The creation of a new Mpororo kingdom is progressing methodically

I know there are a few Ugandans like Ms. Phionah Kesaasi who will call me all sorts of names and unfairly accuse me of trying to incite the public with ‘genocidal outcomes’ after they have read this article.

When I constructively criticized NRM’s extreme version (shock therapy) of structural adjustment program and stressed that it would hurt the majority of Ugandans, many in the NRM government and secretariat labeled me a saboteur bent on discrediting the NRM government. My views were ignored and I was ostracized. After more than twenty years the program has been abandoned in disgrace when the failures as manifested for example in the diseases of poverty could no longer be hidden in cooked statistics of economic growth, per capita income and macroeconomic stability. The World Bank, IMF and subsequently the government apologized but too much damage had already been done. Some of the individuals who criticized me have apologized while others have just avoided me.

Now I am going to write on yet another ‘hot potato’ subject – the subtle processes being methodically conducted to create a new Mpororo kingdom or district that may combine Ntungamo and Rukungiri districts and possibly other neighboring areas. Hopefully Ugandans and their friends will reflect carefully on the message contained in this article and act accordingly.

How to avoid the failures of structural adjustment in the Dev plan

I have been a critic of Uganda’s economic policy since 1987 not to discredit the NRM government but to draw its attention to the empty half of the glass – particularly the social and environmental sectors that have been neglected. In designing and implementing stabilization and structural adjustment programs (SAPs), the government made four fundamental mistakes which should be avoided in the development plan.

First, the government opted for the extreme version – shock therapy – of structural adjustment calling for a comprehensive and simultaneous implementation of many elements like liberalization, privatization, retrenchment, export diversification and inflation control etc. Officials who recommended a gradual and sequenced approach to cushion the social and environmental impact of adjustment were dismissed or marginalized. The shock therapists believed very strongly in the pure theory of the invisible hand of market forces, private sector growth and trickle down mechanism. Accordingly the state had virtually no role in the economy. In the development plan, the government should avoid extreme version of state intervention.

Ugandans need to understand the causes of population growth first

Of late there has been a resurgence of writing and debate about Uganda’s population ‘explosion’ or ‘bomb’ that will destroy development efforts because savings are going into feeding unproductive mouths of children instead of investing in productive enterprises. Increasingly we are witnessing people who are not trained in population much less experienced in this complex subject writing and commenting with confidence like they know more than any other Ugandan or for that matter any other expert. Some of these may have had one day or one week’s seminar in population matters and begin to talk with authority.

Population dynamics are very complex in time and space. We have seen the regrettable results of countries that rushed into reducing population growth rapidly by force or couples that did not want children or just one or two. These countries and their governments are now rushing to reverse the trend. Have you heard of “Conception Day” in one of the developed countries where a national holiday has been declared so that the citizens can stay at home and increase their population? Have you heard of a wide range of incentives that are being offered in developed countries so that their populations can have many children? What I am saying is that rushing into curbing population growth can be costly in the long term.

Politics of intimidation and donor acquiescence won’t deliver democracy

Opposition members who lost the 1980 Uganda elections waged a guerilla war because UPC had not only intimidated voters and rigged the results but also used government resources and institutions and benefited from foreign support. Although not free and fair, the Commonwealth Observers declared the voting process and results satisfactory. UPC came to power for the second time.

In justifying what sparked the guerilla war, NRM observed that Obote and Muwanga allocated seats to their party cohorts even in areas where UPC candidates had scored less that ten percent of total votes cast. It added that besides Tanzania’s support, UPC used its control of national radio, the army, police and other state machinery to rig the election. This illegal action imposed an unpopular minority clique on the people of Uganda, leaving them no option but to take up arms in defense of people’s democratic rights.

In 1986, the rebels led by NRM came to power through the barrel of the gum with foreign fighters amounting to about 25 percent of NRM rebels and foreign backers. Because of its minority status, NRM with acquiescence of the international community delayed elections until 1996.

Towards economic and social delivery for all Ugandans

The National Resistance Movement Organization (NRM) has already declared that it will win 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections not only convincingly but also with a larger majority than in 2006 because it has delivered. While hosting the Commonwealth Conference, election to the United Nations Security Council for two years, discovering oil, ending the war in northern and eastern Uganda and winning approval to hold the 2010 AU Summit in Uganda are noble deliverables, their value should be assessed in the context of meeting conditions for economic and social development for all Ugandans as called for in Chapter IX of the United Nations Charter. Chapter IX states in part that higher standards of living, full employment, conditions of economic and social progress and development are among the principal goals of the United Nations of which Uganda is a member.

On reading NRM’s economic and social criticism of Obote II government one gets the impression that the drafters were fully aware of Chapter IX. It is therefore important to remind ourselves of what the criticism was and the extent to which NRM government has implemented corrective measures to deliver the desired economic and social results since it came to power in 1986. We shall examine the criticism contained in vol. I no. 3 of October/November 1981 and vol. II no. 5 of December 1984 which were published by the NRM secretariat in 1990 in a book titled “Mission to Freedom”.

Ugandans should speak up now to prevent human tragedy

There is convincing evidence that demonstration effects work unless preemptive measures are taken – and well in advance. The black people of South Africa were emboldened to confront the all powerful apartheid regime head on after neighbors had removed colonial oppression through armed struggle. The 1972 genocide in Burundi which was ignored by the international community including the Organization of African Unity emboldened those who committed genocide in neighboring Rwanda in 1994.

Because nothing has happened to those who instigated or committed massacres of 2007 in Kenya’s Rift Valley, Ugandans may be emboldened to do the same hoping they will get away with it if the 2011 elections are rigged.

How Ugandans got impoverished

When I wrote the article on ‘How Rujumbura’s Bairu got impoverished’, I was sending two messages.

First, I was bringing to the attention of Ugandans and the donor community the plight of Rujumbura’s Bairu who face the prospect of disappearing from their ancestral home through impoverishment and displacement.

Second, I was warning the rest of Ugandans what lay in store for them because the Bahororo who have presided over the impoverishment of Bairu in Rujumbura for the past 210 years, are now in charge of the whole country using the same governing tools to impoverish and dominate.

Before proceeding with the story of how Ugandans got impoverished, let us first clear the confusion about Bahima and Bahororo. While Bahima and Bahororo share a common ancestry of Nilotic Luo-speaking people from southern Sudan, they are distinct groups who are silently antagonistic.

When Batutsi from the ruling family of Rwanda founded the short-lived Mpororo kingdom (1650-1750) they took on the name of Bahororo (the people of Mpororo). Mpororo kingdom covered an area occupied by indigenous Bantu speaking people in parts of Rwanda and southwest Uganda. In this context, Bahororo refers to Batutsi people of former Mpororo kingdom hence the use of Bahororo as distinct from Bahima.

Fellow Ugandans

When our country became a protectorate in 1894 it was occupied by two major ethnic groups – Bantu and Nilotic people in a territory situated at the centre of Africa, the source of the Nile and in a region immensely endowed with human and non-human resources.

Foreign visitors to the region before and after Uganda became a protectorate, were impressed by the abundance and variety of foodstuffs, manufacturing industries and resilient, innovative and industrious people never seen anywhere on the African continent. Winston Churchill advised all foreign visitors to Africa not to skip Uganda.

Notwithstanding, on the eve of the second decade of the 21st century, Uganda cannot feed, clothe and shelter her people adequately. The September 2009 report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) observes that Uganda has entered the fourth successive poor harvest. This is a man-made problem due mainly to poor ecological policies. In 2005 Uganda was categorized in a UN report as a hunger ‘hot spot’ country needing food assistance.

The once vibrant manufacturing sector is all but gone in the name of comparative advantage that has consigned Uganda to the agrarian status.