Tag Archives: change

Uganda is hungry for political change

Uganda is hungry for regime change even by progressive and well placed members in the NRM government and security forces. Some senior police officers have resigned, others fired for refusing to apply disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators presenting to the government reasonable demands like ending corruption, sectarianism and cronyism so that national benefits are distributed equitably. Some army officers are complaining openly about injustices in the military. Some religious leaders are opposing the government in broad daylight.

Thankfully, the donor community is beginning to hear the voices of dissent and to act appropriately by issuing statements from their capitals or missions in Uganda, calling on the government to respond to the needs of the people. That some donors are demanding return of their stolen (donor) money is a sign that there is a wind of change in the donor community. It is estimated that over $30 billion has been donated (free money not loans to be repaid) to NRM government but there is virtually nothing to show for it. Add on $1 billion annually sent home by Ugandans in the diaspora, the revenue from exports, taxes and now oil and you have an idea of the magnitude of money that has been stolen by Museveni and his collaborators.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Why people demand change and rebel when they fail

People demand change of different degrees when existing frameworks don’t work well. Students demand better food because what they are eating isn’t good or is monotonous. Workers demand better working conditions because the existing ones aren’t good. This is a normal thing in all societies. And when leaders refuse to respond or convince the public they face difficulties, sooner or later, some of them revolutionary. Leaders that adjust as enlightened despots in Europe did during the 18th century lasted longer. Those that didn’t like Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France, Nicholas II of Russia and Haile Selassie of Ethiopia were booted out of power and their dynasties destroyed.

Similarly, the people of Uganda after fifty years of independence are demanding change of leadership and a new governance system. NRM leadership and its unitary and tier system of government are not only controversial but also unacceptable. They have made a few families filthy rich and the majority real paupers. All Ugandans are born equal and must be presented with equal opportunity to develop their talents. If they fail to get what they want peacefully, they are likely to resort to other means. This is natural.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Change is coming to Uganda

Change is coming. There is no doubt about that. What is unclear is when and how. Change could come sooner than later as it did in 1979 and 1985 that took the country and new leaders by surprise, calling for preparedness just in case (UDU already has a National Recovery Plan). It could come through violence or peaceful means. Our conclusion that change is coming is based on history lessons and internal dynamics in present day Uganda.

In societies where change has taken place, there was by and large external influence and internal discontent. Regarding external factors, the American Revolution was influenced by the writings of European enlightenment thinkers about liberty, equality, separation of power and Thomas Paine’s advice on independent America. The internal discontent was caused largely by British taxation of Americans without being representation in British parliament. The French Revolution was influenced by European enlightenment writers and French soldiers experience in America’s war of independence which made the Old Regime in their country anachronistic. Internal discontent was generated by the wide gap between the privileged high clergy and nobility who did not pay taxes to the government but taxed commoners for their own use and government revenue. The nobility and the clergy that constituted 3 percent of total population owned 40 percent of total land. The Russian Revolution was impacted by external and internal factors similar to those in France. In Eastern Europe, the influence of Radio Free Europe among others and Gorbachev’s restructuring and openness reforms together with economic failures of socialism generated forces for the 1989 revolutions. Thus, revolutions in America, France, Russia and Eastern Europe were created by external and internal dynamics. What about Uganda?

Read the full post
Posted on by

Change is coming to Uganda

Change is coming. There is no doubt about that. What is unclear is when and how. Change could come sooner than later as it did in 1979 and 1985 that took the country and new leaders by surprise, calling for preparedness just in case (UDU already has a National Recovery Plan). It could come through violence or peaceful means. Our conclusion that change is coming is based on history lessons and internal dynamics in present day Uganda.

In societies where change has taken place, there was by and large external influence and internal discontent. Regarding external factors, the American Revolution was influenced by the writings of European enlightenment thinkers about liberty, equality, separation of power and Thomas Paine’s advice on independent America. The internal discontent was caused largely by British taxation of Americans without being representation in British parliament. The French Revolution was influenced by European enlightenment writers and French soldiers experience in America’s war of independence which made the Old Regime in their country anachronistic. Internal discontent was generated by the wide gap between the privileged high clergy and nobility who did not pay taxes to the government but taxed commoners for their own use and government revenue. The nobility and the clergy that constituted 3 percent of total population owned 40 percent of total land. The Russian Revolution was impacted by external and internal factors similar to those in France. In Eastern Europe, the influence of Radio Free Europe among others and Gorbachev’s restructuring and openness reforms together with economic failures of socialism generated forces for the 1989 revolutions. Thus, revolutions in America, France, Russia and Eastern Europe were created by external and internal dynamics. What about Uganda?

Read the full post
Posted on by

When people demand change, they can’t be stopped

I have followed and participated in Uganda politics since before independence. Those at Butobere, Ntare, Rukungiri, Nairobi, Berkeley (USA), Arusha, Brussels (Belgium), Addis Ababa, Lusaka and Mbabane (Swaziland) where I was born, studied or worked and now New York where I reside will recall the political discussions we had and are now having about the desire for Ugandans and Africans to take charge of their own destiny. The lesson I have learned is that when people are determined for change, they will get it regardless of the hurdles on the way. We used to hear that Africans were not ready for independence. They needed more time and guidance. They were like children beginning to walk or to ride a bicycle. Some even argued that people in Southern Africa would never be liberated in our lifetime. Ready or not, the people of Uganda and Africa pushed on and got independent.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Museveni has not felt the wind of change

On February 3, 1960 former Britain’s Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan addressed both houses of parliament in South Africa. He warned the Nationalist Government of South Africa of ‘the wind of change’ blowing through the continent. He served notice that Britain could no longer support the policy of apartheid. He stressed that Britain rejected the idea of any inherent superiority of one race over another. He added that ‘individual merit alone is the criterion of man’s advancement, political or economic” (Fifty Correspondents of Reuters, Putman 1967).

Museveni came to power in 1986, at a time of economic and political crisis. The leaders of Africa had been discredited for economic mismanagement and one party political system. There was a search for political and economic stability. The new breed of African leaders shot to the scene through the barrel of the gun including Museveni.

Economic reforms through structural adjustment necessitated curbing freedom to make sure opposition groups did not emerge. In order to implement the austerity program of structural adjustment in Uganda Museveni with tacit support of proponents of structural adjustment allowed abuse of human rights. His abusive actions were conveniently described as boldness. Museveni unlike other leaders was given room to postpone multiparty politics, enabling him to crush DP and UPC.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Is Uganda ready for change?

During and since our last broadcast on radio Munansi (February 20, 2011) many questions have been raised including whether Uganda is ready for change, where are the leaders, when should the change take place and, will Museveni and his security forces behave like Qaddafi in Libya? Let us look at history lessons for guidance.

Is Uganda ready for change? Yes it is. Historically, in countries where rebellions, revolts or revolutions take place, societies are characterized by extreme inequalities, high unemployment especially among the youth, high levels of poverty and high prices. For example, at the time of the French Revolution, France was characterized by high inequalities in wealth and privileges between the monarch, nobility and high clergy on one hand and commoners on the other. Also, poverty and unemployment levels were high and food prices were high. Uganda meets all these characteristics as discussed in previous debates.

Where are the leaders? Changes have taken place with or without leaders. History shows that some revolutions have had leaders that mobilized the discontented people through advocacy. The England’s peasants’ revolt of 1381 was prepared through agitation by priest John Ball and peasant Wat Tyler. After this revolt, no medieval English government attempted to impose a poll tax again. When Margaret Thatcher attempted to restore it she was forced out of office as prime minister.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Land may cause a civil war in Uganda

Following publication (New Vision July 8, 2010) of a statement delivered by national coordinator of security services, General David Tinyefuza when he made a courtesy call to the district administration on his way from Masindi Artillery headquarters, there have been consultations because this is a very strong and scary statement. But before we come to the substance of this article Ugandans need to understand two things.

The first observation is that this was not a courtesy call. This was a threat. According to the World Book Dictionary courtesy means polite behavior, thoughtfulness for others. Therefore a courtesy call means a short, formal visit paid by one government official or dignitary to another as an act of courtesy or etiquette. Etiquette means the customary or formal rules for behavior in polite society. The message conveyed by General David Tinyefuza, on his courtesy call did not reflect courtesy or politeness at all.

Read the full post
Posted on by