Comment : Deconstructing
the arguments of Museveni’s teethless state house bull dogs
A UK Economist News paper has
written a very fair and balanced assessment of President Museveni’s dictatorship.
Museveni’s teethless state house bulldogs have come up in arms against the
article in the economist news paper. Mr. Frank Tumwebaze, the Minister in
charge of the presidency has written an article in the government news paper, The
new vision titled, ‘’Uganda
is a constitutional democracy’’. Although this article is verbose, it is full
of illogical sentiments and un-sound arguments. Mr. Frank Tumwebaze’s entire article is
premised on two very unsound arguments i.e.
- it does not matter how long a leader stays in power as long as the country is developing
and promoting economic growth bra bra…
- Museveni’s long stay in power is because there is no
dependable alternative .
Mr.Tumwebaze’s arguments are very
unsound and ridiculous because a leader like Gadafii of Libya had promoted growth and development far much
better than Museveni. But because of his foolish stay in power for along time,all
the human development achievements attained have been whitewashed by the
turmoil that characterized his removal and after math . Museveni and his cronies have
systematically dismantled all democratic state structures and processes that
would assist the opposition political parties and even Museveni’s National
Resistance Movement to nurture a formidable alternative to president Museveni. Museveni owns the electoral commission,
police, army, parliament and is doing every thing possible to own the judiciary.
Now, turning to Mr.Rwakakamba’s article titled, ‘’Pseudo Imperialists Are Back’’. This article is based on two naïve arguments that :
1. the UK economist news paper is being used by imperialists to tarnish president Museveni’s credible image . He opines that, ‘’Now they have been trying to create stooges and alternatives in Uganda, financing opposition campaigns, funding insurrectionists under the rubric of the so called ‘walk to work’ protests, creating platforms and arranging strategy meetings for oppositionists in various capitals of Europe- yet all these have kept failing and smoldering. The result has been successive opposition defeats at pervious general elections in Uganda. Now these imperialists are angry at the people of Uganda. They are desperate and they want keep fighting. Now that they failed with former FDC president Dr. Kizza Besigye and UPC president Olara Otunu they are trying to look out for more. Should we be surprised if the same group is behind Gen. David Sejusa aka Gen. David Tinyefuza? Why can’t this group let the people of Uganda select their leaders without interference and arrogance? Why can’t they respect the ingenuity of Ugandans? Why can’t they be comfortable with Uganda’s sovereignty?’’
2. That Museveni has managed to
stay in power because of people’s mandate and will not be destructed from his
campaign to develop and transform the country.
These arguments are just ridiculous asininic. To begin with, it is
surprising that a presidential assistant
on research and information is very misinformed about the fact that Museveni
has managed to stay in power for too long because of American and British imperialistic support. Museveni is a puppet of
the American neo-liberal system and has fought wars in Somalia etc to appease
the imperialists. The second argument of Mr. Rwakakamba is equally very weak because even Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak argued that he
had managed to stay in power for long
because of people’s support but this did not stop a general uprising against
him by the people.
A leader who cannot bear to retire
Once much admired across Africa and the West, Uganda’s tarnished president seems determined to hang on for ever
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21587812-once-much-admired-across-africa-and-west-ugandas-tarnished-president-seems
YOWERI MUSEVENI may not have squirrelled away as much money as some of Africa’s other long-serving leaders, but few have accumulated a comparable wealth in nicknames. Uganda’s president since 1986, he has been called “M7”, “Sevo”, “Othello”, “Napoleon” (apparently after the ruler in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”) and “the East African Lion”, among others. His latest moniker derives from his preoccupation with rural life—his own rather than his people’s. Thanks to the inordinate amount of time the 69-year-old spends on his cattle farm in southern Uganda, he is now known as “the Gentleman Farmer”.
In the 1990s Mr Museveni was hailed across Africa as a new kind of leader, empowering rather than impoverishing his people. He restored stability after decades of bloody upheaval.
He boosted economic growth after long years of ruin. He beat back a dreadful HIV/AIDS epidemic. He was hailed in the West as an exemplar of a new breed of dynamic and democratic African leader who deserved generous aid for development. He remains popular at home and might win a fair election. But the coterie of loyalists who surround him dare not take that risk. Democracy in Uganda has been badly eroded.
Mr Museveni, in any event, seems increasingly erratic. At a recent event he told a group of youths that he had learnt about an American form of music called rap, evidently unaware that it predates his presidency. The Gentleman Farmer then gave his own improvised rendition of two Ugandan folk songs, “I cut a stick” and “Give me the stick”. Recordings of the event were later set to thumping beats by joking Ugandan DJs. Some Ugandans were cheered. Others felt queasy.
Mr Museveni is virtually the only decision-maker in the government. Almost nothing gets done without his nod. Officials must travel down to his farm from Kampala to seek his blessing for their plans. But while the president’s signature on a policy paper is necessary, it is not sufficient to move the sluggish state machine into action. Plenty of officials have their own agendas and exploit the president’s remoteness. They undermine or obstruct initiatives blessed by him if they can do it undetected and make some money.
Decades of presidential dominance have driven away the best officials, who have gone abroad or into private business—anywhere away from Uganda’s shambolic government. A hollowed-out civil service is hamstrung by the commercial interests of politically connected Ugandans. This infuriates the president, who punishes underlings with a vengeance. Officials live in fear of his wrath. A single mistake can end a career. Those who survive tend to be yes-men. “What counts here is patronage, not capacity,” says a Western diplomat. “The president has assembled around him the least talented, most clown-like advisers.”
Thus bereft of talent, the Museveni court is in disarray. Insiders fight among themselves. The prime minister, parliamentary speaker and other senior members of the National Resistance Movement, the ruling party, are building competing power bases in readiness for the president’s eventual departure.
But when that will come is unclear. Mr Museveni has made no public plans for his succession. His son, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, whose military career is taking off faster than one of Mr Museveni’s cherished Russian fighter jets, has been mentioned. Other family members are also close to the levers of power. Mr Museveni’s wife (a cabinet member), sister, brother, a stepbrother and a cousin all hold lofty political posts. Ugandan newspapers list dozens of family members in the government.
Or at least they used to. New laws and assertive policing are muzzling dissent. Two papers and two radio stations were forced to close this year. Thanks to the public-order-management bill passed in May, any meeting of three or more people may be deemed illegal. In practice Uganda remains a fairly open society, but the authoritarian mood is getting harsher. Civil-society groups remain strong, but parliament is no match for the executive.
Comparisons between Mr Museveni and Idi Amin, the Ugandan “president for life” who butchered tens of thousands of his people in the 1970s, have become more common. Mr Museveni is a lot less brutal but shares the same love of power. Although Uganda is nominally a multiparty democracy, dirty tricks keep the opposition weak; its leaders tend to end up in prison on trumped-up charges.
Rumours of military coups come and go. Some say the old man talks them up to expose or dish his foes. He knows a thing or two about armed revolts; after all, he helped overthrow both Amin in 1979 and Milton Obote, who ruled before and then after Amin, in 1985. To avoid such a fate, Mr Museveni promotes young officers to senior military and civilian posts to keep his old guard off balance. The youngsters often visit his farm to pledge allegiance.
But Mr Museveni is only a part-time gentleman farmer. It was some years ago that he got Parliament to drop the two-term limit on the presidency. Now it will be expected to lift the constitutional age limit of 75, allowing him to run for a full term in the election due in 2016. Mr Museveni seems to have forgotten what he wrote a quarter of a century ago: “The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people, but leaders who want to overstay in power.”
Dr.Myles Munroe attacks leaders who
stay long in Power.
Munroe asks African leaders to emulate Mandela
Publish Date: Oct 08, 2013
President
Museveni receives books from the founder of the Bahamas Faith
Ministries International, Myles Munroe, during the prayer breakfast
meeting at Hotel Africana .Photo/ Abbou Mwesige
Celebrated international pastor Dr. Myles Munroe has called upon African leaders to emulate former South African president Nelson Mandela who ruled for only one term and relinquished power.
Speaking Tuesday afternoon during the 15th national prayer breakfast at Hotel Africana as the keynote speaker, Dr. Munroe said: “Africa has many politicians who are not leaders. Politicians are concerned about the next election but true leaders are concerned about the next generation. Leaders relinquish leadership positions for others.”
Referring to Nelson Mandela as the greatest leader Africa has ever produced, Dr. Munroe said, “Mandela spent in prison more than 24 years but ruled for only one term. He did not use power to protect himself from people but used power to empower people.”
Munroe advised leaders to always create strong institutions as foundations for national visions bearing in mind that whereas visions are permanent, leaders are temporal.
Explaining that every success in the world depends on the quality of leadership, Dr. Munroe argued that African nations are underdeveloped due to poor quality of leaders.
“Leadership determines everything in life. Nothing happens without leadership. Whether you are talking about an organisation, church or nation, everything depends on leadership for success. Leaders determine the quality and attitude of their followers. If your country is not effective, it is the fault of its leaders not its people,” he elaborated.
Speaking prophetically, Dr. Munroe said a time has come for third world countries to give solutions to developed nations.
Matembe calls for Museveni removal
Former Ethics minister Miria Matembe (L) addresses journalists in
Kampala recently. Looking on is Uganda Association of Women Lawyers
board member Eunice Musiime Kataaha. PHOTO BY RACHEL
MABALA
By Mudangha Kolyangha
Posted Saturday, October 26 2013 at 01:00
Posted Saturday, October 26 2013 at 01:00
In Summary
The former Ethics minister says the youth should
spread anti-Museveni messages in their areas so that he is defeated
peacefully and order restored.
Former Minister of Ethics and Integrity in the NRM
government Miria Matembe has rallied the youth to carry out massive
campaigns to remove President Museveni from power in order to restore
good governance in the country.
Ms Matembe, a human rights activist, was on
Thursday speaking at a public dialogue organised by Hope Initiative Club
at Islamic University in Uganda main campus in Mbale. “It’s your
obligation as the current generation to resent and resist President
Museveni.
You should comb your constituencies with
anti-Museveni content to defeat him peacefully and restore
constitutionalism, rule of law and human rights in our beloved country,”
said Ms Matembe, who was the guest speaker. She said the final tool to
remove Mr Museveni from power is the youth using their demographic
numbers and resentment of the President and his henchmen.
Ms Matembe was among the four ministers - Bidandi
Ssali, the late Eriya Kategaya, and Sarah Kiyingi who were sacked from
Cabinet in 2003 after they opposed President Museveni’s move to amend
the Constitution and remove the two five-year presidential term limits
from the Constitution to allow him stand for presidency as many times as
he wished.
Removed
The Constitution was ultimately amended and the term limits removed in 2005. In a rebuttal against the Western media recently, minister for the Presidency Frank Tumwebaze said President Museveni follows the Constitution. “What these Western media channels do is to target and frame the portraits of these resolute African leaders like President Museveni and others in the stereotype of their attitudes towards Africa and her people,” Mr Tumwebaze said, in a commentary published in the Daily Monitor.
The Constitution was ultimately amended and the term limits removed in 2005. In a rebuttal against the Western media recently, minister for the Presidency Frank Tumwebaze said President Museveni follows the Constitution. “What these Western media channels do is to target and frame the portraits of these resolute African leaders like President Museveni and others in the stereotype of their attitudes towards Africa and her people,” Mr Tumwebaze said, in a commentary published in the Daily Monitor.
However, at the Mbale dialogue, Ms Matembe decried
corruption and poor governance in Uganda and said President Museveni
has created fear among Ugandans by using “iron means” against the
population. “This government has instilled fear among Ugandans due to
heavy deployment of security forces and excessive use of tear gas,” she
said, adding “but don’t be scared. It takes sacrifice to achieve risky
missions.”
Ms Matembe urged the youth to be vigilant,
enthusiastic and consistent in their decisions to avoid falling into
President Museveni’s “trap again”. She said President Museveni’s
government has lost direction and needs to be redirected.
Wake up
“Youth, you have to wake up and take on the responsibility of stopping this government from stretching further. Because the more it stretches, the more you feel the pinch,” she said. Ms Matembe said President Museveni’s government can no longer take care of its people, citing several failed youth projects and the pension scam now under investigation by police, which has already taken several suspects to trial at the Anti-Corruption Court.
“Youth, you have to wake up and take on the responsibility of stopping this government from stretching further. Because the more it stretches, the more you feel the pinch,” she said. Ms Matembe said President Museveni’s government can no longer take care of its people, citing several failed youth projects and the pension scam now under investigation by police, which has already taken several suspects to trial at the Anti-Corruption Court.
Ms Sarah Birete, the programme director of Centre
for Constitutional Governance, said the youth in universities should use
their platform to engage in national affairs. Ms Birete wondered why
the current university students are inactive on governance issues in the
country. “In this seemingly hopeless situation, I wonder why university
youth are dormant yet they have education power to liberate this
nation,” she said.
Ms Birete said university students are wasting
their knowledge power in gambling, imitating celebrities and abusing
drugs. Hope Initiative Club, a Non-Governmental Organisation, spearheads
debate in higher institutions of learning on constitutionalism, human
rights and democracy.
I am dwelling much on good economic management because it’s a variable highly dependent on the nature of the country’s Political leadership and it can therefore be a good measure in assessing governance credentials of any regime. No wonder the first alarming signs that come with effects of instability or bad governance in any country are inflation levels.
Hon Frank Tumwebaze attacks Foreign Press for criticising President Yoweri Museveni’s 27-year-old reign
By Fred Daka Kamwada & Agencies
Ugandan Minister for Presidency has
leapt to the defense of his boss, President Yoweri Museveni by
responding to an article that was published in the UK based Economist
newspaper castigating President Museveni’s long stay in power.
The letter which was full of stats and
figures defending the NRM has seen the youthful minister manoeuvring to
justify the actions of the regime and its leader President Museveni.
Hon Frank Tumwebaze believes that the
foreign presshawks negative propaganda against progressive African
leaders including President Museveni.
He gives detailed accounts about the
progressive polices of the NRM government and lambasts the foreign press
for promoting a hate agenda rather than looking at the policies
available.
The UK based Economist newspaper
published the article early this month (12TH October 2013) in which it
attacked President Museveni’s long stay in power. It also highlighted
what it termed as ‘President Museveni’s policy of employing loyalty
rather than merited people in top government positions’.
Having ruled Uganda for the last 27
years, President Yoweri Museveni is Africa’s fourth longest serving
leader after pPresident Theodore Obaing Nguema of Equatorial Guinea at
34 years, Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos at 34 years,
President Robert Mugabe at 33 years in power and , President Paul Biya
who has ruled Cameroon for the last 30 years.
Of all the leaders mentioned, it’s
President Museveni who has borne the brunt of the international
community for ruling longer than expected since he was at the forefront
of ridiculing leaders who ruled longer,
Today The Investigator has endeavoured
to bring both the article of the economist and the response from Hon
Frank Tumwebaze to allow you the benefit of making judgment between the
two pieces.
We begin with the unedited article from the UK based economist titled ‘A leader who cannot bear to retire’ below:
Once much admired across Africa and the West, Uganda’s tarnished president seems determined to hang on for ever.
Yoweri Museveni may not have squirrelled
away as much money as some of Africa’s other long-serving leaders, but
few have accumulated a comparable wealth in nicknames. Uganda’s
president since 1986, he has been called “M7”, “Sevo”, “Othello”, “and
Napoleon” (apparently after the ruler in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”)
and “the East African Lion”, among others. His latest moniker derives
from his preoccupation with rural life—his own rather than his people’s.
Thanks to the inordinate amount of time the 69-year-old spends on his
cattle farm in southern Uganda, he is now known as “the Gentleman
Farmer”.
In the 1990s, Mr Museveni was hailed
across Africa as a new kind of leader, empowering rather than
impoverishing his people. He restored stability after decades of bloody
upheaval. He boosted economic growth after long years of ruin. He beat
back a dreadful HIV/AIDS epidemic. He was hailed in the West as an
exemplar of a new breed of dynamic and democratic African leader who
deserved generous aid for development. He remains popular at home and
might win a fair election. But the coterie of loyalists who surround him
dare not take that risk. Democracy in Uganda has been badly eroded.
Mr Museveni, in any event, seems
increasingly erratic. At a recent event he told a group of youths that
he had learnt about an American form of music called rap, evidently
unaware that it predates his presidency. The Gentleman Farmer then gave
his own improvised rendition of two Ugandan folk songs, “I cut a stick”
and “Give me the stick”. Recordings of the event were later set to
thumping beats by joking Ugandan DJs. Some Ugandans were cheered. Others
felt queasy.
Mr Museveni is virtually the only
decision-maker in the government. Almost nothing gets done without his
nod. Officials must travel down to his farm from Kampala to seek his
blessing for their plans. But while the president’s signature on a
policy paper is necessary, it is not sufficient to move the sluggish
state machine into action. Plenty of officials have their own agendas
and exploit the president’s remoteness. They undermine or obstruct
initiatives blessed by him if they can do it undetected and make some
money.
The auditor-general recently reported
that $100m was diverted last year from government coffers. No sector of
the economy has been as badly handled as oil, which was discovered seven
years ago. This month the government finally unveiled plans for
refineries that should have been begun three or four years ago.
Decades of presidential dominance have
driven away the best officials, who have gone abroad or into private
business—anywhere away from Uganda’s shambolic government. A
hollowed-out civil service is hamstrung by the commercial interests of
politically connected Ugandans. This infuriates the president, who
punishes underlings with a vengeance. Officials live in fear of his
wrath. A single mistake can end a career. Those who survive tend to be
yes-men. “What counts here is patronage, not capacity,” says a Western
diplomat. “The president has assembled around him the least talented,
most clown-like advisers.”
Thus bereft of talent, the Museveni
court is in disarray. Insiders fight among themselves. The prime
minister, parliamentary speaker and other senior members of the National
Resistance Movement, the ruling party, are building competing power
bases in readiness for the president’s eventual departure.
But when that will come is unclear. Mr
Museveni has made no public plans for his succession. His son, Muhoozi
Kainerugaba, whose military career is taking off faster than one of Mr
Museveni’s cherished Russian fighter jets, has been mentioned. Other
family members are also close to the levers of power. Mr Museveni’s wife
(a cabinet member), sister, brother, a stepbrother and a cousin all
hold lofty political posts. Ugandan newspapers list dozens of family
members in the government.
Or at least they used to. New laws and
assertive policing are muzzling dissent. Two papers and two radio
stations were forced to close this year. Thanks to the
public-order-management bill passed in May, any meeting of three or more
people may be deemed illegal. In practice Uganda remains a fairly open
society, but the authoritarian mood is getting harsher. Civil-society
groups remain strong, but parliament is no match for the executive.
Comparisons between Mr Museveni and Idi
Amin, the Ugandan “president for life” who butchered tens of thousands
of his people in the 1970s, have become more common. Mr Museveni is a
lot less brutal but shares the same love of power. Although Uganda is
nominally a multiparty democracy, dirty tricks keep the opposition weak;
its leaders tend to end up in prison on trumped-up charges.
Rumours of military coups come and go.
Some say the old man talks them up to expose or dish his foes. He knows a
thing or two about armed revolts; after all, he helped overthrow both
Amin in 1979 and Milton Obote, who ruled before and then after Amin, in
1985. To avoid such a fate, Mr Museveni promotes young officers to
senior military and civilian posts to keep his old guard off balance.
The youngsters often visit his farm to pledge allegiance.
But Mr Museveni is only a part-time
gentleman farmer. It was some years ago that he got Parliament to drop
the two-term limit on the presidency. Now it will be expected to lift
the constitutional age limit of 75, allowing him to run for a full term
in the election due in 2016. Mr Museveni seems to have forgotten what he
wrote a quarter of a century ago: “The problem of Africa in general and
Uganda in particular is not the people, but leaders who want to
overstay in power.”
Hon Frank Tumwebaze (unedited) ResponseTo The Economist below;
Museveni's leadership is constitutional
Publish Date: Oct 22, 2013
By Frank Tumwebaze
The UK based Economist newspaper and its
other sister outlets, recently dedicated a good amount of their print
space to publish nothing else but extreme hate content against Uganda
and its President; a recent style of journalism i find so strange; but
only common and popular with outlets of gutter press, to say the least.
The article was neither an objective
critique of the political realities obtaining in Uganda nor a balanced
account of what Uganda has managed to achieve or miss under the
leadership of President Museveni, but rather was a well spiced
instrument of propaganda from a hired political hit man; a merchant of
hatred, only rehearsing dirty insults, innuendos and attacks against the
person of the President of Uganda.
Fortunately, the tenor of the article
exposed the unnecessary personal outrage and emotions of the writer
leaving any objective reader with an opportunity to discern easily
between dirty handworks of haters and what can be taken as objective
criticism. It was an attempt by the economist newspaper , albeit a
failed one, to lend a hand of support and credence to the desperate
anti- NRM forces whose political efforts in Uganda have for decades now
failed to win the confidence of the electorate.
This was however not surprising, well
aware of the agenda of the western Media and their biases towards
African leaders; especially those with reasonable amount of influence in
their countries and in the region and with clear footprints of
transformation planted on the development trajectories of their
countries.
It's that category of leaders that they
seek to target and demonize by falsely judging them on their own
diversionary 'artificial symbols of democracy' and rhetoric. This is the
mere democratic symbolism that the western media and its sponsors
propagate and scream so much loud about for Africa to embrace and thus
get diverted from its development realities at the expense of its
peoples' empowerment.
The earlier Africa and her people put aside their small differences and concentrated on what unites them so as to collectively resist these diversionary and generic prescriptions of symbolic democracy, the better for our continent's future.
The earlier Africa and her people put aside their small differences and concentrated on what unites them so as to collectively resist these diversionary and generic prescriptions of symbolic democracy, the better for our continent's future.
What these western media channels do is
to target and frame the portraits of these resolute African leaders like
President Museveni and others in the stereotype of their attitudes
towards Africa and her people. Yet they cover up the actions of most of
their own despots at home and fail to condemn the ego-centric wars
sponsored and Exported to other countries by their leaders leaving their
own economies bleeding profusely, citizens chocking on growing public
debt and thousands of their tax payers jobless. What a shame? The
economist newspaper could perhaps gain more readership and some sort of
legitimacy as an impartial umpire if it exposed such inequities in the
backyard of its masters .
Unfortunately it cannot. The whole
agenda any way of these western media outlets that we should all know,
is not to speak good of africa's progress, but rather to target and
demonize such transformational leaders on the continent with strong and
purposeful agendas for their countries' future as they deceptively
pamper and promote weak unpopular stooges against them.
The late Melesi Zenawi of Ethiopia for
example, suffered so many wraths of these partisan international media
outlets, despite his land mark legacy of transformation that Ethiopia
takes so much pride in and which has acted as a buffer for its economic
resilience.
It was therefore not surprising reading
that much hateful content as contained in the economist article entitled
'Uganda and its President, a leader who cannot bear to retire;
unleashing all sorts of emotional outbursts against the person of
President Museveni. With a history of political violence and short-lived
regimes characterizing post independent uganda, President Museveni’s
twenty seven year stable stay in power has confounded many; friends and
foes alike.
In spite of all else, Uganda’s
post-independence moment of truth was in January 1986; and the ‘man
responsible for that moment’ was Yoweri Museveni. His consecutive
electoral victories therefore, are well grounded and come as deserving
rewards from the population that know and feel the stable and prosperous
journey he has walked them through.
This of course comes at the chagrin of
his adversaries and their foreign sympathizers. Yet on the other hand
the much pampered Ugandan opposition have failed to seize any ground
because of their failure to appreciate the status quo and thus propose
alternatives that don't seek to undo what is already real but instead
work to consolidate the gains.
For starters, democratic symbolism is an issue to understand and really debate whether that is the right direction nation states should take or indeed whether that is a form of democracy to talk of? It is the rhetoric of 'appearing to be' what actually one is not and the tendency to emphasize what is secondary while paying little or no attention to the primary antidotes of real democracy and development.
For starters, democratic symbolism is an issue to understand and really debate whether that is the right direction nation states should take or indeed whether that is a form of democracy to talk of? It is the rhetoric of 'appearing to be' what actually one is not and the tendency to emphasize what is secondary while paying little or no attention to the primary antidotes of real democracy and development.
Yet real democracy should not only
preach rhetoric of mere political appearances but rather work to
entrench the actual fundamental prerequisites that enable democratic
cultures to thrive. NRM has never worked for mere political appearances
but rather for real causes even when a certain amount of a high price
has had to be paid. Any country worth being called a democracy
therefore, should be judged on these parameters and Not on Questions of
longevity or short stay of leaders. What is crucial is the path that the
leader navigates a country through and the policies he adopts. In fact,
if the policy instruments are excellent as is the case for Uganda,
longevity becomes very significant. Conversely, regular change of
leaders is no guarantor for good governance.
If that was to be the case, then post
independent Uganda, would have taken off much faster as a super
democracy in it's early post- independence period, given the fact that
between 1962 and 1985 alone, Uganda changed 8 Presidents . So why didn't
a democratic culture then take deep root ? Was the problem then,
leaders who couldn't bear to retire as was alluded to by the Economist?
Certainly Not. The problem was the collapse of the entire political
structure without anything in place to support the evolution of
democracy.
Fortunately Our Political history is
recorded for all to know. The works of NRM have enabled us to entrench
real prerequisites for democracy building as opposed to artificial
symbols. These prerequisites include; participation of the citizenry in
determining their destiny, a free press, free and fair, periodic
elections. All these have since been restored and no leader in uganda at
every level leads without the people's will.
The most confounding aspect of President
Museveni’s lengthy stay in power therefore, is NOT the length of time
he has been in power, but Rather, what he has been able to achieve for
his country. The aspect of longevity alone distracts us from asking
relevant questions like: how has the country fared since Museveni came
to power?
What are Uganda’s strategic challenges?
How are the socio-economic indicators of growth in all sectors doing?
Let us attempt to answer these questions and therefore assess
scientifically the performance of the Museveni administration, political
biases of his opponents notwithstanding. For instance the NRM
government has managed over the years, to steadily maintain a positive
rate of sustainable economic growth in terms of real GDP.
Since 1992/93, fiscal policy in Uganda
has entailed very strict budgetary discipline. Government has kept firm
control over its own expenditures to ensure that it does not have to
borrow from the domestic sources to finance budget deficits. Fiscal
discipline has been absolutely essential for the control of inflation.
In turn, low inflation is a prerequisite for the higher levels of
private investment that have sustained rapid economic growth in Uganda.
For all this long, the main macroeconomic objectives of Government that have been steadily pursued without any policy reversals or deviations have been: to ensure rapid real GDP growth, to keep consumer price inflation to five percent or below, to maintain a prudent level of foreign reserves, and to ensure that the real exchange rate is compatible with a competitive external sector.
For all this long, the main macroeconomic objectives of Government that have been steadily pursued without any policy reversals or deviations have been: to ensure rapid real GDP growth, to keep consumer price inflation to five percent or below, to maintain a prudent level of foreign reserves, and to ensure that the real exchange rate is compatible with a competitive external sector.
Maintaining low inflation is an
especially crucial objective of economic policy because high inflation
has a number of harmful effects on the economy. In particular it
increases uncertainty about future economic variables and thus
discourages investment. Low and stable inflation is a prerequisite for
private investment in long term productive assets. It is very difficult
to make long term forecasts about the commercial viability of an
investment project in conditions of high inflation, because the future
prices on which the viability of the project will depend are very
difficult to predict when inflation is high. Hence inflation makes long
term investment much more risky. High inflation also erodes the real
value of money and thus discourages savings. It often leads to shrinking
of the financial system, as happened in Uganda in the 1980s.
Inflation is also regressive, because
the poor are much less able to protect the real value of their savings
from erosion than are the rich. For these reasons, the control of
inflation has been and still is a central objective of macroeconomic
policy, and an objective which the NRM government has succeeded in
achieving since 1992/93 to date because of being able to maintain strong
budget discipline at the aggregate fiscal level. Even when inflation
shot to a double digit last year because mainly of exogenous factors, it
was eventually squeezed back to as low as 3.4% the lowest ever by the
same correct fiscal and monetary policy instruments of government.
Another indicator of a well-managed economy is the way how a government manages its borrowing in order to finance its fiscal deficit especially for a developing country like Uganda that was characterized by long periods of civil strife and general economic collapse. If the Government runs a fiscal deficit which is too large to be financed from donor funds, it must borrow from the domestic banking system, which generally entails borrowing from the Central Bank.
Another indicator of a well-managed economy is the way how a government manages its borrowing in order to finance its fiscal deficit especially for a developing country like Uganda that was characterized by long periods of civil strife and general economic collapse. If the Government runs a fiscal deficit which is too large to be financed from donor funds, it must borrow from the domestic banking system, which generally entails borrowing from the Central Bank.
When the Central Bank lends money to
Government it creates credit – which means that it prints money. When
Government borrows from the Central Bank there is an injection of high
powered money into the economy, which money is not backed by production.
Furthermore, excessive Government borrowing from the banking system
usually leads to the crowding out of private sector borrowing. The
private sector is squeezed out of credit markets as the Central Bank
tries to counter the effect of Government borrowing on inflation by
tightening monetary policy.
If the private sector is squeezed out of
the credit markets by Government’s demand for credit, there will
clearly be adverse effects on real activity in the private sector, and
therefore on the economy’s growth prospects. Our government has been
sensitive to these effects of excessive borrowing and has tried as much
as possible to mitigate them. This however, does not mean that
Government cannot run fiscal deficits – it actually does– but it ensures
that the deficits are financed from non-inflationary sources, such as
donor grants and soft loans after seeking parliamentary approval.
A favorable tax policy has been pursued
over the years and Uganda remains the only one in east africa with the
lowest rate of tax contribution to GDP averaging about 13%. Despite
pressure from the IMF and world bank to raise the tax rate contribution
to GDP the government has moved cautiously not to hurt the growing
private sector.
I am dwelling much on good economic management because it’s a variable highly dependent on the nature of the country’s Political leadership and it can therefore be a good measure in assessing governance credentials of any regime. No wonder the first alarming signs that come with effects of instability or bad governance in any country are inflation levels.
This should be the yard stick in my
opinion to evaluate Museveni and his long service, biases
notwithstanding. His contenders too should stop the cheap game of
running only on this wave of his long stay without substantially
articulating their alternative agenda. With or without President
Museveni active on the Political scene of Uganda, the citizenry will
continue to reject resoundingly the political schemers that only seek to
ride on mere sentiments and rhetoric, without offering dependable
alternative ideas.
Frank Tumwebaze, MP
Minister in charge of the Presidency and Kampala
Just like Black Star News, an online hate speech
news website and Ugandans at heart- a Uganda’s global opposition blog-
the once revered United Kingdom (UK) based Economist Newspaper is
quickly transforming into gutter press.
Frank Tumwebaze, MP
Minister in charge of the Presidency and Kampala
Black start news articles: Look at these articles and see whether they are simply about hate speech as Rwakakamba insinuates
'Muhoozi Project': By Installing Son, Gen. Museveni Hopes To Defer Prosecution
General Sejusa Exposes Museveni’s plan to assassinate Generals and cadres opposed to the plan to have his son Muhoozi, as his successor(Muhoozi project) : Media houses closed and under siege over publishing Gen. Sejusa’s Whistle blowing letter.
Pseudo Imperialists Are Back
Without
a sense of balance, the once revered publication is now headlining
Uganda’s opposition and detractors' rehearsed attack lines against
President Museveni, the NRM and people of Uganda.
Obviously The Economist
is being used by ever present quasi imperialists tapping the button of
vulnerabilities and biases that form the usual bad reporting on Africa.
Editors at the Economist have no sufficient knowledge on Africa and tend to fall prey to years of dark reporting and distorted imagery of Africa.
They
have remained trapped in that pitiful psych and remain vulnerable to
maneuvers of self-seeking manipulators. In their for example much
conflated report published on line from the print edition on Oct 12th
2013 “Uganda and its President: A leader who cannot bear to retire” the
Economist paints doom and gloom in Uganda and present President Museveni as a leader without any achievement and legitimacy.
Really?
In
the same report, they clearly look down the people of Uganda,
presenting them as not worthy of discernment, as a people who despite of
Museveni’s bad leadership, will continue to support and vote for him!
These groups hold people of Uganda with expansive contempt.
Folks,
this is part of the wider skewed schemes by those rightwing never
giving up imperialists who feel left behind by progress in Uganda, who
have been left without any sense of control in Uganda’s affairs and have
continued to be out flanked by NRM and President Museveni, especially
in their efforts to create and hand pick leaders for Uganda.
The
same group was suspected in ousting of President Milton Obote in 1971
and installation of reign of terror through enthronement of their
beloved new kid on the block, a non-commissioned military officer who
later became Field Marshal Idi Amin Dada – the conqueror of ‘the British
Empire’ that promoted an ideology that sought to subjugate, humiliate,
and exterminate.
Now
they have been trying to create stooges and alternatives in Uganda,
financing opposition campaigns, funding insurrectionists under the
rubric of the so called ‘walk to work’ protests, creating platforms and
arranging strategy meetings for oppositionists in various capitals of
Europe- yet all these have kept failing and smoldering. The result has
been successive opposition defeats at pervious general elections in
Uganda.
Opposition
Now
these imperialists are angry at the people of Uganda. They are
desperate and they want keep fighting. Now that they failed with former
FDC president Dr. Kizza Besigye and UPC president Olara Otunu they are
trying to look out for more.
Should
we be surprised if the same group is behind Gen. David Sejusa aka Gen.
David Tinyefuza? Why can’t this group let the people of Uganda select
their leaders without interference and arrogance? Why can’t they respect
the ingenuity of Ugandans? Why can’t they be comfortable with Uganda’s
sovereignty?
Now
they are saying, “once admired across Africa and the West, Uganda’s
tarnished president seems determined to hang on forever” This is again a
desperate joke of the year! But this joke is not surprising; the
imperialists seem to think that their devilish schemes are succeeding.
They
are in utopia and celebrating too early and too quickly without even
the curtsey of crosschecking facts. For all and sundry to know, there
shall never be ‘hanging on forever’ in Uganda.
There
is no leader or group that can hang on to power without the mandate of
the people. Uganda is a firm constitutional democracy where people have
the power to elect and select leaders of their choice through periodic
elections every five years. Indeed such elections happened in 2011 and
President Museveni won with a 68 percent landslide.
Dr.
Kiiza Besigye of Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) came a distant
second with a paltry 27 percent of the total presidential vote. Dr.
Besigye and his party the FDC never challenged this in any courts of
law. They were defeated fairly and squarely.
You
see, no one can successfully badmouth the Uganda’s constitutional
journey and attempt to roll back gains of the 1995 constitution, a
document Ugandans continue to hold as a sacred living document. A
document that practically breathes in and out Uganda’s political life.
A
life that is enshrined in Chapter 1, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4
(Sovereignty of the people, Supremacy of the Constitution, Defense of
the Constitution and promotion of public awareness of the constitution)
and Chapter 18: Amendment of the Constitution (done by parliament or
through a referendum).
A
document that continues to entrench the democratic principle of
separation of powers with an independent judiciary and an all-powerful
legislature with budgeting, and oversight powers and mandate to verify
and veto the Executive. A document that bestows citizenry with the power
to whip or dismiss those that are not fulfilling or exercising their
constitutional mandate to expectations of the people.
Ugandans
and institutions are implementing and living up to the promise of the
1995 constitution. With the foregoing, how can one or any group talk of
‘a President that seems determined to hang on forever’? How can even one
say that President Museveni is a singular decision maker in Uganda?
Have
they for instance looked at compelling decisions, reports and actions
of Uganda’s Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that was not
long ago chaired by the now Leader of Opposition in Uganda’s Parliament-
Hon. Nathan Nandala Mafabi?
Without shame, the Economist
is also talking of ‘a tarnished President’? If this is not outlandish
badmouthing – can they mention their source of information or evidence
to back their claim?
Have
they conducted an opinion poll to back their utterances? Have they for
instance looked at the 2010 and 2011 robust Afrobarometer opinion
surveys that came up with a verdict showing that 78 percent of Ugandans
believe Uganda’s situation continue to get better – under the National
Resistance Movement and President Museveni?
Is this going to change because of hate campaign and the badmouthing of The Economist
Newspaper? I don’t think so – because the NRM government continues to
pursue pro people reforms. NRM and President Museveni continue to offer
the best concrete and practical hope to Ugandans. The NRM remains the
only party that captures the imagination of citizenry. Uganda is on
unstoppable journey of openness and inclusiveness.
President
Museveni is now in a season of opening factories – one after another –
deepening infrastructure – promoting industrialization – creating jobs
and pushing Uganda to a Modern Nation State. Challenges remain – but as a
people, Ugandans continue to overcome them one by one and continue to
build the nation brick by brick. Let detractors keep grumbling while
Ugandans keep the focus.
Morrison Rwakakamba
Special Presidential Assistant – Research & Information (Head of Unit)
Museveni’s 98 advisers
President Museveni. File photo
By Charles Mwanguhya
Posted Sunday, October 27 2013 at 01:00
Posted Sunday, October 27 2013 at 01:00
Kampala- President Museveni has
98 men and women who are collectively paid Shs230 million from the
national Treasury every month to give him advice. In a year, the
earnings translate into Shs2.7b.
The total wage bill of the
department of administration in the Office of the President, which also
covers Resident District Commissioners, stands at Shs702.2 million a
month, totaling to more than Shs8 billion annually.
The full time advisers and assistants also receive additional perks such as an official vehicle, a driver and in some cases, an escort.
The details are contained in the 2013/2014 Ministerial Policy Statement for the Presidency, which is under scrutiny before Parliament.
The full time advisers and assistants also receive additional perks such as an official vehicle, a driver and in some cases, an escort.
The details are contained in the 2013/2014 Ministerial Policy Statement for the Presidency, which is under scrutiny before Parliament.
The 98 presidential advisors are not the only
public officials expected to advise the President. These are in addition
to the 77 Cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister and Vice
President. If the 22 Permanent Secretaries (who are government’s highest
ranking technical civil servants) of the respective ministries are
added, President Museveni has a pool of about 200 advisors from whom to
pick advice on how to govern Uganda.
At least 48 of the 98 presidential advisers are employed as full time staff, 44 are paid a retainer wage, while the status of others is unclear. The least paid presidential adviser earns Shs2.2 million while the highest paid gets Shs2.6 million every month, with the exception of former German ambassador to Uganda, Mr Claus E.P Holderbaum who is paid Shs7 million a month as Senior Presidential adviser on Special Duties.
At least 48 of the 98 presidential advisers are employed as full time staff, 44 are paid a retainer wage, while the status of others is unclear. The least paid presidential adviser earns Shs2.2 million while the highest paid gets Shs2.6 million every month, with the exception of former German ambassador to Uganda, Mr Claus E.P Holderbaum who is paid Shs7 million a month as Senior Presidential adviser on Special Duties.
Looking at the bulk of the advisers the President
has at his disposal, Uganda should perhaps be one of the most
efficiently governed countries in Africa or in the region. But Uganda is
ranked as the most corrupt country among the five East African
Community (EAC) states in The East African Bribery Index 2012 report by
Transparency International published last year. Tanzania and Kenya are
in second and third positions respectively.
Burundi is ranked fourth and Rwanda remains the least corrupt country in the region.
Uganda is also ranked 22nd among the 59 countries ranked as failed states in the world by US-based Foreign Policy (FP) magazine and the Fund for Peace global organisation. Uganda’s failing status is rated at 96 per cent slightly below Syria, at 97 per cent.
A World Health Organisation global status report on Road Safety 2013 lumped Uganda among countries with the highest accident deaths in Africa, with 2,954 people killed in road accidents in 2010, beaten only by Nigeria (4,065 deaths) and South Africa (13,768 deaths) in 2009. Uganda is also 19th among 64 countries with the highest number of road accident deaths in the world.
Uganda is also ranked 22nd among the 59 countries ranked as failed states in the world by US-based Foreign Policy (FP) magazine and the Fund for Peace global organisation. Uganda’s failing status is rated at 96 per cent slightly below Syria, at 97 per cent.
A World Health Organisation global status report on Road Safety 2013 lumped Uganda among countries with the highest accident deaths in Africa, with 2,954 people killed in road accidents in 2010, beaten only by Nigeria (4,065 deaths) and South Africa (13,768 deaths) in 2009. Uganda is also 19th among 64 countries with the highest number of road accident deaths in the world.
Uganda is top in many failure indicators of
socio-economic development yet the President enjoys abundance of advice
from a huge pool of “wise men and women”.
Useful or no advice?
With such a wide pool of advisors, the President should have been in a position to fix some of the basic problems facing the country. But it appears the country’s standing on several international indices is still not good.
With such a wide pool of advisors, the President should have been in a position to fix some of the basic problems facing the country. But it appears the country’s standing on several international indices is still not good.
One probable reason is that the President hardly
consults them for advice. Indeed their selection is largely dependent on
political and other interests rather than professional and technical
merit or competence. For example the advisers are a mixture of college
professors, graduates, Senior Four leavers and others with lower
qualifications. Many of them have unexplainable roles.
Their roles are not based on issues, but mere
names of places or institutions. It is not clear what an advisor is
expected to do. For example, there is a presidential advisor on Ruharo
matters, the seat of East Ankole Diocese in Mbarara and another advisor
on Kigezi Diocese. It is difficult to understand what advice such a
person would give the President about a place.
Though some advisors are known to meet and give
advice to the President, majority of them take years on end without
meeting him or even speaking to him.
Former Prime Minister Kintu Musoke, one of the advisers, refused to respond to the question on how often the president reaches him for advice. He claimed he was too busy on his farm out of town.
Former Prime Minister Kintu Musoke, one of the advisers, refused to respond to the question on how often the president reaches him for advice. He claimed he was too busy on his farm out of town.
Brig Kasirye Ggwanga, another adviser on Buganda
affairs was cagey as well. He only muttered that; “It is those who don’t
know what they were appointed to do who worry about whether the
President consults them or not.”
However, he added that he had been in regular contact with the President although it was not clear whether it was about offering advice to the head of state or seeking his protection.
However, he added that he had been in regular contact with the President although it was not clear whether it was about offering advice to the head of state or seeking his protection.
About three months ago, there were attempts by
some sections of the security establishment to evict Brig Gwanga from a
house in Makindye Division in Kampala for alleged trespass. However,
after several interventions from various government authorities, Brig
Gwanga was spared the embarrassment of being thrown out of the house.
Controversial subject
The subject of Presidential Advisers has been controversial with questions of whether they actually advise the president and whether he takes their advice.
The subject of Presidential Advisers has been controversial with questions of whether they actually advise the president and whether he takes their advice.
Critics have said these positions are only meant
to give out a retirement pension for the President’s supporters or as
subsistence employment when he can no longer accommodate them in Cabinet
and they become cash strapped. Indeed, many former ministers are on the
list of the advisers.
Former chief pilot of the Presidential helicopter, Gen. Ali Kiiza is a presidential adviser on air force.
Gen David Sejusa aka Tinyefuza, who fled the country in April after falling out with the state is still listed as President Museveni’s advisor/coordinator of Internal Security Organisation and External Security Organisation, both intelligence bodies.
Gen David Sejusa aka Tinyefuza, who fled the country in April after falling out with the state is still listed as President Museveni’s advisor/coordinator of Internal Security Organisation and External Security Organisation, both intelligence bodies.
Gen Sejusa’s role, however, raises more
controversy given that the President has expressly said the renegade
General faces treason charges if he is arrested. Yet the list of the
presidential advisors with Sejusa’s name was provided for in the
national budget read in June, two months after he had fled to exile.
Two weeks ago, Col Samson Mande, a former fighter in the bush war that brought Museveni to power, said from his exile in Sweden that Gen Sejusa was still on the government’s payroll and could not be easily trusted to lead a struggle for regime change in Uganda.
Two weeks ago, Col Samson Mande, a former fighter in the bush war that brought Museveni to power, said from his exile in Sweden that Gen Sejusa was still on the government’s payroll and could not be easily trusted to lead a struggle for regime change in Uganda.
