Religious leaders and call to justice in Uganda

It is now recognized that to bring about justice or fairness in Uganda will require inclusiveness, full participation, solidarity and compassion. In other words it means involvement of all sections of society: religious and traditional leaders, political and civil society leaders, security forces, youth, students and women. Religious leaders in Uganda have a special responsibility to end injustice because they interact directly or through networks with the population and appreciate its suffering better than most observers and are therefore in a position to recommend appropriate and location specific short and long term action-oriented solutions. The Christmas sermons in 2011 were very powerful in this regard. You need to build on that solid foundation in 2012. To facilitate your work and remove some possible obstacles in relations between religion and politics let us review in a historical perspective the work of religious leaders and theologians to end injustice.

Uganda is waiting for the voice of religious leaders

History shows that religious leaders step forward as representatives of voiceless people when political, economic and social conditions become hard. Parish priests who live and work among the people understand their suffering very well. The priests of Uganda are no exception. During the Christmas sermons in 2011, religious leaders throughout the nation spoke out against the suffering of the majority of their flocks. They pledged to speak out in the following years until human conditions improved. The public welcomed this resolution and is waiting to hear their voices that haven’t been loud enough thus far.

During medieval Europe, there was much suffering of serfs or peasants. Priests led in the struggle to liberate them. Priest John Ball together with peasant Wat Tyler led the English peasant revolt in 1381. The authorities were forced to cancel the poll tax.

During the colonization of Latin America, there was too much suffering of indigenous people. Priest de Las Casas stepped forward and protested on their behalf. During the French Revolution parish priest Abe Sieyes wrote and spoke on behalf of the Third Estate that represented the commoners who had been exploited and blocked in their efforts to progress for a long time. In Russia priest Gapon led the suffering urban population in St Petersburg into a protest demanding improvements in their condition.

Leaders must be loved, not feared

In Uganda as elsewhere leaders must be loved, not feared. Security forces in Uganda must be loved, not feared. When Ugandans are afraid of something they should run to police stations or army barracks for protection, not run away. Employers must be loved, not feared by their employees. Leaders in administration and police and military must protect the people, not scare and/or hurt them. They must cultivate a culture of peace and love, not of intimidation, torture and murder.

Conditions must be created where all people irrespective of their professions live and work together in peace and security. A maid should love, not fear her boss. A gardener should love, not fear his employer. The rule of law must work, not the rule of the gun and torture houses. The people of Uganda are tired of living in constant fear at home and abroad. Ugandans are afraid of one another even relatives because you don’t know what murder weapon the other is carrying. The people of Uganda are tired of being insulted by NRM surrogates or those scared of the wrong things they have done and are being discovered who use fake names. The people of Uganda are tired of mercenaries that torture and murder Ugandans and disappear with impunity when they can’t do it anymore. Nobody can tolerate living under these conditions indefinitely. If NRM is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens then someone else should do it.

The danger of picking a compromise candidate as leader

Ugandans are in the process of identifying a new breed of leaders that hopefully will arrest Uganda’s shameful decline which is no longer a debatable issue. NRM has been a big disappointment to Ugandans and development partners. And staying in power too long has made matters worse. Guns have failed to produce right leaders for Uganda so has money.

Leadership has to be earned through hard work on the right things, not through rhetoric or picking non-controversial subjects so as not to lose popularity. Hard work on military training and experience hasn’t produced good leaders for Uganda. We should drop the idea of picking another military leader. Soldiers are not trained to handle civilian populations especially in circumstances where law and order, separation of powers and checks and balances don’t exist. They run the country like the military where instructions – right or wrong – are followed without question. That is why Museveni’s unquestioned vision for Uganda which was basically hot air has driven the country backwards. This is a fact as evidenced by re-emergence of diseases that had disappeared. Look at maternal mortality which is rising and some hospital wards that have turned into hospices! When we comment correctly like this on Museveni failed policies we are branded controversial or sectarian, unfit for leadership.

Getting to know Uganda leaders better

Individuals, families, communities and nations that succeed are the ones that learn from their past, make the necessary adjustments which are updated as and when necessary to stay on top of developments. Those that remain rigid more often than not run into difficulties. The Stuarts of England, the Bourbons of France and the Romanovs of Russia disappeared because they were unable to adjust to changing circumstances. They wanted others to adjust to their demands. For example, the French high clergy and nobility refused to pay taxes when the country needed revenue badly to settle its debts. They wanted the commoners to pay more. France had a good man but a poor king in Louis XVI who could not take decisions. He became king by accident of birth, not on merit.

Uganda has failed because of lack of tested leaders

Uganda has everything except good, dedicated, tested and patriotic leaders. When someone suddenly jumps out of a ‘corn field’ onto a political stage and then quickly becomes head of state chances are that that country will experience tremendous difficulties.

Look at Uganda since independence in 1962. Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and Kabaka-Yekka (KY) political parties were formed virtually on the eve of independence, allowing no time to test the leaders. The UPC/KY alliance was a marriage of convenience – not of conviction to unite and lead Uganda to greatness. The alliance was hurriedly put together for the sole purpose of preventing Democratic Party (DP) from forming a government at independence. In this rush thorny issues like the head of state and ‘lost counties’ which could have prevented formation of a UPC/KY alliance were not resolved before independence. The rush gave us a complex constitution with serious repercussions. What happened after independence did not surprise those who followed the negotiations in London or who knew the ideological differences between UPC and KY leaders. We ended up with 1966 catastrophe, a pigeon-hole constitution and Amin in 1971.

UDU condemns arrest and detention of Uganda political leaders

Press release

United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) condemns in the strongest terms the arrest of Uganda’s political leaders for expressing their opinions. Ugandans like other citizens of the world have a right to assemble and express their opinions freely without intimidation, harassment, arrest and detention. These rights and freedoms are enshrined in national, regional and international legal instruments.

The arrest of Ugandans for expressing their views is frustrating efforts by all concerned to resolve disputes and conduct reforms by peaceful means. It must be understood that no amount of violation will force Ugandans to abandon the struggle for liberty, justice, equality and dignity.

We call on Uganda authorities to release those arrested and detained without further delay. We also call on the international community to take concrete actions to demonstrate their concern over the gross abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Uganda.

Eric Kashambuzi

Secretary-General, UDU

Leaders’ performance depends on their intentions

In the last two articles I have contrasted General Museveni’s performance with South Korea’s General Park and Vietnam military leadership. South Korea and Vietnam have done well under their military leaders whereas Uganda has done very poorly under the military leadership of General Museveni.

I have concluded that it is leadership – not resource endowments, external factors or “Acts of God” – that makes the difference in development. In this message, I will go a step further to show with reference to General Park and General Museveni that it is leaders’ intentions or what they plan to achieve that define their performance and determine outcomes.

I am making this contribution so that Ugandans and our friends understand why Museveni despite his rhetoric to modernize Uganda, has produced opposite outcomes which he is not attempting to correct because they fit into his intentions.

Uganda is not progressing but regressing. Uganda is a failed state wherever you turn and is drifting towards a fourth world status.

How else do you explain the reemergence of diseases that had long disappeared? How else do you explain rising maternal mortality and insanity due to food insecurity and stress and how else do you explain rapid economic growth reaching 10 percent in the mid-1990s coexisting with two-thirds of Ugandans trapped in absolute poverty, etc?

Uganda has failed because of lack of tested leaders

Uganda has everything except good, dedicated, tested and patriotic leaders. When someone suddenly jumps out of a ‘corn field’ onto a political stage and then quickly becomes head of state chances are that that country will experience tremendous difficulties.

Look at Uganda since independence in 1962. Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) and Kabaka-Yekka (KY) political parties were formed virtually on the eve of independence, allowing no time to test the leaders. The UPC/KY alliance was a marriage of convenience – not of conviction to unite and lead Uganda to greatness. The alliance was hurriedly put together for the sole purpose of preventing Democratic Party (DP) from forming a government at independence. In this rush thorny issues like the head of state and ‘lost counties’ which could have prevented formation of a UPC/KY alliance were not resolved before independence. The rush gave us a complex constitution with serious repercussions. What happened after independence did not surprise those who followed the negotiations in London or who knew the ideological differences between UPC and KY leaders. We ended up with 1966 catastrophe, a pigeon-hole constitution and Amin in 1971.

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.