MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the tag “Federation”

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.

Advertisements

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.

Norbert Mao’s play is clearly out of Mzee’s playbook: as he ordered Nambooze to leave together with her supporters!

I Hate to say it, I have to admit it, at one point I admired his political savvy and wisdom; But with time I knew I was fooled. Norbert Mao seemed like a person for the future and who had it in him. The feeling now is that he has given up and accepted to be a fringe leader; Who leads his own branch, but not really having power. The Democratic Party is losing key leaders and people that at one point in time gained positive attention. The sort of acts of late is showing his weakness. The DP has become a NRM-lite, he might hate that inside, but the fringe leadership of his caliber, I am sure that is enough for him!

The President of the Democratic Party General Norbert Mao has ordered Betty Nambooze and her followers to quit the party saying their actives are threatening its stability. Mao says he is aware that Nambooze , who is on suspension following her rebuke of orders from the party leadership, is plotting to form the second Suubi pressure group and initiate it into party” (NBS Television, 25.04.2017).

Mao warned Betty Nambooze (Mukono Municipality MP) and Vice President for Buganda Region to desist from dividing the party along tribal lines. “I will not allow Nambooze and her factions to divide DP. It is not true that only one tribe has led DP to where it is today. All other tribes have played a role. Those who feel they cannot stick along the party rules, guidelines and constitution should quit and go where they belong,” said Mao” (Jaramogi, 2017).

What is interesting is that the Democratic Party leader are saying that Hon. Betty Bakireke Nambooze, Hon. Mathias Mpuuga, Hon. Medard Ssegona and Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago. These are the people and the members that Mao is warning today and wanting to scatter. That Mao does this and than claims the ones asking for them to leave. What is more unique is the Suubi claim, as Namboozi is the Vice-President Buganda Caucus and she just represent her constituency, as much as the others who are around her.

It is more like Mao is afraid of what this fraction stand-for compared to the central leadership of the DP. Therefore, he is claiming the Suubi and suddenly that came into the questions about the DP. Like a leaf in the wind, the DP from Gulu, who claims himself not play tribal games. Uses forged games as the Suubi, the wishing of the Baganda and Buganda kingdom to be a federal in a federation in Uganda. That Nambooze and the Baganda Caucus works against the other kingdoms and their rights. Therefore, if you smell through it all.

That Mao brings Suubi, the so-called resurrection of Kabaka-Yekka (KY), the Party went away around the time when Dr. Milton Obote also abolished the kingdoms in 1967, just years after the UPC and KY alliance had been put into effect. Therefore, hearing that the DP leader using the most striking part of kingdoms history in the battle between him and the Nambooze fractions. Seems like he uses the tribal warfare and uses his own ethical codes.

So the plan seems to use the control the party on the lines of his words and his play, as he and Fred Mukasa Mbidde plays with powerful words. When using the Suubi against the Baganda Caucus of the DP. The ones that Mao told to scatter. That they have to find a new home and get away. Seems like the leader doesn’t want to play fair. The DP Baganda Caucus and their members who follow the ones who wanted to have a conference in Masaka. It is has been twice now the police has blocked them in a short while.

While the DP have warned Nambooze… and suspended.. and now they are having stern orders sending her and allies packing. They are ordered to leave the party, get new homes, as well as been called secessionist and federor or federalists. The Baganda Caucus haven’t had this as a plan, more like they wanted to revamp the party and vitalize the interest around the “Bad DP”.

So now we know that the sensitizing and tribal misuse inside the party, are now tricks that Mao have learned from Museveni, instead of using natural leadership. Certainly, Mao has lost it… He is so weak and cannot let the other DP leaders act without his blessing… I never thought the ones once going against Museveni and claiming all sort of mismanagement in the NRM party and the state. That is nearly never happening anymore. The silence is killing the DP party and also why Nambooze now is ordered away together with her supporters. Peace.

Reference:

Jaramogi, Patrick – ‘Norbert Mao Vows to throw Suspended Mukono legislator Betty Nambooze Out of DP’ (25.04.2017) link: http://theinvestigatornews.com/2017/04/norbert-mao-vows-throw-suspended-mukono-legislator-betty-nambooze-dp/

Lot’s on 1950s Bilderberg Conferences that we’re on European Integration, EEC and other issues discussed within the conferences!

1stmeet blinderberg 2

As there been a leak of documents that are addressing the Bilderberg conferences that have been silenced and been a not well-known public affair between the European Government and also the World Affairs, as they have been set invited to discuss the affairs and deal with the present takes of issues.

Like on the Bliderberg Conference of 1954 that we’re on the 29th – 31st May. When the Chairman for the Conference we’re Prince of the Netherlands Prince Bernhard and his Vice-Chairmen we’re John S. Coleman and Paul Van Zeeland. While the same Conference had rapporteurs on the subjects that we’re discussed, these men we’re from USA, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Italy, but half we’re from the United States. Of attenders there we’re from all across Europe, like from Norway came Leif Høegh; UK had a dozen attendees, but the one standout we’re Sir Harry Pilkington; From Germany Rudolf Mueller, Penagiottis Pipenelis from Greece for instance. This proves the importance of the conference as the nations didn’t send some random citizens.

They held the conference in hope for the American that the European Countries could through the NATO partnership have the military arm inside the European Defense Community, while German and French didn’t have faith in or could be part of the EDC. While the unity within unions like Steel and Coal we’re possible, as the sacrifices we’re not feasible, even if the American wished for something more than a European answer, but a Atlantic Pact, that we’re combining the European and American, not only trade, but also Defense. There we’re a general agreement between Europeans at the conference to work against the Soviet propaganda and advantages from the Communists.

One key pieces from the 1954: “The difference between America and Europe with respect to the problem of overseas territories emerged from the discussion as minor by comparison with the areas of agreement. The obvious objective to be sought is an agreed policy of the West to work towards colonial self~government as rapidly and safely as is possible. Such a solution serves the interests of the West and of the dependent peoples. It thwarts the imperialistic interests of Communism”. Second piece: “It was recognised that this conflict sprang largely from the differences in the emotional reactions to the Korean war in America and Europe – differences which it was thought had recently diminished. It was hoped that the negotiations at present taking place on the list of controlled exports would do much to eliminate them”. Third piece: European unity in some form has long been a Utopian dream, but the conference was agreed that it is now a necessity of our times. Only thus can the free nations of Europe achieve a moral and material strength capable of meeting any threat to their freedom”.

The next conference we’re on the 18th– 20th February 1955 at Barbizon Conference. The Chairman of the Conference we’re H.R.H the Prince of Netherlands. Honorary Secretary we’re J.H. Reitinger and American Secretary Joseph E. Johnson. Interesting people’s attending we’re Sir. Colin Gubbins of United Kingdom, H.J. Heinz of United States and Alberto Pirelli of Italy.

Sir John Kotelawala

Sir John Kotelawala

This was the second conference and here is the key issues and quotes from the report: “We had created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to oppose Stalinism all Its aspects, but today that Organisation had a very difficult task. Set on foot to meet the possibility of an attaque brusquee it now found itself facing the long struggle of the cold war, perhaps to be prolonged through many decades to come” (…) “Anti-Colonialism: “A European speaker discussed the important psychological aspect of the uncommitted peoples of Asia and Africa, and a number of Latin Americans. He had been very much struck during the last General Assembly of the United Nations by the fact that so much jealousy and resentment was pent up beneath the mostly polished exteriors of representatives of these countries. This was particularly so with the Asians and to a lesser degree there was something of the kind at work in the minds of quite a few South Americans” (…) “There were Asians who, being ardent nationalists and in many cases instrumental in forging the independence of their countries, nevertheless understood the West and all it had to offer to Asia and Africa well enough to interpret it. Names of men like General Romulo sprang to mind, or Sir John Kotelawala” (…) “There was a dangerous tendency on the part of United Nations commissions, after short visits to territories under European tutelage, to recommend periods after which independence should be given. There had been continuous attacks on the Belgian position in Ruanda-Urundi, in East Africa. In this case the Commission had recommended a course which might transform the territory directly from feudalism to “peoples’ democracy”. It must be remembered that the more the Western powers were weakened in Africa the more would their political, economic and even moral powers of resistance to communism be weakened” (…) “The United Nations had entered into the discussion by way of the problem of colonialism. But in terms of the broad relationships between the West and the East the United Nations was an instrument of the greatest importance. It had been said that international law was a generalisation of British foreign policy of the nineteenth century. Whether that was true or not, there was written into the preamble and articles 1 and 2 of the Charter a set of propositions about international order which were entirely congenial to the foreign policies of all who sat there in the room and these had been agreed by sixty governments, including the uncommitted peoples whom we were discussing” (…) “One of Europe’s greatest responsibilities today was to find new formulae for getting over nationalism and in that the speaker agreed with the views of a participant who had suggested that some sort of federation might be the solution. We must find some form, whether it was of federation or of any other juridical term which one might give it, which would be a European-invented by-pass for European-created nationalism”.

The next conference we’re in Garmish-Partenkichen conference at the date 23rd – 25th September 1955. When the same leaders as earlier in the year at the Barbizon Conference as this was a continues effort on the common work. The key things to take from this one we’re this: “The discussion on this subject revealed general support for the idea of European Integration and unification among the participation from the six countries of the European Coal and Steel Community, and a recognition of the urgency of the problem” (…) “The six countries of the Coal and Steel Community had definitely decided to establish a common market and that the experts were now working this out was felt to be a most encouraging step forward and it was hoped that other countries would subsequently join in”.

Nasser Blockade

In 2 Years the next conference happened on St. Simon Island on the 15th – 17th February 1957. Where most of the usual suspects showed up again, when even a Turkish representative Muharrem Nuri Birgi; Jean De La Garde, French and David Rockefeller, United States. The discussion of this conference led to this: “Several speakers urged that patience was essential in the present Suez crisis. Situations like that which developed in Iran in 1951 and was now being repeated in Egypt could not be dealt with in a hurry. A dictator who is impervious to external influences must be allowed to run through his cycle. For a period his personal pride and the demands of his position will render him insusceptible to advice or pressure. The point at which this cycle begins to turn is very delicate and needs careful watching, since a dictator like Nasser might well take desperate measures” (…) “According to the best available estimates, the expansion of oil sales in the years ahead would bring greatly increasing revenues, in fact within the next ten years the oil-producing countries of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrein should receive 5 billion dollars in oil royalties; yet it was calculated that. over this period they would not be able to spend more than a third of this amount inside their own frontiers. This would leave a surplus of about billion dollars to dispose of” (…) “It might be possible and desirable to change NATO’s present strategic!’ posture and to develop a military organization and doctrine which would free Europe from total . dependence on the threat of massive atomic retaliation. But until or unless this was done the contradictions of our present policy were damaging and dangerous. Because the peoples of NATO did not believe in the possibility of an effective shield against attack, they were reluctant to make the sacrifices required to provide for the forward advance strategy was official doctrine at present”.

The Second conference that year was in Fiuggi, we’re still the usual suspects we’re in control of it and the men behind it. Special names registered at this one we’re Henry A. Kissinger we’re a U.S. Representative and Major-General James Jr. McCormack a U.S. Representative. Key issues and quotes from the Fiuggi we’re this: “Participants from the countries directly involved, however, felt that these fears would prove to be unfounded. The Common Market would be implemented by easy stages and, if the experience of Benelux was any guide, trade With the outside world would increase together with internal trade. They were confident that the Common Market would be a step towards greater freedom in world trade as a whole. This was the purpose of the plan, although in some cases adjustments had had to be made so that particular interests would not be too drastically affected. Now that the internal pattern had been settled in the Common Market Treaty attention would concentrate increasingly on relations with third countries; the Free Trade Area would be the next step in the process of European economic integration” (…) “the main obstacle to British and Scandinavian participation in the Common Market was its function a step towards political union among the countries concerned” (…) “there was also the problem of including agriculture, which for countries like Denmark was of fundamental importance”.

130624-004-0BDAC008

At the 1958 Buxton Conference on the 13th September to 15th September 1958; which was run by the usual suspects yet again. Other representatives worth noticing from this ones we’re E.N. Van Kleefens from the European Coal and Steel Community, Jaques Rueff, European Economic Community (EEC), C.V.R. Schuyler, S.H.A.P.E., Sakari Tuomioja, UN Economic Commission for Europe and Sir. Gordon Archibald of the United Kingdom; other key quotes from this conference are these: “Nationalism could well yield positive results, as was the case in Turkey under Ataturk. It was objectionable, however, when it reached beyond its own borders hurting the interests of others. In such cases we had the right to protect ourselves, and should be firm about it” (…) “The Common Market was due to come into operation on a January 1959, and it was feared that, if no solution were in sight by then, the first appearance of discrimination would produce a schism between the Six and the rest of Europe” (…) “Further the speaker suggested that the Free Trade Area proposals were not the only alternative to the European Economic Community. The notion of association had a technical meaning, and various degrees of rights and obligations were conceivable and could be worked out between the European Economic Community and individual countries on a bilateral basis” (…) “Another major problem facing the European Economic Community was the co-ordination of monetary policies. As one of the participants pointed out, the economic integration of the Six required the co-ordination of all fields of economic policy”.

So there you have it and this is just outtakes, the Soviet problem is a key picture on every single conference, but that isn’t that important now. As the proof of the cold-war and the escalated influence U.S. policy had in Europe. That with their will of a more unified Europe; this being more valid for me, as the proof of the works behind the scenes from the Bliderberg group and their supporters from both United States and Canada; as they even wanted a federal solution to issues between the nation and their integration of monetary and trade-agreements on the continent.

Also the worrying views of Europeans wish to hold-on to their colonies and the liberation of the nations under British and French rule. While the Americans actually wanted a quicker liberation, while they had the worry of Soviet and Communist influence in the new “territories”; the leaked documents really reflect the dominance and arrogance of the Europeans at the time as their paternalistic threshold came under question. Another key we’re  the usefulness of NATO and the place of military operations as a countering for peace in Europe, as the fear of Soviet was a reason for the alliance after the Second World War.

Next time I drop on the subject, I will go through the 1960s documents of Bilderberg conferences. To see what else that came up in the next decade. Peace.

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.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: