What happened to Uganda historians?

In many countries, history or civics is a compulsory subject in schools. The idea is that students should know where their ancestors came from, how they have interacted with others over time and how they are governed.

Because Africa was considered a “Dark Continent” at the time of colonization, Europeans assumed it had no history and darkness was not a subject of history. Thus during colonial days, we were taught the history of European explorers and missionaries in Africa. The little Uganda history we were taught was about kings and their royal courts because first colonial and missionary officials came from aristocratic families in Europe and were not interested in peasant or commoners history. The first batch of Uganda historians was either from royal families or connected with the royal court. So for some years after independence, Ugandans continued to be taught the history of royal courts and British work in Uganda.

A new breed of historians emerged after independence led by Prof. B. A. Ogot, Kenyan mathematician turned historian who taught me in Nairobi. They began research into the history of Africans which led “to abandon certain formerly accepted terms and to introduce others”. Uganda historians began to write a new history of Uganda about who Ugandans are, where they came from and where they live and how they have interacted with one another.

Uganda’s state house needs a new occupant

I began thinking seriously about the potential and challenges of Uganda’s development early in my life. I decided then that whatever I did for a living, I would make room for research and writing on Uganda’s political economy. I have so far written ten books and created a blog www.kashambuzi.com. I also decided very early against a single sector education because knowledge cannot be compartmentalized. I therefore adopted a horizontal approach and studied geography, economics, demography, international law and international relations/diplomacy, sustainable development and history with a focus on how they interconnect with one another. Not least, I have developed a dialectical approach in research, writing and commenting on other writers’ work, meaning that I focus on those dimensions that are omitted to give a balanced picture and enable readers to make informed decisions. For example, when I read an article about a glass half full, I comment on missing dimensions. Put differently, I go for the glass that is half empty and vice versa.

“A new colonialism: Europe must go back into Africa”

There have been suggestions that Europe must go back into Africa to put the continent back on track. Despite independence Europe never left Africa. It’s like governors went on indefinite vacation leaving behind Africans acting as Officers-in-Charge (oic). Through these oics, Europe has continued to exert tremendous influence (perhaps more than if Europeans were in direct control) in many ways that have contributed to the many political economy challenges Africa faces.

For some African countries, their relationship with Europe after so-called independence can be compared to relations between a department chief who before going on mission or vacation instructs his/her designated officer-in- charge (oic) to implement the chief’s decisions, and have the chief clear all outgoing correspondence before they go out under the signature of the oic. There are many instances when correspondence is drafted by the chief and signed by the oic. Many are deceived that the oic is in full control of the department and acts independently in the absence of the chief. Similarly in some African countries policies come from Europe or the international institutions they control although they bear the signature of the African head of state or head of department concerned. This has been particularly the case since the 1980s when stabilization and structural adjustment programs (SAPs) or the Washington Consensus were launched.

A Christian country governed through the barrel of the gun

Uganda is overwhelmingly a Christian country of Protestants and Catholics. One would expect that in such a God-loving and God-fearing country, people would not use force against one to resolve disagreements or answer questions. Rather one would expect people to treat one another as they would like to be treated. One would also expect the rich to help the poor, the healthy the sick and the strong the weak. That is what we were taught in our faiths. Sadly the practice has been different since the founding of Uganda as a nation.

Ugandans did not and still do not understand Museveni’s motive

From grade five through eight I walked to school through a homestead that had vicious dogs. As there was no diversion, I had to face them every day – early mornings and late evenings – when they were unleashed. My grandmother advised me that when moving in the northerly direction, I should throw a stone in the southerly direction, and vice versa, to attract the dogs there. I would be gone by the time they realized it was a hoax. Her advice worked.

Similarly, Museveni has engaged Ugandans in diversions. Right from the start he knew what he wanted to do – to create a Tutsi Empire or something close to it such as the East African Federation. He prepared Ugandans and increasingly east and central Africans to look elsewhere – at the benefits of East African community and population mobility etc. Museveni also knew how to get there – build a strong army led by relatives, bring Baganda, Catholics and foreigners into the fold and use them against Obote whom he painted as a common enemy, and marginalize the rest. Let us trace Museveni’s plan step by step.

Launching Uganda’s development plan raises fundamental questions

The NRM government has decided to launch a development plan in April 2010 which is a fundamental departure from the Washington Consensus or stabilization and structural adjustment program (SAP) that was launched in 1987 and has been praised by the government and donors – state and non-state actors alike – as a “success story” in macroeconomic stability, rapid economic growth, privatization of the economy, diversification of exports, streamlining public service and reducing poverty etc. Uganda became the darling of the west – which occasionally gave more money than the government had requested – and an example of economic development to be emulated by other developing countries wishing to transform their economies and societies.

Until now the government has been publishing statistics showing rosy achievements and projections that promised better days ahead with endorsement by some donors like the International Monetary Fund. The launching of the development plan – the use of the term “new plan” gives an impression that it is replacing an “old plan” which did not exist – at this critical juncture raises the following initial questions that need to be answered.

First, instead of a whole new development ideology embodied in the development plan, why did the government not make substantial changes and retain the current program?

A new revolution for Africa

Countries that have developed into mature societies characterized by economic and social progress and exercise their human rights including the right to elect their representatives freely and hold them accountable went though difficult times: recall the Glorious, the American and the French Revolutions. The people in these countries made huge sacrifices in human lives and property. They were laying a solid foundation for their future generations. They faced many obstacles but worked hard to overcome them – and they did overcome them.

In Africa, the political struggle for independence was hardest in countries with settler communities. Recall the experiences of Algeria, Angola, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. One of the reasons that Belgium – which never thought Congolese would become independent – granted independence so readily in the wake of the 1959 bloody riots in Leopoldville is because it did not want to get dragged into the Algerian-type situation. Those of us who witnessed the struggle at close range in some of these countries, it was very tough but worth it.