It is leadership that counts

In search for solutions to Uganda’s daunting development challenges, I have studied, read and consulted widely in time and space to draw some lessons. I have examined the role of politics and economics, the role of ideologies (capitalism and socialism), the role of democratic and authoritarian leaders and the role of civilian and military leaders etc in the development process.

In economics we were taught that a country’s development would depend on the abundance of the factors of production – abundant labor, abundant fertile land and abundant capital in the form of roads, railways, harbors, machines, telephones and computers etc. Countries that were well endowed would do better than those that were less endowed.

On this basis alone, Uganda being more endowed than Kenya, Ugandans would be ahead of Kenyans in economic growth, transformation and social development. We know this is not the case, at least in terms of life expectancy and trade benefits within East Africa.

North Korea took more natural resources and industries than South Korea at the time of partition but see where South Korea is compared to North in levels of economic growth, transformation and standard of living.

Uganda’s democracy won’t be won at gun point

The year 2011 will go down as a defining moment in Uganda’s political economy history. Those who have followed political debates since before independence in 1962 will agree that this year has been exceptional in this regard. The services provided particularly by radio munansi and Ugandans at Heart Forum that have facilitated exchange of information and debate are highly commendable. They facilitated the birth of United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) – an umbrella organization that has brought together parties and organizations opposed to the NRM system to coordinate their activities and speak with one voice.

Uganda has entered the age of Enlightenment based on the concept of reason, not swallowing orders from the military dictator lock, stock and barrel. The debates on oil and Mabira forest are some examples of this Age of Enlightenment. And there is no turning back.

The people of Uganda are thus demanding to start from a clean slate. They want to develop their future path and occupy the driver’s seat with external helping hand as appropriate. The preparation of the National Recovery Plan (NRP) by Ugandans is a concrete example of what we mean.

“We need to guard against ethnic polarization” – Nuwagaba

Vincent Nuwagaba has written a useful article on the above subject. It is an article written in simple language, yet substantive – by someone with sufficient knowledge and experience in Uganda’s political economy. The timing of its publication could not have been better – coming so soon after the London conference.

It is true that some westerners have criticized Museveni regime constantly. And I am one of them. The idea really is not to make him uncomfortable but to draw mistakes of his government to his attention so that corrective actions are taken. I believe that is how he has received our messages.

I was forced to write an article about how Bairu of Rukungiri district got impoverished to demonstrate that western Uganda has some of the poorest people in Uganda. Some are committing suicide because they cannot raise tax money. Many are selling land to make ends meet and have ended up landless.

Subsequently a journalist from Canada visited Rukungiri district and wrote an article that was more disturbing in the depth of poverty, dispossession and marginalization than I had written. Yet many Ugandans continue to believe that all westerners are filthy rich. This is entirely wrong.

Ugandans are not cursed by nature, we are impoverished by policies

Many Ugandans falsely believe that they were destined to fail, however hard they worked, because they were cursed at birth or even earlier – at conception. They have given up trying and resorted to destructive practices.

When I returned from exile in 1980, many families in my home village had given up hope. They had cleared all wetlands – began under Amin’s economic war – which provided thatch materials. Accordingly, they were living in houses with leaking roofs. They had also cut down all the trees to sell charcoal and had no firewood to cook beans that provide a rich source of vegetable protein.

One of the reasons my family decided to invest in Rukungiri – my home district – was largely to change this mood of despair by creating jobs. The employees soon realized that their being poor was not a curse after all but lack of opportunities and absence of a caring leadership. With their savings they started small scale projects and are doing pretty well.

Precolonial reports demonstrate that Ugandans enjoyed a comfortable livelihood except during temporary periods of famine and conflict. They produced according to their natural endowments and sold surplus in local and regional markets to obtain what they did not produce.

Post-NRM government will give greater weight to social protection

Sooner or later the NRM government will fall under the heavy weight of its incompetence, corruption, sectarianism and marginalization of capable citizens. NRM has no capacity for adjustment to the unfolding challenges.

NRM started off well with a mixed economy model combining aspects of neo-liberalism (laissez-faire capitalism) and neo-Keynesianism (demand management). This was a popular and pragmatic program that had been crafted by many Uganda stakeholders with different perspectives and ideologies.

Then in mid-1987 – suddenly and without public warning – came the Washington Consensus (WC) or structural adjustment program (SAP) that was imposed by the Bank and the Fund on a bankrupt government. WC stressed small state, private ownership of public enterprises, deregulation and liberalization, export diversification, balanced budget and primacy of the invisible hand of market forces – all to be implemented simultaneously. Sequencing was ruled out and NRM absorbed WC lock, stock and barrel. It was hoped that market forces would distribute equitably the benefits of rapid economic growth – itself a function of foreign direct investments – to all classes and regions and everyone would live happily thereafter.

Uganda needs a human rights approach to address poverty

In her article on “Using Human Rights to Reduce Poverty”, Louise Arbour stated that “Poverty is the greatest human rights scourge of our time. Human rights violations are both a cause and consequence of poverty. Human rights are increasingly accepted as part of the definition of what is to be poor, as well as offering pathways out of poverty” (Development Outreach October 2006).

Although Uganda is well endowed in human and natural resources and has received generous international financial and technical support especially since 1987, the poverty level has remained unacceptably high – over 50 percent. One of the arguments for failure to adequately address poverty is that Uganda’s development model has not paid enough attention to human rights issues provided for in various national and international instruments.

In Uganda as in many other countries, focus has since the 1980s largely been on economic growth and price stability hoping that human rights issues such as poverty, food, education, shelter, clothing and health care as well as decent employment would be realized through trickle down mechanism. Sadly, the mechanism has not worked.

The impact of ideological conflicts on Uganda’s stunted development

Discussions of Uganda’s slow development have centered on challenges like rapid population growth, hostile ecological environment and poor governance. While these have had an impact, attention needs also to be directed at ideological conflicts as well. These ideological conflicts have diverted development resources – time, financial and human – to non-developmental activities or led to failure to utilize fully Uganda’s human talent.

Conflicts between Catholics and Protestants denied Catholics to form an independence government in 1962 because Protestants in the UK and those in Uganda were not prepared to relinquish power the chiefs and their relatives had enjoyed since 1894. Qualified Catholics were either sidelined or under-utilized with all implications in loss of morale or reduced incentive to produce to the optimum level. The situation changed with the NRM government since 1986, putting Catholics ahead of some Protestants and repeating the same ideological problem. Many good Protestants are languishing in the ‘dark’. Anti-sectarian law has ensured that little is said about this problem.

Uganda has failed because of lack of tested leaders

Uganda has everything except good, dedicated, tested and patriotic leaders. When someone suddenly jumps out of a ‘corn field’ onto a political stage and then quickly becomes head of state chances are that that country will experience tremendous difficulties.

Look at Uganda since independence in 1962. Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and Kabaka-Yekka (KY) political parties were formed virtually on the eve of independence, allowing no time to test the leaders. The UPC/KY alliance was a marriage of convenience – not of conviction to unite and lead Uganda to greatness. The alliance was hurriedly put together for the sole purpose of preventing Democratic Party (DP) from forming a government at independence. In this rush thorny issues like the head of state and ‘lost counties’ which could have prevented formation of a UPC/KY alliance were not resolved before independence. The rush gave us a complex constitution with serious repercussions. What happened after independence did not surprise those who followed the negotiations in London or who knew the ideological differences between UPC and KY leaders. We ended up with 1966 catastrophe, a pigeon-hole constitution and Amin in 1971.

The primacy of nonviolence in Uganda’s regime change should remain our focus

I want to thank commentators on my two articles that appeared in Ugandans at Heart website last week and are still being discussed including on the radio. Exchange of views in a substantive way is a very important first step towards finding a right path to unseat NRM regime. The discussions so far have been civil in tone and hope they will continue that way.

In the two articles an attempt has been made to demonstrate that we should – in the first instance – use nonviolent means to unseat NRM regime (other options are not ruled out) because they minimize costs, unify diverse people and make it relatively easy to bring about national reconciliation. The destructive and divisive experience of wars in Uganda is still fresh in our minds. Wars should therefore be avoided – not ruled out.

Studies have shown that since 1900 three out of four nonviolent campaigns have succeeded (Chenoweth and Staphan 2011). We know that to succeed Ugandan nonviolent campaigners will need support of neighbors and the rest of the international community through for example reducing financial, technical and diplomatic support to NRM regime and imposing targeted sanctions. We should, however, not expect the international community to send troops to Uganda to unseat NRM government unless a situation similar to Libya’s develops whereby Museveni tries to destroy Uganda citizens by military means as Gadaffi tried to do to Libyans.

“War of the flea” tactics will send NRM into extinction

Ugandans with support of friends and well wishers should craft a strategy for defeating NRM that suits local conditions. We should not emulate Egyptians, Tunisians, Philippinos, Ethiopians and Iranians etc if circumstances in Uganda are different. However, we should draw lessons from their struggles. One lesson is very clear: they all overcame fear and sectarianism. Egyptian Muslims joined hands with Christians, for example. Similarly, Ugandans must overcome fear, selfishness and parochialism. We should be guided by modesty and truth, not lies and deception. We should put Uganda and the future of our children first so that they can live happier and fuller lives than we have because that is what development or modernization is supposed to be. We should use our comparative advantages because every Ugandan has something to offer in this post-2011 elections liberation struggle that has just begun. Furthermore, we should be pragmatic and not idealistic.