Uganda has been described as a failed state under a military dictatorship disguised as democratic. Many of those supporting the NRM government publicly have misgivings when contacted privately. The question that has occupied center stage in discussions about the future of Uganda is what should be done to turn the country around before it is too late. Five ideas have been proposed.
First, there are those who are still committed to NRM for whatever reason and want it to stay. They are suggesting that pressure should be applied to NRM leadership to make the necessary changes and reverse the current failed trajectory. But the changes they are suggesting such as restoration of presidential term limits, ending corruption, sectarianism and mismanagement, formation of an independent electoral commission, limiting advantages of incumbency, restoration of independence of the judiciary and keeping the military out of politics will ensure defeat of NRM at the next elections. NRM is not a popular party and it is these malpractices that have kept it in power. In free and fair elections NRM cannot win. Therefore NRM is unlikely to go along with this advice. NRM has become like a very sick person that cannot work anymore and has to be retired. In other words NRM does not have the will and capacity under fundamentally changed economic circumstances – from neo-liberalism to public-private partnership – to turn the country around. If allowed to stay in power, NRM, crippled with all sorts of problems, will only make matters worse and the damage will be more costly down the road.
Second, there are those who argue that a transitional government should be established through peaceful negotiations and prepare for true free and fair multi-party elections. This group feels that NRM has reached a point of no return and needs to be replaced. What is needed is the emergence of a leader of the Mandela type to bring all Ugandans together through a national conference and form a government of national unity. In May 1994 Nelson Mandela formed a government of National Unity after tough negotiations comprising ministers from once diametrically opposed groups. It included ministers from the African National Congress (ANC), National Party (NP), South African Communist Party (SACP) and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). Mandela also met demographic demands of gender and age differences. Efforts are already underway among Ugandans along the lines followed by Mandela but need to be consolidated by incorporating all stakeholders and agree on one leader. The proposed transitional government of national unity is based on a win-win arrangement. The current and most of previous NRM governments have been based on the principle of winner-take-all.
In choosing a Mandela type leader care needs to be taken to find someone really capable, not selected purely on the basis of region, religion, gender, age, ethnic or physical consideration. It should be someone whose history, background, character, philosophy, expertise and patriotism are beyond doubt. Some leaders in Uganda who emerged from virtual obscurity to the national political stage have turned out to be a disappointment. Besides, paper qualifications are necessary but not a sufficient condition for leadership. Compromise choices have also turned out to be a disappointment. Uganda has seen it all. All our leaders came to the political stage suddenly or were compromise choices. The danger with compromise leaders is that they have no power. They stand in the middle of groups to the right and to the left that they cannot control and governments collapse. The 1979/80 experience in Uganda’s history should not be repeated.
Third, there are those who want to force the NRM to the negotiating table through civil resistance such as demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins and various forms of non-cooperation until the government loses support and is forced to negotiate. This has worked in many places including in Iran and Philippines. In Iran the guerrilla war and targeted assassinations did not work and dissenters resorted to non-violent means and succeeded without extensive destruction in human lives and property as would have happened had the guerrilla strategy continued. Ugandans are tired of wars and are angry with NRM. What they need are champions on non-violent resistance to make Ugandans understand and apply ‘war of the flea’ tactics and make the country ungovernable thereby forcing NRM to negotiate and form a government of national unity of all Ugandans. Corrupt leaders in NRM would have no place in the government of national unity.
Fourth, there are Ugandans who reason that if NRM does not accept a transitional government with fresh leadership through peaceful resistance and negotiations, military means should be applied to force it to the negotiating table. There are two dangers. The war could take so long and become destructive without forcing the NRM to the negotiating table. Uganda is a country that has been defined more by war than since the religious wars of the 1880s. Another war may not go down well with most Ugandans. Attacking NRM first would help the government to condemn the attack as terrorist and go on full scale defensive. The attack would likely be condemned by our neighbors, African Union and possibly the United Nations Security Council. NRM would be empowered to fight back viciously, causing untold suffering and targeting for elimination or imprisonment individuals it considers a threat – real or imagined. Opposition would be eliminated and NRM would rule indefinitely, defeating the purpose of waging the war in the first place.
Fifth, this group is the same as the one described above except it wants to fight NRM to the finish whether or not NRM accepts to negotiate. This group argues that Ugandans should not waste time negotiating with NRM because it will never stick to the agreement citing what happened when it negotiated with the Okello government in Nairobi. What they do not say is that during the Nairobi negotiations NRM was a stronger party. This time it will be in a weaker position.
What is clear is that NRM government cannot continue to function without being challenged because it has governed unjustly for over twenty five years. NRM’s corruption, sectarianism and gross mismanagement are the root cause of mass poverty and overall suffering in Uganda. External factors have played a minor role and should not be blamed disproportionately.
The people of Uganda who obviously want regime change will decide what method should be used but in doing so they must consider carefully short, medium and long term costs involved in each method.