Recently I had a serious conversation with a fellow Ugandan who is a staunch supporter of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government under the leadership of President Museveni. I told him that I do not know who sets policy in Uganda since 1986 when the NRM government came to power. I asked him to help me understand the policy making process and the key players. He paused for a while, closed his eyes, ran fingers through his short hair and finally began to talk. He said that Ugandans since 1986 are like people who dance to music without knowing the composer and the meaning of the music until very late. He added that what he was saying was similar to the invisible hand which economists follow enthusiastically until later on when they realize that it did not delivering as expected. I asked him to elaborate on the respective roles of the presidency, cabinet and parliament in policy formulation and key players in each organ.
My fellow Ugandan recalled in general terms that at the start of the NRM government, there was open debate and real popular participation from the local level all the way up to the top of the ladder. He observed, for example, that consultations leading up to the drafting of the 1995 Uganda constitution were fairly comprehensive and the 1993 Commission report confirms that although there were some inaccuracies here and there. He said that the constitution drafted by Ugandan representatives sounded progressive or even revolutionary and Ugandans applauded without reading or understanding what some sections meant until recently.
He referred to Article 29 (2a) of the constitution which states that “Every Ugandan shall have the right to move freely throughout Uganda and to reside and settle in any part of Uganda”. The resulting movement of people and their livestock for example has caused tremendous economic, social, cultural and political problems. Powerful or connected people are settling on weaker people’s land. Those who are invading other people’s land are invoking Article 29 (2a). He said this was a clear case of an invisible hand that inserted this article without Ugandans understanding the true meaning behind it. Ugandans are beginning to reason that it was designed to solve a land problem for some vested and powerful interests. The multiplication and expansion of municipalities is also designed to redistribute land ownership from peasants to rich and powerful Ugandans. Ugandans are being told that municipalities will bring development and end poverty. Recently, the call was made for Africans (rather than Ugandans) to learn to live together in harmony. Ugandans are asking whether it means that Uganda borders might soon be opened to non-Ugandans through, for example, the instrument of dual citizenship that many Ugandans in the diaspora supported without reservation.
Then my fellow thoughtful NRM staunch supporter touched on the cultural institution issue which is also in the constitution. He said that those who added it in had in mind the return of pre-colonial kingships and chiefships irrespective of how they came about. He added that democracy is being misused to introduce or reintroduce unpopular institutions or programs. Then he moved on to the concepts of individual merit and anti-sectarianism.
He observed that at the start of the NRM administration the individual merit and anti-sectarian concepts were welcomed by most Ugandans who had been opposed to favoritism on the basis of religion, clan, tribe and ethnicity. Ugandans did not realize until much later that the two concepts were a trick designed by an invisible hand to favor a tiny group led by Bahororo in the NRM government. That is why you find that key and strategic positions at the district and national levels in politics, economics and administration are occupied by people from the same family, clan or ethnic group and it was difficult to complain until recently because you would be told that the decision was based solely on individual merit. In Rujumbura constituency, for example, the Member of Parliament and former minister Major General Jim Muhwezi and two senior presidential advisers are closely related (readers fill in the details).
We touched on the issue of inter-marriage. It was noted that in principle intermarriage is a unifier of different communities and should be encouraged. He added, however, that those who have been preaching it do not practice it themselves. In Uganda Bahima, Bahororo and Batutsi men (the main preachers and rulers of Uganda today) who are cousins with the Nilotic Luo-speaking ancestry from Bahr el Ghazal in southern Sudan have resisted intermarriage with other ethnic groups wherever they are settled in all parts of Uganda. They adopt local names and speak local languages but do not marry local women for fear that their secrets of dominating Uganda politics would be exposed. On the other hand they encourage their women to marry progressive men from other ethnic groups (in order to boost their minority numbers) on the hidden strict condition that the man joins the ethnic group of his wife – politically, economically and socially.
For the sake of our history, policy formulation and knowledge accumulation Ugandans are challenged to confirm or deny the extent to which Bahima, Batutsi and Bahororo men in their communities do or do not marry outside of their Nilotic ethnic group and the extent to which men who marry Bahima, Bahororo and Batutsi women actually switch allegiance and join Bahima, Bahororo and Batutsi clubs. Phionah Kesaasi confirmed that the men favor their in-laws. We need more evidence of that conclusion.
Finally, (this was not discussed with my fellow Ugandan) the issue of ancestry is being challenged. In Uganda the majority of Ugandans bury their departed relatives at their ancestral homes. That is why we do not have cemeteries in Uganda towns. This ancestral burial institution establishes one’s origin or roots. It is an institution that should be preserved. When General David Tinyefuza said recently that “In China, the dead are burnt”, it sent a chilling message to the few Ugandans I talked with after the statement was issued. Was he suggesting that in order to save land Ugandans should begin to ‘burn’ their relatives that have passed on? It has also been reported that the General is in favor of radical land reforms. Will they include ‘burning dead Ugandans’ to save land?
Recently a Uganda forum posted on the internet two pictures of men believed to be running the NRM government. However, some Ugandans still believe that the core group (Ugandans and foreigners) which sets the agenda is yet to be known. Ugandans are tasked to find out who they are. Whoever they are, their policies by omission or commission (denying school feeding programs, invading peasants’ land, providing poor quality education and healthcare, exporting food traditionally produced for domestic consumption, etc) are not in the interest of the majority of Ugandans. Ugandans need political, economic, social, cultural and ecological policies that advance the interests of all Ugandans not a handful of people joined together by blood and marriage into that group of Bahima, Bahororo and Batutsi. This is a political economy issue which unfortunately will be interpreted as ‘hatred’ by those who have benefited disproportionately since 1986 and want to continue doing so into the future at other Ugandans’ expense.