Note: forwarded message attached.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--- Begin Message ---
Movement vision lost - Muntu
By Henry Lubega
FORMER Army Commander, Major General Mugisha Muntu, has said some individuals in the Movement have degenerated and their degeneration has impacted negatively on the organisation.
In an interview at Parliamentary Building last week, Muntu who did not name names said some individuals in the Movement had split the organisation by doing things they would not have done when they took over power in 1986.
He said, “Some individuals have degenerated from doing good to doing what they would not have done then. That is why you are seeing two positions in the Movement today. That is where the change is from the Movement of 1986 and the Movement of today”.
Muntu said he was not happy with the breakdown of transparency and cohesion, which formed the basis of the Movement’s success during the days of the armed struggle.
“The transparent methods of work right from 1982 through the armed struggle are the reasons we succeeded. We c ould discuss issues and agree or disagree but everybody felt satisfied because of the free process that we would all go through,” he said.
See full text under interviewPublished on: Sunday, 20th June, 2004
Movement ideals lost
FAILURE? Mugisha Muntu says the Movement has failed to uphold its 1986 goals
Q: how do you compare the Movement in 1986 and 2004?
A: From 1981 we set out to change the political order. By that time we had known that the political order could not be changed through any other way other than armed struggle.
That was the conclusion that we had reached individually, because when the struggle started, we joined as individuals not as an organisation.
I had seen the power manipulation that was there in the government of the time. The belief was that if one was in control of power and the security forces, that was it.
People had to put up with you.
As the NRM, we set out to change that environment to a new political culture of democratising power, establishing a political system that would keep on improving as we went along handling issues that affect our society.
The main focus was how to change the political environment. I think to a large extent we went ahead to fulfil that.
After overthrowing the go vernment in 1986 we set out to establish a new order by setting goals of democratising the politics of the country. Were we perfect in doing that? No. To me that is not the point.
You can’t achieve perfection overnight. My focus is always on the trends. If you are continuing on the right path, and if you build a capability within the organisation even when you commit errors you will be able to notice and rectify them.
If you create an environment where there is tolerance of other views and debate on those views, picking out the relevant ones to the times without manipulation and intimidation that is the most important thing.
You cannot transform society overnight. But the moment intimidation and manipulation come in, that is the beginning of conflict. It generates ill will amongst the different people involved in the political process. That is where the problem is. And that is where I notice the change.
We had very transparent methods of work right fro m 1981 through the military and political struggle that we had embarked on up to the time we captured state power.
The methods of work were the very basis that brought cohesion within the army and the NRM as an organisation. We could discuss issues and agree or disagree. Anybody would be satisfied because of the free process that we would all go through.
It built confidence amongst ourselves and trust because of the honest way we used to deal with each other. It enabled us to see where we were weak. We had created an environment where people as individuals would be helped to strengthen themselves where they were weak. And then we would work together. That brought us a lot of success.
Q: When did the cohesion break up?
A: It has been compromised over time. Again I think it is something that we expected. What we didn’t expect was its magnitude.
As human beings you operate to transform situations like we were trying to transform the political sit uation.
But as we were doing that, the situation itself was also acting on us.
However, in the process, a number of individuals have also been transformed.
They have changed from what they were instead of continuing to grow and become better and better.
The situation has been acting on them, and they have kept on degenerating from being good to doing what they would not have done.
Q: As a historical are you happy with that trend?
A: How can anybody be happy with degeneration? Every human being wants to progress, make something better out of a situation.
Q: Then how can it be put right?
A: Again it’s through struggle. Struggle is a continuous and permanent process. You never reach the end of it as long as you are human beings.
Q: Were the Movement people of 1986 more nationalist than those of today?
A: It is partly true but all of us are to blame at the end of the day. There are a number of us in volved in participating in negative things. To me I cannot zero on this group or that group. From 1986 onwards, our goal was to create an environment where new people join us and become integrated and transformed in terms of their outlook on how society is to be governed.
Our main task was to sustain that environment. But we have failed to do that.
Q: Why have you failed?
A: It is because we have not been able to maintain that atmosphere.
Right now we have two political positions within the movement. You can no longer talk of the Movement as it was in 1986.
Q: Do you think the army should be involved in politics?
A: The army should not be apolitical. It should be aware and conscious of the political developments in the country. And up to now before opening up to the multiparty system there was no problem with the army being part and parcel of the political process.
But now we are opening up, there is no way the army can be represent ed in Parliament.
The army should pull back. It should not have representatives in Parliament and the law says so. If a soldier wants to participate in partisan politics he should resign from the army.
If they want to follow the political trend, they can study it from a distance. They can give advice to the head-of-state according to how they would have analysed the situation but not participate themselves.
This would not be the first time. In Tanzania, when they opened up for political parties the army pulled back.
The UPDF has intelligent officers who are aware of political dynamics of the country and they are able to make conscious choices. They know there is no way you can have an army amidst party politics where it can be drawn into controversies.
I believe that at the appropriate time the high command will make that decision to pull back.Published on: Sunday, 20th June, 2004
--- End Message ---
