Who are genocidaires and victims in the Gt. Lakes region?

Museveni and I have disagreed on many issues in Uganda’s political economy discourse. However, we agree fully that to solve a problem we must get to the root cause (Y. K. Museveni 1989). I also agree with the late Samson Kisekka that education and mass media play crucial roles in public debates to take informed decisions (Samson Kisekka undated).

To solve Great Lakes problems in which Uganda is located we must accept that inter-ethnic conflicts are still alive and well. We also have to recognize that Batutsi from time immemorial have conflicted with other groups in Eastern DRC, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda. However, addressing the problem is difficult because any mention of Batutsi wrongdoing leads to automatic accusations of inciting genocide against them by those who want the status quo that has favored them since 1994 be not disturbed.

Since the 1994 genocide in Rwanda Batutsi are seen as victims and others as genocidaires (genocidaire is a French word which means those who commit genocide). Genocide means committing any of the following actions with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

1. Killing members of the group;

Those who break promises lose trust and get punished

In behavioral economics trust is an important concept. People feel good when dealing with people they trust and are trusted. “This feeling is related to the positive stimuli they get from trusting engagements. … People also tend to get high on punishing others, but they most enjoy punishing those who have betrayed them. They enjoy punishing individuals who have breached their trust or behaved unfairly. … This type of punishment [which is referred to] as reciprocal punishment, is payback for perceived behavior” (Morris Altman 2012).

In Uganda Museveni and his NRM government has broken many promises entered into with the people of Uganda during and after the guerrilla war of 1981-85. In 1985, a year before NRM captured power in 1986 Museveni published a ten point program that included introduction of democracy through free and fair elections and good governance; observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms; ending corruption and sectarianism; restoration of people’s sovereignty and ending suffering in Uganda through providing infrastructure and social institutions and services. Museveni further promised restoration of what was lost when Obote abolished the independence constitution including kingdoms, federalism and properties such as land. Asians were promised restoration of their properties. Because it is believed that DP was robbed of victory in the 1980 elections, promise or impression was made that upon ousting UPC and Obote II from power, DP would form the next government with a Catholic president. Not least, Museveni promised law and order, peace and individual security broadly defined including food and job security etc and good neighborly relations.

Is creation of Tutsi Empire real or imaginary?

Although some people have denied that Batutsi are nearing creation of a Tutsi Empire initially covering Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda and later other countries in middle Africa (from Indian Ocean Coast to Atlantic Ocean Coast) and Horn of Africa and possibly Southern Africa there is sufficient evidence to prove them wrong (Alec Russel 2000; Joseph Weatherby 2003 and EIR Special Report 1999). Namibia joined the 1998/99 war waged by Rwanda and Uganda against DRC because the leaders there were not sure what would follow after the defeat of DRC forces.

To understand the background to the formation of Tutsi Empire one needs to trace efforts to restore the short-lived Mpororo kingdom and expand it into a Tutsi Empire and why Museveni has talked a lot about Pan-Africanism and the weaknesses of balkanization in East Africa although he prefers balkanization for Uganda which he has sliced into over 100 economically unviable districts.

Mpororo kingdom was formed by a breakaway Batutsi group from Rwanda in mid-seventeenth century (1650s) and lasted less than or 100 years. Mpororo covered parts of present-day northern Rwanda, most of southwest Ankole (Ntungamo) and parts of Kigezi bordering Ankole (S. R. Karugire 1980; G. N. Uzoigwe 1982 and Christopher Ehret 2002).

What we have learned since Uganda’s independence in 1962

The discussions within UDU and other forums about the future of Uganda have necessitated an assessment of Uganda’s experience since independence in 1962. This is still work in progress but here are some preliminary findings. Your constructive comments are welcome.

1. Winner-take-all or government of exclusion has created many problems. Future governments should be inclusive on a proportional representation basis. Uganda’s population and natural diversity should be seen and used as an asset;

2. Notwithstanding political deficits, the civilian government in the 1960s performed much better in economic and social sectors than the succeeding military regime of the 1970s and military-turned democratic regime since 1986. Leaders with military background do not appear to be suitable for civilian administration.

3. Learning the art of governing a country on-the-job has proven to be the wrong approach. All the three presidents (Obote, Amin and Museveni) did not have what it takes at the beginning to govern, forcing them to rely on loyalty than competence. Future leaders must show experience, confidence and success in managing a large organization preferably with diverse characteristics as in Uganda. This would avoid or minimize parochialism which has become an endemic problem. Leaders that jump out of a ‘corn field’ onto a presidential stage no matter how educated they are should prove their practical experience. The issues of experience and character should be emphasized. Good character here refers to those leaders that in their lives have demonstrated distaste for corruption and nepotism and are conscious of good public image. When you become a leader you cannot afford to behave recklessly in private or public arena;

What can Uganda learn from world history?

Ugandans, friends and well wishers should continue to work hard, talk and write until a mutually acceptable and hopefully bloodless solution to Uganda’s spreading and deepening challenges is found. That Uganda is headed in the wrong direction is not in doubt. The Declaration signed by General Salim Salleh and posted on New Vision on March 11, 2012 is testimony to that (although it is not clear whom Salleh is representing and how seriously Ugandans should take the Declaration). The NRM government does not seem to be on the same page. NRM’s continued presentation of processes as achievements is not enough. Economic growth is necessary but is not enough to end poverty. Uganda experienced fastest economic growth in mid 1990s coinciding with the highest skewed income distribution. Diplomas that do not enable holders to find jobs are not something to be proud of. Processes must lead to outcomes that improve the general standard of living of all Ugandans. Presenting misleading information or buying support at home and abroad won’t solve the problem. Using force to crush the opposition will only widen the difference between the oppressor and oppressed classes and make matters worse. Ugandans are seeing what is happening around them and reading about what happened in the past and are drawing lessons. Although different paths were followed some of them deadly, the oppressed got liberated in the end. In some cases wise leaders or classes approached problems rationally and avoided violence. These are important lessons to draw from by Uganda leaders and the general public. The struggle for parliamentary government in England that resorted more to compromise and unity than war as a tool of solving problems with the kings has already been referred to. This article is a continuation of drawing lessons from struggles between privileged and disadvantaged members of society and how different approaches produced different results. Let us look at how different ways were adopted to address problems inspired by external lessons or failure of predecessors.

How French soldiers saved the National Assembly

In 1789, the king of France convened the Estates General (parliament) to find a solution to the nation’s fiscal problems. The meeting took place in the midst of food shortages, rising poverty and unemployment. The commoners (the Third Estate) demanded changes in the voting pattern and sitting arrangement which had advantaged the First (clergy) and Second (nobility) Estates. The King refused, insisting that each estate must meet separately and vote as before. This arrangement had always benefited the First and Second Estates that voted together defeating the Third Estate 2 to1. The commoners who constituted 98 percent of the total population of France decided they were the nation of France. They established a National Assembly to draw up a new constitution for France that would level the playing field. The king ordered it to disperse. It refused.

Because the king did not trust his royal troops, he mobilized mercenaries. When the people of Paris who had been protesting food shortages and rising prices heard that mercenaries were coming to Paris, they decided to arm themselves in defense of their city. They stole arms from a military hospital and proceeded to the Bastille prison (used as jail for political prisoners) to get more weapons and gun powder. The prison guards began to shoot and some of the rioters were killed. The commoners loaded their weapons and fought back. The prison guards had heavier weapons and pounded the commoners who had light weapons.

The Application of western concept of stability in Uganda needs recasting

The people of Uganda have really suffered all sorts of injustices – economic, social and environmental – in large part because of western advice to Uganda governments on how to establish and maintain economic and political stability. Britain’s rejection of Obote’s “Move to the Left” and nationalization of industries resulted in his overthrow in 1971 and the installation of Amin. The suffering of the people of Uganda during this period is too well known to be repeated here. But this was considered a period of stability and Amin continued to enjoy support from some western countries until he was overthrown in 1979 apparently with British involvement (New African June 2007).

Since 1981 (except a three year period from 1984 to 1986) Uganda has implemented structural adjustment policies which call for macroeconomic stability. Although macroeconomic stability means many things including balanced budgets, in Uganda it has come to mean controlling inflation to 5 percent per annum. To maintain this economic stability, money supply in Uganda’s economy has been controlled including through raising interest rates. High and variable interest rates of up to 30 percent have discouraged borrowing by small and medium enterprises and investing in labor-intensive enterprises. Many entrepreneurs who ventured and borrowed were not able to repay. They either defaulted or sold their assets including land and/or livestock or married off their daughters at very tender ages to repay the loans that left them worse off.

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 happened to Uganda historians?

In many countries, history or civics is a compulsory subject in schools. The idea is that students should know where their ancestors came from, how they have interacted with others over time and how they are governed.

Because Africa was considered a “Dark Continent” at the time of colonization, Europeans assumed it had no history and darkness was not a subject of history. Thus during colonial days, we were taught the history of European explorers and missionaries in Africa. The little Uganda history we were taught was about kings and their royal courts because first colonial and missionary officials came from aristocratic families in Europe and were not interested in peasant or commoners history. The first batch of Uganda historians was either from royal families or connected with the royal court. So for some years after independence, Ugandans continued to be taught the history of royal courts and British work in Uganda.

A new breed of historians emerged after independence led by Prof. B. A. Ogot, Kenyan mathematician turned historian who taught me in Nairobi. They began research into the history of Africans which led “to abandon certain formerly accepted terms and to introduce others”. Uganda historians began to write a new history of Uganda about who Ugandans are, where they came from and where they live and how they have interacted with one another.