ERIC KASHAMBUZI

We have a president who came to power in 1986 advocating what Ugandans wanted to hear and he said it all loud and clear. He said that under his brief administration (because he had more important things to do at community and Pan-African levels) he would end the suffering of all Ugandans children included. In his eagerness to drive the point home, he blamed all previous regimes for failure to take good care of the people of Uganda. The welfare of children was a recurrent theme in his speeches as was the empowerment of women including through reduction in maternal mortality. One of the themes he stressed with implications on children was food and nutrition security. He talked clearly about balancing agricultural production for domestic consumption and export markets. Museveni knew that all parents regardless of their status want good education and health for their children. And he knew that they know that children need to feed adequately in order to study well and stay healthy. So when Museveni talked about the welfare of children including good education, healthcare, decent shelter and clothing including shoes and food and nutrition security he endeared himself to the people of Uganda particularly women who take care of children most of the time.

As a student of demography (population) I was taught the importance of nutrition in human welfare. The role of balanced, safe and adequate diet was stressed especially for children, pregnant women and lactating mothers as an important step in human capital formation. This training reinforced what we had been taught about nutrition and health science in secondary schools and teaching by Mother’s Union leaders. Even dictators like Pinochet of Chile recognized the importance of nutrition and allocated funds to provide food to children, pregnant women and lactating mothers. I have since then attached special importance to food and nutrition security in development. Consequently, I have undertaken research and written extensively on food and nutrition in Uganda and elsewhere. In Uganda the findings show that previous administrations except during the unique 1971 – 1985 period did better that what has been done under NRM administration, notwithstanding the latter’s condemnation of all previous governments’ poor performance.

A lot has been written and said about me directly and indirectly. Given my frank involvement in Uganda’s political economy discourse, it would have been unusual for my views to remain unchallenged. I have already informed readers what triggered my interest in research and writing about Uganda in the context of the Great Lakes region. I began research in the early 1970s and my first book was published in 1997. In doing so I was guided by my faith to tell the truth and be on the side of voiceless, powerless and vulnerable people. In order to empower the voiceless, one has to understand why they are voiceless in the first place. That is why I spent many years doing research using primary and secondary sources. I obtained invaluable information through personal contacts, at times travelling by bus many times between Kampala and Rukungiri. I have done my research in a historical context, not from 1986 when NRM government came to power as some commentators have implied. I have given credit where it is due and criticized where it is the right thing to do. I have credited and criticized administrations in Uganda especially British, UPC and NRM. My belief is that to solve a problem you have got to get to the root cause and the agent that caused it otherwise you will treat symptoms and you will never get the work done satisfactorily. As a result of frank and manner of presentation of research findings some people have labeled me radical, assertive, sectarian and impatient. Let me explain what each one of these words mean from my perspective and why I feel the way I do.

There is consensus that Uganda is in real trouble – politically, economically, socially, morally and ecologically. These are challenges that Museveni and NRM set out to solve and they appeared to have confidence to do that. Instead Uganda has turned into a failed state on their watch and has disappeared from the global radar of success stories. Before recommending a solution, we need to understand why Museveni has not succeeded in managing the affairs of Uganda. Here are some of the reasons.

First, Museveni came to power without work experience. Until he became president in 1986, Museveni had never worked in public or private sector except for a brief period in Obote’s office as a research assistant working on an assignment that appeared to be connected with refugees. According to information on the back cover of his book “Consolidating the Revolution (1990)”, Museveni studied political science graduating with a BA in 1970 from Dar es Salaam University. Museveni devoted most of his time undergoing guerrilla training and reading theories about revolution and development. Theoretically Museveni has a good grasp as reflected in his speeches. But converting theories into development has turned out to be harder for him than preparing rhetorical speeches with outstanding sound bites. This has been aggravated by recruiting many of his advisers with theoretical background from universities or straight from the bush war. Furthermore most of his foreign advisers and experts in key ministries are theoreticians with little or no practical experience. So Museveni has continued to be fed on theories. And when you hear him talking, you get the impression that he is advising the government of Uganda on what to do. It appears that he has never considered himself to be the Chief Manager of Uganda’s economy to be held accountable when things go wrong. That is why he blames ministers and civil servants or external factors. He needs to accept responsibility as head of state and government of Uganda and adapt his approach to the development needs. But with 26 years in power, it may be difficult for Museveni to change. Rarely do revolutions come from within.

Let me start with this statement by way of clearing the air. Some have raised questions, even written to me, about my motive for writing so much in so short a time: who is behind it, who are my research assistants and who is funding it? Some have even suggested that I am driven by a desire to unseat NRM government and President Museveni in particular; that I am too radical, too assertive, too sectarian.

Let me make it very clear and hopefully for the last time. Because I was uncomfortable with the way geography, economics, population and history were taught in senior secondary school and at the undergraduate university level – because what they taught did not match the situation on the ground where I was born and raised in southwest Uganda – I decided very early that I was going to study in a multidisciplinary fashion and do multidisciplinary research in order to understand the interconnections and correct distortions in those subjects. It is therefore not by accident that I studied geography, demography (population), economics, international law, international relations, sustainable development and world history. And because I did not want to be influenced by anybody in one way or another, I never asked for or accepted sponsorship, or mentor or research assistance. So I have worked alone to this point.

I began serious research work in the early 1970s and used my own resources to set up a library and pay for publication of my ten books. My work has focused on the Great Lakes Region because I realized that you cannot study Uganda meaningfully outside that framework. My research and writing have been of a historical nature going as far back as possible. In all my work I have tried as much as is humanly possible to be factual – or to put it slightly differently – to tell the truth. The overall motive has been and still is to share information about what I have learned, at times covering areas that are taboo with all the risks and other implications. Policy makers need to have correct information and I have tried to make a modest contribution in that regard. In this connection, I have contributed to Ugandans free of charge several hundred copies of my books. The future will take care of itself.

The popularity of NRM among Ugandans at home and abroad including many in NRM itself has sunk to the lowest level. The uncaring attitude of NRM to the suffering of Ugandans particularly women and children especially during the current economic hard times so soon after NRM was re-elected for another five-year term has driven the point home that Museveni – who is the de facto government of Uganda – does not care about Ugandans. He only uses them in pursuit of his imperial ambitions including changing the demographic composition of Uganda by increasing immigrants, ultimately turning indigenous population into a minority in their own country.

Shortage of government revenue is not the reason why Museveni is not easing the suffering of Ugandans. There is enough government revenue but Museveni has chosen to use it for patronage – to corrupt key Ugandans and strengthen security forces to intimidate, spy, arrest, torture, imprison and worse so he stays in power for life. If he can find money for MPs high salaries and for purchasing very expensive vehicles why can’t he find token money to subsidize school lunch as agreed by African Unity so that children stay at school and complete their studies? He has chosen to shower MPs with good salaries, vehicles etc because he wants to use them to pass unpopular bills. Museveni thinks that giving Ugandans education or helping them develop their land will improve their economic and social welfare, leading to demands for political freedom. To prevent that from happening Museveni has chosen to keep Ugandans illiterate, landless, unemployed, hungry and sick so they remain voiceless and powerless politically. But if Museveni has studied history carefully – which he claims he has – and understood its lessons, he must surely have learned that when hungry people become angry as well they can be dangerous and do anything including toppling a government that is unpopular however well supported by MPs and security forces. The Shah and Marcos had both but were swept out of power through civil resistance. The people of Uganda are angry and NRM is deeply divided. So the conditions for unseating the NRM system are in place. What is required to finish the job is to fulfill the following four simple conditions if there is sufficient will which were fulfilled by opposition groups in Iran, Philippines, Soviet Union and South Africa before unseating unpopular governments in their respective countries.

We are writing these stories not because we are driven by radicalism or assertiveness as some people have suggested but because we want to save a bad situation from getting worse. For those who care to know two worrying developments are taking place in Uganda – land grabbing by foreigners and inferior education for indigenous population. These developments are reminiscent of the recently ended apartheid system in South Africa where the indigenous black population lost most of the land to the minority white population and got inferior education. It took almost one hundred years of struggle, abandoning education, loss of lives and long term prison sentences from 1912 to end this unjust system but the effects are still being felt. Let us examine the land issue as it relates to Uganda.

When we were growing up in poor families in southwest Uganda we were told again and again that our future was in education and not in tilling the land, a profession left for those who failed at school. To drive the point home we were punished at home and at school for whatever wrongdoing by doing agriculture work in school or family gardens. So Ugandans developed a dislike for agriculture and by extension land ownership. Educated people distanced themselves from rural areas and most would not even think of investing a small portion of their income in agriculture or rural development. Village life was something to be avoided.

Uganda has been described as a failed state under a military dictatorship disguised as democratic. Many of those supporting the NRM government publicly have misgivings when contacted privately. The question that has occupied center stage in discussions about the future of Uganda is what should be done to turn the country around before it is too late. Five ideas have been proposed.

First, there are those who are still committed to NRM for whatever reason and want it to stay. They are suggesting that pressure should be applied to NRM leadership to make the necessary changes and reverse the current failed trajectory. But the changes they are suggesting such as restoration of presidential term limits, ending corruption, sectarianism and mismanagement, formation of an independent electoral commission, limiting advantages of incumbency, restoration of independence of the judiciary and keeping the military out of politics will ensure defeat of NRM at the next elections. NRM is not a popular party and it is these malpractices that have kept it in power. In free and fair elections NRM cannot win. Therefore NRM is unlikely to go along with this advice. NRM has become like a very sick person that cannot work anymore and has to be retired. In other words NRM does not have the will and capacity under fundamentally changed economic circumstances – from neo-liberalism to public-private partnership – to turn the country around. If allowed to stay in power, NRM, crippled with all sorts of problems, will only make matters worse and the damage will be more costly down the road.

We are writing these stories, incredible or controversial as they may be, for the sole purpose of finding a lasting solution to Uganda’s daunting challenges so that all Ugandans have peace and stability in which to create wealth and enjoy happiness. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the history of Uganda and philosophy of our leaders. Those who reason that going into history is unnecessary or counterproductive and we should therefore forget about it and move on forget that the past impacts the present in significant ways. There are also those who argue that we should not focus on one leader but the institution. They too forget that history is full of examples of one man rule who decides what to do and how to do it and the rest just toe the line or get sidelined or fired or worse if they don’t. Therefore understanding Uganda’s problems begs a comprehensive analysis of its history and the philosophy of its leaders. Failure to understand Amin as a man of split personality with a brutal past and medical problem resulted in some 300,000 loss of lives in the 1970s.

Studying or reporting about President Yoweri Museveni has been made very difficult by a set of circumstances. He came to power at a time when Uganda was going through difficult political economy times and Ugandans wanted anybody that could turn the country around. So Museveni took advantage of that and made decisions that would have been strongly opposed. He also had strong backing of western powers and reporters that showered him with praises such as an intellectual who picked up the gun to save his country, a bold leader who is not afraid of taking risks and who does not tolerate dissent and a knowledgeable individual who understands everything including history, geography and in particular the military. For these reasons he was christened darling of the west who regularly attended annual G8 Summits (club of the eight most powerful industrialized countries in the world), dean of a new breed of African leaders in favor of democracy, presidential time limits, private sector development and market forces as engines of economic growth and equitable distribution of benefits, and a peacemaker in the Great Lakes region.

The National Resistance Movement (NRM) came to power with domestic and external sponsors (those who fund and champion its cause) and gained supporters (those who are won over). The original sponsors and supporters of NRM inside Uganda had suffered political losses under Obote’s government – Catholics had lost elections twice to UPC and Buganda had lost the kingdom and ‘Lost counties’ referendum. Those who sponsored and supported NRM outside Uganda did not trust Obote despite his pledge to introduce capitalism under structural adjustment. They believed he was still a socialist and could not be trusted. The common characteristic is that those against Obote and UPC were in a hurry and could not wait for the next elections in 1985 or 1986 to defeat UPC that won the 1980 elections. They chose a military option for quicker results. Various guerrilla groups were formed, some of them merged into the NRM. NRM captured power in 1986 exactly five years when elections were due. So the results were not quicker but were clearly very destructive of lives, property and infrastructure and many deficits still remain unresolved.

The leadership of NRM comprised people who had lost to Obote and his party. The National Resistance Movement chairman was the late Yusufu Lule who served as post-Amin president for only 68 days. He was removed by the National Consultative Council (NCC) members many of them supporters of Obote and UPC. Museveni whose party won one seat in parliament in 1980 elections and Museveni himself lost a parliamentary seat in his home constituency became vice chairman. Besides vice chairman of NRM, Museveni also became commander of NRM’s guerrilla wing – National Resistance Army (NRA). Museveni was given these important responsibilities when his background and history were barely known. His birth place has remained a mystery to this day in 2012. He did not have a public or private experience to judge him by except in military training. This is an important lesson in choosing future leaders.