To the Editor
The Monitor Publication
Kampala, Uganda
The Question of Vision and the Quest for Vision in Uganda
by FN Lugemwa
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In his missive in the media two months ago on the question of a vision for Uganda, President Museveni challenged other Ugandans to also put their point forward using the same channels, have "a contention of ideas," and let the people decide on which and whose ideas best represent and articulate their perspectives on the Uganda they want.
The rate at which Ugandans of all political persuasions and status, and both at home and abroad, responded to the challenge supports the President's view that "vision", a word he used over 20 times in his missive, is "a fundamental issue". I agree with him on this characterization. As stated in the video entitled "The Power of Vision," a nation without a vision is a candidate for extinction.
In following the debate, I have sensed traces of uchungu (pain) in the tone of some of the contributions. Over all, however, the debate has, so far, been constructive, polite, even generous: the President and the Movement have been complimented where they deserve to be complimented; they have been reminded of mistakes and misdeeds that they seem to have forgotten, of promises they have made but not fulfilled, and of principles and vision they once preached but no longer practice and seem even to have abandoned. Above all, the debate is united by a strong passion for Uganda.
As for substance specifically, the debate negates assertions bordering on arrogance, if not insult, that there is a "poverty of vision" in Uganda, that only the Movement has a vision for Uganda, that the vision of the Movement is monolithic, and that that vision is the only 'correct' vision in and for Uganda. In fact, the contributions offer viable alternative visions and ways for moving Uganda forward. To sum up with a fitting Luganda proverb, "Awakula ennume, tewakula emu."
Such caliber of debate, if sustained, is what will move us forward in both redefining and rebuilding the Uganda we want. For a while, however, the fiery debate fizzled, at least going by its absence from the print media.
It was not until the last week of December 2003 when a political �heavy weight' Honorable Eriya Kategaya touched on the issue, prompting a rebuttal from the President, that the debate resurfaced. Then came media reports of the President's interview with Mr. Robin White of the BBC, broadcast on Christmas. According to The Monitor story on the interview in its edition of December 27, 2003 (see Discuss vision, not successor, says Museveni) the President wants "to settle the �vision' question". In other words, let the debate on the vision continue.
I want to respond to this invitation and challenge by the President, and contribute to the debate on behalf Fedsnet -- a virtual study group of mostly Ugandans in the Diaspora. First, though, I want to comment on an important but overlooked aspect of the debate which, if clarified, would enrich the debate and its purpose and intended outcome -- a politically stable, peaceful, economically and socially progressive, prosperous and better Uganda and, ultimately, the model for Africa.
Still missing from the contributions is an effort to demystify the now popular word 'vision,' and its underlying assumptions, some unstated, informing the debate around a 'vision' for Uganda.
The effort is worthwhile if Ugandans are not to be intimidated into silence, duped into thinking that probably there are a few 'chosen' individuals or groups with monopoly of a gene for coming up with vision (a 'vision gene') and, the 'correct' vision at that. Such thinking would have grave consequences for Uganda. Further, the effort should subsequently facilitate identification of the root causes of Uganda's problems and how to surmount them and achieve the 'Ugandan dream'.
As a lay person not formally schooled in the theory and art of politics, I define the term �vision' simply as a �dream' of the times, a longing for, and a framework and road map to a future that is fundamentally different from but is better than the present. It is in this meaning of �vision' that the President recently said, according to The Monitor report in his interview with Mr. White Robin, that he does not want "a situation where in 2040 Uganda is still a backward country."
We can 'dream' as individuals, but whether we want to and can successfully pursue our 'dreams' individually or with the help of others, is a question of scale and magnitude of the stimulus for the 'dream'. The fact is, if we share our 'dream' with others particularly because of its magnitude, we may find others with the same or similar 'dream', team up with them, gain their support or neutralize them. Depending on the nature, scale and magnitude of the stimulus for the 'dream' and potential support for it, we may even create a formal group, a movement, or a political party.
There are three fundamental questions floating around but are skirted that must be first asked and answered in our debate on vision. Maintaining use of metaphor of 'dream', the first question is, 'where do dreams (read vision) come from'?
In the spiritual world we can attribute 'dreams' (visions) to divine powers, interpreting them as revelations. In the temporal world however, and specifically in the world of politics as we are dealing with here, 'dreams' (visions) inspire us and catch on only if they speak to, and are articulated in line with, everyday experiences.
For example, in his first inaugural address as President on January 29, 1986, Mr. Museveni had this to say: "Take the road from here, Parliament Building, to Republic House. This road is so bad that if a pregnant woman travels on it, I am sure she will have a miscarriage!"[1] This was an articulation of one of the 'dreams' or longings that Ugandans had in the 1980s, namely, that someday, the roads in Uganda, at least in the nation's capital, will again be free of crater-sized potholes. On the other hand, the late Idi Amin invoked divine intervention for his 'dream' for a Uganda free of Asian merchants and professionals.
The second question about 'dreams' (visions) is this: can 'dreams' (visions) be dichotomized between 'correct' and 'wrong'? Noooo! Not with my definition of 'dream' as "a longing for a future that is both fundamentally different and better than the present..."
If on the other hand we wanted to qualify or describe a 'dream' (vision), such as taking a giant leap from a 'banana republic' to become an (Asian) economic tiger, the much we can say is that such 'dream'(vision) is overambitious or unrealistic. However, it is not 'wrong' (unless we think that it would be an immoral thing to do).
We must be careful and clear in our debate and not confuse correct diagnosis of the conditions (stimulus) giving rise to a 'dream' (vision) and how and when to overcome them, with substance of the 'dream' (vision).
So, to illustrate with yet another concrete example, during his January 1986 swearing-in address Mr. Museveni stated that "No one should think that what is happening today is a mere change of guard: it is a fundamental change in the politics of our country", he was providing a diagnosis of the conditions that had led to a 'dream' or longing among Ugandans for, among other things, roads where their pregnant mothers, daughters, daughters-in-law, wives, sisters, could travel on without fear of miscarriage.
The third and last question is: do 'dreams' (visions) live forever? The life time of 'dreams' (visions) depends on a number of factors, notably the conditions that induce them and how the 'dream' (vision) is framed, and thus, its appeal and currency, and relevance to the times and to desires and expectations of the people. In general however, a 'dream' (vision) that is not in tune with (or is far ahead of ) the times is likely to be either ignored or possibly rejected and subverted if it is imposed. This can be a big challenge and disappointed for a visionary leaders(hip). Sadly, that is the reality about human society.
This line of argument should provide the context within which to reflect on the question, even if it were to be taken as a rhetorical question, with which President Museveni, ironically, penned off his missive thus: "if the vision of the Movement is well understood, how does it come that actions negate the realization of that vision?" The litmus test for good and visionary leadership is not be offended by those who provide alternative, and possibly better, more workable visions. If they even want the 'chair' too, provided they allow the 'contention of ideas to continue, let them have it, the people will decide, and history will vindicate, whose vision and leadership was better.
Having demystified the notion of 'vision' using the metaphor of 'dream', and having clarified the assumptions around the debate, I now want to propose a vision, our 'dream' Uganda, building on, without necessarily condoning, the remark the President made in his November 2003, missive that one need not organize as a mass party to have a vision, but can start as a study group of a few people. One such group is Fedsnet.
Fedsnet is a virtual group of Ugandan visionaries, most of them in the Diaspora, whose aims include to enhance the quality of debate on issues that are most pressing for Ugandans.
Fedsnet has diagnosed the undesirable but perpetual conditions in Uganda emanating from the "politics of our country". Fedsnet understands the "politics of our country" to mean governance, a notion that, in turn, means a system that defines the roles and responsibilities of individuals and groups in society, the processes or rules and procedures for making and implementing decisions, and the collective values which in turn flow from and reflect the basis of decisions and choices.
Fedsnet has a vision for Uganda and a plan for a way out of the current political quagmire in Uganda, and following the processes and procedure in place in Uganda, it joined other organized Ugandan groups and individuals in making a submission to the Constitutional Review Commission. Also, Fedsnet operates a website that is dedicated to generating, expressing and debating ideas from all angles so as to reach consensus around a commonly shared vision of 'dream Uganda." Fedsnet is transparent, and its work can be viewed at www.federo.com
and at (http://successisthekey.tripod.com).
As its name suggests, the focus and 'dream' of Fedsnet is a federal form of governance.
Now, advocates of federalism have been challenged to justify its applicability to and relevance in Uganda. Others have asked, why federalism anyway? The point of departure at Fedsnet is that federalism is not a science. Still, one can ask, and rightly so, what makes Fedsnet think that it has correctly diagnosed the "politics of our country" to suggest federalism as the way forward?
For an answer, we turn to experience: the glorious days were when Uganda had some sort of federalism. However this arrangement was short of the full-fledged federalism for all Uganda�s regions as advocated by Fedsnet. Nevertheless, it served the country better than the Unitary system. Within a federal governance structure, Fedsnet is for participatory democracy. Fedsnet suggests managing our day-to-day affairs in small units.
One of our premises, based on lived experience, is that all past and present experiments with other governance structures, have not been able to deal successfully and satisfactorily, with the problems of a complex multi-ethnic society.
The lived experiences of the past nearly 40 years show that running everything from the centre is not working for Uganda, no matter how good the intentions and visions of the leaders of the time are.
Fedsnet has researched and prepared a discussion paper proposing units around which a federal governance structure could be organized and their powers and roles and responsibilities versus the central government, and vice versa, defined. Federalism will revive Uganda's ability to serve ALL its citizens better. Key services will improve, and will be brought closer to the people.
Fedsnet believes that a federal governance structure will greatly minimize the current waste of the country's scarce resources. Devolution of power will make peoples' voices heard, and their rights to participate in running their local affairs and shaping their future, albeit within Uganda, more respected. In this respect, Fedsnet sees and suggests federalism both as a tool with which to correct, and as a way out of the miss-governance that has become synonymous with Uganda.
Fedsnet has carried out research and analyses including examining challenges and opportunities for reviving Uganda�s economy. Efforts to promote economic dynamism and social progress have to depend on effective democratic institutions and broad-based political participation.
Fedsnet has grappled with questions of the importance of the underpinnings of sound public policy, asking questions such as: "How should our governance structure be organized to make the right choices in the face of social and economic stagnation for a majority of Ugandans?"
I would like to conclude with a quote from a 2002 book entitled Fundamentals of Management: Concepts and Applications. The quote is applicable to the question of the 'chair,' which I have left to other contributors to the debate.
The quote is as follows: "charismatic leaders may be ideal for pulling an organization through a crisis but become a liability to an organization once the crisis and the need for dramatic change subside." Why? Because the charismatic leader's overwhelming self-confidence often becomes a problem. He or she is unable to listen to others, becomes uncomfortable when challenged.... and begins to hold an unjustifiable belief in his or her "rightness".
I would like to think that in challenging other Ugandans to "put your point of view", President Museveni did not just want to see them vent out their uchungu, after which there would be 'no change'.
The question of vision could well be the issue in the next elections. By the look of things, the race has already began, and the next two or so years could prove to be the defining moments for the Uganda of the 21st century. There might be not better time to define, refine, share and cultivate your vision of that Uganda than now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Twenty years later, another reason to fly pregnant relatives to Germany
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
