A look into the answers from ChatGPT about this blog…

A typical story on the blog might cover a recent political event or development in Uganda or elsewhere in Africa, such as an election, a protest, or a government policy announcement. The blog may provide background information on the issue, as well as analysis of its potential impact on society and politics. In addition, the blog often covers issues related to human rights, corruption, and social justice, particularly as they relate to Uganda and other African countries. These stories may profile individual activists, politicians, or community leaders who are working to address these issues, and provide analysis of the broader social and political context in which they are operating” (ChatGPT, 25.03.2023).

Today, I dared to try and test the Artificial Intelligence and ChatBot – ChatGPT, which has been a feature and a hot topic. I fixated it on my own blog and the perspectives of it. It was done very similar and easy questions. Because, I wanted a simple scope.

To be honest, the ChatGPT surprised me… and made me laugh to. The first part, which got me cracking was the “author” or the “individual” behind it was a Simon Peter Esaku. That is what the ChatGPT said, which isn’t true. I won’t state who I am and I never have, but I can with an easy assessment say that it’s not the case. Me and Simon Peter Esaku is to very different people.

When I asked about the content on the page and what themes that was prevalent the ChatGPT was on point. What was extra cool was when I asked about the structure of the blog posts and such. It came up with this:

A typical post on Minbane.wordpress.com might have the following characteristics:

Title: A descriptive title that hints at the content of the article.

Introduction: A brief introduction that sets up the topic of the post and provides some context for the reader.

Body: The main body of the post, which will usually cover a specific political issue or event in Uganda or Africa. The post may include analysis, commentary, or news reporting on the issue, as well as quotes from relevant sources such as government officials, activists, or experts.

Conclusion: A concluding section that summarizes the key points of the post and offers some closing thoughts or opinions.

References: Links or citations to relevant sources, such as news articles, reports, or other blog posts, which the author used to research and write the post” (ChatGPT, 25.03.2023).

This just shows how the ChatGPT is digesting the information and how it collects the data. When it is so accurate on this instance. I felt it was describing my typical blog post or articles to a T. It was really intriguing. To some extent, this was spot-on.

The ChatGPT said I used “strong language” on my blog. So, I asked by what it meant and here was the response:

For example, in some posts, the author may use language that is critical of the government or political leaders, calling them corrupt, inept, or oppressive. The author may also use language that is forceful or emotional to express their support for social justice issues, such as human rights or democracy” (ChatGPT, 25.03.2023).

Well, you can’t write cute tales about oppression, human rights violations and direct injustice in general. When you describe these matters and gives a push-back. You can’t use soft words and be diplomatic about it. Because, when you are calling a government out about it. You just have to settle the record straight and that will be done with fierce words.

I also asked the ChatGPT why the blog is critical of the Ugandan Government and the answer was very neat:

Based on the content of Minbane.wordpress.com, the blog appears to be critical of the Ugandan government due to concerns over issues such as corruption, human rights abuses, and a lack of transparency and accountability in governance. For example, the blog has published numerous articles on corruption scandals involving government officials, such as the embezzlement of public funds or the abuse of power for personal gain. The blog has also reported on cases of human rights abuses, such as police brutality, restrictions on freedom of speech, and discrimination against minority groups. In addition, the blog has expressed concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in governance in Uganda, particularly with regards to elections and political decision-making. The blog has criticized the government’s handling of elections, which it argues have been marred by irregularities, and has called for greater transparency in political decision-making processes” (ChatGPT, 25.03.2023).

There is nothing to call out here or state otherwise. This answer was correct and the sentiments of the answer is according to the author. So, the ChatGPT has been good to assess the articles and the blog post in question. It is amazing how it composed it.

I asked what the ChatGPT what the blog thought of Museveni…. Here is the answer:

Some of the specific criticisms of Museveni that have been expressed on the blog include allegations of corruption and human rights abuses, concerns over his handling of elections and political opposition, and criticisms of his economic policies and development strategies. The blog has also been critical of Museveni’s attempts to extend his rule beyond his current term, and has called for greater accountability and transparency in Ugandan politics. Overall, it appears that Minbane.wordpress.com views Museveni’s leadership as problematic, and is critical of many of the policies and actions of his government” (ChatGPT, 25.03.2023).

I cannot say this is wrong by any stretch of the imagination. Though it is funny to see it described that way. I have been direct and told straight facts about the reign of Museveni. All from term-limits, usage of impunity, injustice and his oppressive behaviour against the opposition. Therefore, the words of ChatGPT is interesting and this is how someone could describe it.

When asking what is controversial about the blog. This sentence was the most special: “One of the most controversial aspects of the blog is its strong language and criticism of the Ugandan government and President Yoweri Museveni in particular.” (ChatGPT, 25.03.2023).

Well, like stated before… you cannot act or speak softly of certain aspects of life. When the authorities and the state is using draconian means, use violence and have oppressive strategies against it’s dissidents. You have to call it out and sometimes your emotions make you more harsh or more brutal in your words. Still, the sentiment used in these instances has been for the greater good.

Which also the ChatGPT explains as well:

This critical stance has led to accusations of bias and partiality by some readers, particularly those who support the Ugandan government. However, the blog has defended its approach as a necessary means of holding those in power accountable and promoting transparency and democracy in Uganda” (ChatGPT, 25.03.2023).

This is particularly funny to me, because I have gotten most pushback by NRM friendly fellows or Stan’s of Museveni. They have piled on me, but never explained their stance and only disregarded my reasoning without any proper justification of doing so. Therefore, it has been easy for me to defend and come clean. While I feel they haven’t taken the challenge or tried to consider the opposition in this regard. If they had… they would have addressed the grievances and actually listen to the plights of the dissidents. Instead of using more injustice and impunity.

I could really just continue and continue, because the answers are really unique for me. It was fun to dive into this… and see what it said. Though, I can state the ChatGPT was wrong about the identity of the writer and author of the blog.

While I find it striking how it was able to analyse the content and the structures of the articles. That is really amazing. I was impressed by this… and found it very interesting. I hope someone with more technical insight and ability can look into the way the ChatGPT is able to collect this. Since it has to do that and then quickly describe it. I’m impressed by that. Peace.

Tired of President Museveni’s “1986”!

I know I am born in 1985, but I am tired of the year of 1986 and the year National Resistance Army (NRA). The now National Resistance Movement (NRM) and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. The liberation movement that has run the republic since 1986. This war lasted from 1981 to 1986, the NRA went out of the Milton Obote II government after the illegitimate election of 1980s. Which from then on has been used as the scapegoat and the ones to put to blame for ever since.

The 1986 is the magical year that Museveni entered into supremacy. The Supreme kingpin and mastermind of all it. Sowing the mustard seed and creating a newer safer Republic. The one time the peasants was supposed to have their say in government and make the republic a democracy. The Republic of Uganda was going from strong-men and big-men to run the Republic. Instead, it has been now three decades with manufactured democracy in-line with the vision of Museveni.

President Museveni have used all techniques to fix election results, paying villagers and making new government forms to fit his paradigm. Instead of releasing his promises he has built elite around him that is loyal to his brown envelopes or public fearing his security organizations. This is a special coming from the man promises all the possible governance and government structures needed, if he got into power. Instead, he has done the opposite.

It was supposed to get into a middle-Income Country instead of the Less Developed Country, which is the state is in now. The LDC that Uganda now is because of the state of government that President Museveni has created around him. That can be seen with amounts of debt, the massive overspending on the State House and the pledges around the President. Government of Uganda, GoU have been built around Museveni, instead of institutions and procedures. Therefore, the state are following the orders of the President and his Presidential Handshakes.

That is why, every-time in a speech at any sort of occasion the President will mention 1986 and how the state used to be. As of today 1 out of 5 in the Republic or 21% are between 15 to 24 year old. And by 2016 there we’re only 2% who are older than 65 years old. Which means that the President are part of a minority age bracket. President Museveni 30 years old rule are older than many of the youths in the Republic. They should also wonder what is so special about the years they never we’re living and about governments they never lived under. There are big proportions of the population who cannot remember or has been apart of the first years of the NRA or the civil-war during the 1980s.

They would be like me, they would feel the same fatigue of the NRA and Museveni rule, the extension of the liberation from Obote and Amin. The ones that Museveni mention whenever he needs someone or somebody to blame. Certainly mention 1986. The 1986 that are the most important year since independence, therefore, the NRM Day, the 26th January 1986, liberation day. Instead of the Independence Day 9th October 1962. That one is not so often mentioned by the President, since he didn’t get them out of the British Empire and not be a British Protectorate anymore.

Still, the 9th October 1962 doesn’t seem to be important for Museveni, the 26th January 1986 is the most vital one. The one that sets the standard, the day that changed everything and gave him total access. Therefore, the celebration of 1986 is so key and be levied at any occasion, and at any speech. President Museveni praises his overthrow of Amin, Obote, Okello and Biniasa.

They all just had to be overthrown, he had to make coup d’etat and make folklore out of it. So his name can ring out and be praised. Let it be clear, the President sings 1986… 1986… 1986… like a jingle never stopping. Peace.

Opinion: President Museveni said “I am tired” and want to indirectly reinstate the Movement System!

It is just one of these days when the President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni reveals that he wasn’t in favor of the Multi-Party Democracy, even if he claims to be elected and have credible elections abroad. It is always his vision and his perspective that matters, the others should just follow and listen to the high and mighty Musveni. No-one else has a vision like him and his party, which bow their knees, gets Presidential Handshakes and also kisses ring when they have too. That is something the Opposition MP’s doesn’t do, except for the “Good DPs” and the level-headed UPC MP’s. Still, he has something obvious to say today!

President Museveni addressing Bulago Primary School in Buyengo Sub-County in Jinja District:

I am tired of wars. I want you to vote for pro-NRM members of parliament like our party flag-bearer, Mr Moses Walyomu.” (…) “I don’t want to go back to the bush to fight again. Don’t send me people who will disagree with me in parliament. I fought in 1986 and I am tired.” (…) “He said people who are not of his party fear to discuss with him matters that are pertinent to the development of the country. And for that to be avoided, he will need Members of Parliament who share his ideals and vision for the country” (…) “He threatened that should Kagoma voters vote for an opposition candidate, their wish for good roads and other crucial utilities such as power will be no more”(Kirunda, Nakato & Katabulawo, 2017)

He is clear, if you disagree, that means war, not negotiations or discussions to find a level middle-ground. Since it is only one-man with a vision in Uganda, and that is the President. The Wonderful Dictator who is on his 7th Term, not 5th, even if he is rigged in 5 times in row. There was still a decade that gets shaved off in the calculation. I will write that until my ending. Since he deserves to count all years from 1986 and not only from 1995. While we are on that. Under President Museveni, there wasn’t always Multi-Party Democracy.

Three years after the Coup d’etat:

As already noted, the 1989 elections were held under strict anti-party rules since the NRM government had suspended all political party activities. Indeed, the Resistance Councils and Committees Elections Regulations, 1989, forbade all use of party symbols, sectarian appeals, and threats of force, the offer of food or drinks and the display of candidates’ posters. The absence of open campaigning made it impossible to discuss policies” (Bwana, 2009).

So as President Museveni forbade other parties and their political parties after taking power. He created together with the NRM/A a Movement System to control the local party politics and have structures that he could have oversight of from the State House. This was not a Multi-Party System. A special system that are now overturned into the Local Government system, still it is inherited by the RC system, that the party unleashed in the end of 1980s and tried for a long while. Explained by this Scottish student in 1993!

Importance of Movement System:

Two statutes, the Resistance Councils and Committees Statutes 9 (1987) and the Resistance Committees’ Judicial Power Statute 1 (1988), codified and expanded the system of local Resistance Committees that had sustained the NRA in its war against the second Obote regime. The genesis of the Resistance Committee system can be traced to the Mayumba Kumi (or ‘Ten Houses’) experiment of the UNLF in the early 1980s, which in turn was linked with the Tanzanian Ujamaa philosophy (Oloka-Onyango, 1989; Baringo, n.d.).” (…) “The RC statutes divided each of Uganda’s 34 (now 38) districts into 5 administrative zones; village (or ward in towns and cities), parish, sub-county, county and districts” (…) “The extent to which the RC system offers the levels of popular participation claimed by the NRM/A also requires consideration. The RC Electoral system operated in 1987, 1989 and 1992 of direct elections only at RC1 level means that the population is excluded at every stage from choosing candidates for higher office. This limitation on direct popular participation in the RC system recurs at a higher level where the links between RC4/RC5 and the NRC and government ministries become rather uncertain. By 1992, there existed no power of recall for members of the NRC beyond elections day itself” (Smith, 1993).

With all this in mind, the tiredness of having opposition. It seems that the President is ready to control the Parliament, the Local Government and have only local cadres that are his. The ones that he knows he can bribe and have under his structure. That means he wants to back to late 1980s and early 1990s when the Movement System and Resistance Councils were the thing. Where the Ministry of Local Government could fire a Resistance Councilor or others, if they didn’t follow the direct orders of the President and his State House. This seems real now.

This seems like the thing, as he wants to take away development and public service if they doesn’t follow his orders in the By-Election in the Jinja District. That proves the lack of democratic values and wish to honor the ballot. But hey, he has for 30 years rigged himself in and made sure his cadres has gotten positions, why else would Gen. Kahinda Otafiire still be a Minister? Not because of his brilliant intellect, but for his loyal assets and following orders of the President.

That President Museveni wants to have men and woman who listens to him and doesn’t challenge him. Therefore, he is telling in Jinja District, that he didn’t go to war in 1986 to have people questioning his rule. His legacy now will not be that he re-released the Multi-Party System, neither that he Constitution delivered a fresh start, as his lingering time in power. Proves that he has gone backwards and become alike the men he overthrew. There isn’t anything different between Dr. Milton Obote distrust in Institutions and Political Affiliations, the only difference is the names and the times. The misuse of army and police to harass the opposition is not different either. The use of government resource in elections are also facilitated for the Movement to counter the opposition. Therefore, the wonderful dictator is alike predecessors, only difference is his ability to overstay!

President Museveni is tired, because he cannot understand that people still question him. That people still doesn’t believe in his vision. That is because he forgot to deliver, he didn’t care to deliver and wanted all along to control it all from the Okello House. There wasn’t with prompt and glory that the Multi-Party Democracy became law, it was two elections and amendment of the constitution that the President didn’t want to deliver. President Museveni wanted it all inside the Movement and the Resistance Councils, which he could assess and control. So now he had to allow other people create their own parties, where they have their own guidelines and programs, not his! They doesn’t have his vision. That is so tiring for him. Therefore, he now want to return back in time, to the Movement System and the Resistance Councils.

He wants total control and he says it, because he is tired of men and woman who doesn’t accept his vision. The vision of looting, dismantling and disorienting the citizens for the wealth of the Museveni family. The rest is history, as the value of currency, the added state debt, the lacking of transparency and patronage is extensive. Therefore, he doesn’t want it question of his state and his system. It is all what he created and made over the decades as the supreme executive. Certainly, the glory days and the days of hope is gone. Just like the days stalwart Besigye would help the old-man creating the Resistance Councils as well. Peace.

Reference:

Bwana, Charles – ‘Voting Patterns in Uganda’s Elections: Could it be the end of the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) domination in Uganda’s politics?’ (2009) – LES CAHIERS D’AFRIQUE DE L’ N° 41

Kirunda, Abubaker; Nakato, Tausi & Katabulawo, Andrew – ‘I don’t want opposition in parliament, says President Museveni’ (09.05.2017) link: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/I-don-t-want-opposition-in-parliament–says-President-Museveni/688334-3919496-71atniz/index.html

Smith, Justin McKenzi – ‘Breaking with the Past – A Consideration of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s National Resistance Movement, and of social and Political action in Uganda during its government’ (1993) University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.

White House Report states that the A.I. regulations are lacking in both military and privately at this current day in the U.S.

uas_map

Simultaneously, industry has been increasing its investment in AI. In 2016, Google Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Sundar Pichai said, “Machine learning [a subfield of AI] is a core, transformative way by which we’re rethinking how we’re doing everything. We are thoughtfully applying it across all our products, be it search, ads, YouTube, or Play. And we’re in early days, but you will see us — in a systematic way — apply machine learning in all these areas.” (White House, 2016).

Present AI-enabled Products:

“Currently relevant examples of the regulatory challenges that AI-enabled products present are found in the cases of automated vehicles (AVs, such as self-driving cars) and AI-equipped unmanned aircraft systems (UAS, or “drones”). In the long run, AVs will likely save many lives by reducing driver error and increasing personal mobility, and UAS will offer many economic benefits. Yet public safety must be protected as these technologies are tested and begin to mature. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is using an approach to evolving the relevant regulations that is based on building expertise in the Department, creating safe spaces and test beds for experimentation, and working with industry and civil society to evolve performance-based regulations that will enable more uses as evidence of safe operation accumulates” (White House, 2016).

Recommendation to the States:

“Recommendation 1: Private and public institutions are encouraged to examine whether and how they can responsibly leverage AI and machine learning in ways that will benefit society. Social justice and public policy institutions that do not typically engage with advanced technologies and data science in their work should consider partnerships with AI researchers and practitioners that can help apply AI tactics to the broad social problems these institutions already address in other ways.

Recommendation 2: Federal agencies should prioritize open training data and open data standards in AI. The government should emphasize the release of datasets that enable the use of AI to address social challenges. Potential steps may include developing an “Open Data for AI” initiative with the objective of releasing a significant number of government data sets to accelerate AI research and galvanize the use of open data standards and best practices across government, academia, and the private sector” (White House, 2016).

Recommendation to the Federal Government:

“Recommendation 3: The Federal Government should explore ways to improve the capacity of key agencies to apply AI to their missions. For example, Federal agencies should explore the potential to create DARPA-like organizations to support high-risk, high-reward AI research and its application, much as the Department of Education has done through its proposal to create an “ARPA-ED,” to support R&D to determine whether AI and other technologies could significantly improve student learning outcomes.

Recommendation 4: The NSTC MLAI subcommittee should develop a community of practice for AI practitioners across government. Agencies should work together to develop and share standards and best practices around the use of AI in government operations. Agencies should ensure that Federal employee training programs include relevant AI opportunities” (White House, 2016).

On LAWS:

“Over the past several years, in particular, issues concerning the development of so-called “Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems” (LAWS) have been raised by technical experts, ethicists, and others in the international community.79 The United States has actively participated in the ongoing international discussion on LAWS in the context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW),80 and anticipates continued robust international discussion of these potential weapon systems going forward.

State Parties to the CCW are discussing technical, legal, military, ethical, and other issues involved with emerging technologies, although it is clear that there is no common understanding of LAWS. Some States have conflated LAWS with remotely piloted aircraft (military “drones”), a position which the United States opposes, as remotely-piloted craft are, by definition, directly controlled by humans just as manned aircraft are. Other States have focused on artificial intelligence, robot armies, or whether “meaningful human control” – an undefined term – is exercised over life-and-death decisions. The U.S. priority has been to reiterate that all weapon systems, autonomous or otherwise, must adhere to international” (White House, 2016).

US Government and the DoD:

“The U.S. government is also conducting a comprehensive review of the implications of autonomy in defense systems. In November 2012, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued DoD Directive 3000.09, “Autonomy in Weapon Systems,” which outlines requirements for the development and fielding of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons. Weapon systems capable of autonomously selecting and engaging targets with lethal force require senior-level DoD reviews and approval before those weapon systems enter formal development and again before fielding. The DoD Directive neither prohibits nor encourages such development, but requires it to proceed carefully and only after review and approval by senior defense officials. Among other things, the DoD Directive requires that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems are rigorously tested and that personnel are trained appropriately in their use to advance international norms pertaining to armed conflict” (White House, 2016).

Recommendation 23: The U.S. Government should complete the development of a single, government-wide policy, consistent with international humanitarian law, on autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons” (White House, 2016).

These findings are showing how the current Obama Administration has worked on the matter and studied the use of AI in workforce and military. Together with the DoD, the DoD and usage of the AI and UAS. United States Government has made decisions, but has not apparently a current vision on how to use or how regulate the technology of the moment. What is problematic is that there are no common ground for the Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), neither the DoD Directive neither prohibits nor encourages such development, but requires it to proceed carefully and only after review and approval by senior defense officials. This shows the importance of the current regulations and how to develop the technology to use it in combat and in private sector in the US.

Certainly the Trump Administration has to work on this, but they will surely use this for their benefit. We can all wonder what they will use of this technology and the AI and UAS. Peace.  

Reference:

United States White House – ‘Science and Technology Council PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology’ (October, 2016)

President Museveni is not running for his 5th term, but he is running for the 7th! Proving it by going through his previous terms

Uganda-parliament-2

I know for some of you people this will blow your mind; some of you will tell I told you so. Other people will be like? How dare you insult my intelligence, well it depends on how you deem history and how you let the victors rewrite it. As President Museveni has been a victor and won over his predecessors like Yusuf Lule, Tito Okello and Milton Obote, even Idi Amin together with Milton Obote and the Tanzanian Army in late 1970s. So President Museveni has won the power through guns. At the same time as he has lingers he has tried to rewrite history as the people neglect certain fact.

We are supposed to see the people of Uganda to elect the 10th Parliament as this is the end of the 9th Parliament. I will not discuss that matter, as that is not important me. We could discuss if there only been 9 functional Parliament and representative government since independence in 1962, or should we also count the ones that we’re before this since the British introduced Parliamentarism in Uganda in 1882. Then it is with certainty more than 10 of them. If so is that based on the new constitution after independence or the newly written to fit NRA/NRM in 1995? Then so I understand the coming 10th Parliament. Still, this is also worth discussing and the matter of how we value the predecessors and the tools they left behind for the men of today who rule. Feel me?

This here is not a reflection on how Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM) lost and got 4% in the 1980s and 1 seat in Parliament, as this was the first outfit for President Museveni. Museveni didn’t even get a seat as he lost to Sam Kutesa in the distric he was running in; that is a worthy side-note!

m7-1970

His first term – Overthrowing Okello in 1986:

But his first term started as he was sworn in and the New York Times described it like this:

“KAMPALA, Uganda, Jan. 29Yoweri Museveni, whose National Resistance Army descended on this battered capital city last week and overthrew the military Government of Gen. Tito Okello, was sworn in today as the new President of Uganda” (Rule, 1986). Here is in my opinion his start of first term, as he took it by the gun. As he was sworn in as President of Uganda, which initial means he got the appointment of rule as he defeated his opposition at that time.

ReaganMuseveni

 His Second Term – Election in 1989:

“The elections in 1989 also included elections for the majority of seats in parliament. Candidates for all these elections stood strictly as individuals and not as representatives for a party although several of them publicly were known supporters for one of the older parties – including the UPC. The Ugandan constitution was abolished in 1966, and no basic consensus has ever since appeared on the most basic issues like: how to elect a President and whether the country should be an unitary state or a federation including several kingdoms” (P: 40, 1994, Tidemand). “As already noted, the 1989 elections were held under strict anti-party rules since the NRM government had suspended all political party activities. Indeed, the Resistance Councils and Committees Elections Regulations, 1989, forbade all use of party symbols, sectarian appeals, and threats of force, the offer of food or drinks and the display of candidates’ posters. The absence of open campaigning made it impossible to discuss policies” (Bwana, 2009). “Out of a total of 278 seats, 210 members were elected without party affiliation” (African Elections).

This here election was one, and gave NRM time to rebuild and rewrite a new constitution. So this gave way for his second term in my opinion. Since the first term was from 1986 – 1989. From 1989 to 1996 is his second as there weren’t elections towards the parliament and presidential candidates, which means that the country was still controlled tightly by the NRM. Before the 1996 election there was election a Council for writing the new Constitution. That was put into place in 1995.

the-1995-constitution-was-very-clear-on-two-terms-but-museveni-used-parliament-to-remove-term-limits

His Third term – 1996 elections:

“The presidential election was preceded by an aggressive electoral campaign which was dominated by intimidation, vote buying, bribery and promises of material benefits. These methods were employed by both the opposition and the incumbent government during the 39 days which were allowed for presidential campaigns. It would seem that the aggressiveness of the campaign was dictated to some extent by the limited time allowed for each candidate to cover all of the country’s 39 districts, which meant that candidates were allowed one day of campaigning in each district. Again, this arrangement favoured the incumbent, President Museveni who had been in power for 10 years and was therefore well known to the electorate, compared to his challengers. Moreover, the electoral law allowed him the continued use of his presidential privileges which made the 39 campaign days less problematic” (Muhumaza, 1997). “The I996 presidential election was deemed a ‘step forward’ by many Western diplomats, although before the election some diplomats privately questioned how the election could be fair because of the fact that political parties were not able to organise to compete with the political machinery of the NRM (Reuters, 6 May I996). Despite private reservations, the official donor attitude was that the losers of the election should not contest the results. When Paul Ssemogerere went to the European Union Parliamentary Committee on Development to complain about the unfairness of the election, the committee told him to accept his defeat (The New Vision, 3 June I996)” (Hauser, 1999).

Interesting allegation about campaign money to Museveni in 1996:

It was for instance alleged that one presidential candidate received funds equivalent to 600 million shillings (US$600,000) from certain foreign organisations while on a pre-election visit to Europe; and that another candidate had been funded certain Islamic countries. Similar insinuations were hurled against President Museveni who was alleged to have got financial contributions from the Indian community in Uganda” (Muhumaza, 1997).

The election results from the 9th of May 1996:

The results was: “Yoweri Kaguta Museveni: 74.33 %, Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere: 23.61 % and Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja: 2.06 %” (African Election Database).

This here was the official first term as he was this one. Even if he had already been ten years in power, that is why I am saying this is his third term, as he had the first one from 1986 to 1989, when the overthrow Okello, second after the parliamentary elections to the first presidential election in 1996. That lasted to the 2001.

Before the next election this was reports on the great democratic environment President Museveni was building:

“Political parties are prohibited from holding party conferences, a ban which severely hampers their own internal reform. Since this ban has been in place since 1986, reform in the structure and leadership of political parties has been virtually impossible. Attempts to hold party conferences have been met with strong and unambiguous warnings from the Ugandan government that they would prevent such meetings” (…)”Since coming to power, the NRM has used a state-funded program of political and military education called chaka-mchaka to spread its message that political parties are destructive sectarian organizations responsible for Uganda’s past woes, an argument that resonates given Uganda’s recent political history. Chaka-mchaka thus serves to rationalize the NRM’s denial of political rights of freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Government leaders, including President Museveni, often refer to advocates of democratic reform as their “enemies.” Other structures of local government such as the local councils (LC) and the Resident District Commissioners (RDC) serve to ensure support for the NRM, and often create a hostile climate for advocates of pluralism” (Human Rights Watch, 1999).

Old Campaign Posters Uganda

Fourth Term – General Election in 2001:

KAMPALA, Uganda, March 14— President Yoweri Museveni swept the hard-fought elections here today, in a victory that he called an acclamation of 15 years of peaceful rule but that his main opponent said was won only by extensive cheating” (…)”My votes are like Lake Victoria,” Mr. Museveni told tens of thousands of supporters this afternoon who marched to an airstrip downtown after the results were announced. ”They never dry up.” (…)”The main election monitors in Uganda said, however, that most allegations of cheating appeared to be against forces loyal to Mr. Museveni, estimating preliminarily that between 5 and 15 percent of the vote may have been won fraudulently. The fraud included people being forced or influenced to vote by election officials, intimidation and people being denied the right to vote” (Fisher, 2001).

The Election results from the 12th March 2001:

The results are: “Yoweri Kaguta Museveni: 69.33 %, Kizza Besigye: 27.82 %, Aggrey Awori: 1.41 %, Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja: 1.00%, Francis Bwengye: 31 % and Karuhanga Chapaa: 0.14 % (African Election Database).

Reactions to the election:

“Amnesty International (AI) agrees with the Besigye opposition that “the Presidential elections in Uganda have been marred by allegations of human rights abuses, both before and after the elections on 12 March 2001. An increasing number of human rights violations against opposition supporters, including illegal arrests and detention without charge, ill-treatment in detention, and alleged unlawful killings were reported by the Ugandan press in the weeks leading up to the elections. In some instances, supporters of President Museveni were also targetted.” (Afrol.com, 2001).

This here was the official second term, while I am saying it is the fourth one, that lead to him opening the Multi-Party elections in 2005. Also the referendum on term limits came into force in 2005. As the constitution made in 1995 gave the limit of the Executive Power and President had the ability to be elect twice. As he wasn’t elected in between 1986 to 1996; 10 years without accountability and still becoming a donor pleasant government as Structural Adjustment Program got eaten up by the Government of Uganda in that period. As President Museveni even met with U.S. President Clinton; as he was the new future leader of the “third world” development.

Uganda Term Limits Museveni

Here are the issues in 2005 with the abolishment of term limits:

“Museveni and his supporters, who pushed a controversial constitutional amendment rescinding presidential term limits through Parliament this month, are urging an overwhelming “yes” vote while the weak and fractured opposition want the country’s 8,9-million eligible voters to boycott the polls” (…)”Under current rules, political parties are allowed to exist but may not have branch offices and may not field candidates in elections. The only fully-functioning political entity is Museveni’s own “Movement” organisation to which all Ugandans theoretically belong” (Mayanja, 2005).

As it was voted in by the public he was allowed to be the Presidential candidate in yet another election. The one that happen in 2006!

Election 2011 Uganda

Fifth term – 23rd February 2006 Presidential Election:

As some context and pretext over the other issues written in between 2001 and 2006; this here is following the close and tense contest that was held in 2006; as the NRM was weaken over time, as the fatigue of running the country since 1986. As the fourth term was already showing how much they tried to continue to work under the Movement System, instead of giving way to Multi-Party Democracy, as people voted in the second referendum poll. Here is some things happening right before:

“A spokesman for the ruling National Resistance Movement told New Vision that the government had complained to the U.S.-based Web server which hosts Radio Katwe, Brinkster Communications Corporation, claiming that the site was publishing “malicious and false information against the party and its presidential candidate. (…)”Local journalists have expressed fears that the government could similarly block The Monitor’s Web site on election day, when the newspaper plans to keep a running tally of votes from across the country. “Our Web site has been going offline every day for the last three days” for several hours at a time, Monitor Group Managing Director Conrad Nkutu told CPJ. He added that while the problem appeared be a technical glitch, “we are also suspicious it might not be.” (CPJ, 2006).

Election results from 2006:

The results are:


Number of Votes
% of Votes
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (NRM) 4,109,449 59.26%
Kizza Besigye (FDC) 2,592,954 37.39%
John Ssebaana Kizito (DP) 109,583 1.58%
Abed Bwanika 65,874 0.95%
Miria Obote (UPC) 57,071 0.82%

(African Election Database)

Aftermath after the first Multi-Party after NRM got into Power:

“The multi-party elections of 2006 saw only slight improvements from 2001, notably in the area of media freedom. Dr Besigye ran against President Museveni for the second time, but now as the leader of a new political party, the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), and garnered 37.39% of the votes, as against Museveni’s 59.26% majority. Dr Besigye’s Supreme Court case regarding the 2006 elections has become famous due to the ruling that Museveni was the rightful winner despite the Court’s acknowledgement of widespread electoral malpractices and vote rigging which were considered not to have substantially affected the results of the elections” (…)”For any engagement with these political parties a number of issues need to be taken into consideration, these include the multi-party system and the fact that the political playing field remains un-levelled in favour of the NRM. As such, donors operating in Uganda need to be cognisant of the implications of this, for the ruling party and for opposition parties. International donors have and continue to play a significant role in financing and monitoring Uganda’s elections. In the 1990s, the UNDP was the lead institution for donors who wanted to co-finance Uganda’s elections. The UNDP’s mandate involved managing a donors’ basket fund, and recruiting and supervising specialised technical assistance to support the EC and civil-society organisations to carry out tasks allocated to them” (Sekaggya, 2010).

Uganda Election 2011 P2

Sixth Term – General Election in 2011:

Some Pretext: “The 2011 Uganda elections have attracted a record 8 Presidential candidates from seven political parties and one Independent candidate. All the Presidential Candidates have been on the campaign trail marketing their manifestos to Ugandans and have dispelled earlier assertions that some of them, seen as weak, will pull out of the campaigns that like in 2006 were expected to majorly be between incumbent Yoweri Museveni of the National Resistance Movement and Dr. Kizza Besigye of the Forum for Democratic Change” (Rulekere, 2011). “FGD respondents said that this happens mainly on the election eve whereby candidates and/or their agents carry gifts and money in vehicles which have had number plates removed and they pack somewhere in the village and then walk from door to door giving money and/or gifts” (…)”Daily Monitor of Friday 7, January 2011 carried a lead story that President Museveni gave out $2.15 million (USh5 billion) in cash and pledges between July and October 2010 but the opposition is charging that such patronage is giving the incumbent an unfair advantage in the February 18, 2011 vote. Mr Museveni always conducts a countrywide tour before each election, during which he makes pledges and donations Critics say this is a disguised campaign that allows him to offer inducements to potential voters out of the public purse, a privilege unavailable to other candidates” (…)”Incumbent candidates have readily used their access to state resources to provide an unfair edge when running for re-election. This includes cash payments from the state treasury, use of state owned property and vehicles, as well as the fulfilment of campaign pledges during the campaign period. Voter have given up on their elected officials to fulfil campaign promises and seek to extract as much benefit as they can around the campaign period” (DMG, 2011)

The results are:

Candidate (Party) [Coalition] Number of Votes % of Votes
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (NRM) 5,428,369 68.38%
Kizza Besigye (FDC) [IPC] 2,064,963 26.01%
Norbert Mao (DP) 147,917 1.86%
Olara Otunnu (UPC) 125,059 1.58%
Beti Kamya (UFA) 52,782 0.66%
Abed Bwanika (PDP) 51,708 0.65%
Jaberi Bidandi Ssali (PPP) 34,688 0.44%
Samuel Lubega 32,726 0.41%

(African Election Database)

Tororo town FDC Poster Former Campaign IPC

The Commonwealth Observation Group noted this:

“The main concern regarding the campaign, and indeed regarding the overall character of the election, was the lack of a level playing field, the use of money and abuse of incumbency in the process. The magnitude of resources that was deployed by the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), its huge level of funding and overwhelming advantage of incumbency, once again, challenged the notion of a level playing field in the entire process. Media monitoring reports also indicated that the ruling party enjoyed a large advantage in coverage by state-owned radio and TV. The ruling party in Uganda is by far the largest and best-resourced party and following many years in power, elements of the state structure are synonymous with the party. Further, reports regarding the “commercialisation of politics” by the distribution of vast amounts of money and gifts were most disturbing. Indeed, the „money factor‟ and widespread allegations of bribery and other more subtle forms of buying allegiance were key features of the political campaign by some, if not all, the parties. By all accounts, the 2011 elections were Uganda‟s most expensive ever. It is therefore important that for the future serious thought be given to election campaign financing and political party fundraising. This is more so given that there are virtually no checks on the levels of campaign financing and expenditure due to the cash-based nature of the campaign and the lack of stringent campaign financing regulations, both of which facilitate the use of illicit payments to voters as inducements and has the potential to undermine their free will” (Commonwealth Observers Group, 2011).

Museveni-with-a-dummy-map-of-uganda

Important how President Museveni could run in the 2016 Election:

The Kyankwanzi Resolution of 2014 – President Museveni’s right for Sole Candidacy in the NRM:

“RESOLUTION ON PARTY COHESION AND GOVERNANCE

We, the undersigned members of the NRM Caucus attending a retreat at the National Leadership Institute(NALI) Kyankwanzi (6,February 2014); Fully aware of our Country’s historical  past and the need to consolidate and sustain the Milestones registered over the years since 1986; Cognizant of the fact that there is still a lot more to be done in order to realize our ideological vision of uniting Uganda(Nationalism), Pan-africanism, transforming our country from a poor peasantry society to a modern economy and upholding democracy; Conscious of the fact that what has been so far achieved over the last 28 years needs to be guarded jealously and improved upon to realize our vision; Aware  that when individuals engage in personal scheming, party cohesion is undermined, development efforts aredistracted and the population is diverted from work to early politicking;

DO here by resolve;

  1. To support H.E Yoweri Kaguta Museveni tocontinue leading and facilitating our country on its take off journey to transformation”

Afterthought –Run in to General Election 2016.

1986-1996: First and Second Term!

So I have now gone through the Elections since 1986 until today in 2016. That is thirty years in Power for the Executive Power and being President Museveni. 1986 to 1996, he didn’t really become elected as President as he did a coup d’état in 1986 to bring down regime at the current time. So the period from 1986 to 1996, there was an election in 1989 a Resistance Council elections which barred the Parliament with elected men and woman from the NRM/A, but was not an ordinary election to bring the people’s will in full effect and not even electing President Museveni, but securing polls to validate the rule of NRM at the time, also in my consideration to shut-up the donor-community; so they see the “democratic” vision of President Museveni. He even made a stunning Constitution in 1995. President Museveni had set the standard with two term limits and other regulatory tools to secure accountability that was new in Uganda, together with swallowing the Structural Adjustment Program to secure massive amount of funding to rebuild the country and secure Universal Preliminary Education. Something the citizens of Uganda got excited about and also gave him praise abroad.

museveni 2016 Poster

Third Term 1996-2001:

After the 1996 Presidential Election was his third term elections, and the official first term (which I can’t take serious) as he had already ruled for a decade, and you can’t shuffle that off that easy. Even with the bodies and violence to get the power in 1986, it cost so much suffering to gain that power; so to eradicate that and call this his first term, is to neglect the first ten years of power. Something we should be to damn wise to not. There we’re still not a Multi-Party Democracy or Elections as President Museveni doesn’t really believe in that; as the nation had to after this go through two referendum polls before initiating the hassle of letting people be controlled by other party functions then the NRM.

Fourth Term 2001-2006:

So when the fourth term came in 2001, he had already been long enough in power to already using up the constitutional rights as the Executive Power and President of the land. He was still popular and gained a lot of support. Even if the election was rigged and had a massive malpractices; the initial issues is how he pleaded and mixed up with referendum terminating presidential term limits to fit himself and rewriting the constitution of 1995 in 2005, so he could run off a third time. The second score of joy for the people was the second vote of the polls for Multi-Party Democracy, meant that the public could vote for other parties then the NRM during the 2006, as much as they could still as ever; vote for the old man with the hat! After 20 years in power he still used sufficient tools to be able to get voted in. And also stifle the completion in his favor, as the man who took power himself in 1986.

Fifth Term 2006-2011:

Set for the fifth term in 2006. The NRM and President Museveni at the time was re-introducing of multi-party election and continuing to go as the candidate, to secure the total tally of 25 years; when the term would be done.  He fixed the 1995 constitution one year advanced so he could run again! This time the third official campaign and polls, though still, with the 10 year as ruler before an election means, initially fifth. This here was the start of the down-turn as he now showed more and more the authoritarian leader and totalitarian state, compared to donor-friendly character he was when he first was sworn in 1986 and steady ship he hold while elected in 1996.

Sixth Term 2011- 2016:

As his sixth term in 2011, there was already starting to crack with the NRM leadership and the people, as they we’re ready for new leaders and a new executive. As the Kampala Riots and ‘Walk to Work’ demonstrations; proves that the leadership is in a fatigue state where the public is tired of the NRM and their ring leader President Museveni. Even still with well rigged machinery the NRM “won” again the election. To finish of this one, he had to swallow a few scalps to secure his sole candidacy, he had to break of Gilbert Bukenya his loyal fellow, he had to push of cliff Amama Mbabazi who wished to take his seat in the NRM, which is not a possibility unless you are the clone of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni; something Amama Mbabazi is not! In early 2014 he had to set up his machinery ready and get his party in line so that he could get the spot again with the Kyankwanzi Resolution in February 2014 and set his goals on the 7th Term as the Executive and President of Uganda, in the 10th Parliament. That is another timeline I am not sure of, I am sure there are more then 10 elected or appointed Parliaments and sessions in the great republic of Uganda. It is just a a way of rewriting history as the NRM is famous for.

Mbabazi M7 Besigye

That rewriting history comes in the sense of saying NRM and President Museveni is contesting for the 5th Term, I am saying his fifth term was between 2006-2011 his most turbulent ruling period after his first term in 1986-1989 when he still struggled to keep the whole country into peace, as there was still guerrillas and militias wanting to unsettle the new regime in Kampala. As we have seen, and we can see, there is a pattern and there is a reason why I am saying “we could really see his democratic wish” as the elections and malpractices seems like the same as when he took power. The rigging he claimed he wanted in the 1980s and why he lost as the UPM front-man, it seems to be same as it was under Dr. Milton Obote, the only difference is that he has been able to be stable and keep a strong army to spread the fear so that nobody has tried to really use a coup d’état against him. There been allegations in the past, and even persons been alleged in court for treason against the state, but they have been more political motivated then actual forces or militias in the sense they went to the bush to get rid of President Museveni. Though LRA and ADF has gone after his head, but failed.

President Museveni is now trying his best to get into his 7th Term, and we should not be surprised by election rigging, malpractices to destroy level playing-grounds for political parties, paying for votes and using both government institutions and government funds to be re-elected; Even supress the court to secure the validation or dismiss the allegation of election fraud in the 2016 election. I fear for the public response this time and how the security agents of the state will address them. As the Gen. Katumba Wamala of the UPDF will surely do what he can to impress President Museveni and Police Boss IGP Gen. Kale Kayihura follows orders blindly made by the Executive, as if he wants to shut down demonstrations and revolts against the totalitarian regime that the NRM has evolved into. As they are used to stealing the elections and taking the people for ransom to gain riches while the average people toil in poverty. There is time for change with a government with transparency, accountability and good governance; as the government now is famous for not caring about this issues and becoming dependent on feeding the cronies and loyal men of Museveni instead of serving the people. Peace.

Reference:

African Elections Database – ‘Elections in Uganda’ link: http://africanelections.tripod.com/ug.html

Afrol.com – ‘”Uganda needs to re-affirm human rights commitment” (17.03.2001) link: http://www.afrol.com/News2001/uga006_hrights_reaffirm.htm

Bwana, Charles – ‘Voting Patterns in Uganda’s Elections: Could it be the end of the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) domination in Uganda’s politics?’ (2009) – LES CAHIERS D’AFRIQUE DE L’ N° 41

Commonwealth Observer Group – ‘UGANDA PRESIDENTIAL AND

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS’ (24.02.2011)

Committee to Protect Jorunalist (CPJ) – ‘Critical website Radio Katwe blocked on eve of presidential election’ (23.02.2006) link: http://www.ifex.org/uganda/2006/02/23/critical_website_radio_katwe_blocked/

Democracy Monitoring Group (DMG) – ‘Report on Money in Politics – Pervasive vote buying in Ugandan Election’ (January 2011)

Fisher, Ian – ‘Final Count Has Uganda President Winning 69% of Vote’ (15.03.2001) link: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/15/world/final-count-has-uganda-president-winning-69-of-vote.html

Hauser, Ellen – ‘Ugandan Relations with Western Donors in the 1990s: What Impact on Democratisation?’ (Dec. 1999) link: http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Hauser%20Uganda%20donors.pdf

Human Right Watch – ‘Hostile to Democracy The Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda’ (01.10.1999) link: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45dad0c02.html

Manyanja, Vincent – ‘Ugandans face paradox in referendum’ (25.07.2005) link: http://mg.co.za/article/2005-07-25-ugandans-face-paradox-in-referendum

Muhumaza, William – ‘Money and Power in Uganda’s 1996 Elections’ (1997) – African. Journal. Political Science (1997), Vol. 2 No. 1, 168-179

Rule, Sheila – ‘REBEL SWORN IN AS UGANDA PRESIDENT’ (30.01.1986) link:  http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/30/world/rebel-sworn-in-as-uganda-president.html

Rulekere, Gerald – ‘Uganda Elections 2011: The Presidential Candidates – Early Predictions’ (17.02.2011) link: http://www.ugpulse.com/government/uganda-elections-2011-the-presidential-candidates-early-predictions/1207/ug.aspx

Sekaggya, Margaret – ‘Uganda: Management of Elections’ (01.01.2010) link: https://www.eisf.eu/library/uganda-management-of-elections/

Tidemand, Per – ‘The Resistance Councils in Uganda A Study of Rural Politics and Popular Democracy in Africa’ (1994) –PHD Dissertation at Roskilde University, Denmark.

%d bloggers like this: