Is Uganda drifting back to the troubled 1960s?

Uganda’s National Resistance Movement (NRM) government led by Museveni conveyed a message of hope when it came to power in 1986 after a costly guerrilla war. It promised to end all forms of sectarianism (ethnic, tribal and religion in particular) and all privileges by birth, root causes of political instability in the 1960s and the dark period from 1971 through 1985.

On capturing power the NRM government created an environment that accommodated every Ugandan and leveled the playing field so that every Ugandan could participate in the national development process on equal footing. This would correct pre and colonial deficits including lumping together people from different political, cultural, professional, social and discriminatory formations. For example, in southern and western Uganda pre-colonial authoritarian and exploitative governance system of rulers and ruled was not only retained but reinforced through the indirect rule system, causing endemic struggles between the two classes particularly in former Ankole and Rujumbura county of Rukungiri district.

Uganda’s situation was further complicated by religious feuds between Anglican Protestantism and Roman Catholicism and the economic divide between the north and the south. Thus, throughout the colonial period no attempt was made to create national consciousness through economic, social and political linkages. The federal independence constitution imposed by the British to keep Uganda together when it was very clear there was no sense of common statehood made a bad situation worse.

Are poor people easy to govern in perpetuity?

Years ago, a Uganda official reasoned that well educated and paid people are difficult to govern, implying that poorly educated and paid Ugandans are preferable because their daily problems keep them too busy to exercise their rights. What the official did not know or chose to ignore is that poverty is one of the root causes of political and many other forms of instability. Making or keeping people poor so they are governed in perpetuity without difficulty can be counterproductive as developments in Uganda are beginning to show. Under the NRM government many Ugandans have sunk into deep poverty which was hidden under economic growth and per capita income figures until it manifested itself through diseases of poverty.

The NRM came to power determined to govern indefinitely. One of its strategies right from the start was to impoverish citizens in the short, medium and long term. In the short term, the NRM government of Museveni took 30 percent of Ugandans’ meager savings as a service charge for changing old into new currency. Many lost their businesses right away. Some of those who survived have not fully recovered 25 years later.

External influence has destroyed Uganda’s independence

Ugandans struggled for independence to have freedom and determine their destiny. They had seen their resources exploited for the benefit of the mother country. They had witnessed their industries and markets destroyed to make room for European manufactured products. Uganda’s demand for independence grew out of the struggle by Africans to have a stake in the cash economy which was dominated by Europeans and Asians, keeping Africans as small holder farmers.

When British authorities finally agreed that Uganda should become independent, they retained the power to decide who would be the leader and which party would form the government. The Catholic dominated Democratic Party (DP) under the leadership of Benedicto Kiwanuka, a Catholic, won the 1961 pre-independence elections. The British and Church of England leadership was not happy. They wanted a Protestant Party led by a Protestant leader. Fresh elections were held and a coalition of Protestant parties (Uganda Peoples’ Congress {UPC} and Kabaka Yekka {KY}) formed the independence government in 1962 with Milton Obote (Protestant) as prime minister and Freddie Mutesa II (Protestant) as president. The Vice President was also a Protestant. The Democratic Party complained after it lost the 1962 elections that the Church of England led by the Archbishop of Canterbury played a decisive role in its defeat.

Controversy about Rukungiri municipality

July 22, 2010

Chairman,

Rukungiri District Council

Dear Mr. Chairman

Controversy about Rukungiri municipality

As you know, I have complained to the President through the Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, the Speaker of Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament about the irregularities surrounding the upgrading of Rukungiri town to a municipality. I have also sent to you two correspondences on this subject. I have received a response from the Leader of the Opposition. My complaints which still stand include the following:

First, for Rukungiri unlike other towns the Minister of Local Government who has responsibility for towns and municipalities did not issue a notice in advance that Rukungiri town was being considered for upgrade to municipal status. Accordingly, there were no consultations whatsoever between district council representatives and their constituents especially those that are going to be affected directly.

Second, you, as chairman, convened an emergency session of the District Council when you knew that the people who would have sounded the alarm were attending a function in Kagunga sub-county which according to our culture you should have attended.

Museveni’s philosophy and mission for Uganda

Yoweri Museveni who is a Nilotic-Muhororo was born in Ntungamo district, some forty miles from Mbarara town in southwest Uganda. Just before becoming president in 1986, Museveni was interviewed by John Nagenda. The interview was published in March 1986 in New African magazine. He articulated his philosophy and mission for Uganda. He has been president for over twenty years and he is running again for re-election to another five-year term starting in 2011.

Yoweri Museveni reported that his movement and army adopted a correct political line based on the philosophy that the people of Uganda are sovereign and anybody who is against the people is an enemy of Uganda. He added that the people of Uganda were united because they have common interests – same problems caused by natural barriers and backwardness due to lack of development hence their desire to act in concert than in conflict. Tribalism and religious conflicts were induced by leadership which pushed artificial interests rather than those of the population.

Bahororo are unfairly and unwisely dominating Uganda politics

Two principles are important for this article. First, prevention is better than cure. Nobody disagrees but in practice cure is more common than prevention. People wait until a catastrophe has hit and then react sometimes too little and too late. Second, former President Nelson Mandela is reported to have remarked that “If there is something bothering you, if you feel you have been treated unfairly [or someone else], you must say so” (Richard Stengel 2010).

To prevent a brewing catastrophe in Uganda politics, we need to address the issue of how Bahororo-led government has unfairly treated the majority of Ugandans in order for Bahororo to consolidate power in Uganda and beyond. The government distanced itself from the agreed agenda and promises made during the bush war and since then. The ten-point program later expanded to fifteen which was essentially based on human security concept: freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom to live in dignity was abandoned. The program had captured the main elements in the United Nations Charter and the Convention on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was a program based on consultations and compromise, on forgiving and moving forward to build a democratic, secure, peaceful, participatory and prosperous country in which all Ugandans would exercise all their rights without infringement whatsoever.

Ugandans are dancing to NRM music whose composer they don’t know

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.

Why has NRM rejected Keynesian economics when Uganda needs it badly?

What John Maynard Keynes wrote is that when a country is experiencing serious economic difficulties including unemployment the state should step in and increase spending to stimulate the economy, reduce unemployment which in turn create effective demand for goods and services and ultimately pull the economy out of the recession. Keynes advice was well received by politicians because it helped them deal with economic and social challenges that would have created political problems for them at the next elections. Governments have used Keynesian advice and it contributed significantly in tackling the economic depression of the 1930s and after WWII. Since the recession that began in 2007, governments around the world have intervened in national economies with stimulus packages.

In view of the deteriorating economic, social and ecological conditions in Uganda one would have expected the NRM government to fully embrace the Keynesian model and actively intervene in the economy especially as the country is preparing for multi-party elections early in 2011. As noted in a separate article the introduction of the five year development plan in April 2010 did not signal government determination to intervene in the economy. It appears this was a political game to hoodwink voters after which the plan will gather dust in the ministry of finance, planning and economic development.

The difficulty of applying Malthus essay to Uganda’s population

Uganda’s population challenges enter the development discourse when there are serious economic and social problems. Amin condemned population growth when the economy turned sour and ordered doctors to deal with it through contraception which he had banned a few years earlier. Currently (in 2010) Uganda’s population ‘explosion’ is again at the center of the development debate, invoking Malthus’ idea of population racing ahead of food production.

Malthus stated that population was growing geometrically (1,2,4,8,16 etc) while food production was growing arithmetically (1,2,3,4,5 etc), implying that all the food produced would be consumed in the same country. He concluded that if not checked, the least able to procure food would starve to death. Those able would survive – hence the survival of the fittest concept developed by Charles Darwin based on Malthus’ essay. The essay was written for Europe and North America. He used statistics compiled by Benjamin Franklin whose figures had included migration into America where it has had no application. During the 18th century agricultural productivity had doubled which Malthus ignored when he published his essay on population in 1798. One of the principle recommendations to check population growth was delayed marriage.

Why imposed foreign ideas don’t work

When you force a square peg into an object with a round hole you won’t succeed.

You damage both objects or one gets more damaged than the other. Similarly, when foreign projects or ideas, however altruistic or technically sound, are imposed especially quickly on different cultures, chances are they will not succeed and people in the receiving cultures might get hurt in the process. Foreign ideas such as indirect rule, modern birth control and structural adjustment programs that have been imposed on recipient populations have generally run into difficulties and caused suffering.

More often than not people hesitate to accept new ideas for rational reasons. For example, subsistence farmers are generally hesitant to replace old with new seeds for fear that if something goes wrong they might starve. Peasant farmers hesitate to sell their land and start business in towns for fear that business failure might spell disaster for the entrepreneur and his/her family. Poorly educated workers generally hesitate to look for another job especially during economic hard times because should they fail in the new job, they may not get another one or do so quickly. So they stick with what they have regardless of low pay and/or unsatisfactory working conditions.