that Banyankole have sole responsibility for the suffering being experienced in Uganda, implying punitive measures when the time comes. There were reports that after the brutal manner in which the demonstrators were handled in Kampala in 2009 by security forces, some people vowed that Banyankole would pay a commensurate price including innocent ones that had nothing to do with the disproportionate use of force. Anybody coming from southwest Uganda has been defined as a Munyankole and some of them have been assaulted. Banyankole are therefore wondering on which side to stand: with a tiny group of rulers from Ankole who are causing the chaos and suffering in Uganda or those who are opposed but have vowed to punish any Munyankole when the time comes.

Warnings have gone out that those who accuse Banyankole either in their individual capacity or as representative of groups should check their facts first to avoid harming innocent people. Southwest Uganda has a complex history of indigenous and migrant people and of rulers and ruled. Since the late 1950s many immigrants have crossed into southwest Uganda and pose as Banyankole or Bakiga. Some have joined the rulers from Ankole and are contributing to the suffering of the majority of Ugandans. We therefore need to know who is who from southwest Uganda and who is doing what. Without this disaggregated information innocent Banyankole and Bakiga or even immigrants and their properties may come under attack for nothing.

Why & how nonviolence worked in the Iranian revolution – lessons for Uganda

The political, economic, social and moral developments in Uganda that have been accumulating since the 1990s made worse by the stolen elections in 2011 and economic hard times might trigger a regime change or increase instability and violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those in favor of regime change are either campaigning to use force because according to them that it is the only language NRM military dictatorship understands or civil resistance. Besides working, nonviolence is less destructive than war. The example of a successful nonviolent resistance that toppled the Marcos regime in the Philippines has already been presented. Marcos went into exile. The Iranian civil resistance that toppled the Shah of Iran in 1979 is another. These two examples should convince those Ugandans still bent on the use force. Targeted assassinations and guerrilla tactics were tried in Iran and did not work.

Before presenting the nonviolent methods that were applied, let us review the conditions that triggered resistance to the Shah and his regime. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941. He lost power to the elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq between 1951 and 1953. With help of western powers the Shah regained control of the country and ruled with an iron fist thereafter, jailing political activists, intellectuals, members of the religious establishment etc. He shut down independent newspapers and employed extensive security instruments including the dreaded secret police (SAVAK) and the military to eliminate dissent.

In Uganda minority has dominated majority through the barrel of the gun

Ugandans and development partners searching for a lasting solution to endemic problems in Uganda need to revisit the country’s history for some clues. Under normal circumstances it is the majority that dominates the minority. In Uganda it is the reverse. And that is why democracy and elections which express the will of the majority have not worked because the privileged minority has sabotaged the democratic process.

In pre-colonial times the movement and interaction of people – the so-called agriculturalists and pastoralists – produced two communities. The agriculturalists known as Bantu people entered Uganda from the west. Their economic activities were dominated by crops and livestock (goats, sheep and short horn cattle) and poultry and manufactured products using abundant resources including iron ore and timber. Because they settled in large areas with fertile land, good weather and plenty of wild game and fruits and vegetables they multiplied quickly. Because there was plenty of everything including foodstuffs that increased resistance against diseases, there was no cause for conflict and wars. Absence of war minimized mortality and also contributed to rapid population growth. When conflicts arose, some communities simply moved away or the disputes were solved by diplomatic means through negotiations. Accordingly Bantu people did not have standing armies for offensive or defensive purposes.

Ugandans are hurting as 2011 draws to a close

As 2011 draws to a close, let us take stock of where we are as a guide on the way forward.

Uganda’s story begins with the colonial rule whose mission was “to bring peace, prosperity and justice to the less fortunate peoples [of Uganda]”.

Peace is understood to mean absence of conflict, torture and wars; prosperity to mean absence of poverty and its offshoots of hunger, disease and ignorance; and justice to mean fairness and equal opportunity for all.

All independence governments committed themselves to do the same.

While conducting a guerrilla war (1981-5) NRM was most critical of the failures of colonial and independence governments to fulfill promises in peace, prosperity and justice. NRM presented a blue print known as the ten-point program as an alternative to past failed policies and practices.

It’s now twenty six years since NRM came to power through barrel of the gun, having failed to gain power through the ballot box in 1980. Instead of enjoying the promised peace, prosperity and justice, the people of Uganda have experienced too much suffering and are hurting badly.

Uganda’s challenge for 2012

There is understandable frustration among Ugandans who are agitating for a quick regime change. They are complaining that opposition parties are not doing enough in large part for selfish reasons that prevent them to come together and fight as one.

Some are arguing that opposition parties are ineffective in large part because the leadership is from NRM or opposition parties have been infiltrated by NRM agents.

There are those who are getting impatient with a non-violent and diplomatic strategy of effecting political change and are calling for outright war because fire must be met with fire.

There are those who are tired of the elite that have done nothing under the NRM to break the chains that have kept Ugandans trapped in poverty. Instead they have lined their pockets with looted public money.

There are those who are complaining that many in the leadership – NRM and opposition parties – are not patriotic enough because they are not Ugandans.

There are those who are praying for emergence of de Clerk and Mandela in Uganda to hammer out an agreement for a new Uganda.

These voices of frustration are getting louder.