Replenishing the Conscience of a defiant leader

REPLENISHING CONSCIENCE

Mr. Andrew Mwenda’s piece, "About our collective delusions" in the Independent is worth reading. The mainstay of this Dr. Besigye invective was that KB has become so bitter over time from experiences of humiliation and torture by the regime. Mwenda argued that this bitterness blinded KB from recognizing the progress made by the NRM, thereby compromising KB’s ability to correctly assess the current state of affairs. As such, KB has personalized the struggles for change, in the process, lost his edge in articulating attractive alternative policies for a post Museveni Uganda. Mwenda concludes that KB is empty in both rhetoric, and vision.

Mwenda would agree that a political cooperation like TDA devoid of genuine commitment, trust, and respect is a marriage that does not yield lasting affection. Such dishonesty, perhaps,  is one of the reasons the history of failed Political Alliances precedes Besigye.

The montage that is ferociously driving Hon. Amama Mbabazi's (JPAM) candidature, believes that The Democratic Alliance will hold sway merely on political blustering. The individual Opposition Parties in TDA, have struggled to forge unity in-house. Definitely they lack credentials to hold TDA together as a government-in-the-waiting. They have to restrain their affectations towards Dr Kiiza Besigye who is still a formidable force in the change narratives and in TDA.

Presenting KB as the dead weight in the change equation is a big mistake. In fact, TDA is shaping itself under the dead weight of JPAM with many “unknown knowns”, and a strong resentment in the North.

For that, I find Mwenda's trepidations conceivable, given its various contradictions.

Note that revolutions are inspired by personal ambitions shaped within personalized worldviews. These worldviews are constructed out of events that shape personal values, and ideals (conscience). Therefore, being a Change Agent starts with the person, because that role commits one – personally - to the change process and/or its perils. When revolutionists suffer tragedy, it takes a personal toll. It is such personal experiences that compound into personal convictions to shape, reaffirm, and drive their ideology.

Extra-ordinary struggler, like Nelson Mandela only dealt with the tensions between the personal and public expectations differently. Three parts to a struggle require tremendous balance for one to stay afloat; individual level - one has a family; at organizational level - one has to struggle to remain on top of conflicting ideals; and at the national level - one stands against a monstrous tyranny. This stage requires the shrewdness to galvanize diverse sentiments for change to occur. Therefore, indulgence in a revolution starts with the personal – espousing the ideals, articulating it, and mobilizing the masses.

In essence, Mwenda raises critical issues against KB that should strengthen KB's resolve to be part of the change, and realign him to the struggle that he helped to shape. To students of revolution, such experiences are a commonplace, and signify a difficult growth process from a part-time agent into the crux of it. Agents become impersonal at full submission to the struggle. This is characterized by giving the self wholly to the struggle to become impersonal. Nelson Mandela staked his family (personal) by choosing incarceration for 26 years because at that point, he had become impersonal. The lesson here is that to become impersonal to a revolution, one has to endure a process of personalization first. Personalization is about replenishing the individual’s conscience.

My defence of KB stems from three fundamental experiences: One, in recognizing that Ugandans are fond of radical spontaneity - ideas that explodes and dies fast. Flirting with JPAM, who has not presented any attractive alternative policy options - as Mwenda demands of KB - is just that adrenalin rush moment for contradictions. It is about instant gratification. This speaks badly for a protracted struggle towards a fundamental change. Two, the politics of vote numbers, make KB an important factor in the change equation. Three, ceding Opposition gains at the grassroots to NRM Go - Forward is returning Uganda to a No-Party System.

Mr. Mbabazi is no Prince of Regime Change in Uganda

 POLITICAL ALLIANCE 2016

The Democratic Alliance (TDA) has been able to galvanize many opposition figures from different political parties. It is debatable whether all those who signed into it will respect the TDA protocol through this elections and thereafter.

However, it is essential for the TDA operators to distribute clear signals to the voters with clarity in the objectives, composition, formation, and other relevant expectations of the TDA players. For now, a major contradiction is abounding, such as Mr. Amama Mbabazi’s membership of it.

We have to recognize that the TDA is an alliance of mainstream opposition, citizens, and civil society organizations that have struggled against bad governance. Mr. Mbabazi should not be treated as the Prince of this struggle at all.

There are patterns world over, where broad political coalitions have mobilized and converged  sharply disaggregated political tendencies. Much of those successes were constructed by astutely galvanizing shared aspirations and abundant will for change among the peoples. However, such alliance must serve the common interest of those who are genuinely aspiring for a change, not those driving for change of guards.

The misgivings that many of us have towards Mr. Mbabazi is that he refuses to get down of his high NRM horse. Even when the anti-opposition forces he once built are fully mobilized against him, Mr. Mbabazi still clamors to uphold the absurd NRM orthodoxy.

Many people will get disappointed if Mr. Mbabazi becomes the TDA flag bearer. Mr. Mbabazi’s record of accomplishment in creating horrible laws is evident, and prominent as the nose on the face. If we want to move Uganda from the NRM culture and tradition of bad laws, we should not be working with the grandfather of bad laws towards this change. With his record aloofness and remoteness, Mr. Mbabazi is not about to experience a Saul – Paul transformation. Such an attempt would risk swinging him through a Saul-Paul-Saul cycle, at the best.

Mr. Mbabazi comes to TDA with no following other than the assumed crowd and speculation about his wealth. My conscience is clear that many would be comfortable if Mr. Mbabazi were to stay behind the scenes, to help advance the causes of change. His loyalty to change requires rigorous testing. Otherwise, Mr. Mbabazi cannot be the change that we want.

In that aspect, I find a discrepancy in the TDA in inviting a proven superstar tyrant and an engineer of intolerance from the very repressive regime to join it.  How can we imagine a post Museveni with Mr. Mbabazi at the helm? It is like giving credit to a tyrant for demonstrating his skills in repressing a society, and robbing it too. How desperate are we?

At some point, Ugandans will wake up to ask those tough questions of “why Mbabazi?” This also gets me to the point where the struggle for change in Uganda should not be about removing President Museveni. It should focus on a more superior ideal of total overhaul in economic, social, and political conditions capable of moving Uganda to her rightful place in time. It is about liberation from one-man’s pillaging of a Nation to allowing real functional power returned to the people of Uganda. I do not see Mr. Mbabazi fitting that credential given his clamour to the NRM orthodoxy and his 42 years’ record of accomplishment.

This election is an indictment of Mr. Mbabazi’s NRM and its draconian laws including vote rigging.  He cannot therefore come to represent NRM in TDA. That is a travesty of the causes of change! In that respect, the TDA should engage both JPAM and Gen. Sejusa in advisory capacity to overcome election rigging, since both masterminded the vice while in the NRM bind. Such details of election manipulation should become part of the electoral reform schema. Surely, Mr. Mbabazi is no Prince of the struggle even if he has money.

END

Understanding Besigye's achilles heel in 2016

Many commentators have been critical of Besigye's decision to run for President for the fourth time after he had vowed never to contest in the same election with President Museveni. Besigye's point was clear, he detested the experiences of contesting especially when electoral reforms are not implemented. But Besigye's real Achilles heel in 2016 is his ability to safeguard the integrity of the ballot box and prevent adulteration of ballot counts.

We now understand that Museveni has no interest in implementing real electoral reforms. The current laws favor them well enough that they see no need to pander to the wishes of the Opposition and civil society. And, for a regime as mindlessly corrupt as the NRMO, issues of legitimacy and morals are subordinated to their Machiavellian thrusts.

We should appreciate that the NRM is formatted to operate without an Opposition, or a civil society to start with. The engine of the system still operates on the "All inclusive, individual merit" communist deception, where certain leadership positions are ring-fenced. The notion of "sole candidacy" is Stalinist and not peculiar to NRMO. In 1946, Stalin was declared a sole candidate with his infamous Fourth Five -Year Plan.

Recently, Amanya Mushega, a former Museveni Minister, and now Opposition FDC elder, revealed that the sole candidacy idea was mooted way back in 2001 when Besigye emerged to challenge the status quo. Subsequently, the emergence of Hon. Okot Felix Ogong and others, to challenge the NRM leadership, made ring-fencing of the Chairmanship of the Party inevitable.

Given the prevailing developments, one can draw a logical conclusion that President Museveni is opposed to elections and democracy. His refusal to effect electoral reforms draws from his fear of the exercise of people's power that he has usurped. Typically, the President likes to super-impose himself above others, to exploit every advantage and vulnerabilities of his opponents until he fully exerts his absolute dominance (and eventually oppression). He is the type who derives excessive pleasure at boxing and kicking an incapacitated opponent.

Given the challenges of dealing with someone who is diabolically opposed to civil methods of moderating and distributing state power, Dr. Kiiza Besigye should change his approaches from the ones he used in the last three elections. It is clear that for the 2016, Besigye will again emerge as the legitimate challenger to President Museveni. The other opponents are there to bid for the perpetuation of the Museveni hegemony. They play important role in legitimizing the electoral process, however fraudulent, so that the mainstream opposition is pressured into participating.

Besigye's place in the conscience of the nation is long consolidated, as that of a President in the waiting. Besigye and his team ought to take advantage of this, before they start to fade. Besigye and the FDC should not spend too much time in campaigns. They have already proven to be competent at proposing the more superior policy options at every election. Unfortunately, policy proposals weigh very little to the forthcoming elections. The real thrust of any serious opposition to President Museveni's might, given his inexhaustible incumbency advantages, is to draw concrete, convincing and viable steps towards subverting the looming electoral fraud; ballot stuffing, and adulteration of results.

To this end, the Elect Besigye Team requires help from good will Ugandans from every corner of the country. There are two critical points that require special attention. The role of the army and security intelligence in adulterating election results, and the complacency of the Electoral Commission in creating uneven playing field.

Under a Museveni elections, glamorous campaigns with large crowds mean nothing! The integrity of the ballot box and results are the definitive issue in such elections. Without any proper methods of safeguarding the ballot box and ballot counts, the entire opposition will have been defeated. This disgraceful ballot circumstances represents the gruesome moment of squander of people power. Such deliberate acts of electorates' dis-empowerment, dampens the zeal and confidence, and generates apathy towards elections and politics. END

Conditions are rife for thievery in balkanized Uganda

DECENTRALIZATION & CORRUPTION

The Ugandan Minister of Health, Dr. Elioda Mwesigye left me nearly jaw dropped with his utterances that some health officials are born thieves (DM, 18/8/2015). You know that a system is falling apart, when government resorts to advancing an ideology of blame to justify failures of its policies. This, precisely, is the problem with the NRM ideology that emerged out of social banditry, as Yoga Adhola described it.

There are gross misrepresentations in the manner that this regime assesses and defines issues for its political agenda. It is this duplicitous nature of this regime's ideology that is leading this country to collapse on its face. Take for instance, the regime deliberately obscures the fact that institutionalization of corruption across public service is inherent in the botched processes of liberalization of the economy and decentralization. The critical understanding of these two processes in Uganda, since 1994, will put in perspective that Uganda is in a steady decline, not progress. Since the collapse of the 10 points programs, the NRM regime has not pursued any developmental or economic policy of its own, but that of Bretton Woods Institutions. As such, the regime can best be perceived as the agent of neo-imperialism, detached from realities of its citizens.

There are numerous studies on the impact of decentralization in Uganda, and those that compares Uganda's performances with other countries such as, Philippines, Ghana and so forth. What emerges out of all these studies shows that Uganda is not progressing with decentralization majorly because of the design and the institutional arrangements governing the implementation of decentralization.

While decentralization is intended to improve service delivery by increasing allocative and productive efficiencies, in Uganda, the reverse have prevailed. To achieve allocative and productive efficiencies, certain conditions needed to be put in place, namely; devolution of functions within an institutional environment complete with political, administrative, financial authority to local government, and effective channels of local accountability as well as central oversight.

As usual, all these maybe on paper, but in the NRM's Uganda, governance, respect for law and implementation are a big problem. This also brings us to the conversation of whether creation of more districts and administrative units has translated into improving service delivery to the people. In fact, a plethora of studies suggests otherwise. Instead, such balkanization of Uganda alienates the people from the very services that should benefit them because decentralization has disempowered the people with the corruption imbued in it processes.

In Uganda, there are no clear mechanisms for citizens to exert their voices. Laws such as POMA and Anti-Terrorism have worked effective to silence citizen participation in enforcing accountability and elevating their issues into local government agenda. There are no exit mechanisms for the vast population in rural communities for poor government services. For instance, the private sector is operated by the same actors who mess up public service. Doctors, healthcare professional and teachers who work in government institutions are the same ones who also operate private businesses.

Public sector management that would promote accountability, such as merit-based personnel policies, are corrupted. The rigid conditional grants from central government, constraints the ability of local governments to cater to specific needs of its residents, thereby leading to mismatch in priorities that creates service gaps.  Decentralization has accentuated horizontal inequalities between those in power and the disempowered masses making service delivery in rural settings more vulnerable to corruption. 

The idea that corruption or low motivation among public servants arises out of low pay is reductionist. Reducing institutionalized inequities that undermines the integrity of public service over rides such reductionist approaches. The NRM ideology of blame, following grand deceptions, is the decay factor in these matters. Museveni's Ministers needs to study widely and interact more often with health workers, teachers, and the wanainchi to appreciate these problems. Stop blaming fire for burning dry grass because conditions for thievery are rife in balkanized Uganda.

END

Resisting the hegemony of lumpen intellectuals

LUMPEN INTELLECTUALISM

The uproar against Andrew Mwenda's controversial views, such as questioning whether corruption is detrimental to economic development of a Nation, may not, after all, be worthy. However, the vigor with which some Ugandans have taken to opposing Mwenda shows that there is more than the issues he raises, that is being resisted.

There is an online petition, which is almost reaching 4000 signatories, requiring that NTV removes Mwenda from its news night analysis. It was not until this morning when it downed on me that there is a prevailing hegemony perpetuated by crops of Uganda's lumpen intellectuals, thus, the resistance.

The online dictionary defines hegemony as "political or cultural dominance, or authority over others". The concept of cultural hegemony (dominance) has roots among communist intellectuals such as Antonio Gramci (1891-1937), Karl Marx (Theory of Alienation), and others.

Gramci, in particular, maintained that the working class and the peasantry depends largely on the intellectuals produced by their society. He distinguished between bourgeois-class intellectuals and working-class intellectuals in his theory of cultural hegemony. Intellectuals in every society are active ingredients in determining the dominant cultures of the time.

From Marxist perspective, cultural hegemony involves manipulation of a culture by the dominant groups (ruling class), such that their worldview is imposed and accepted as the cultural norm.

From Marxist perspective, the role of the media as a social institutions is to ensure that the working class remains contented with their working conditions even with the injustices of the capitalist system. The ideology of such groups is perpetuated through lies, deceptions and misinformation, such as those that characterise our analyses in the media to create false consciousness. The uproar against Mwenda's brand of intellectualism therefore arises from his followers refusing to accept a false consciousness, for instance, that corruption is Ok, it does not deter equal distribution of opportunities or resources.

The NRM ideology as a whole, is encumbered on perpetuating false consciousness that is how we have lumpen intellectuals baying for it. Gramci proposes that prevailing bourgeois cultural hegemony must not be perceived as natural and inevitable, but as an artificial social construct. He recommends a vigorous investigation of each to discover their philosophic roots, which are their instruments of social-class domination.

The defeat of those who perpetuate false consciousness is eminent with the advent of social media and globally accessible information portals such as Google, Google Scholars and so forth. These scientific innovations should achieve the end of liberating the dominated since it enhances timely access to factual, researched, and corroborated information. The real problem is ingrained in the minds of the dominated, which, because of a history of subjugation and being dominated, rely entirely on the lies of the ruling class and the lumpen intellectuals to appreciate their pitiful social conditions.
The media is not an ally of the working person or the proletariats; it is an instrument of domination. The institution of the media is owned and controlled by the ruling class to serve the purpose of misinforming and alienating the oppressed so as not to organize and rise against the status quo.

Uganda's population is now more elite with youth literacy rates of 89.6% among males and 85.5% among females, with overall literacy of 79% (UNICEF, 2013). With more enhanced access to the internet and education, the youths, who are more tech-savvy should be the liberating force of this country from the grip of lumpen intellectuals. 

Instead of petitioning to have Mwenda removed from NTV, these people should invest in countering obscurantism. Without presenting informed counter arguments, the rascals will dominate the intellectual space to cultivate false consciousness. It is an imperative of each listener to practice tolerance and where possible, resort to challenging old traditions to break the dominance of the status quo from the minds of its victims. It is through questioning, challenging, and engaging the system that we can become fully conscious and liberated.

END

How the war on terror is shaping Africa's despotic landscape

LIFE PRESIDENTS

One of the key messages of Dr. Kiiza Besigye, during his nomination campaign around the country for FDC flag bearer position is about removing power from the guns and restoring it in the hands of the masses. The role of the military in entrenching tyranny and dictatorship is a widespread problem in Africa. President Museveni's strength is organized around his monopoly over the military that he uses to coerce voters and rig elections. Unless the partisan use of the military in politics is resolved, it will continue to perpetuate the abuse of peoples' power.

In this respect, Dr Kiiza Besigye's struggles is legitimate and must be contextualized for us to fully, or partially understand the magnitude of militarization of democracy in Africa and how it affects human rights and the enjoyment of fundamental human liberties.

The rampant emergence of new breed of tyrants who want to rule for life in Africa is perpetuated in part by the U.S. war on terrorism. President Obama administration's strategy on war against terrorism in Africa has created allies among tyrants by beefing up their military capabilities that in turn, is used to suppress internal democracy. Ken Opalo at Stanford University, wrote an excellent piece on the consequences of the U.S war on terrorism in Al Jazeera which attracted my attention. 

According to Opalo, the Obama administration's approach to fighting terrorism was designed to build "new, effective and efficient small footprint locations and developing innovative approaches to using host nation facilities or allied joint-basing". What this "new, effective and efficient small footprint" means is that, the US will sell to these countries weapons, train their soldiers in commando counter-terrorism and military surveillance. This means reducing the presence of American soldiers in front lines with terrorists. A handful of countries; Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti, South Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, Kenya, the Seychelles, Niger and Burkina Faso, have already embraced this policy.

Recently, President Museveni's son, the Commander of the Special Forces, Brigadier Muhoozi Kainerugaba was shown walking alongside Brig. Gen. Bolduc of US Special Operations Command Africa at Sera Kasenyi Special Forces training school in Entebbe after completing a year-long pre-mission counter terrorism training. 

It is important to understand that the U.S war against global terrorism, however noble, entrenches dictatorship in Africa. This fact should feed into the ongoing debate on whether President Obama's recent admonition of African leaders who overstay in power, had some authenticity to it. Arguably, President Obama's utterances only served to arouse false hope and excitement among the population that the US values human freedoms, supports genuine democracy, and good governance in Africa, when in reality, their policies are designed to achieve the opposite.

We ought to appreciate the formations of US policies on Africa, its motivations, applications and effects since the cold war era. What has never changed is that no leader in Africa is bad in the eyes of the US as long as the tyrants can posture as puppets to its interests. Opalo argues that in exchange for their cooperation, "the US consistently looked the other way in the face of gross human rights violation and anti-democratic tendencies of its allies". Incidentally, all US allied partners in the fight against terrorism have either scrapped Presidential term limits (or are in the process), the Presidents have served for more than 15 years, conduct rigged elections, arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of opposition and media, and known for restriction of human liberties and freedoms. 

In conclusion, Dr. Besigye may be a charismatic visionary leader, however, his mission requires more than the grass-root mobilization of the oppressed masses. With the Anti-terrorism and Public Order Management Acts, there is no chance for a democracy in Uganda. Such campaigns must extend to the US State Department, Congress or Senate, and to the doorsteps of every global powerhouse that have perpetuated tyranny in Africa. Incidentally, the Museveni greedy lobbyists at Washington, London, Beijing, and The Hague, should be exposed and shamed for their roles in oppressing Africans.

END

Andrew Mwenda's public execution

IMPERIALISM

The Proprietor of the Independent News Magazine, Andrew Mwenda is not a vulnerable person who warrants my defence on matters of geopolitics. He is capable beyond doubt, to run down his critics and haters, verbally and in writing, moreover with much ease. But vengeance, and not systematic intellectual rebuttal, only fuel the mediocrity that has afflicted our everyday life. However, the social media onslaught on the character, rather than the issues raised by Mwenda in his Al Jazeera opinion piece titled: "Obama, mind your own business", should require someone to stand up for objectivity before it dies from amidst us.

People who have feasted on social media by lambasting Mwenda, appeared to not have read Mwenda's article critically. That they could lash out at the Messenger is typical of African tradition. Some would rather kill the messenger, instead of dealing with the delivery or the enemy who sent the message. Little wonder that the risk averse job of "Messenger" has not attracted payment as a profession, given the over reliance on word-of-mouth in African society.

Indeed, Mwenda's article carried nothing new and spectacular that warranted such global anguish, except for those in denial of the ugly truth in it. It appeared to me that commentators took issues more with the character of the writer, than the content of his writing. In the process, they ended up revealing their own contempt for the man. In essence, they exposed the very vice that Mwenda and Timothy Kalyegira have always written about – lack of emotional and intellectual depth.

While I acknowledge that Andrew Mwenda has been overly dynamic and indulgent with African despots, one would accord due decorum to the fact that Mwenda, just like everybody else, has evolved from the favourable image of him as an activist, to the one who is a ferocious apologist for tyranny. In his own previous discourses, Andrew Mwenda recognizes his own growth by acknowledging that he has evolved from an idealist, to a realist. 

The problem is that we are stuck with a favorable image of an idealist activist, Mwenda, sitting and peeving from behind the jail-bars as a victim, and expected him to have grown into a hateful and subjectively repulsive of the tyranny.

To the contrary, Mwenda has tasted the perks of power through his activism. He has become an independent businessman, who is fully fitted in the neo-liberal parlance where the trade in ideas is lucrative. His connections to the tyrants, arises from his appreciation of the mismatch between idealism of being none state operator, with realities he sees with state operators. And, every trader has to be paid. And, every businessman has to show loyalty to his clients. Those are the basic rules in business that Mwenda has had to contend with.

On his blog, "Rising Continent: Lions on the move", Francis Xavier Ndagabamye Muhoozi takes exceptions at Mwenda for appearing often, and sitting through Rwanda's Cabinet meetings chaired by what he called "the most vicious tyrant". We are not told why Mwenda sits in Kagame's Cabinet meetings in as much as former British Premier, Tony Blair. What we know, is that Rwanda is better governed than Uganda.

Critics of Mwenda should desist from going personal and appearing trivial in the process. People need to understand that everyone who writes, or participates in public discourses, does so for personal interests.

Therefore, irrespective of Mwenda's known capitalist ambitions, and what others may consider a flip-flop on key policy positions, his works have profound importance in the struggle against neo-colonialism of Africa and challenges the systematic brainwash of Africans.

Mwenda raises critical issue of moral discrepancies in respect of how US foreign policies on Africa are designed. They are racist, denigrating and continue to perpetuate suffering, rather than liberating. Mwenda highlights the way America treats its blacks and indigenous population there, annihilating other races and dominating survivors everywhere. Using statistics, Mwenda demonstrate how the US has incarcerated nearly three-thirds of its black population, and kept the other two thirds in utter humiliating poverty and deprivation. The racist police with a penchant for killing blacks on the daily, have not made the living conditions for blacks in America any better than it was back in the days of lynching and slavery. 

How then can Obama effectively preach the high standards of human rights practices when Guantanamo smacks in his backyard, and George Bush literally ruled America without "winning" elections? 

Andrew Mwenda reminded us that the same US that now castigates African leaders for becoming life Presidents, is the same power that provides them with the muscle – arsenals and coverage to achieve their ends. They funded terrorist organizations such as UNITA, assassinated progressive African leaders like Patrice Lumumba; blacklisted ANC and Nelson Mandela as terrorists, openly supported apartheid regime in South Africa; benefited from slave trade and has never apologized, nor compensated Africa for that. In retrospect, the white Americans are so paranoid and hateful of blacks as if it were the blacks who enslaved, colonized, and annihilated the white race. 

I concluded that Andrew Mwenda was spot on. His critics were indeed, the pseudo-intellectuals who have internalized the ideology of the conquerors and have become the engine of apology for the empty rhetoric of the conquerors. For sure, Mwenda's article was not an indictment of President Obama, per se, it was a reflection of the riff-raff predatory relationship that USA has with Africa. Their policies installs and sustain bad governments, escalate human rights abuse, hasten environmental degradation, alienates and annihilate indigenous peoples with their cultures, etc. Now, every freedom fighter is tagged a terrorist and yet it is the US spending billions of dollars to strengthen the military used to suppress black Africans by US allies (dictators), so that US military footprint in the continent is kept at bare minimum.

END