Birth Control has a long history

By popular demand we shall continue the discussion on birth control in Uganda that we began last Sunday, January 27. Let me begin by restating that having children: how many, when and how to space them is a human right which must be exercised voluntarily. Anything done otherwise is a violation of that right.

Throughout human history, couples have controlled their reproduction behavior for various reasons on a voluntary basis or through coercion. For example, ancient Greeks kept their families small through abortion or women taking drinks that brought on violent vomiting and subsequent miscarriages. Others exercised vigorously through repeated jumping that terminated unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.

On the other hand, ancient Romans preferred large families. Even so they exercised birth control as well especially by women who married early. The first recorded use of contraceptives occurred in ancient Egypt (Reader’s Digest. How Was It Done? 1995).

Even in Uganda some couples decided and still do on their own about how many children they wish to have, when and how to space them. For example, longer periods of breast feeding coupled with prohibition of sexual relations during this period delayed pregnancy.

Let 2013 be a year of action, peace, security and happiness

Press statement

Death of women: By and large, 2012 is a year many Ugandans would wish to erase from their memories. It ended on a very sad note with a 24 year old Member of Parliament losing her life in mysterious circumstances and a pregnant woman dying in child birth at Mulago Hospital because she didn’t bribe the medical staff. The international community was shocked at these tragedies that have dented NRM government image nationally, regionally and internationally.

UDU has begun using its networks to make sure that these departed two women did not die in vain. We call on others at home and abroad to protest so that these shameful deaths are not repeated. We call particularly on women and parliamentarians around the world to take action and ensure justice is served. Those responsible must be held accountable. In Uganda none is above the law.

Comments on Uganda’s Jubilee Speech

On October 9, 2012, in a seven page speech delivered from Kololo airstrip, President Museveni who has been in power for more than half of fifty years of Uganda’s independence addressed the nation and the world. The first two pages of the speech were devoted to protocol requirements and listing invited dignitaries within and without Uganda. The third and part of the fourth pages were devoted to the list of ten strategic bottlenecks inherited at independence in 1962. Before making comments on the speech item by item, let me remark on three things.

First, because there was no agreement on the head of state at the time of independence, the Queen of the United Kingdom remained head of state represented in Uganda by the Governor-General. H. E. the late Mutes II became ceremonial president in 1963, not in 1962.

Second, since 1987 Uganda has been the darling of the west and has received generous donations in financial and technical assistance on a regular – not erratic – basis, at times receiving more assistance than the absorptive capacity. Development partners should therefore be congratulated for that generosity, although there isn’t much to show for it.

Comments on Uganda’s National Agricultural Policy

Dear Gen. Caleb Akandwanaho

I have read the final draft dated December 31, 2011 prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. You sent this document to me among others for comment through Ugandans at Heart Forum. I will make comments of a general nature at this stage. At a later stage I will make comments paragraph by paragraph. Let me start with the good news.

First, there is a wealth of information on this sector prepared since NRM came to power in 1986. The information is contained among other documents in publications by the World Bank; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO); Modernization of agriculture; Jossy Bibangambah; Eric Kashambuzi; and UDU’s National Recovery Plan (NRP) which was transmitted to the government through the ministry of Foreign affairs and numerous articles including one by Kashambuzi which was published in the New Vision in August 2011. These publications have adequately identified successes, challenges, processes and expected outcomes.

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.

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.

Uganda: Let us mean what we say about national unity

We have heard calls for national unity for a very long time. Yet national unity has not been realized. If anything national division has become the norm witness the division of Uganda from 18 districts at one time to over 100 districts today operating virtually as independent entities. One day you hear some commentators on radio or in private conversation claiming they belong to their tribe or region first and the next day they preach Uganda first.

National unity should be preached out of conviction, not out of convenience. There is enough evidence that “unity of convenience” to solve immediate problems has caused medium and long term troubles, some of them very serious. We should constantly remind ourselves of these experiences in order to do better. Elections for whatever office, assignments and promotions should be based on merit, on what individuals have accomplished and what they can offer to Uganda not on empty promises or who they are or where they come from or what faith they follow or their age or their gender.

Spontaneous revolts don’t wait for police permits

When Uganda’s Inspector General of Police Major General Kale Kayihura talks about receiving advance information from leaders about planned demonstrations, the date, venue and the numbers expected, he has in mind an ordinary demonstration regarding say a complaint about frequent floods in the capital city of Kampala. This kind of demonstration is not a revolt to change government.

What Ugandans have in mind are revolts similar to what happened during the peasants’ revolts in medieval Europe, French Revolution etc to change the regime or score major points except that we plan to do it peacefully and democratically through demonstrations.

In time and space, revolts and revolutions represent deep-seated and long-held grievances like poverty, unemployment and hunger as well as elections rigging as in Uganda since 1980. Ugandans have been frustrated for a long time and are very angry. They want to stop Museveni who has brought untold suffering from continuing as leader of Uganda after the messy elections.

What Ugandans are waiting for is a spark and this cannot be predicted in terms of date, venue or leaders. It could happen any time and possibly without leaders. Therefore there won’t be time to apply for police permits. Museveni did not get a police permit before he entered Luwero in 1981. So why does he demand one when we know he won’t give it.

Uganda is ripe for a Glorious Revolution

Revolutions occur when the people (ruled) or their representatives demand basic changes in their governance relationships with the rulers. Revolutions can be bloodless like the Glorious (peaceful) Revolution of 1688 in England or bloody like the French Revolution of 1789-1799. Revolutions reflect deep-seated and long-held grievances by the public against their leaders. Revolutions occur when these grievances reach a boiling point. Has Uganda reached that point?

Before examining conditions for a revolution in Uganda let us quickly review conditions and steps taken in England and France to effect fundamental changes – Revolutions – in the relations between the rulers and the ruled.

In England, conditions that led to the revolution of 1688 started with James I who had been king of Scotland. He became king of England in 1603 following the death of Queen Elizabeth I from the Tudor family. James was a member of the Stuart family. The Stuart kings (James I, Charles I, Charles II and James II) ruled England from 1603 to 1689. Parliament conflicted with Stuart kings, fought them and limited their powers for many reasons including the fact that James I had been king of Scotland and therefore a foreigner as king of England.

Let us make Uganda a country of laws, not dictators

When I was growing up, we had unwritten rules, regulations and procedures at family and community levels (I am not talking about the rulers and the ruled because that is a totally different story). Nobody was above them. They were designed to ensure justice and equality, maintain law and order and respect for private property. Everyone had dignity within that community. Individuals and groups had responsibilities. For example, among children, the older one was obliged to take care of the young ones. Preference was especially given to weak or sick members. We did not take advantage of them.

Stealing or possessing something that was not yours was strictly forbidden. For example, when you picked up some money or handkerchief you would take it to the priest who would announce lost and found items on Sunday. People who swindled others would not get away with it.

There were procedures for sharing information and resolving disputes to avoid rule of the jungle. The most important instrument was sharing information. If a neighbor found your child doing something inappropriate, parents would be notified to take corrective steps. If a child stayed with friends or relatives, parents or relatives would be notified. Disappearance of children was unheard of!