Ugandans are hurting and demonstrating against the government

The sketchy sad news reaching us through the New Vision report of a police officer killed in the nation’s capital Kampala, use of tear gas to disperse demonstrators and arrest of opposition leaders including the president of FDC and the Mayor of Kampala. Since 2009 demonstrations are increasingly becoming common especially since the fraudulent presidential and parliamentary elections of 2011. It is important to realize that demonstrations take place to register that something is wrong and needs to be corrected by the authorities elected to represent the interests of the people who are sovereign.

In Uganda many things have gone wrong led by corruption and the situation is getting worse. The public’s outcry and advice from other sources have been ignored by the government. The economic crisis and the attendant unemployment of youth, hunger, disease and poverty have reached intolerable levels. The emergence of rare diseases affecting children including the nodding disease and the one deforming children limbs is a cause of deep concern. Market forces and the private sector are not equipped to address all these mushrooming problems. The state has to step in and ease the suffering of the people of Uganda.

Let us not start war against NRM government

We know that when a government fails to take responsibility for the welfare of the people, it should be removed from power. In the last 26 years NRM government has failed to deliver basic services. Ugandans have tried to remove it from power through the ballot box without success. And it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future without term limits and an independent electoral commission. Logically, some Ugandans are reasoning that since the ballot box has failed, we must resort to war. But some Ugandans have said no. This does not mean that those who do not want war are cowards. It means that they are pragmatic. Starting a war against a recognized government regardless of how it came into power will be condemned by the international community and come to the government’s rescue. In fact, NRM would welcome such attack to give it a golden opportunity to arrest real and imagined enemies of the state in the name of national security against terrorists and put them away for good. It would also help NRM divert development resources to war efforts and impoverish Ugandans further without being blamed. So Ugandans eager to fight need to understand fully the environment at home and abroad in which they are operating before definitive actions are taken.

National Recovery Plan (NRP)

Executive Summary

The NRP is based on a vision of free, united and prosperous Uganda and a mission of rule of law, equality and justice for all Ugandans.

Despite its natural resource abundance, resilient people and strategic geographical location at the heart of Africa, Uganda has remained a poor country with over 50 percent of its population of some 33 million living in absolute poverty because of inappropriate policies, political instability, wars and, above all, rampant corruption, sectarianism and mismanagement of public funds. Uganda has been declared a failed state under military dictatorship disguised as democracy. The country is in deep political, economic, social, spiritual and environmental crisis. Corruption has spread and deepened becoming endemic and a principal constraint in Uganda’s development process. NRM has lost the will and capacity to address these challenges. It has resorted to electoral malpractices to stay in power and use of force to frustrate Ugandans demanding change. Consequently, Ugandans and increasingly development partners are losing confidence in the NRM government.

Let us not start war against NRM government

We know that when a government fails to take responsibility for the welfare of the people, it should be removed from power. In the last 26 years NRM government has failed to deliver basic services. Ugandans have tried to remove it from power through the ballot box without success. And it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future without term limits and an independent electoral commission. Logically, some Ugandans are reasoning that since the ballot box has failed, we must resort to war. But some Ugandans have said no. This does not mean that those who do not want war are cowards. It means that they are pragmatic. Starting a war against a recognized government regardless of how it came into power will be condemned by the international community and come to the government’s rescue. In fact, NRM would welcome such attack to give it a golden opportunity to arrest real and imagined enemies of the state in the name of national security against terrorists and put them away for good. It would also help NRM divert development resources to war efforts and impoverish Ugandans further without being blamed. So Ugandans eager to fight need to understand fully the environment at home and abroad in which they are operating before definitive actions are taken.

Salient features in government’s reports to parliament

This week, we received one report and two speeches that were presented to parliament: report on the background to the budget for 2011/2012 fiscal year; Museveni’s address to parliament; and budget speech to parliament delivered by the minister of finance on behalf of the president. This is an annual exercise. The mandate, criteria used and data selected have distorted or omitted vital information.

1. The mandate of the background report to the budget is to highlight priorities of the coming national budget in the context of key economic trends and recent performance of government programs. The president’s mandate is to report what was done in the last twelve months and to appraise members of parliament of plans and strategies for the next twelve months. The mandate in the budget speech is to present to parliament estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year. Thus, in the three documents there is no specific mandate for reporting on the impact of government programs on ecological and human conditions such as soil erosion, poverty and malnutrition reduction. This is a serious shortcoming since development should be sustainable and human-centered.

Role of the military in restoration of democracy and human rights in Uganda

As Museveni reminded us, the principal role of the military is to defend the country’s borders against external invasion. He also indicated that when the government denies citizens the right to exercise their democratic and human rights the military steps in on the side of the people. Before considering why the Uganda military should be on the side of the people demanding the exercise of their rights, let us briefly review a few examples where the military has supported the people against oppressive governments.

1. During the French Revolution that began in 1789, sections of the army joined the people in their demands to reduce the excessive power of the king and privileges of the nobility and high clergy. The people also formed a national guard under the leadership of Lafayette to defend themselves. In desperation the king hired mercenaries, an arrangement that made him even more unpopular. This action together with an attempt to flee the country resulted in his arrest, trial for treason and execution.

2. The collectivization of agriculture in Russia under Josef Stalin generated intense resistance. Stalin ordered the army to intervene and force peasants to comply. Some sections of the Red Army refused because peasants had a right to resist and these soldiers came from peasant families.

How do you deal with Museveni who thinks he owns Uganda?

In his heart and mind, Museveni is convinced that he fought a five year guerrilla war and captured power. He used that power to purchase Uganda, the people and developments on it. His behavior is likened to someone who works for five years, earns an income that he uses to purchase a piece of land with a free hold title. That land becomes his property permanently and he does what he wants with it and the people settled as well as developments on it. He consults when he wants but the final decision is his. Those members of the family and relatives that have different ideas are either marginalized or thrown out. Finally he decides who should succeed him.

Museveni’s conviction that he owns Uganda and everything on it can be deduced from his utterances such as he killed an animal and will not let someone else feast on the meat; he found oil (the oil exploration began during Obote II government in 1985) and none will benefit from it except him, his family, relatives and friends. He has also said that a revolutionary cannot be chased out of the house like a chicken thief.

How Museveni is changing the face of Uganda

Museveni came to power with a hidden long term plan: to change Uganda’s human and natural landscape beyond recognition. The plan is embedded in his philosophy of metamorphosis which Ugandans interpreted wrongly to mean agricultural, industrial and technological revolution.

To divert attention while mobilizing mass support Museveni presented a carefully drafted and broadly supported ten-point program which won him support mostly in central and western regions. Museveni knew he would discard the program (as well as those who drafted it) because it did not fit into the neo-liberal ideological framework of market forces and laissez faire capitalism and the interests of those foreigners who funded, provided media and political cover during the guerrilla war.

However, because of pressure from some of his supporters, Museveni delayed implementation of structural adjustment until 1987. The minister of finance and governor of central bank and many others who opposed shock therapy adjustment were dismissed or marginalized. The period between 1987 and 1989 was devoted to winning over many other dissenting voices because the strong bitterness of adjustment had been tasted under Obote 11 regime between 1981 and 1983.

Museveni must be accountable for his government failures

Museveni behaves as though he does not understand the concept of accountability even though he grew up in an environment where accountability is very well understood. For example, in western Uganda culture – where Museveni comes from – when your cows destroy a neighbor’s garden when your son was tending them, it is the father who is accountable and pays the fine. Similarly when Museveni’s employees (national or foreign) make mistakes he should be accountable and accept the consequences. Instead Museveni blames others. But before coming to cases where Museveni and those who support him have blamed others, let us examine briefly why Museveni has done poorly with a view to drawing lessons for future leaders and whoever forms the next government after February 18, 2011 elections.

1. Museveni’s school performance through undergraduate studies was not bright. This can be deduced from his own writings and reports (subject to confirmation) that he obtained a pass at the university of Dar es Salaam. At that time a pass was like a certificate of attendance. He did not pursue graduate studies that introduce students to analytical tools and research methodology. So he has a deficit at the academic level. And he became president when the world economy had shifted from Keynesian to neoliberal ideology known as the Washington Consensus that requires a lot of adjustment from state to market forces and laissez-faire capitalism.

Uganda government is warned to move cautiously on birth control

The sudden upsurge of interest in birth control (family planning) in Uganda has coincided with the rising anti-immigration mood in the developed western world. When family planning began after World War II, there was fear that population in developing countries was growing faster than Europeans’. The main fear was that there would be competition for scarce resources and consumers in developed countries would be forced to scale down their lifestyles. They were not prepared for that. To avert this threat, developing countries had to reduce their population growth through contraception. To avoid controversy, the proponents of birth control came up with a ‘sugar-coated’ idea that contraception would ease the suffering of women who produce too many children in rapid succession. They also replaced the unpopular birth control terminology with family planning to disguise the fact that in the end population at couple and national levels would decline with adverse national security and economic development implications.