Power of Uganda's economy lies in rural communities

RURAL ECONOMIES

The paradox of our generation is the “strongman” malaise that has undermined socio-political development in Africa in the last three and a half decades. Strongmen are old-fashioned residual posturing of Leninist/Maoist fascism, a derision drawn out of misinterpretation of Marxism. Every non-progressive African country has a strongman ruling a divided country with urban and rural economies separated. This strongman foreboding needs proper theorising if Africa is to become truly productive.  

 Uganda is a country of well-travelled, highly educated folks, and tortured souls - people who have endured a long history of trauma, tribalism, civil wars, sectarianism etc. This profile of a society would command national solidarity, and inspire resistance to repeat adversities. Unfortunately, we acquired opposite reaction tendencies - compliance, submissiveness, and reproducing our predicaments.

Mr. Museveni’s makes it worse by his colonial type social experiments that alienate the economies of the rural from that of urban Uganda. When you see the ever-widening gap between the Museveni urbanite plutocrats and their subdued miserable rural subjects, you confirm it by a confrontation with lapses in all aspects of public institutions. There is a deep flaw with the NRM liberation ideology beyond its deceptions. The gaps in social services between rural and urban settings reveal a major contradiction, or a limitation of that brand of ideology. These contradictions make it harder to manage a modern economy peacefully, where the supposed liberators are now the oppressors.

A modern capitalist society constructed under the aegis of neoliberalism needs to conform to neoliberal ideologies with uncompromising democracy as part of the deal. The regime is averse to democracy and alienates rural communities from such discourses. The near collapse of social services is another example of the regime’s inability to curb the vagaries of the liberal market, or develop a sustainable balance between public and private enterprises to extend to the rural economy.

Underwriting Mr. Museveni’s ability to comprehend such a dichotomy of the economy is suicidal, thus the reproach. Our gist is that Mr. Museveni’s arrows have simply run-out of his quiver. Some Christians say, “where human ability ends, God’s begin”. Mr. Museveni ought to do the biblical Moses thing. When you see the end, accept, hand over to the younger generation; have faith that they will lead the flock to the Promised Land. This stretch of the economy belongs to the younger crop of economists and entrepreneurs who understand globalisation, neo-liberalism and the liberal market trick-books. We should allow them to transition and integrate these economies to a unified engine for driving prosperity like Chinese government achieved in the last two decades.

Mr.  Museveni’s tries to politically re-invent himself by experimental approaches – he moots ideas to modernise agriculture, and promotes the use of hand hoes, slashers and menial irrigation; promises wealth for all, while his cows and crops are infertile or auto-suicidal. Too many contradictions demonstrate a blurred vision. They are retarding Uganda’s economic potential.

A good example of a failed experimentation is that private health services are not expanding fast enough to compensate for restructuring of the healthcare system. Uganda’s fragile economy would respond by ring fencing certain critical aspects of the market by instituting universal social policies. Critical areas in health, education, early child development, social security, Infrastructure, Water, and Agriculture, with strict regulations on environmental protection, would suffice. Ugandans wouldn’t mind paying a little more in taxes to finance a robust social policy that works for them, to build skills, prevent premature deaths; leverages opportunity for productivity and mobility, and offer social security and fair market competition.

To make even the least sense of Mr. Museveni’s experiments, the wealth creation program should be de-politicised and de-militarised. Social and economic programs should avoid liberation mentalities and politicking of Mr. Museveni. Such programs should put the people of Uganda first.

Lastly, by linking wealth creation to health, we support the idea that when people have income, they tend to have better health and afford health resources. Health and Agriculture are inextricably linked in a country were over 78% of our population still survive and reside in rural communities. The power of Uganda’s economy remains untapped in these rural communities.

END

Mr. Rwaboogo and the NRM ideological confusions

NRM IDEOLOGY

The attempt are reinventing the NRM ideology that is raging within the NRM need not get extinguished in haste by the state operators. The statehouse political architect and ideologue, Mr. David Mafabi demonstrates this typical trait of intolerance by slumming the door on Odrek’s thirst for a meaningful debate on ideological resurgence. Such intolerance, we must admit, is what keeps the heads of most dictators (aka Strongmen of Africa) hidden in the sand.

The first son, Mr. Odrek Rwaboogo has been the lone proponent in calling for debate on NRM’s future. Now it seems he is even debating with himself, and soon he will be distanced from his likes, in the manner of Mbabazi and others. Already, Mr. Rwaboogo is accused of generating ideological confusion, confusing biology with ideology, and undermining the works of the NRM Party Chairman, the strongman himself.

The fire of discontent is burning silently underneath the NRM and Mr. Rwaboogo maybe the first black smoke sprout out of the Conclave. The young Turks, bred in the ideological perplexity of the NRM have come of age. Their demand for change of direction is appears legitimate for them to find space and place to exert their own influence. Yet, the old Turks within the system still hold tight on the grip of power, privileges and influence. It is their carcass, they must chomp at it until infinitum.

In a sense, we are seeing the emergence of the progressive forces from within the NRM led on the one hand by Mr. Rwaboogo, and yet, his lone voice does not seem to represent a corpus of progression. One would expect that virulently ambitious young Turks like Morrison Rwakakamba, Frank Tumwebaze, Agaba Rugaba and others of that generational breed would join forces with Mr. Rwabogo. Instead, they have sold their loyalty to the traditional forces. They are even hostile to the smallest suggestion of an ideological debate within the NRM. Odrek may be the lone voice for now - maybe his timing is wrong, but at least, he is not driven by impulses of a disgruntled man. Odrek has also been in the NRM’s inner circles longer than many of the young people that litter the statehouse corridors and alleyway today to oppose him. Rwaboogo could have taken a path that will either destroy him, or win him support from the inner NRM politburo retrospectively.

After all, the survival of any system is judged from its dynamism - adaptability to changing times. Moreover, the NRM  has remained on course for reasons other than ideology. For instance, its very existence is buttressed within the institution of the army, built around a personality cult of an African “strongman”. The test of its survival outside of these composites remains a bigger question that only Mr. Rwaboogo makes sense in his advocacy for ideological re-orientation. Messiahs have always appeared confusing, disturbing and condescending to an establishment, for which they have endured execution for reward.

Set that aside, if I were Odrek, I could consult with this man, Mr. Asuman Bisiika, the journalist I prefer to describe as “Prophetic”. Mr. Bisiika correctly pointed to an important aspect of this debate in an article in the Daily Monitor of August 15, 2015, (See: Odrek Rwaboogo and NRM ideological re-orientation), which could help guide Mr. Rwaboogo enormous. Mr. Bissika affirms that the NRM is least inclined on matters of ideology at this phase in which it finds itself. It considers ideological matters a sole enterprise of the Party Chairman. In that sense, NRM is an ideological captive of its strongman.

Further, the contradictions seen between the NRM ideology and economic progress in Uganda, suggests that the NRM no longer has controls over its ideology, as such, its ideology is not driving social and economic transformation of Uganda. In this sense the frontiers of contestation is what Mr. Bisiika correctly points out – the lack of a policy generation. The archaic ideas of ideology and revolution are intangible to the majority of the young people – the carpetbaggers of the NRM. The NRM ideology itself is more confusing and therefore it is even hard to accuse Mr. Rwaboogo of spewing ideological confusion when those accusing him are also ideologically confused.

The END.