ugnet_: Part three

[Mulindwa Edward]

Judging our political history Thirdly, therefore, to say or even imagine that the nascent political movements and parties; the UNC, UPC, UNM, DP, KY etc, knew what democratic parliamentary processes and opposition was, leave alone good governance, is a very dangerous and misleading assumption. Misleading in that our young people would believe that whatever bad things that happened since then was by deliberate commission with ill intentions. This would give un-researched and unsubstantiated prejudgment of our leaders in our short history. I have often given thought to the tragic Lubiri incident and it's bearing on Uganda politics today. Now that we can discuss it as a fact of history, that the Kabaka actually took up arms to fight an overwhelmingly superior forces of the Uganda Government, a fight which he easily lost and thereafter fled to the UK, I try to look at it again, hypothetically in light of what various opinions have been expressed, by substituting Benedicto Kiwanuka, a Muganda, for Milton Apollo Obote a Lango.  Chief Minister, Ben Kiwanuka refused to go to see Kabaka Mutesa, and had the 'audacity' as a Muganda to remark that it was the Kabaka who should come and see him in his offices in Entebbe. This incident angered Mengo and the Kabaka felt deeply insulted. Kiwanuka's Self-Rule Government had great difficulties in dealing with Kabaka's government in Bulange. It was this bad blood that existed between the two men that Obote, as an astute and able politician exploited. Obote put on his best attire and went to see Kabaka Mutesa, and put on his best Lango manners, and won over the Kabaka to agree to a UPC/KY Alliance. If Obote had not invented the UPC/KY alliance in 1962, Ben Kiwanuka's DP would have won the elections again in April 1962. He would have formed Uganda's first Independence Government with him as the first Prime Minister. What would have been the relationship between the elected Uganda Government and the enclave of appointed representatives at Mengo? Would the Uganda Prime Minister Kiwanuka have kow-towed before Kabaka Freddie Mutesa? How would the other Ugandans have viewed this? If Kiwanuka would have insisted on his 1960 attitude, would the kind of 1966 confrontational situation arisen much earlier? What would PM/President Kiwanuka have done if he were confronted with a threat of subversion of his elected national government; secession and possible break up of Uganda? What would the PM have done when armed tribesmen brandishing new guns, fired from Lubiri on Uganda Policemen at random and organised tribesmen dug trenches and felled large trees across main roads leading into the capital, all deliberately carried out openly in defence of defiance and threat to central authority? Would Kiwanuka have succumbed to loyalty to the Kabaka, and would have ordered his Uganda Police and Keya back to the barracks and let matters take their natural course? Or, would he, being a Muganda, have known better that failure was risky but was suicide not to act.  He would most probably be chopped up and buried for his impudence to the Kabaka. In which case he would have probably ordered Amin to action. Since it has been said that Obote ordered his 'Acoli' soldiers to attack Lubiri, is it possible that these 'Acoli' soldiers would have refused to obey the orders of their Muganda Prime Minister Kiwanuka? So, Kiwanuka would have still been killed even if he were to act and give orders? What would have happened to Uganda? What would Uganda politics have been today? I often ponder much over these matters. May be answers to this hypothetical scenario may help us to visualize how vulnerable Uganda is to disintegration before it can even attain nationhood.  We can safely say, therefore, that at the so-called Independence on 9thOctober, 1962, Uganda was launched on a rough and not trodden road with the daunting task to discover itself and survive or fail and sink. Uganda, however, managed to stay and embark on a huge and elaborate learning process. So, the first significant question is not how to deal with the opposition but rather what form of government should the Party in government take so that Opposition may take an appropriate and constructive stance. How far can opposition go in Uganda without undermining the fragile foundation, integrity and sovereignty and the very existence of Uganda? We have since, happily, moved a long way from that kind of brinkmanship between Uganda Government and a section that wants to secede. I have not since heard any Muganda or even Mengo mention the question of secession again. Not even Yosefu Kony of LRA has laid bid for secession of the Acoli. Is the nascent but elusive 'federo' again alluding to secession? Federo has yet the need to define itself more precisely. It can be said, at the moment that federo is not tangible, it is nothing.  It is an illusion (or delusion?) It is a mirror reflection of some of Uganda's problems. It could be a deliberate attempt by some fertile minds to see Buganda in a Uganda mirror. Without the mirror the reflection disappears. I challenge that if at all federo was any thing concrete, Paul Ssemogere, with all the popular support he had received from outside Buganda, would have been elected president of Uganda in the1996 presidential elections. The DP still remains a nation-wide party whose support and genuine strength has largely come from outside Buganda. But is it still nationalist? If so, instead of having one leg stuck in the NRM pudding and one arm trying to grab 'emere' on Mengo Hill, there is now need for it to come clear and show a sense of leadership and what is its real strength in Buganda. It has also cause to show that it can lead Uganda as a whole.  Reading the records straight One would have thought that the DP, which purports to support democratic process would indeed have supported the steps Obote took to keep Uganda together by all means necessary so as to keep some semblance of geo-political entity in which democracy can grow. But this was not the case. The DP, seem to be flippant. They have even supported military coups in favour of a democratic election process. DP has had the fortune of learning from others without directly tainting its own hands as yet. Will it be able to exercise patience and allow opposition to prosper when it comes to power? That is the question. DP now finds itself in a similar position as the UPC in 1962 vis-�-vis Mengo. For how long will the present marriage- of-political convenience between the (democratic) DP and (autocratic albeit cultural) Mengo last? I personally think Obote did a good job of an intricate situation, given that there was no previous precedence. On 9th October 1962 he was given to jump at the deep end of the swimming pool before he knew how to swim. He plunged in and partly waded at the bottom and uncertainly floated upside down on the surface, but nevertheless managed some how to cross. His commitment to democracy was put to the maximum test when he ordered a democratic elective process to resolve the 'outstanding' and highly sensitive question of the Lost Counties. He could have easily given the two disputed counties to Buganda and sent the thousands of the rightful Banyoro owners in there to hell. Or, if he were the election rigging-type, despite ordering the voting, he would have rigged the votes in favour of his then friend and 'comrade-in-arms', Kabaka Eddie Mutesa. Amidst intimidations and threats to his person and heinous crimes, he let the democratic processes take their course. We can safely say, therefore, that at the so-called Independence on 9thOctober, 1962, Uganda was launched on a rough stony road with the daunting task to discover itself and survive or sink. Uganda embarked on a huge and elaborate learning process. Under Obote and UPC Government 1, it was all trials but not all tribulations. Uganda had a vibrant and viable Uganda Government and economy, despite the unwarranted unease of the time. Very important and progressive social, educational, public heath and economic policies were put in place. The establishment of the Uganda Development Corporation (UDC) and Parastatal Companies, for example, laid the basis for Uganda's wealth that Museveni and cabal have shamelessly crabbed for themselves and their foreign backers. The educational system has produced the Musevenis, Kategayas and Byanyimas, who otherwise would have remained nomadic ' cattle-keepers' spitting slimy spit from their long clay pipes with nothing to do except to worry about where to find the next pasture. The Mushegas, Otafires, Mbabazis, Muhwezis and the Kabwegyeres would be languishing in coffee and banana plantations in Buganda as they try so hard to lose their identities to become Baganda. Prince Barigye would be the Omugabe now and would be busy enforcing that primitive and inhuman caste system over the Banyankole.  We all can now be very wise because we had the opportunity to see and learn from that fledgling first Uganda government by Ugandans. E. Rugumayo, Adoniya Tiberondwa etc are living witnesses. Youngsters like Rugunda, Kanyomozi, and even the critic Dan Nabudere learnt something from seeing Obote trying to fathom and grapple with the ups and downs of statecraft and governance. Obote's greatest achievement is that he acted in good faith (not in malice as some people have imputed) and managed to keep Uganda together as one political entity during Uganda's first trials and tribulations. His greatness lies in the fact that he is acutely aware and acknowledges his failures and tries to correct his mistakes while he adapts to new changing times. I find it obnoxious, dishonest and stupid arrogance for Museveni and cabal to pretend that Uganda began with them and anything they do is correct, and any leader before them was either fool or a criminal.  The Task ahead  Should we, sixteen years on, concentrate on perennial ritual of blaming Obote for even our own failures, as a national issue and a way forward? Or should we now progress and seriously study our past short falls and find ways and means to avoid falling in the same pit-holes?  There lie the crucial and fundamental questions. 'If the house is dirty you can sweep it, but have the house first.' Do we have the house? What do we perceive as good governance? What is a democratic government? What do we perceive as a good nationalist Political Party?  How do we deal with political opposition if a party should   happen to find itself in power? These are questions for the DP as much as they are for UPC and the other parties. These are the questions, which address the vitally important issue of rule by consent. We must agree to how we are going to rule ourselves.  And the answers cannot be shot in place by the gun or any form of coercion, as  Museveni has come to learn since he seized state power (only) by the force of arms and has since persistently responded with tanks and helicopter gunships at the prospect of a mere opposition rally. Terror and oppression does not only breed counter-terror and counter-violence among the oppressed victims; they also affect the perpetrators. It is difficult for Museveni and his regime that came to power by violence and ruled by force and terror, to turn away from terror and oppression to ways of freedom. On the level of human psychology, it is hard for individuals who have brutalised and used violence and have grown accustomed to exercising it to abandon it even when their conquest is over. The continuing vigilance towards opposition 'mpingamizi', even when violent and dictatorial regimes have been established for half a century and supposedly enjoy the confidence of all the people, shows this. If a man or a government seized power by conspiracy, treachery, and violence, and has exterminated the opposition in a drastic manner, he inevitably suspects that other persons around are ready to conspire against him, betray him, and do him violence. It is this fear of counter reaction that has gripped Museveni.  That is why he will try to hang on as long as he can, even after the year 2006, 'until death us do part'. He will have to continue to be a good merchant of illusions in a society he has created of systematic and pernicious corruption, and use of intrigues and manipulations to divide and silence pressure groups. His policy based on 'personal (individual) merit' is a prolific producer of sycophants, self-seekers and crooks on whom he must now depend for survival. His fears have conversely instilled in the people counter terror to destroy Museveni with all that he represents. Museveni shall, therefore, die with all his instruments of oppression, namely the personalised 'Movement system', UPDA/NRA, NRM, ISO, ESO etc. No matter for how long he stays in power, there will be no trace of NRM or UPM after his death, except for bitter memories of untold genocide, death and time that has been lost and squandered away. Exhortation Uganda is a beautiful and promising country. It is a geo-political unit that is richly endowed and can survive on its own as a viable economic entity in the face of the onslaught of globalisation. Destiny had thrown us together a hundred years ago and despite it's tottering dangerously at the edge of an abyss of disintegration, Uganda seem to have survived the many ups and downs this far. And this is a significant achievement by Ugandans. Buganda, as an integral part of Uganda, has benefited most economically, culturally and unity wise from the union. Each time there has been upheaval or change of government, Buganda has always been too close to miss the 'dining table'. It has always benefited. During Amin's regime, for example, the Baganda Moslems improved their economy tenfold. West Nile on the contrary dropped by the same ratio. Under Amin the able-bodied young men in West Nile and those wage earners at sugar and coffee estates dived into a sub-culture of malingering in the towns and hanging about military barracks. The result was the disastrous. The remittances to West Nile dropped and production of cotton, tobacco, produce and fish, which constituted the bulk of West Nile economy, plummeted. Except for Amin's 3-bedroom cottage at the end of the Arua runway, West Nile has nothing to show for the nine years. It is high time every Ugandan should search his/her heart. We are born creatures of free will and choices. Democracy begins with the freedom of choice. This is as basic as a child may opt for meat or fish, or a people may chose to settle in a valley rather than on a hill. It cannot wait for a technological advance or industrial age. We should ask ourselves now whether or not we still want this union called Uganda to continue and to mature into a modern nation, a home, a country for all of us, as enshrined in our national anthem? If the answer is 'yes', then let us consciously give consent to the existence of this union, in our own rights. Let it be a voluntary union of consenting peoples. This way we will have accepted that the coming of colonialism has determined our destiny as a people forever. Then let us all sincerely and truthfully embark on constructive discussion and building the Uganda we want.  We should endeavour to identify and improve on what is essential and significant for its survival; things we cannot disagree about, things that unite us. For example the declared boundary of Uganda, Uganda Sovereignty and its defence from internal and external aggression, the inalienable human rights and freedom of the individual, the preservation of indigenous culture etc. are some of the points we could easily continue to agree on. Let us first build the house.  If, however, we feel that Uganda is an encumbrance and it cannot be sustained, then let us have no pretences, lets mutually agree so that each community goes its way. There is no point and its a waste of valuable time if some communities of the union feel cheated, marginalized, discriminated against and being deliberately left out, and others feeling strongly that they are being held back whereas they can go it alone.  The best way to determine this consent is not by irrational mob action or by the gun, but by action based on intelligent individual conviction and consent. The best instrument for the measure of consent is the ballot box in a free and fair atmosphere (free of threats and enslaving poverty). (Part four to continue..................)        The Mulindwas communication group "With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"