Examining the evils of ethnic politics

All of us are familiar with ethnic groups, ethnicity, tribal groups and tribalism. Before tracing their application and impact in a political economy context, let us define ethnicity which is more commonly used than tribalism.

Ethnicity relates to a situation associated with a cultural, linguistic, racial, ancestral and religious groups or a combination of them within societies. Ethnicity has its roots in migrations, wars and other disturbances that trigger major population movements resulting in interaction with other groups in unequal relationships.

Because of this background, ethnicity is characterized by cultural prejudices, social discrimination and exclusiveness of its members. Generally, ethnicity finds expression in political domination, economic exploitation and psychological expression. The intensity, nature and forms of ethnic expressions are determined by the strength and cohesion of the ethnic leadership, courage, determination and nature of the underprivileged classes and the degree of foreign influence in a particular society.

In a multicultural setting where ethnicity is practiced social harmony becomes difficult to realize. It often results in violent conflicts for example in Burundi, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. Also ethnicity can lead to endemic political instability such as in Uganda, Spain, Sudan, Nigeria, Belgium, etc or even a breakup of countries such as the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

Contradictions in Uganda’s development policy

As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, Ugandans need to take stock of how far they have come and decide on where they want to go. Since the NRM government came to power in 1986, its development record has been characterized by three major factors – overdependence on foreign advisers, abrupt and major shift in development policy (from ten-point program to the Washington Consensus and since September 2009 to economic development planning). I have written on the first two factors and posted the articles on my blog www.kashambuzi.com. In this article we shall focus on contradictions which give the impression of failure to design policy on some issues or lack of collective responsibility.

Before NRM captured power, its cadres from different development backgrounds had debated and reached a consensus on policies contained in the ten-point program. Until July 1987 when the government launched the structural adjustment program, government representatives spoke with one voice.

Since July 1987, many government representatives have contradicted one another giving an indication of lack of harmony in policy making and collective responsibility. Let us review a few examples.

The role of Uganda’s under-five children in human capital formation

In his end of 2009 address, President Museveni included the important subject of human development. To achieve it he stressed universal primary and secondary education. He also underlined the critical role of a sound health system, adequate provision of safe water and proper sanitation facilities. However, he left out two important aspects – under-five children and food security. Without these two, no country can achieve satisfactory human capital development.

It is surprising that the president left out food security because it was an area that received his strong support at the beginning of his presidency. He lamented that food insecurity in Uganda had been caused by neglecting the production of nutritious food stuffs (finger-millet, sorghum, soya beans etc) in favor of cash crops (coffee, cotton, tea and tobacco) needed by consumers in foreign countries. He stressed, at home and abroad, the need to re-orient Uganda’s economy so that food production for domestic consumption is balanced with production for export markets.

It has long been recognized that human development begins with the health and especially the nutritional status of the mother at the time she conceives. A mother who is under-nourished will likely produce under-weight children with permanent disabilities including physical and mental retardation. Therefore human capital development should begin with adequate nutrition of the mother to produce a healthy and normal child.

History of the Great Lakes Region of Africa

Why this essay and why now?

Some readers of my blog www.kashambuzi.com and my two books titled (1) Uganda’s Development Agenda in the 21st Century and Related Regional Issues, and (2) Rethinking Africa’s Development Model, in which I wrote about ethnic rivalries in the Great Lakes region, have asked me to condense the scattered information into one very brief and user-friendly essay for easy reference and wider readership. Many commentators feel that there has been an overemphasis on events of the 1994 Rwanda genocide in which moderate Hutus and Tutsis were murdered but ignored war crimes against Hutus that took place inside Rwanda and in eastern DRC during and after the genocide and subsequent human rights abuses. There is also a strong feeling that ethnic relations should be studied in a comprehensive, historical, impartial and regional context to be able to draw informed conclusions and make appropriate recommendations. For example, the 1972 genocide in Burundi in which Hutus were murdered by Tutsis which may have encouraged the 1994 genocide in Rwanda was totally ignored by the international community including then Organization of African Unity (OAU).

Following external advice blindly devastating Uganda’s image

On December 2 and 3, 2009, Rachel Maddow of television Channel 29 (MSNBC, USA) reported the background to the anti-homosexuality bill currently being debated in Uganda parliament and religious, legislative and executive branch individuals behind the bill. The photographs of four individuals from Uganda on the show were particularly disturbing to say the least. Those wishing to learn more can obtain the report at [email protected]. More information can also be obtained from The Family (2008) by Jeff Sharlet.

Public opinion about Uganda – which has been eroding very rapidly because of the invasion and looting of DRC resources, rampant corruption and economic mismanagement, killing unarmed rioters in the nation’s capital and demonstrations in USA against the president during his visit there in September 2009 – has plummeted following the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC.

Triumph of war over peace in the Gt. Lakes region

For some five hundred years, the Great Lakes region has been marked by the triumph of war over peace. Notwithstanding the global surge of democracy around the world since the 1990s, the region remains mired in war. Western imposed regular elections as a condition for approving donations are conducted at gun point in the presence of international observers and foreign missions stationed in the region. Thus, the barrel of the gun has continued to triumph over the forces of democracy. Military dictatorship has become the order of the day. The war that raged in northern and eastern Uganda, the massacre of Bahutu people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) after 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the ongoing human tragedy in eastern DRC have been ignored by the international community or given lip service at best.

The international community has equated the absence of riots and destruction of property (because of suppression of human rights) with economic and political peace, security and stability. The riots and loss of life in Uganda’s capital city and the demonstrations against the president during his visit to the United States in September 2009 went largely unnoticed by the international media which was quick to condemn riots and loss of lives and property in Guinea.

Uganda will stabilize only when foreign powers say so

In order to effectively address Uganda’s intractable and endemic challenges which are mounting by the day, Ugandans themselves will need to examine candidly their history. Those who argue that revisiting history is dangerous because it will unearth uncomfortable truths are wrong. Sweeping problems under the carpet hoping they will be forgotten in due course is not only naïve but also selfish. It is usually individuals or communities that have thrived on hiding their identities or associations that oppose revisiting history and when they get a chance pass laws against such attempts.

Under these circumstances, Ugandans are increasingly hiding their faith, ethnicity or ancestral origin, spouses and even where they went to school, creating high suspicions. Uganda is at a crossroads as democracy digs in and the country gets more involved in regional and global arrangements with external forces flexing muscles in many areas of human endeavor.

With Uganda’s young generation in mind that has been demanding to know its country’s history, the purpose of this article is to trace foreign contribution to Uganda’s political instability and to reflect on the future course of action.

The genesis and demise of structural adjustment in Uganda

Studies conducted by the World Bank in the 1980s and 1990s concluded that Africa was not doing well economically and socially largely because of distortions in the domestic domain. In its 1994 report entitled Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results, and the road ahead, the Bank noted that although there was no single explanation for Africa’s poor performance, economic decline was due in large part to poor domestic policies at macroeconomic and sector levels. The distortions were compressed into state intervention in production and economic regulation; overvalued exchange rates; large and prolonged budget deficits that undermined macroeconomic stability needed for long-term growth; protectionist trade policies and government monopolies through nationalized enterprises and financial institutions that reduced competition vital for increasing productivity; and a bias against exports especially of agricultural produce through heavy taxation.

The Bank recommended a new development paradigm (structural adjustment) to correct these policy distortions. It called for the state to be limited to the provision of basic services and a stable policy environment; promotion of exports with a focus on agriculture; promotion of private sector; maintenance of macroeconomic stability; and avoidance of overvalued exchange rates.

Uganda being wrongly advised

When you press Uganda policy makers privately and anonymously they admit the country is receiving wrong advice most of the time from external advisers and their Uganda surrogates. When you press further for an explanation, they tell you the piper calls the tune, implying that the donors have resources which Uganda does not have.

And when you ask whether in return for loans and grants Uganda has lost control and ownership of the economy, most replies are positive.

When the NRM government came to power in 1986, it resisted – for 18 months – IMF and World Bank advice to abandon the mixed economy model in favor of the neo-liberal one based on market forces and private sector as engines of growth. Finally the message came hone loud and clear when Linda Chalker, former minister in Thatcher’s government advised the government and possibly the president himself that most major creditors believe that “the solution to Uganda’s problems depended on reaching an agreement with the IMF” (New African 1987-88) and its harsh conditions.

Is Uganda’s new development plan dead on arrival?

Before we examine the emerging fear that Uganda’s new development plan may be dead on arrival, let us outline the background to, and major players in the death on arrival of NRM’s mixed economy ten-point program launched in 1986.

The serious development challenges of the 1970s marked by slow economic growth, rising inflation, unemployment and external debts undermined the Keynesian economic model based on state demand management with a focus on full employment and welfare benefits. The model was replaced by the neo-liberal economic model with inflation control as its principal goal. (It was feared that inflation rather than unemployment constituted a more serious challenge to governments).

The 1980s witnessed elections of conservative governments in developed countries including in the United States and United Kingdom. The leaders in USA and UK believed that governments were the problem and not the solution to development challenges. Consequently, they favored a return to the invisible hand of market forces and laissez faire capitalism. There was no room for mixed economy models because they contained elements of socialism and central planning.