Devastating wars in southwest Uganda

Since I joined Uganda politics I have been disturbed by the high propensity for war. It appears that Ugandans are eager to solve every problem through war. If you advocate peaceful means you are quickly called a coward. There are commentators who habitually dismiss peaceful change of regime in Uganda without explaining why war is a better alternative. You wonder whether these are saboteurs or genuine citizens. A large part of what we read and hear about Uganda is war mongering. There are Ugandans who are now getting ready to start war once the Syrian one is over because they believe it is Uganda’s turn. I believe war should be resorted to in self-defense. We therefore need Plan A (peaceful change of regime) and Plan B (military means for self-defense). Preparation for both should take place concurrently.

Second appearance to Ugandans on Radio Munansi – Kashambuzi

Fellow Ugandans and friends

1. There is no doubt that we had a fruitful discussion yesterday. It was substantive, participatory and action-oriented and I learned a lot. I hope we shall maintain this momentum and spirit after the elections.

2. At the end of the debate yesterday someone contacted me and suggested that since my complaint was about Uganda policies, I should address the NRM government and not Museveni. I responded that in Uganda there is no government as such. Museveni is the government and the government is Museveni. Therefore it is appropriate to use Museveni as our point of reference.

3. Let me summarize and amplify a bit what I said yesterday in my native language for those who did not understand since this was my first oral communication with Ugandans and our friends in Uganda and abroad.

4. We must all understand as clearly stated in Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.

The second African star has fallen

On April 19, 2010, President Museveni launched a five-year development plan in Uganda with a focus, inter alia, on full employment and state intervention, reminiscent of Keynesian economic model which drove the post world war economic boom until the second half of the 1970s when a combination of stagnant economic growth, rising unemployment and inflation (stagflation) rendered the model irrelevant. It was replaced by the Washington Consensus or stabilization and structural adjustment programs (SAPs). Unlike the Keynesian model which focused on creating jobs and promoting state participation in the economy, the Washington Consensus focused, inter alia, on macroeconomic stability through inflation control and private sector participation in the economy as the engine of growth under the guidance of the invisible hand of the market forces and a trickle down mechanism.

In Africa Ghana was among the first countries to embrace the Washington Consensus. A combination of factors which included excess capacity, the return of Ghanaians from Nigeria that boosted the numbers of cheap labor, generous donations, good weather including adequate rainfall, favorable trade conditions, guidance from the IMF, the World Bank and prominent international development economists as well as a committed government under the leadership of Jerry Rawlings, Ghana registered rapid economic growth and per capita GDP. It became a “star performer and success story” to be emulated by other developing countries.

Population explosion: Africa is sitting on a time bomb

A response

Mr. Peter Mulira – a lawyer by profession – has written an article on Africa’s demography with the above title which appeared in New Vision (Uganda) March 31, 2010.

I would like to offer the following observations.

First, Africa’s fertility is declining albeit slowly thus lessening the scare of a ‘population bomb’ – an expression that entered the demographic discourse in the 1960s.

Second, Africa has the potential to feed many more people than it has right now given its arable land, water supplies (surface and underground) and idle labor force. The problem is that much of the food is wasted through storage, transport and processing constraints and much of the balance is exported to earn foreign currency as required under the Washington Consensus, thus leaving little for domestic consumption – pushing up prices which many households cannot afford. At the same time Africa’s agricultural productivity is very low.

Third, instead of addressing these shortcomings, a new idea has developed: Africans are being urged to sell or lease land to foreign countries and/or companies to produce food to feed people in their home countries – an arrangement if implemented will reduce food supplies in African domestic markets. The case of Madagascar is too well known to be repeated here. The reduction of food availability to African consumers will then be erroneously interpreted as population growing faster than food supplies.