Globalization and re-colonization of Uganda

During the 2004 hearings by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, many African participants equated globalization with the re-colonization of Africa. Many Ugandans believe that Uganda which was never fully de-colonized has already been re-colonized since entering into structural adjustment with the IMF in 1981.

In order to appreciate that re-colonization has actually occurred, one needs to understand what the objectives of colonialism were. They were to secure a strategic advantage, evangelize the natives and obtain tropical raw materials and food for British industries and population respectively and land for surplus British population; and finally markets for manufactured products.

Britain, France, Germany and Belgium conflicted over the control of areas that eventually became Uganda. The agreement between Germany and Britain involving Heligoland is well known as is the Fashoda incident between Britain and France. The interests of White settlers in Kenya and Egypt’s reliance on the waters of the Nile affected the final shape and size of Uganda. Ultimately Uganda lost big chunks of land in the east and the north to Kenya and Sudan respectively. In the south and west of Uganda land was also exchanged among Germany, Belgium and Uganda. Uganda remains a battleground for old and new colonizers as a gateway to the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. During the cold war era, Uganda sat at the intersection between the ‘red’ and ‘blue’ belt states that contributed to the 1971 coup.

Museveni is turning Uganda into a country of lords and serfs

We shall continue to write and to speak until the skeptics and surrogates are converted. A former colleague of mine advised that when you tell the truth, you will always win – sometimes at a price. He didn’t elaborate on the latter part. I have read widely, travelled widely and seen a lot. I don’t like what is happening in Uganda and won’t let it continue in order to be a popular guy on the block. Some have advised me that I am throwing away political capital by going negative against Museveni, his ethnic group and his regime. What I am doing is not for me: it is for the people of Uganda in present and future generations. If I got a public office it would be used to advance the cause of the people of Uganda – all Ugandans.

Before proceeding, let me say a word about Batutsi people and me. Normally I don’t use people’s names without permission but since I am going to say positive things I think it is safe to do so. I have already mentioned the names of Batutsi people who helped me as I was growing up. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Batutsi have treated Bairu well since the two groups interacted from around 1800. Bairu were deprived of their wealth including pasture land and converted into food cultivators to feed their Batutsi/Bahororo masters and to provide free labor before and during colonial rule.

The worst electoral fraud in Uganda’s history

The presidential and parliamentary exercise that ended yesterday fell far short of expectations. It is unprecedented in Uganda’s elections since 1961. This was not an election in the true meaning of the word. Elections follow norms or standards with minor unintended irregularities here and there which can be excused. The whole electoral cycle was a fraud. The electoral commission chairman’s remarks that irregularities occur in young democracies should not be accepted. To facilitate debate, here are some illustrations of what went wrong throughout the electoral cycle.

1. The Electoral Commission was partial. Museveni refused to appoint an independent commission implying he planned to rig the election.

2. Inflated voter register was compiled by a partial electoral commission. In Museveni’s home area of Ntungamo district where his wife contested a parliamentary seat, there were more than 2 million registered voters. This is outrageous! Earlier warnings that the register in Ntungamo had been inflated were denied. In Kawempe a small residential area in Kampala City another outrageous voter figure of more than 1 million was recorded.

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.

Globalization and re-colonization of Uganda

During the 2004 hearings by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, many African participants equated globalization with the re-colonization of Africa. Many Ugandans believe that Uganda which was never fully de-colonized has already been re-colonized since entering into structural adjustment with the IMF in 1981.

In order to appreciate that re-colonization has actually occurred, one needs to understand what the objectives of colonialism were. They were to secure a strategic advantage, evangelize the natives and obtain tropical raw materials and food for British industries and population respectively and land for surplus British population; and finally markets for manufactured products.

Britain, France, Germany and Belgium conflicted over the control of areas that eventually became Uganda. The agreement between Germany and Britain involving Heligoland is well known as is the Fashoda incident between Britain and France. The interests of White settlers in Kenya and Egypt’s reliance on the waters of the Nile affected the final shape and size of Uganda. Ultimately Uganda lost big chunks of land in the east and the north to Kenya and Sudan respectively. In the south and west of Uganda land was also exchanged among Germany, Belgium and Uganda. Uganda remains a battleground for old and new colonizers as a gateway to the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. During the cold war era, Uganda sat at the intersection between the ‘red’ and ‘blue’ belt states that contributed to the 1971 coup.

Globalization and re-colonization of Uganda

During the 2004 hearings by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, many African participants equated globalization with the re-colonization of Africa. Many Ugandans believe that Uganda which was never fully de-colonized has already been re-colonized since entering into structural adjustment with the IMF in 1981.

In order to appreciate that re-colonization has actually occurred, one needs to understand what the objectives of colonialism were. They were to secure a strategic advantage, evangelize the natives and obtain tropical raw materials and food for British industries and population respectively and land for surplus British population; and finally markets for manufactured products.

Britain, France, Germany and Belgium conflicted over the control of areas that eventually became Uganda. The agreement between Germany and Britain involving Heligoland is well known as is the Fashoda incident between Britain and France. The interests of White settlers in Kenya and Egypt’s reliance on the waters of the Nile affected the final shape and size of Uganda. Ultimately Uganda lost big chunks of land in the east and the north to Kenya and Sudan respectively. In the south and west of Uganda land was also exchanged among Germany, Belgium and Uganda. Uganda remains a battleground for old and new colonizers as a gateway to the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa. During the cold war era, Uganda sat at the intersection between the ‘red’ and ‘blue’ belt states that contributed to the 1971 coup.

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.

Future Uganda government should avoid another costly experiment

Stabilization and structural adjustment programs began in 1980 largely in Latin America and Africa. Uganda and Ghana adopted them in 1981 and 1982 respectively. The ‘conditionalities’ were so stiff that governments in the two African countries expressed dissatisfaction because the human costs were very high.

In 1984 Ernest Stern, World Bank Vice-President wrote a candid report stressing that structural adjustment had failed Africa. “We … have failed in Africa, along with everyone else… we have not always designed our projects to fit the … conditions in Africa”(New African February 1993)”. Julian Samboma added that “But with their usual arrogance, the IMF/World Bank continued to force these self-same policies down Africa’s throat” (New African February 1993). In 1986 the government of Ghana officially declared that structural adjustment had failed in that country.

When NRM captured power in 1986 there was enough evidence that the shock therapy (comprehensive, simultaneous and rapid implementation) version of structural adjustment was not suitable. In fact the government hesitated to adopt any version (rapid or gradual) of structural adjustment. But when it finally did in 1987, the government went for the shock therapy form. It ignored the advice of those Ugandans at home and abroad who favored a gradual approach: some of them lost their jobs while others were sidelined.

How to avoid the failures of structural adjustment in the Dev plan

I have been a critic of Uganda’s economic policy since 1987 not to discredit the NRM government but to draw its attention to the empty half of the glass – particularly the social and environmental sectors that have been neglected. In designing and implementing stabilization and structural adjustment programs (SAPs), the government made four fundamental mistakes which should be avoided in the development plan.

First, the government opted for the extreme version – shock therapy – of structural adjustment calling for a comprehensive and simultaneous implementation of many elements like liberalization, privatization, retrenchment, export diversification and inflation control etc. Officials who recommended a gradual and sequenced approach to cushion the social and environmental impact of adjustment were dismissed or marginalized. The shock therapists believed very strongly in the pure theory of the invisible hand of market forces, private sector growth and trickle down mechanism. Accordingly the state had virtually no role in the economy. In the development plan, the government should avoid extreme version of state intervention.