Category PRESIDENCY

HUMOUR–UAH MEMBERS ASK MBABAZI TO GIVE THEM HIS DAUGHTER FOR THEIR SUPPORT


John Nsubuga: Abbey, since it seems that a batch of thorns is being thrown into KB’s path to stand for the last time, should we consider eloping and discover new love in team JPAM.? You’ve seen the life our fellow MP Adam Luzindana lives.

Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
:There is something about Mbabazi as a person in his face and presentation that makes me a bit uncomfortable. He doesn’t smile a lot, does he? But then again, he has got a very adorable wife and beautiful daughters. His Rachel is so beautiful. And with this, I’m sure we can come to some sort of an arrangement if he wants our support but Rachael but must make sure our Ramandhan remains intact!

But seriously, Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye is still the man……even Museveni knows this. Mbabazi is just a distraction that hopefully will go away with time.

RACHEL MBABAZI

RACHEL MBABAZI

ALLAN BARIGYE:Me thinks even those funny wattsup msgs pitting bahima against bakiga were doctored by team M7 to be used at a later date.
Thats how M7 operates .

Gook Akanga:I wouldn’t put that past him! Remember the putting on of UPC Tshirts in Luwero to commit atrocities?

Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba:One thing for sure is that there’s an irrefutable network on the ground everywhere in Uganda ready to carry Mbabazi’s message. How he has kept it together and away from the eyes of the security circles, it’s a million dollar answer.But the NRMS are intentionally trying to make someone who was unpopular to become popular suddenly. They all seem to be working for him knowingly or unknowingly!

Gook Akanga:When the time has come everything u do seems to work against u!And JPAM works well underground!He is a night dancer!

Abbey Semuwemba:Gook,Well, we have got to give it to Mbabazi. …….He has also played the game of being a liar to the last dot , and ,in a way, I’m happy that he was only lying to the super liar! He promised to support the best leader of the NRM revolution at Kyankwanzi if he was to offer himself for presidency as many times as he wanted, only for him to turn around and declare his candidature too.

It just goes on to show that nobody can detect a liar facially because there’s no mirror for it. Museveni has been telling lies to us for ages, but now he has met his match!

John Nsubuga: Museveni is no match to JPAM when it comes to political deception, he beats his mentor hands down. Mbabazi is never in a hurry, he takes his time to study the situation and the outcome, but when he launches, he lives a mark. We’re so used to president Museveni’s lies because he is repetitive, the saaaaaaame lies, industrialisation this and that but nothing happens on the ground. Musajawo nga yayimba AGOA, ne value addition?

I’m going to conduct a one day course in reading letters without opening the envelop that conceals them for all UAH members. Didn’t I tell you that president Museveni was hoodwinked to hunt for small time supporters of Mbabazi upcountry when the actual promoters at work are part of his government? They are sited besides him and yet he can’t see them. Why can’t these people consult me for advise?

The been weevil is at work from inside – out.

THE END!

Kagingo’s Statement on the hacking of the president’s twitter and Facebook accounts!


image
I have noted concerns about recent posts made on President Museveni’s facebook account, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. This is to clarify that am not responsible.

Whereas I was the only admin to the account, the last post I made was to wish Uganda Cranes victory in the match Vs Togo before the account was hijacked by persons unknown. A minute later, I lost access to the State House page and the linked twitter account @StateHouseUg

I got worried that the hijackers would make updates prejudicial to the person of the President. I contacted colleagues at State House for help. That help was not forthcoming. I reported the matter to facebook together with Mr. Joseph Owino who had earlier got in touch with me via facebook to help ensure all facebook and twitter accounts were verified. I’m forever grateful. I will return to this later.

Facebook responded thus, “our policy does not handle disputes between 3rd parties.” I wondered, ” who is this 3rd party?” Joseph Owino sent me a facebook message advising that the matter should be handled at office level. Was Joseph in touch with somebody at State House? How was he sure that somebody at Statee House was involved? Was it innocent and genuine advice?
Nevertherless, facebook promised to get to the bottom of the matter. I was, however, shocked by an email from Joseph Owino to facebook claiming that although the page had been flagged to avoid embarassing posts, “the President’s page was out of imminent danger and that he (Joseph) was, therefore, out of the matter. Why did Joseph Owino have confindence that the hijackers of the page did not pose danger to the account? Were they known to him? Was he in touch with the ‘hijackers’ ? Was his email to facebook intended to cause doubts about me to facebook authorities? So that, then, facebook does not recover the page from the hijackers? Was he acting under duress? How could Joseph who helped verify the accounts betray us?
Moreover, when I suggested that I make a complaint to facebook using my official email, he insisted on doing it on my behalf using his email and copied me in.

I decided to report the matter to Police. Which station would I report to and ensure that the matter does not spill to the media and cause embarassment to the head of State and State House?

In August this year, I reported Maj Edith Nakalema ( Private Secretary/Secretarial duties) to Police over continued assault and harassment inspite of reports made to her Commanders. Whereas we had tried to seek help administratively since January this year, Maj Nakalema kept assaulting, harassing and intimidating me and others with impunity. I was disappointed that my employers could not protect me from such harassment. Moreover, I had known UPDF as a force that follows a strict code of conduct that did not ‘tolerate’ harassment of civilians. As a young child, I witnessed this force (NRA) dislodge the UNLA from Masaka town. I have fond memories of the late Afende Kazini and Afende Samson Mande for saving mothers and their children from Masaka hospital that was being hit from Kasijagirwa baracks. They saved my mother and newly born sister too. They saved us. A soldier with a gun in one hand, torn trousers and a saved in the other was very touching. I have fond memories of Afende Saleh’s take over of Masaka and restoring hope to all of us that we would not would die at the hands of UNLA’s bikompola. It is the reason i feel indebted to President Museveni and have defended him since I was a student. I believe he is well-intentioned and always diappointed by others he entrusts with authority. Why is Major Nakalema exempted from the UPDF code of conduct? Why is she allowed to harass every body and create cliques of staff agains others so they secure their jobs. She brings sad memories of Masaka to me.

When, however, I managed to get a policeman to listen to me and record my statement, the media took up the matter and I was accused by State House staff in the media for “destroying State House,” and, am told, I was put under investigations for the “support” I received from followers on social media including opposition figures.

Later, I learnt from the Observer, that my case had been referred to Special Investigations Unit because of its special nature. I was also informed that it was to stop “excitement in the media.” Maj Nakalema has never made a statement. According to the Observer, the reason given is that I have never returned police forms. This is false. I returned Police Surgeon’s to Jinja road police station two days after I reported.
Will the Government of the Republic of Uganda, reputed in the region and beyond as having built a disciplined professional Army, obstruct prosecution of one of its soldiers?

Will the UPDF (and SFC), a force whose history is deeply rooted in liberation struggles in Africa, a force that boasts of a clear ideology of fighting just wars and a pro-people doctrine, obstruct justice and, therefore, deliberately or inadvertently, turn against a civilian staff of their Commander-in-Chief for standing against wrongs and reporting matters of unprofessional conduct on the part of one of their soldiers to Police? Is this
misconduct on my part?

Am taken aback by the double standards. It is okay for Special Investigations Division to handle a complaint of assault filed by one Sarah Kagingo against Maj Nakalema for its special nature, but yet when a matter as gross as the President’s twitter account is reported to the same unit, that unit, according to a State House statement, is said to be undermining the President and together with Sarah Kagingo shall be investigated for “ordering police officers to arrest Joseph Owino. I did not know, until these allegations, that I’m so ‘powerful’ that I can order police officers around to arrest people. I have tweeted about the circumstances sorrounding Joseph Owino’s arrest.

Am deeply disappointed that the hacking seems to be an inside job. Does Joseph Owino have a clue? Or does he find himself entangled in a situation that am also still puzzled about? If this is the case Joseph, am very sorry. Am sorry for reporting at all.

IS SARAH KAGINGO A VICTIM OF MILITARISATION, 1st LADY’S JELOUSY OR A SECURITY THREAT?


POSTED BY ROBUKUI

Sarah Kagingo is Museveni’s Special Presidential Assistant in charge of communication. She is a Muslim from Mbarara District. She was a Guild President of Makerere University during 1997/98. After graduating she worked with Museveni’s brother, Gen. Saleh where they were instrumental in campaigning for Museveni’ selection.

In April 2013 Museveni appointed her his Special Media Advisor. Since then she has introduced Museveni to the social platform thus bringing him closer to the online community through timely updates on Twitter and Facebook. Later she was promoted to the position of Special Presidential Assistant on Communication. As such, Museveni was recently voted as the most influential African leader on Twitter. Because of her position she has since got closer to the Museveni more than anybody else. She travels alot with him both within and outside the country. In that way she has the security clearance to physically access Museveni at her own convenience to the extent of sometimes riding in the same car with him. In an interview with one of the Dailies she had this to say “I’d like to be remembered as one who woke up a government to the social media and how I communicated the President’s activities promptly”.

Of recent Sarah Kagingo has hit headlines following Local TV footage showing the Police rescuing a 16 years old girl from residence whom they claimed was a her maid that she was allegedly abusing. Later on her reaction was that the said girl was her own relative and not a maid whom her haters were using in their efforts to bring her down. It has also emerged that Sarah Kagingo had earlier filed a criminal case of assault against Major Edith Nakalema but the Police is reluctant to follow it up.
kagingo
MAJOR EDITH NAKALEMA

RO 08654 Major Edith Nakalema is a soldier under Museveni’s SFG and a Private Secretary to Museveni. She hails from Kashari in Mbarara District and is married to Major Jimmy Ansizua. Though born decades after Uganda gained independence, she was awarded an Independence Medal. When she was a Captain she together with the First son’s wife Chalotte to champion Mama Kazi – a scheme to enhance income of SFG soldiers whose commanding officer is the first son Brig. Muhoozi. There has been several complaints from both military and civilian staff of State House over Nakalema’s high handedness. She recently inhumanly terminated and the employment of civilian cooks before disgracefully chasing them from all State House installations including Rwakitura. Now there is this new allegation of assaulting a fellow employee Sarah Kagingo.

MIRRIAM KANKUNDA

She is a former Private Secretary to Museveni who was replaced by Major Edith Nakalema. She is the wife of Anania Tumukunde who was Museveni’s Advisor on IT before he was arrested in the UK and convicted over money laundering charges. It is alleged that she was dropped partly because of her husband’s activities.

ROLE OF THE FIRST LADY

As the saying goes: Once bitten by a snake you fear lizards. In the past Museveni fathered children with a State House house keeper whom he has since then turned into a second lady housed at Kisozi Ranch. It is said that one of the tasks of Maj. Nakalema is to keep off ladies from getting close to Museveni. Sarah Kagigo is an attractive young lady and is not married. She was offered the job by Museveni personally and she described it thus “I was excited to receive a call from the President and had to take up the job”. She at times moves in the same car with the Museveni. Her social media project has so much moved Museveni that at times he takes selfies with a mobile phone. Remember the scene during the burial of Mandela where Michelli Obama was not comfortable with the Obama’s selfies. Amid Kagingo’s woes, Museveni and the First Lady were at Major Nakalema’s home in Mbarara attending a thank giving ceremony. It has since emerged that Museveni was dragged to the ceremony by the First Lady and and son Muhoozi.

SECURITY ASPECT

Museveni’s inner security circle is manned by the most trusted soldiers. Major Nakalema could be one of them. All those soldiers that civilians that have physical access to Museveni undergo periodic security vetting. Given the growing dissent among Ugandans against Museveni’s governance, his physical security is an issue. However, there are civilian staff like cooks, housekeepers, drivers, medical personnel etc that can not be denied access to Museveni. Kagingo also falls in this category. His security intelligence runs a surveillance on such staff members who get close proximity to the President. It develops profiles pertaining to ‘political clarity’, morale, private life pertaining to social connections with members of the public. This security clearance extends to all soldiers under the SFG as at one time now Capt Tinka who had been deployed by the army headquarters as the RSM to the then PGB was rejected while much earlier on Asingura Kagoro was given one hour to vacate PPU in the late 80s. It is not clear how easy it is for the intelligence to secretly carry out surveillance on Kagingo to the Mosque for prayers. This ensurers that such people are not compromised (used to cause physical harm to Museveni). This is how Kisembo his chief driver who had driven him for over a decade was recently disgracefully dropped. Currently Museveni is carrying out a militarisation process of most civilian institutions. As of now out of his seven drivers, five are soldiers.

In the bush when there was a challenge to his leadership from some section of his fighters, he isolated his command post with barricades and surrounded himself with the likes of Saleh, Rwigyema as his immediate neighbors. History is repeating itself. However, in the instant case it is not likely that Kagingo is a security threat unless her enemies frame her up. But again, is she not entitled to security guards from the SFG and if so how comes that according to TV footage, her residence was kind of deserted with only a maid allegedly some days.

STATE HOUSE AND THE SHODDY DEALS

It is undisputed that State House is a center of most of the shoddy deals where the country has lost large chunks of tax payer’s money. Most of the corruption scandals have either originated from, sought protection or ended up silenced by state house. Some reliable sources confirm that because of large money deals being coordinated by state house account for the level of intrigue among the staff members. It is in this regard tha on the ongoing railway saga Museveni stated thus “corrupt officials in State House had stolen minutes of the delicate meeting with investors and shared them with a rival Chinese company”. At one time he even claimed that his signature had been forged.

There are many behind the scene politicking that take place in State House that are designed to suffocate democracy in Uganda but they are often denied in public. Now that Sarah Kagingo is keeping track of Museveni’s engagements and making them public immediately, wont it in one way or the other incriminate Museveni in the shoddy dealings hence denying him room for denials? This question can only be answered by Museveni himself.

KAGINGO’S JOB SECURITY

Kagingo was offered the job through a personal phone call by Museveni. She has been working for Museveni as a person and is not a public servant. Since the current saga started, Museveni has not comeout clear and Kagingo continues to serve him. It is only Museveni who can terminate her services either because of security breach which should have been immediate or at the insistence of the First Lady through Maj. Nakalema.Otherwise Kagingo may be reaping what she sowed by riding on the tiger’s back.

INFORMATION IS POWER.

M7 NEVER ATTRACTS THE BEST TO STATE HOUSE, WHY?


I suspect it is an issue of accountability that is causing Sarah Kagingo problems in Statehouse. Ms Kagingo must have tried to enforce order and accountability to the dismay of the mafia. So they leaked stories about her. The crooks are entrenched in state house of all places. The same state house YKM caused Mr Binaisa of letting in crooks. Well it is a lot worse today. All the thieving of public funds is plotted and executed there.

Every morning I visit the website of the Kenyan president to read about Mr Uhuru Kenyatta’s activities. There is or was no such website for Uganda.

It is pure nnugu for those entrenched to malice Ms Kagingo for doing her job. last night I had along conversation with a friend from Cameroon and told her about this saga. He said Africans hate result oriented individuals and prefer maziwa lala type who are eager to remind you about their titles.

But what are titles for without results? Ugandan parliament and cabinet are full of well educated folks granted some with bicuupuli, but overall impeccable credentials. But what are their achievements for the country? Zero work ethic in favour of corruption and me me mentality. I feel for Ms Kagingo because she gave it her best and see what she is paid back?. Asante yapunda ni teke the swahili say. State house is a place of kavuyo so they must have been terrified to see order and result orientation mindset.

There is something now called evidence based research or decision making. From your posting, there is ample evidence of what Ms Kagingo has managed to accomplish in her brief stay. If it is true that Ms Kagingo is out, then YKM prefers to be surrounded by mediocre type who do not care about results.

In economics people are compensated on the basis of their value of marginal product (VMP). May be it was her modest 8 million shillings salary-relative to Ms. Jennifer Musisi’s 30 million monthly pay- that attracted hatred towards her.

Uganda and Africa are in trouble precisely because those in leadership shun result oriented people aka performers in preference for mediocre types.

The White House attracts the best and I mean the best and brightest, yes ideological too, who go there for a few years do their best, make connections , go back to work and return again for some more experience. You cannot say that for African state houses.

WBK

Museveni’s Vision 2040 is Illusion 2040


Subject: Vision 2040 is Illusion 2040

When Museveni with great fan fare brought out his Vision 2040 many people were taken for a ride. Without independent ability (I am using Musevni’s words) to analyse, many people by merely seeing the beautiful pictures in the publication as well viewing Museveni with awe, thought that by 2040 Uganda would have gotten rid of peasants as Museveni claimed. This is an illusion.

The problem is that Museveni’s proposal to get rid of peasants is based on a wrong perception of the peasantry. We need to ask: Who are peasants? And where do they come from? Or better still what economic forces bring about peasants. Without first answering these questions it is impossible to bring about a meaningful policy on the peasantry.

Peasants have been defined as those who labor on the land and posses their means of production i.e. tools and the land itself.

The foremost student of peasants and politics was Lenin. He taught that the peasantry is transitional class. It is a vestige of the feudal mode of production which was/is disintegrating and giving way to the capitalist mode of production.

In places like England, in the initial period of capitalism there were peasants. The source of the peasantry in England was very different from that in a peripheral capitalist country like Uganda. There the peasantry was a remnant of the feudal mode of production which was disintegrating and giving way to capitalism.

Despite the common talk about feudalism in some parts of Uganda, feudalism has never really existed in Uganda. Strictly speaking feudalism was the mode of production which existed in Europe.

In terms of modes of production we have had the tributary mode of production in Buganda, Bunyoro and Toroo. In other parts of Uganda we had the lineage mode of production.

With the imposition of capitalism through colonisation, just as it happened with the case of replacement of feudalism by capitalism in England, which process generated a peasantry, the replacement of the pre-capitalist modes of production by capitalism in Uganda has also given rise to the class of people we call peasants.

Lenin went on to further teach that there were two ways by which the peasant would be wiped out by the advance of capitalism. The first, which he called the ‘Junker’ road, is characterized by the large landholders themselves initiating and guiding the process of transition.

In this case the large pre-capitalist estates are transformed slowly into capitalist enterprises, leaving intact not only the extensive landholdings, but also many of the systems of control over the labourers.

Lenin suggested that when development follows this model, capitalism matures exceedingly slowly, and aspects of the pre-capitalist relations of production continue to exist for a considerable period.

He contrasted this with the ‘farmer’ road which is characterized by a revolution led by the peasantry which destroys the large landed estates arid” abolishes the relations of servitude. Out of this emerges a large peasantry, or class of farmers, with small plots of land.

The process of differentiation of the peasantry proceeds rapidly and the development of capitalism is unfettered by the remnants of the pre-capitalist mode of production, which permits the rapid development of the forces of production.

The later of the two methods is the one closest to the Uganda situation. We don’t have the large scale estates. however, we already have individualised peasants who own their small plots of land and work on them. Further to that we are already seeing capitalist farmers who are farming in large enterprises.

In either method Lenin is talking about, it is the capitalist mode of production replacing the pre-capitalist modes of production.This is totally different from Museveni who thinks by merely pouring money he will get rid of the peasantry.

Besides Museveni does not seem to realise that the peasantry has existed in other countries other than Uganda. And if they have existed in other countries other than Uganda, why shouldn’t Museveni ask himself: how come those countries haven’t got rid of their peasantry the way he is proposing to do in Uganda?

The answer to this question may not be too difficult to find. It is not the first time Museveni has projected himself as a genius who can do what others can’t do. We should all be aware that when he had just come to power he used to talk about grandiose plans which never came to anything.

In the same way this Vision 2040 is a grandiose plan which will come to naught. To sum it up: Vision 2040 is nothing but Illusion 2040.

_______________________________________________________________

Yoga Adhola is a leading ideologue of UPC

UGANDANS SHOULD FORGET ABOUT TINYEFUNZA’S PAST AND MOVE ON


MEET TINYEFUZA IN 1992(posted by Tony Owana)

MEET TINYEFUZA IN 1992(posted by Tony Owana)


In economics they say ‘sunk costs’ or what has already happened should not influence your decision going forward. What happened happened and should not be used to sway the opinions of Ugandans. We should look at the future. And that includes Tinye’s past. It is done. No one can erase his history. Not even God. In other words, it is sunk. So what is the best decision going forward for Uganda? That is the question we should grapple with.

BTW, the idea of sunk cost also applies to relationships. What happened in the past including the great times and all that should not influence your decision going forward: to stay or divorce. This is important because Ugandans seem to be stuck in the past when dealing with YKM. It is time for Ugandans to divorce him irrespective of what he did in the past. Some say he liberated them. May be. Some say he delivered them sijui from what. May be. But that is sunk and should not influence the decision about the future. We cannot undo his 28 year rule, but we can do something to stop it from getting to 30, etc.

The Tinyefunza speech in London is okay.There is nothing he can do about his past. He should not even try to sanitize it. He should simply say I was in YKM’s prison. It is the same prison that is consuming the IGP, and the saveed Ms. Jennifer Musisi. If she can be so callous, greedy and power-hungry when she is saveed one wonders how she would act if she was not.

As Ugandans learn more about FUF bear in mind the WYSIATI principle=what you see is all there is.Now think about DRC. Why is it still burning? Well it goes back to that former postal worker who became PM. His name was Mr. Patrice Lumumba. He had no clue and his actions especially his speech when Congo became independent sealed his fate. DRC is still burning because of his mistakes. He is an example that Africa does not need hot headed leaders who act before thinking.

Folks, this has been very tough year for Uganda. Our motherland lost Mr. Bernard Onyango (RIP), Mr. Chango Macho (RIP), Mr. Sam K Njuba (RIP). That is a lot.

And who are the news makers? IGP Kayihura and his combo of Tumwebaze and Jennifer Musisi. I know where General Kale Kayihura was in April 1979. I think Ms. Jennifer Musisi may have been in her vacation following her O’level at TGS. But where was Tumwebaze? And why does this matter? Please tell the combo that trees never grow to the sky or what goes up must come down eventually. True. Yes General Kale Kayihura should tell them what happened in April 1979. It may happen to them too.

I must say that I never ever saw Amin’s police forces act the way KK’s police goons act today. The open violence and brutality is quite something. Yes Amin’s people grabbed those they wanted and took them away in their UVS and UVR cars , but KK goons and the y are goons, have no qualms of hitting civilians in public view.

WBK
NEWYORK

What is a Dictator? By Robert D. Kaplan


What is a Dictator? By Robert D. Kaplan

What is a dictator, or an authoritarian? I’ll bet you think you know. But perhaps you don’t. Sure, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong were dictators. So were Saddam Hussein and both Hafez and Bashar al Assad. But in many cases the situation is not that simple and stark. In many cases the reality — and the morality — of the situation is far more complex.

Deng Xiaoping was a dictator, right? After all, he was the Communist Party boss of China from 1978 to 1992. He was not elected. He ruled through fear. He approved the massacre of protesters at Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. But he also led China in the direction of a market economy that raised the standard of living and the degree of personal freedoms for more people in a shorter period of time than perhaps ever before in recorded economic history. For that achievement, one could arguably rate Deng as one of the greatest men of the 20th century, on par with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So is it fair to put Deng in the same category as Saddam Hussein, or even Hosni Mubarak, the leader of Egypt, whose sterile rule did little to prepare his people for a more open society? After all, none of the three men were ever elected. And they all ruled through fear. So why not put them all in the same category?

Or what about Lee Kuan Yew and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali? During the early phases of Lee’s rule in Singapore he certainly behaved in an authoritarian style, as did Ben Ali throughout his entire rule in Tunisia. So don’t they both deserve to be called authoritarians? Yet Lee raised the standard of living and quality of life in Singapore from the equivalent of some of the poorest African countries in the 1960s to that of the wealthiest countries in the West by the early 1990s. He also instituted meritocracy, good governance, and world-class urban planning. Lee’s two-volume memoir reads like the pages in Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Ben Ali, by contrast, was merely a security service thug who combined brutality and extreme levels of corruption, and whose rule was largely absent of reform. Like Mubarak, he offered stability but little else.

You get the point. Dividing the world in black and white terms between dictators and democrats completely misses the political and moral complexity of the situation on the ground in many dozens of countries. The twin categories of democrats and dictators are simply too broad for an adequate understanding of many places and their rulers — and thus for an adequate understanding of geopolitics. There is surely a virtue in blunt, simple thinking and pronouncements. Simplifying complex patterns allows people to see underlying critical truths they might otherwise have missed. But because reality is by its very nature complex, too much simplification leads to an unsophisticated view of the world. One of the strong suits of the best intellectuals and geopoliticians is their tendency to reward complex thinking and their attendant ability to draw fine distinctions.

Fine distinctions should be what geopolitics and political science are about. It means that we recognize a world in which, just as there are bad democrats, there are good dictators. World leaders in many cases should not be classified in black and white terms, but in many indeterminate shades, covering the spectrum from black to white.

More examples:

Nawaz Sharif and his rival, the late Benazir Bhutto, when they alternately ruled Pakistan in the 1990s were terrible administrators. They were both elected by voters, but each governed in a thoroughly corrupt, undisciplined and unwise manner that made their country less stable and laid the foundation for military rule. They were democrats, but illiberal ones.

The late King Hussein of Jordan and the late Park Chung Hee of South Korea were both dictators, but their dynamic, enlightened rules took unstable pieces of geography and provided them with development and consequent relative stability. They were dictators, but liberal ones.

Amid this political and moral complexity that spans disparate regions of the Earth, some patterns do emerge. On the whole, Asian dictators have performed better than Middle Eastern ones. Deng of China, Lee of Singapore, Park of South Korea, Mahathir bin Mohammad of Malaysia, Chiang Kai-Shek of Taiwan were all authoritarians to one degree or another. But their autocracies led to economic and technological development, to better governance, and to an improved quality of life. Most important, their rules, however imperfect, have overall better positioned their societies for democratic reforms later on. All of these men, including the Muslim Mahathir, were influenced, however indirectly and vaguely, by a body of values known as Confucianism: respect for hierarchy, elders, and, in general, ethical living in the here-and-now of this world.

Contrast that with Arab dictators such as Ben Ali of Tunisia, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam of Iraq, and the al Assads of Syria. Ben Ali and Mubarak, it is true, were far less repressive than Saddam and the elder Assad. Moreover, Ben Ali and Mubarak did encourage some development of a middle class in their countries. But they were not ethical reformers by any means. Of course, Saddam and al Assad were altogether brutal. They ran states so suffocating in their levels of repression that they replicated prison yards. Rather than Confucianism, Saddam and al Assad were motivated by Baathism, a half-baked Arab socialism so viciously opposed to Western colonialism that it created a far worse tyranny of its own.

Beyond the Middle East and Asia there is the case of Russia. In the 1990s, Russia was ruled by Boris Yeltsin, a man lauded in the West for being a democrat. But his undisciplined rule led to sheer economic and social chaos. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is much closer to an authoritarian — and is increasingly so — and is consequently despised in the West. But, helped by energy prices, he has restored Russia to some measure of stability, and thus dramatically improved the quality of life of average Russians. And he has done this without resorting to the level of authoritarianism — with the mass disappearances and constellation of Siberian labor camps — of the czars and commissars of old.

Finally, there is the most morally vexing case of all: that of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. In the 1970s and 1980s, Pinochet created more than a million new jobs, reduced the poverty rate from a third of the population to as low as a tenth, and the infant mortality rate from 78 per 1,000 to 18. Pinochet’s Chile was one of the few non-Asian countries in the world to experience double-digit Asian levels of economic growth at the time. Pinochet prepared his country well for eventual democracy, even as his economic policy became a model for the developing and post-Communist worlds. But Pinochet is also rightly the object of intense hatred among liberals and humanitarians the world over for perpetrating years of systematic torture against tens of thousands of victims. So where does he fall on the spectrum from black to white?

Not only is the world of international affairs one of many indeterminate shades, but it is also one in which, sometimes, it is impossible to know just where to locate someone on that spectrum. The question of whether ends justify means should not only be answered by metaphysical doctrine, but also by empirical observation — sometimes ends do justify means, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes the means are unconnected to the ends, and are therefore to be condemned, as is the case with Chile. Such is the intricacy of the political and moral universe. Complexity and fine distinctions are things to be embraced; otherwise geopolitics, political science, and related disciplines distort rather than illuminate.

Uganda’s future is brighter than those in opposition depict


History shows that man is very ingenious, to-date nearly everything Museveni has focused on single mindedly has been achieved or blueprints have been printed. I don’t want you to under estimate your mind or the minds of many more in Uganda. A leader can only lead those who agree with him or only if he has the majority supporting him. The President can have the best plans ever but if no one benefits from his plan they can’t be. The President came to power because enough people supported him since they needed change and to many being able to sleep at night was enough, “Kasita twebaka kutulo” and so is his longevity in power.

Take a few minutes everyday to focus on another way, a non violent way, a way that is inclusive and non tribunal, a way springing from the facts of today as they are and not embedded in the past stories. I bet two things will happen, you will be scared because your conclusion will create a better Uganda that you might not enjoy for the longest because the way might be longer than you want and secondly you will think that nobody else has such dreams.

Yes it can happen, many know it can happen, but the voices of those preaching violence and aggressive change are louder than those that are mellow in reasoning and brood results the natural way. The focus is on one man, our President. The focus should be on a country that has a system that is inclusive, audit-able, involving full participation of the population and not based on personalities.

Uganda’s future is brighter than those in opposition depict, we all know what happens in Mulago, we all know about the potholes in the Roads, but tomorrows State of the Republic does not depend on yesterdays actions, but on the brighter visions and ideas that are in the minds of the Facebook generations and those who chose to focus on the good even when its dismal, and believe me, there is a lot of good out there, if you focus on that. There many good government employees, many good soldiers, many good people that voted for NRM, many potential presidential candidates, many good scientists and sports players, many good police officers, many good voices in parliament and elsewhere that have revolutionary ideas, and yes we are better of than twenty years ago.

We will never get there and this everyone should know, every government that comes after this 200 hundred years from now will not have a perfect system because human desires change with change, he who begged for a bicycle two years ago saying that if he got one his world will be better needs a car today, and that’s okay but as long as we think about change as destroying everything we have achieved up to now through destructive ways hoping to build from scratch with no idea of where we will get the funds to do so is the focus of each and every opposition group leader, we are doomed to having every new building we see in town blown away, and the blood that flowed on the streets of Kampala in past confrontations will flow again and more poisonous histories will be created for generations to come.

One day, voices of good, voices of hope will gain the momentum and our country will embress change with no fear, and changing leadership will be like a sport where those who lost today will shake hands with the winners, and look forward to meeting again four years after with the whole country fully supporting all and embracing them with love.

“We can turn our political world, into a sports world, that we all love Yes we can.”

That is the same reason some of us advise the opposition parties to work more at getting more members in parliament other than being duped by their leaders who are using them to get the presidential seat. I believe you know that major laws that govern the country are made through parliament so it shows the importance.
However my main point is that our Lord Mayor should have known what was in the KCCA Act. and if he did then he should have known how much power he will have as the Lord Mayor before he ran for that post. What I believe duped him was the support he got as he was campaigning on the DP front and when he failed that end the next easily high chair he could get into was the Lord Mayor chair. If you take your time to check out my past analysis of the same on this forum you will find that he actually could have turned this ceremonial post to his greatest advantage if he had chosen an easier route. I hope he gets what he wants.

Another point is that when laws are made in Parliament they are meant to cover a wide range of issues and it is nearly impossible to address all situations that will come up in the future, same reason why most of them are ambiguous enough and depending on how one dices them different conclusions can be made. If you agree with this point then you have to agree that the court is the way to go when situations like these appear, there is still room to tweak this Acts howbeit not on the Major backbone reasons why they were passed, which brings me back to the point being that this Act was crafted by the Presidential office to take back all the powers of managing the city from KCC as we knew it hence a change in the status quo. This essentially means that if the Lord Mayor and his team want to go back to the good old days of KCC as it was bending or changing the KCCA Act. a futile plan.

The issue, is that the President is not the problem, he is the problem only if he is the focus. The President believe him or not wants better for the country and I personally I am glad he came 25 years ago because I remember what Uganda was the fear we had then. By making him the focus of change, we also create the reverse of everyone who is benefiting from this government to resisting change because we promise them that when change come they will be put in jail, send to international courts, and we promise to replicate what President Idi Amin(R.I.P) did with the our Indian brothers and sisters. For masses in the current government the opposition is preaching destruction. The Presidents natural clock is ticking faster than it was 25 years ago, he can’t do as many push ups as he did 25 years ago neither can he craw under barbed wires, and I don’t think he can last 2 minutes playing chess with Gary Kasparov as he probably would have done 25 years ago. Our President is not Uganda’s biggest problem, i put the good doctor Kiiza Besigye, his Holiness Olara Otunnu, Hon. Beti Kamya ( Wharaup yo!) and my good friend Hon. Norbert Mao a head of the President if I had to make a list, my reasoning being that those who are supposed to give us a better vision are just poisoning our minds.

Dr.Eddie Kayondo, M.D.
UAH Member in USA

“NO BOURGEOISIE, NO DEMOCRACY”:In the early 2000s, Kenya depended on donor aid only to the tune of 5%, Tanzania, 33% while Uganda did so to the tune of 53%


In my layman’s view, laws are qualitative expressions of the concrete realities that dictate their formulation. When you transpose Kenyan legislation onto Uganda, all you will be doing is to dress up a porcupine in a Kanzu. You are better off crafting a special attire that is tailored to the spikes of the porcupine. Those spikes simply will shred the Kanzu.

I am reminded here of the political transitions in all three East African countries in the first decade of the 2000s. Even a cursory glance at those transitions will tell you a huge story of what is possible in terms of democracy in Uganda, and how the question of economics comes into play….you know the old addage that “Politics is concentrated economics”…that is, politics are the qualitative expression, or the distillate of socioeconomic realities. You can distil War Gin (Waragi) from Foot and Mouth Drink (Banana Beer) but not from milk.

In the early 2000s, Kenya depended on donor aid only to the tune of 5%, Tanzania, 33% while Uganda did so to the tune of 53%. Those figures are a reflection of the robustness of the “fiscal contract” in the three countries…just forget about Thomas Hobbes’ nebulous and intellectually indolent “social contract” which pseudoliberals love to bandy about. The nuts and bolts of the contract between political elites and their constituents is the fiscal imperative: tax, the subscription fee for membership to civil society.

Now, back to Uganda and her sisters, and the robustness of the fiscal contract. What we saw happening in Kenya in 2002 was a long-reigning President attempting to have the constitution – the supreme law – amended so as to secure for himself another term in office. That failed miserably. What followed then in Kenya was the incumbent president was never brought back to office, but neither was the ruling party. Kenya: President loses out, his party loses out, fiscal bond: 95%.

In Tanzania you have the highly institutionalised CCM, Mr Mkapa served his two terms from 1995, you could not even hear of a dreamer’s hint of a third term. He stood down, eventually relinquishing the leadership of the CCM to his successor. But even then, the party was returned in power. Tanzania: President stands down, party remains in power, fiscal bond: 67%

In Uganda, the constitution was ammended to allow the incumbent to stand for a third term, he remained the head of the ruling party, and he remained in power. Uganda: Constitution is amended, president stays put, party is returned in power, fiscal bond: 47%.

Here is my hypothesis: The level of democratic responsiveness of a political elite of any one country is inversely proportional to the extent of aid dependency of the country in question. Put differently, The level of democratic responsiveness of a political elite of any one country is directly proportional to the extent to which the country in question relies on locally-generated revenue. The point here is, democracy is not just good manners. Let me define it as “Democracy is the tight corner in which revenue-thirsty political elites find themselves when they are forced to rely on their own populations to function”. Forget about the hot air of si jui, rule of the people for the people blah, blah….By the way, on ammending constitutions to get third terms, recall that General Obasanjo had to even fly to Kampala to consult on how he could force through his 3rd term. That consultation did not help: his people vetoed him. Nigeria depends on aid only to the tune of 0.01%

Worse still, Uganda is even lacking in the level of democratic pressure that it can bring to bear on the political elite. As you know, Uganda has the lowest median age in the world: 14.9 years. We have the youngest population in the world, likewise, we have the least number of voters. According to democratic theory, electoral politics only begins to make sense when 75% of the population can cast their vote. That 75% tells also another story: when those many people can vote, it means also you have more adults, you have more potential tax payers/workers and you can therefore have a strong fiscal bond between the elite and the population.

In Uganda, only 40% of the population are of voting age, you have no quorum: bottomline, electoral politics in Uganda is a mockery; it is a slap in the face of liberal democracy and every time Uganda holds any form of election, that reality is always there for all to see. There is no social basis for liberal democracy in Uganda. That 40% also means you have less employable people, and less tax payers. As you know, Uganda also has the highest dependency ratio in the world:- 100:111. Since you even have the lowest number of people above the age of 65% in the world, it means that all your dependants are babies, nappy wearers.

Kenya is urbanised to the tune of 26%, Uganda: 12%. Kenya’s median age is 18.6%…many more workers, many more tax payers, many more bargainers for political concessions. Recall what it took to quell mass demonstrations recently: armed polic in combat, with live ammunition. In Uganda: Kiboko squad…just whip them off the streets like the rowdy toddlers that they are.

So, three things for you to consider before you orthopaedically impose Kenyan law on Uganda. One, context; secondly, context and third but not least and always easy to forget, context.

What I believe is, that laws are moulded by the politico-economic realities that inform their formulation. It may not be prudent to hope that, a law propounded in Kenya can be workable here in Uganda. I am I wrong to hold that view?

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

Uganda needs a selfless leadership willing to put in place mechanisms that will gradually increase the peoples capacity to demand more accountability


Nelson Mandela at his law offices (shared with Oliver Tambo) in Johannesburg sometime in the late 1950's.

Nelson Mandela at his law offices (shared with Oliver Tambo) in Johannesburg sometime in the late 1950’s.

True direct taxation must precede the demand for accountability, it helps in creating what I call the people pull, it increases their propensity to control those who govern them thus creating the right conditions for building a democracy.

However there are a few other things that must be done before we get to the issue of broadening direct taxation, the current levels of poverty make broadening and deepening taxation rather politically expensive, in their lies the reason why FDC/NRM chose to abolish it. We must first make meaningful progress against poverty in order to have the incomes to tax. However we should continue to collect whatever can be collected for the reasons I gave before and then broaden and deepen as the incomes grow.

Also, it is equally important to keep an eye on institution building, we cannot neglect that front. Without working institutions our governments will not be able to apply the Aid and Loans plus whatever is realisable from internal revenues to quickly improve the economic situation of the masses.

The whole thing is a viscous circle of needs that are not easy to balance, you need to tax the people so that they can own their government and hold it accountable, but these people are poor, so you fund the governments through IMF & World Bank while you wait for poverty to reduce. Then you realise that governments will not achieve much without functioning institutions, but these institutions won’t function because accountability is not yet feasible, it is not feasible because the people are not yet taxable. Back to where you started

This is a challenge which the African elite must find a solution for there is an acute shortage of leadership in Africa, the kind that would seriously exert the required effort to innovate test and apply the appropriate governance systems that would fit our conditions. I concur with him in his pessimism.

The main reason why this sad situation persists is the fact that our population is vulnerable, poor, ignorant and diseased, such a lot have no capacity to provide any meaningful democratic pull or push that would encourage the leadership to be that innovative. The people as good as not being there and our elite can misbehave to unbelievable extent with no consequence whatsoever, the people factor is absent, you only have to hope that you will get someone who will do this good work without any demands or expected reward from the people. Unfortunately God created too few Mandela’s and Nyerere’s instead with we have Bokasas, Mubutus, Abachas and others i dont need to name.

You need a selfless leadership willing to put in place mechanisms that will gradually increase the peoples capacity to demand more accountability. Problem, the stronger the people get, the harder they are to misgovern for long, so most of our leaders selfishly sustain the weaknesses of our people so as to keep getting long peaceful tenures Bongo style. A leadership that can seriously alter our conditions does not merely need to be selfless but actually suicidal; it needs to saw the seeds that will make life harder or even shorter for itself.

Because selfless individuals are few and where they exist they may not get a chance to rise to power in our undemocratic, instituitionless politics, it more realistic to assume that we may never be able to serious address these matters.

That being the case we better counted ourselves to dressing our porcupine with a kanzu, it will keep tearing the kannzu to shreds but hopefully over time all the spikes will be lost and the Kanzu will work.

(Oshobeirwe, ashwera kambe nkwine) One who is desperate will marry any woman available.
The western model of democracy is not our dream bride, but it is better than remaining unmarried.

I have just remembered something I used to observe in the village where i grew up, mothers would go to the market and buy clearly oversize clothes for the kids, and you would see kids running around with big shorts assisted with a string to keep it from falling off and shirts or sweaters pulled on one side and tied to stop the shoulders from escaping through where only the head should pass.

If you inquired why they have to dress the kids that shabbily, the universal answer would be “Oh the kid is growing he is going to fit into it with time”

I agree entirely that political structure should be determined by economic structure, problem is our world has not yet invented a stable equitable and fair political system for economies that are still in transition to where western style liberal democracy can work well.

It is very tempting to want to dress these infant economies in the liberal democratic dress they shall hopefully wear when they reach maturity, this ill fitting dress is shabby and sometimes makes our walking difficult. but until someone clearly tailors for us a better dress we shall have to make do with the cutting and stringing loose ends until when we grow into it.

Better than remaining naked.

Desmond Nzaana
FDC Representative in England

%d bloggers like this: