Museveni: why I can’t go now. Me: why you should go now!

29 Nov

By Stephen Twinoburyo

In the article on the following link, Museveni asks where we want him to go and gives reasons that I don’t find convincing as to why he should not go now, if ever. He says his going should be planned (I don’t know by whom. Maybe his opponents), and says he is afraid that his successors may not have what it takes to govern the country. He goes on to say that “me who brought peace” is being told to go home by opposition such that “the ones did nothing come into government”. In short, he is the only solution for Uganda. He says he’s been to frontlines and when the time to go comes, “we shall look at the young people who have been behind us”. For more, go to:

This kind of talk should indeed be worrying to Ugandans. One can sense a leader who now sees the state and himself as one.

In fact the moment Museveni prolongedly over-praised himself as having a vision for Uganda and being the only one with that vision and the only one in the country with the ability to carry it forward, it was a clear indication that there was no vision.

Indeed after 25 years, nobody but him knows what that vision is. He is still trying to convince us that that vision is still in the making. What a load of ….!!!

I think Museveni knows that he cannot deliver anything new to the country. He is not stupid. He very well knows that he is adding nil to the country. I think he is only staying in power as a means of survival.

I also think what is keeping him in power is fear. I can assure you Museveni will never leave willingly. If anybody is waiting for that time, they had better get other things to think about.

The worst thing Museveni could ever have done to stay in power was to change the constitution. At that time he still had credibility and an international image.  He still had attributes most leaders would die to keep.

Many people respected him and he was regarded very highly on the continent. That he chose to sacrifice all that at that, go against sensible advise, sacrifice the gains Uganda had made thus far and reportedly go to the extent of bribing parliamentarians to change the constitution, there is nothing else that he would want to protect now. He is not going to wake up one morning and say he has felt for Uganda and will then step down. He is not going to wake up one morning feeling embarrassed that he has gone back on all his promises. He is not going to wake up and feel that his family and cronies have amassed obscene wealth at the expense of roads, hospitals, quality education, good public service e.t.c. If anyone is waiting for that, they had better lie on their backs, watch the sky and wait to see two stars embracing each other. There is a better chance in the stars.

He no longer cares whatever happens. And of course he has hangers-on that can only survive as long as he is in power. Such hangers-on will not allow him to go.

Like a friend pointed out to me, Museveni knows how to deal with Ugandans. He is well aware that many are corrupt and he can buy them as he pleases. He is also riding on the history of bad leadership the country faced previously and he is borrowing leaves from that. He is well aware that many Ugandans don’t actually know what good governance is. He has deliberately kept the bar so low that many Ugandans, including many educated ones, can never miss good governance – they simply don’t know it. He has kept previous bad leadership as his benchmark. He has never compared himself against good systems.

He also knows that the majority of Ugandans are inherently cowards since we’ve never been able to put up a decent fight for decent living and good governance. We’ve never been able to sustainably demand that our governments do better.

With him assured of all that, he can go and tell the Itesot, and indeed the nation, whatever he thinks. I don’t know whether he expects us to believe it or he just wants to rub it in. Or maybe to threaten us. One thing that gives me comfort is that Museveni is not the first ‘strongman’ in history – even in Uganda itself. In fact the British were the first pretenders to ‘strength’.

As a matter of course, there needs to be a thorough review of Museveni’s persistent claim that he brought peace. Museveni has had a lot to do with the insecurity that has gripped Uganda over the past 3 or more decades.

How can he say he brought security where he had created insecurity? Yes there was bad governance, but with insecurity, he had much to do with it. Of course there was an improvement over past governments in some sectors but he should not use that claim randomly.

For instance there was no insecurity in Eastern or northern Uganda – and not even in the west until he pitched up there. He says he pacified the region. There was no war in DRC until he went there, and he had bequeathed that country instability for decades to come.

So Mr. President, I know there are some good things you’ve done for the country but in my view you should go now. The reasons below, which are not in any way exhaustive, convince me that I am right:

  • After 25 years you are not sure of what you have achieved
  • After 25 years you have never explained what your vision is and as thus you are the only one who knows it. If there are any people around you who understand it, then they are keeping it a secret.
  • After 25 years, the roads in your capital city are impassable. I dare not talk about those beyond the capital.
  • After 25 years there is no state infrastructure that can be talked of. There is instead unstructured private infrastructure that hardly improves the quality of life.
  • After 25 years, nothing can be shown from the state enterprises that you sold.
  • After 25 years, there is no institution that can stand on its own without your involvement. This is even shown by your assertion “They are telling me who brought peace to go home..”. You have become all institutions in Uganda: So to say you liberated me, what did you liberate me from Mr. President? As far as I am concerned, your government has added nil to me.
  • Within 25 years the institution that seems to have grown strongest under your eye is corruption.


He made many promises on this day, 26 January 1986.

  • In 1986 you criticized previous leaders saying that when you entered state house, you found beds that were shampooed. You said you were going to get your bed from Katwe. You now change presidential planes willy-nilly.
  • In 1986 you wondered how Ugandans in the 20th century could suffer from jiggers. A quarter a century later, under your guidance, jiggers are flourishing at your doorstep.
  • In 1986 you wondered how Uganda could not even produce a safety pin. A quarter a century later, under your sterling leadership, we are yet to see industrial development
  • In 1986, as a youngster I saw you stand at the steps of parliament and claim you would not rule for more than five years. We clapped happily. 25 years later you are asking us where we want you to go. Why should I trust you Mr. President? Mr. President, why would I want you to spend another year?
  • In the same address in 1986, you criticized the former government for having reduced the police to nothing. 25 years later, apart from sporadically coming out in force to beat your opponents, the police is still in a story state.
  • Mr President, in the same speech you criticized previous leaders for flying abroad for medical treatment. 25 years later, under your watch, we have no running state hospital. Patients are asked to buy their injection syringes and pregnant women are asked to come with their own surgical gloves before delivery at Uganda’s leading state hospital, Mulago. On the other hand, I frequently bump into your soldiers  and privileged government officials that have come for medical treatment in Pretoria and Johannesburg at government expense.
  • Under your leadership Mr. President, some Ugandans have surely advanced as individuals but the national spirit has died.
  • In your early days Mr. President, you decried the brain drain that was caused by Amin’s persecution of professionals. The current brain drain due to loss of hope in the country is phenomenal.

So Mr. President, why would I not want you to go now?


Posted by on November 29, 2010 in Stephen Twinoburyo's blogs


23 responses to “Museveni: why I can’t go now. Me: why you should go now!

  1. grace

    November 30, 2010 at 03:01

    Stephen, I beg to differ from you. In 1986, Museveni did not say that the previous governments had done nothing for the police but he said that he did not need the police since he had his army. It was the pressure from the donors that made him back off. I remember the police were disarmed and made to sit in the barracks for 3 months while the army took over everything. He even wanted to replace guards to Diplomatic Missions with the Military. They flatly told him that they would feel secure with unarmed policemen at their gates that military men. He went ahead to screen the police from 5000 personnel then, to a miserable 3000. I am not saying that all those that were laid off were good people. Some of them had criminal records, some could barely read or write but were under Special Force that was giving him a bloody nose in Luweero. After drastically reducing the numbers, they embarked on massive recruitment with gave birth to half baked police personnel we see today. Even inservice training is not doing enough to improve their skills because they do not have any to talk about. We are now seeing a continuing purging of the police replacing professionals with cadres.

  2. Charles Odaga

    November 30, 2010 at 04:08

    Well said Steven.

    • Martin

      November 30, 2010 at 09:25

      I could never have articulated my dismay at the president’s statement better. May I add that you forgot to mention that the president has sold off almost all national assets to dubious private individuals. Some of them without a face, bank accounts or profiles. They just appear from somewhere in Malaysia, Lebanon, e.t.c, with bags of money (no proof that they come with money), and pay for Makerere land in ‘cash’. Which country in the world sells off every asset that could serve strategic national interests in future? Where will Uganda build another Mulago, another Makerere, have a Botanical Garden, Public Park e.t.c., for the benefit of its nationals whose numbers are increasing every day? Against the background of this demostrated lack of strategic thinking and leadership somebody claims he has a Vision for the country. If that vision indeed exists, then we should all be very afraid of that “Vision”.

  3. Peter Genza

    November 30, 2010 at 11:07

    Thank you Steven for your analysis.

    I would have these few things to comment about your post.

    Back in 1996 I was an ardent supporter of Museveni and all he stood for. I campaigned for him tirelessly, and not only him but also those parliamentarians who were pro NRA/M. At the height of the presidential campaigns as we traversed the Makere-Wandegeya-Mulago area combing for votes, I happened to have a chat with a gentleman from Mitchell hall and he told me something that stunned and angered me in equal measure.

    He first of all laughed at me for wasting my time convincing people to vote for the president instead of investing my energies in better projects. He then castigated me for what he termed as “working to entrench a dictator in power”. I was taken back. How dare he call the darling of Uganda a dictator?

    We argued back and forth, I sticking to my guns that Museveni was the answer to all Uganda’s problems and him insisting that the man was a dictator who was worse than all his predecessors he so loved to bash at every opportunity, calling them fancy names like swine. We never came to an understanding of course and I kept on canvassing for votes and him looking at me with such sadness in his eyes it unsettled me.

    The election was of course won by envious margins and we all got caught up in the euphoria on swearing-in day, chanting no-change ad infinitum. In 2001 we were still at it and although the margins were slightly eaten into, we still sang no-change with abandon. I remember listening in to the BBC shortly after the swearing in that year and heard Museveni categorically stating that that was his last term in office and that come 2006, he was retiring to go and look after his cattle. I was filled with immense joy in my heart that finally, we were going to witness a peaceful handover of power and break the jinx of dictatorship and coups in our land. I even called my skeptic friend and he simply laughed at me, saying, “You wait and see…”

    As 2006 approached, my hopes were all dashed to pieces as MPs were given a paltry 5 million shillings to alter the constitution and banish term limits. To say that I was incensed is a gross understatement. I felt foolish at the same time because it dawned on me that we had all been hoodwinked into supporting a dictatorship and that the regime was never going to hand over power peacefully to anyone. The words my friend had shared with me will haunt me for many years to come.

    Steven, why am I going on and on about this? I have a questions for you. You and I were young men fresh out of university during those years, intelligent and informed, analytical and articulate. I could be wrong but I am sure you admired the president back then and perhaps believed in him like I did. What did we miss? Why were we never able to see beyond the bulging, rolling eyes and the endless jokes to know the man for who he really was and still is? What did my friend see that I completely missed? And the million dollar question for me, what then?

    Are we really so cheap as you say that we can bought for peanuts to sell the very soul of our country to the devil? Are we so blind that we cannot see that our country is sinking day by day, under the weight of taxes that never give back to the payer, under stinking mounds of garbage, under unplanned buildings that kill people every day, under governance like that of Sebaggala and company, under the endless political squabbles as men and women turn politics into a get-rich-quick scheme at best and a career of sorts at worst?

    Give me some answers Steven. Give me liberty or I will take it.

    • Yoga Adhola

      December 27, 2010 at 23:14

      Dr Kobusingye’s Question

      by Yoga Adhola

      When Museveni had just come to power, he used to talk a lot about his correct political line. Over time he stopped without any explanation. Was it because the line got discredited as incorrect? Whatever the case one of his erstwhile supporters, Dr Kobusingye in her book wondered about the line. “In Sowing The Mustard Seed and What is Africa’s Problems? and in many other writings on Uganda’s search for freedom Museveni provided a basis for hope and for the belief that peace and stability were not only possible, they had come. The expectation of many Ugandans were based on the content of these writings. In many ways they provided the guiding light to direct our steps. In the late eighties Ugandans threw into the challenging task of rebuilding their country with impressive zeal and goodwill. Many young people who would have fled the country for greener pastures decided to stay. We were going to be the generation that turned things around; we were going to make a difference. But if we were moving along a straight line, a correct line so to say, why is the landscape beginning to look so frighteningly similar to that of decades gone by?” (Kobusingye, O: 2010:202)

      In answering this question, we shall use the analogy from Dr Kobusingye’s professional field i.e. medicine. Not everybody can be a doctor; doctor’s have to undergo rigorous training. In the course of that training they are introduced to certain concepts which represent diseases as well as the procedure they put patients through. They are also taught the differences between symptoms and the real diseases the symptoms represent. If we apply this as analogy to Museveni, we shall find that Museveni was very poorly trained. Notwithstanding all his tall claims and writings, he has a poor grasp of the maladies Uganda is going through. When he first came to power, Museveni masqueraded as some towering intellectual. He used to move around behaving like a teacher. This image was swallowed by many Ugandans whose knowledge was limited and could only go by Museveni’s appearance as an intellectual. What is more he gave some very simplistic explanation of Uganda’s problems. Because of the lack of knowledge on the part of most Ugandan, these simplistic explanation were very attractive and many believed in them. To the erroneous and simplistic diagnosis he claimed to have made, he proposed cures that were equally simplistic. To many, because of their limited understanding, these simplistic answers were very appealing. They therefore, like Dr Kobusingye, embraced false hopes and lent Museveni support. Meanwhile the simplistic analysis and solutions that Museveni was supposedly providing, could not reveal the true reality of Uganda’s problems nor solve them. To use the language of medicine, Museveni was dealing with symptoms, and not the diseases. And just like a malaria patient whom the doctor is treating with aspirin which treats the fever but does not deal with the malaria parasites, Museveni’s solutions to Uganda’s problem were not even touching the problems of Uganda. In the meantime the problems, just like the malaria which was being treated with aspirin we talked about earlier, continued unabated. It is this situation which led people like Dr Kobushingye to pose the above question. This pamphlet will seek to answer Dr Kobushingye’s question.

      Going by her book, Dr Kobusongye’s conception of the correct line is limited to………..; yet it should encompass much more than that. It should also encompass what the NRM calls social transformation of the Ugandan society. A basic requirement for such a transformation is a proper appreciation of the society to be transformed, or to use Dr Kobusingye’s terminology, diagnosis. This in turn calls for a scientific ideology or theoretical framework. To acquire the scientific ideology calls for what the NRMs call ideological development. By ideological development they mean the ideological transformation from a non-scientific viewpoint to a scientific one. This brings us to Yoweri Museveni, the fountain of NRM ideology. While Museveni underwent some ideological development at the University of Dar es salaam, his development got stunted before he embraced a truly scientific ideology. Today he embraces an eclectic ideology. At some points he has a scientific flare and other times he embraces a non-scientific outlook. With this eclectic ideology, he is totally not capable of charting a correct political line for Uganda. His ideological development did not get him to reach the level of realizing that, as Chairman Mao taught, struggles occur in phases. That we have gone through the anti-colonial phase of the struggle and we are now at the phase of national-democratic liberation. National-democratic liberation is the struggles which ‘lead to the elimination of colonial and simi-colonial oppresion and are also latent with anti-capitalist tendency”(Brutents,K.N. 1977: 148; they also involve the “…formation of nations and the break-up of obsolete feudal and pre-feudal relations, and the elimination of national and colonial oppression..” (Brutents, K.N. 1977:152).This is the struggle UPC had been waging before Museveni came to the scene.

      In stead of continuing with the struggle for national-democratic liberation which UPC had been waging, Museveni decided to make an attempt at bringing about a Cuban type of revolution in Uganda. He was misled into this adventure by his reading of the writings of Regis Debray. Regis Debray is a French philosopher who went to Cuba in the 60s and taught Philosophy at the University of Havana. while there he got very close to the Cuban leadership, especially Che Guevara. Regis Debray embraced an erroneous concept of the Cuban revolution. He saw the revolution as beginning with the attack on the Moncada barracks on 26th July 1953. It is these erroneous misconceptions which are contained in his writings about Cuba. It is also from these erroneous readings of the Cuban revolution that Regis Debray distilled his strategies for revolution. Museveni read these books while a student at the University of Dar es salaam and then went on to base his so-called revolutionary practice on them. It is these writings which constituted the theoretical basis of Museveni’s so-called revolution or fundamental change. Given that the writings had major flaws, the political line that Museveni took for his so-called revolution, notwithstanding his labeling it the correct line, was erroneous from the very beginning.

      The very first wrong thing Museveni engaged in was to attempt to bring about a Cuban type of revolution in Uganda. For a revolution to take place, Lenin taught us there must be a revolutionary situation. “To the Marxist it is indisputable that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, it is not every revolutionary situation that leads to revolution. What, generally speaking, are the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall certainly not be mistaken if we indicate the following three major symptoms: (1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes”, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that the upper classes should be unable to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed clases have grown more acute than usual; (3) when as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in “peace times”, but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the upper classes themselves into independent historical action.

      Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The totality of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation. Such a situation existed in 1905 in Russia, and in all revolutionary periods in the West; it also existed in Germany in the sixties of the last century, and in Russia in 1859-61 and 1879-80, although no revolution occurred in these instances. Why was that? It was because it is not every revolutionary situation that gives rise to a revolution; revolution arises only out of a situation in which the above-mentioned objective changes are accompanied by a subjective change, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, “falls”, if it is not toppled over.” (Lenin, V.I chapter 2; also see Woddis, J. 189)

      Had Museveni grasped what Lenin is talking about, he would have realised that the situation obtaining in Uganda at the time he launched his so-called liberation war was not ripe for the Cuban type of revolution that they sought to bring about in Uganda. (2) In such a situation what needed to be done is preparatory work that the renown revolutionary Engels once recommended. “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing (preceding) the proletarian by some second edition of the Peasant War.’ (Marx & Engels ) It is this type of revolutionary work that the founding fathers of modern revolutions from time to time recommended as necessary to prepare ground for further struggles. (Engels,F. 1853; also quoted in Draper, 1978) In the Communist Manifesto, for instance, Marx and Engels first noted that the bourgeois revolution in Germany would proceed under conditions of more developed capitalism and with much better prepared proletariat than the British bourgeois revolution of the 17th and the French revolution of the 18th century; and then went on to draw the conclusion that “bourgeois revolution in Germany would be but a prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution”. (Marx & Engels ) Writing to Weydemeyer, Engels talked of: “The preliminaries of the proletarian revolution, the measures that prepare the battleground and clear the way for us, such as a single indivisible republic …..”
      (Engels, F April 12 1853) Later in 1856, Marx voiced the view that it was necessary to work out a combination of the proletarian revolution with a peasant democratic movement: “The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing (preceding) the proletarian by some second edition of the Peasant War.’ (Marx & Engels ) In these analyses of the founding fathers of Marxism, Lenin did discern the germ of new revolutionary tactics appropriate to the new situation engendered by the debut of imperialism. In the era of imperialism, Lenin anlaysed, it was no longer possible as Marx and Engels had said that capitalism would ruin the middle strata to the point where the proletariat would constitute the majority of the population and thereby create the ripe conditions for revolution. This process, Marx and Engels had said, would go on under the superintendence of the bourgeoisie, then a progressive class seeking to bring about the eradication of feudalism and other pre-capitalist modes of production and social formations. This historic mission, Lenin was to argue, could no longer be performed by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie was now locked-up in fierce struggles with the proletariat and is increasingly finding it in its interest to lean on survivals of the pre-capitalist order. It therefore becomes the historic mission of the proletariat to clear-off the pre-capitalist encumbrances to the revolution. For the Russian revolution, this was done through the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905. For a peripheral capitalist country like Uganda, this will have to be done through a national-democratic revolution. National-democratic liberation, as we have already indicated, is what UPC has been prosecuting since its inception.

      Without a revolutionary situation in Uganda, and totally ignoring the history of the Cuban revolution which he was imitating, Museveni launched what he thought was a revolution by attacking Kabamaba barracks in total imitation of the attack on Moncada barracks in Cuba… 1981. When Museveni launched his so-called armed struggle for revolution, the situation which was obtaining in Buganda, the area which he made his war theatre, was the exact opposite of what obtained in Cuba in the 1950s when Fidel Castro and his comrades launched their struggle. Buganda political situation was informed by two factors. One the Baganda were angry at the consequences of the national-democratic revolution of 1966. They wanted to reverse the situation to that which was obtaining pre-1966. Secondly, the kingdom of Buganda, where Luwero (the theatre of the war) is found, was at the historical moment which Professor Hobsbawn, the famous student of social banditry, has described as being pregnant with social banditry. According to Hobsbawn, “social banditry is unusually prevalent at two moments in historical evolution: that at which primitive and communally organized society gives way to class-and-state society, and that at which the traditional rural peasant society gives way to the modern economy. At such times, the desire to defend the old and stable society against subversion of its values, the urge to restore its old, threatened, disintegrating norms becomes unusually strong.” (Hobsbawm, E. 1969: 13) It is at such moments in history, Hobsbawn contends, that social banditry emerges. Such was the case in Luwero in the early 80’s, when Museveni launched his so-called guerrilla war. In the short-run, the situation was very favorable to Museveni. While the government – and a UPC government at that – considered Museveni’s operatives criminals, the overwhelming majority of the peasantry in Buganda viewed them as heroes. For as Hobsbawn has pointed out: in the perception of the peasant “the social bandit is a hero, a champion, a man whose enemies are the same as the peasants’, whose activities correct injustice, control oppression and exploitation, and perhaps even maintain alive the ideal of emancipation and independence.” (Hobsbawn)

      There is another reason why had Museveni been a revolutionary, he should not have launched his so-called armed struggle. The period was immediately after elections. And Museveni even used the elections as an excuse for the war. This is clearly the kind of context about which Che Guevarra had warned: “Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted since the possibility of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.” (Woddis, J. 1972: 249-250) In total disregard of this caution Museveni launched his so-called war of liberation soon after the 1980 elections and even gave election malpractices as the reason for the war.

      Initially Museveni and his NRA were a serious nuisance to the government. However, when the government set up a Special Brigade led by Colonel Ogole, an officer specifically trained in counter-insurgency to fight the war, things dramatically changed. By 1985 when the coup took place, the insurgency was over. On the eve of the coup, some 400 NRA insurgents had surrendered to the Zairean authorities and they had been disarmed. The Zairean Foreign Minister had come to Uganda to report this to government. Museveni himself had returned to exile in Sweden.The junta that took power had no capacity to contain Museveni. Museveni regrouped his shattered NRA and within six months had removed the junta and placed himself in power. Museveni described his ascendancy to power as a fundamental change meaning revolution. It is his brother Salim Salleh who gave the ascendancy even a more colourful description: In The Monitor of Wednesday, 29th November, 2006 he clearly stated and I quote: “A small group of fighters, with 27 guns, without external assistance for much of the time and without a rear base in any neighbouring country, defeating a government that had a force of almost 60,000 soldiers in a record time of five years, is almost un-paralleled in the history of revolutionary warfare. The only similar case in the world is that of Fidel Castro in Cuba. After the initial setback of losing most of his fighters to the Batista Airforce, he gathered 12 survivors with whom he headed to the Sierra Maestra Mountains from where he, eventually, defeated the dictatorship.”

      The problem is that without a revolutionary situation in Uganda of the time, the NRM ascendancy to power was no more than what Engels long ago described: “The worst things that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply.What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which clash of interests of classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can he do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost. We have seen examples of this in recent times. We need only be reminded of the position taken in the last French provisional government by the representatives of the proletariat, though they represented only a very low level of proletarian development. Whoever can still look forward to official positions after having become familiar with the experiences of the February government — not to speak of our own noble German provisional governments and imperial regencies — is either foolish beyond measure, or at best pays only lip service to the extreme revolutionary party. ” (Engels, F. chapter 6)

      In light of what we have written so far, it is possible for us to make an attempt to answer Dr Kobushegye’s question: “But if we were moving along a straight line, a correct line so to say, why is the landscape beginning to look so frighteningly similar to that of decades gone by?” We have tried to show that Museveni the chief ideologist of the NRM doe snot have the requisite theoretical framework to enable him come up with a correct strategy. We have also shown that the strategy he came up with of carrying out a Cuban type of revolution in Uganda was wrong. Uganda was and is not ready for that kind of revolution. That being the case, the so-called armed struggle the NRA is supposed to have waged amounted to no more than an adventure. It produced no revolution. It simply amounted to what Mamdani has characterise as the fire which did not produce ash.(Mamdani,M: 1995) M. Notwithstanding all the ado about waging a revolutionary struggle in Luwero, as well as the much publicised correct line, the Ugandan situation remained unaffected by the so-called revolution or fundamental change. This is why things are looking similar to what was several decades ago. Today the NRM is a hollow vessel. It is just a pipe dream for patronage, very much in the guise of Mobutu party. It is just a passing cloud which will eventually clear and Uganda will remain totally unaffected by it.


      brutents, K.N. “National liberation Revolutions Today,” Moscow,1977

      Engels, F: “The Peasant war in Germany,”

      Hobsbawm, Eric. “Primitive Rebels and Social Bandits,” Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1959.

      Hobsbawm, Eric. “Bandits,” New York: Delcorte Press, 1969.

      Kobushingye, O: “The Correct Line? Uganda Under Museveni,” Author House, UK. 2010.

      Mamdani, M: “And Fire Does Not Always Beget Ash,” Monitor Publications, Kampala, 1995.

      Woddis, J. “New theories of revolution: a commentary on the views of Frantz Fanon, Régis Debray and Herbert Marcuse.” London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1972.

  4. Twino Speaks

    November 30, 2010 at 11:25

    Thank you Peter for that recollection.

    My support for Museveni started during his bush days when as a kid I would hear my father speak fondly of him. Each time I would pass by a roadblock and see soldiers asking the adults for “kikumi kikumi’ (100 100), I would know that Museveni was the answer, and he indeed appeared as one. However later at Makerere, I started started getting my skepticism but still held him highly and had much hope in him.. Peter, we got it wrong big time.

    I don’t think Ugandans will ever look back at a regime with sadness than that of Museveni. Sad not that the regime went, but sad at the effects it will leave behind. Sad at the lows it has sunk us to. Sad at the complete destruction of any reasonable structure – moral, material or otherwise – that one may think of. Watch it, and you will remind me of these words.

    I wish I had answers for you Peter. Like you I am wondering, how did all this happen…. and for how long will we endure this? I wish some of you readers out there can give us some answers.

  5. Malcom D MATSIKO in Pretoria

    November 30, 2010 at 13:18

    Steve, the man is living in borrowed time and he is scared of the anarchy and maladministration he subjected to Ugandans during his 25 years in power and now he is so desperate but its to late for him.We are surely closing in and the voters will reject him wholesale in Feb 2011.

  6. Twino Speaks

    November 30, 2010 at 14:13

    Trusting a leader in Uganda must be a very difficult thing. Youngsters have been taught that leaders are liars, corrupt and only think about themselves. Few youngsters that have grown up in Uganda would think better than Museveni. They have been taught a low level of moral respect for society’s structure and made to assume that dishonesty is actually ok.

  7. Philip muzaale

    November 30, 2010 at 14:43

    What intrigues me, is the statement that he brought peace,which you hear time and again.I would like to look at that preposition a little deeper, my question is who was disturbing the peace in the first place? Let us look at the North, the war waged on for quite sometime and certainly there was no peace, actually government soldiers committed gruesome atrocities against the population compared to what they claim Obote soldiers did committee in luwero.You never hard of mass massacres like in Atiak(200 people in an instant), Mukura incidence where civilians died like rats, mass graves are littered all over in North, not to mention thousands who were dying in so called IDP camps.Now who is blame for the insecurity? president museveni or those who waged war? On the face of it would be those who waged war but on deeper analysis they had legitimate reasons to go to war unlike in his case where he disturbed the peace on the pretext that election were rigged,he did not even give the courts a chance after election ,he embarked on his deep held ambition of capturing power, so in a nutshell he was the one disturbing the peace which he now goes around masquerading “Naleta edembe”
    This nigger should be rejected those who keep saying he brought peace and they can now sleep will soon realize that they have dozed too much when they can not afford food for their families, those jigger infested dudes are only a tip of the iceberg

  8. henry

    November 30, 2010 at 15:47

    Hi guys, you have fight in order to be true Ugandans?
    if you were busy eating gonja in Wandegeya? this is the way people take on us.In order to be a true Ugandan one should boast of how many dead bodies we havrvested in wars. That a vew from of my friend, a political refugee in here in South Africa

  9. Tolu

    November 30, 2010 at 20:49

    Africa, Uganda inclusive, has been on liberation crusade followed by bouts of coups. Liberation crusades are in their terminal stages including in Uganda. Africa now prides of Constitutional Democracies. This has also got its turbulence in the early stages. That is why we have Uganda, Zim etc in the midst of this turbulence. Kenya has just got it right, Uganda is now a matter of time to get it right. 2011 is/may be the time. We need the momentum to increase speed in that M7 should be voted out. Once the power of votes has spoken, M7 has no alternative but to succumb to peoples power. Alluta continua

  10. James

    November 30, 2010 at 21:02

    Steven, this is wonderful staff. I am actually at a loss of words. I am however one of those that never believed in Museveni from the onset. Not that i approved of Obote’s regime for it had failed and had an army that was ruthless. I recall developing such hatred for Obote’s solidiers after one solidier had taken a watch i had given to my mum and after taht almost shot her. I was in senior 2 or 3 if i recall well.

    Just like Peter Genza’s friend, I also told a friend of mine in 1992 that Museveni would never ever leave power. i remember that friend laughing at me and I am sure he must have thought I was mad to even imagine Museveni would dream of such a thing. When i met Between 2005 and 2007 i reminded him of what i said to him. Fortunately for me he could recall me making the statement the guy would never relinquish power-this was after teh constitution had been changed to allow him assume the presidency for life. My young brother (Dr. Fred Golooba Mutebi)like most Ugandan was an adent supporter of Museveni, I recall us having several arguements and never getting to agree, till during the time leading to the 2001 elections when he saw intimidation at work during the compaigns. The rest is history.

    But the question is why was I sceptical of the then “darling” of Uganda? to me it was obvious and in fact it disturbed me alot that many Ugandans educated or not had fallen for this scum. My reasons for being sceptical are:

    1. I never believed that Museveni went to the Bush because he loved Uganda, or that he was a sort of messiah like Jesus Christ that was willing to lay his life down for Ugandans that were under a bad regime. if you believed so, them i am sorry for you and forgive you beause it came when we needed cahnge. Samia have a saying that a drawning man will even hold on a piece of grass. Can it save him? Obviously no! To me Museveni never had a legitimate reason to take up arms. He had lost even in his own constuence and so there was no way the rigiding of results had affected him. He being cunning, knew Baganda had been disenfranchised by the regime in power and there were lots of Rwandes refuges that needed to go back to Rwanda and were being perscuted by the Rwakasis’. He saw an oportunity to realise his life long dream of becoming president. How was such a man going to relinquish power? it was simple as 1+1 to me. Were the Rwandes went back, i felt vindicated, but still Ugandans could not see that we had been duped. How much did we as a nation lose in terms of the military hard ware that was waged in Rwanda? what was the sectarian bill all about? to protect the Rwandes that were occupying high positions in the army and government.

    2. Shortly after coming to power, what reason was used by the junta that had come to power to abolish political parties? They were divisive and so they thought individual merit system was the answer. I didnt buy into that either. my view was that the army being partisan was the issue. in Kenya what prevented that country from sliding into anarchy in the aftermath of the last elections, was the army not getting involved in politics. Can you imagine if the army was on Kibaki’s side what would have happened? it would have been mayhem in that country such as we have never seen. what did Museveni and his group do-they abolished poiltical parties in effect introducing a one party system that had failed in the whole of Africa. And instead of removing the army out of politics and building a national army, he instead build a sytem i consider to be “akatogo”. look arround guys and show me a country where the army is out of politics and i will show a country that has stable maturing political system. likewise show me a country that has a partisan army and i will show you a country that is a failing or failed state.
    3. Then came the political school at Kyankwanzi-to me these had been designed to brain wash Ugandans to buy into the new system. What the political school was in Uganda is what the siberian plains were in the Soveit Union. Who decided on the curriculum of Kyankwanzi-it was the NRM and batpised it the national political school. I personally never stepped there because i was not willing to be brain washed willingly. If this was truely needed in Uganda, should we NOT have had a national debt on what should be taught and not have a few guys impose it on us?

    I will stop there for now, but i could go on and on. I hope we have learnt as nation and will never let one single individual fool the whole nation as this man has done.

  11. Aloysious

    December 3, 2010 at 11:17

    Congratulations. This is reality

  12. drew

    December 3, 2010 at 12:44

    Am one of those who developed political consciousness during the war that brought Museveni to power. I grew up in bad governments and saw the effect of bad governments.

    At the age of about four as a child in kindergarten, I screamed and yelled “Ki Amini kikyo” to Idi Amin. Despite the obvious insult, he looked at me and gave me a benign smile, waved and drove past. He was driving himself without body guards, windows down. My father who had arrived to pick me up and was driving directly behind him almost died from shock. At home, him and my mother tried to make me understand why it was not very good for children to repeat what they had had their parents say at home. It was not lost upon them that if Amin had taken offense, they would automatically have been in grave danger!

    Save for that incident that remained engraved in my consciousness no doubt because of the fear I could sense in my parents voices, I do not remember much of Idi Amins reign.

    I was however old enough to remember the excitement of the 1980 elections. The dissappointment at their being rigged as well as the threats of going to the bush by one junior minister and head of the UPM. You see, an uncle of minde stood on the UPM ticket, lost and spent most of the Obote II government getting bailed out of jail by my parents while his wife and eight children became dependents of my parents. Despite losing all of his not inconsiderate fortune as well as his freedom due to the misadventures of his former colleague and party boss Museveni, he was completely ignored and never got compensation. he died a broken man with his family broken and a pauper.

    Over the next few years of Obote II, I got to know what insecurity was. Insecurity was when you got to and from school through 16 road blocks every day. It was when bullets raining on your roof was such a common event you habitually slept under rather than on the bed. It was when your mother made it a point to ensure that you were all home by 6 pm as it was suicide to abroad at night. It was when a relative got shot in your home and you had to wait 8 hours with him screaming in agony and holding his guts before he died just before dawn as no one dared drive a car after six pm for fear of marauding soldiers and having to explain why you were carrying someone with bullet wounds! it was when even children knew what happened to beautiful women who were dragged behind bushes at roadblocks to look for ‘adui’. It was parents were afraid of chldren growing up and falsified their ages on ID’s to keep them younger, would not let them wear trousers and taught them how to lie to protect them from panda gari. It was when security forces were synonympous with thieves, murderers and robbers! It was when you knew that if you saw your fathers stolen car drive past you, it was bad to point at it or declare that it belonged to your dad! It was when you went to school with kids who claimed to have thrown grenades at civilians, commandeered cars or owned guns because their fathers were army officers. it was when children could ‘take cover’ faster than trained soldiers and could tell guns apart from the sound, tell a muzzle apart from the butt or the trigger as well as the safety pin. It was when a child knew that if gun shots went off at christmas time and soldiers were ‘paying themselves’ it was time to get out of the city immediately. it was when you didn not have luxuries in the house because they were buried in the back yard and only got to watch TV under the bed because the sound or light would attract marauding soldiers. It was when your own father was humiliated in front of you by illiterate soldiers for pocket change or people known to you dissappeared. It was when you went to school with money for a sepcial hire just in case your parents couldnt pick you up! It was when older female cousins had to dress up as boys, bind their breasts and cut their hair short lest they attract some idiots in uniform bent on rape and all others who could not pass for children wore gomesi’s and pretended to be married women! It was when you heard your father claiming to a soldiers that all four women in his company were his wives even when you knew they were not in order to protect them!!! And all of this was not even in a ‘war zone’ but the capital!

    It was therefore not very difficult for me to understand why adults had little love for Obote’s government or the Okello/otunnu junta that followed it. Certainly when ones saintly grandmother always included ‘Bote (Obote) and ‘Mini (Idid amin) in her prayers to god to ‘soften” their hearts, even I could understand that particularly given prayers in her house were morning, night and every other opportunity in between!

    While I was not allowed to go to kololo for Museveni’s swearing in, i listened to him on the radio ‘ushering in a fundamental change and not a change of guards”. I remember the rumours no doubt planted by the man himself that he was a ‘reluctant’ president. This was because while the swearing in was scheduled, it was not known to the public whether he would be president or cede that position to someone else! As has become the pattern since, he ‘accepted’ to be president after being elected by the NRM high command the movement that was the political wing of the NRA.

    No road blocks, no ID’s, able to walk at night, able to go to a club, able to speak to a soldiers child or argue with a soldier in uniform were all things that had previously been taken for granted but could now be considered rights. People enthusiastically lined up to practice ‘people’s democracy’ by nominating and elcting their own leaders from a local level to the Constituent Assembly. My own father was a very active participant in the process of mobilising communities to come up with a new constitution.

    TV’s and fridges were brought up from the ground, cars were repaired and new ones bought, free enterprise thrived as it was no longer criminal to be found carrying money or owning US dollars and a new air of hope flourished.

    Among the things that Museveni promised were smooth roads, good hospitals, security of life and property, freedom of speech, accountability, an end to nepotism and corruption and most of all building institutions on which a new future for Ugandans would be built. Party’s were banned for being divisive in an effort to build a government of national unity! Even a child knew what Museveni meant when he said that the potholes in Kampala could make a pregnant woman deliver!

    Over the years, the man who stood on the steps of parliament has changed in front of our eyes until it is difficult to determine which one of the two was the lie for surely they cannot be the same person. Museveni has contradicted himself on virtually everything that he said or promised that day.

    We have watched as the man who declared himself a revolutionary has morphed into more of the same ole!!! to the point where the only thing that distinguishes him from Mugabe is that one is hated by the western press and governments while the other is considered an ally! Interestingly Zimbabwe has better infrastructure, better power distribution and reliability, better roads with virtually no potholes, more reliable services, better housing and even as I found out on a visit more ‘civilised’ robbers and thieves!!

    But is there really a difference between Mugabe and Museveni except for the fact that Museveni has fought more wars and is probably responsible for more deaths? Could there be lessons in Mugabe for Museveni to learn? For one Mugabe was the darling of the western press. A revolutionary in the true spirit of “animal Farm” he supped and dined with Framer Jones and the humans until he run out of excuses for the Boxers of his country. He then let them lose in order to extend his rule further!

    Museveni has continued to extend his rule beyond the five years he promised initially. This became ten -to promote stability and develop a new constitution. Then after the constitutional exercise he ‘deserved’ one term!!! the after his last constitutional term he changed the constitution to grant himself a forth term which he argued was to consolidate the gains and secure security in the north! then following that he needed to leave behind a “professional army”.

    “The problems of africa are leaders who overstay in power for this breeds corruption and impunity!” said the more slim Museveni on the steps of parliament 24 years ago. Yet Museveni has continued to move the goal posts every five years for the last two and a half decades to further entrench himself in power! the man who promised Ugandans institutions has deliberately and systematically undermined all of those institutions to make himself the only institution in the land. He has since declared himself the only man with a vision in a country of over 33 million people! he has deliberately created a vaccuum that leaves him, his son, his wife and his brother as the only contenders to the throne which it has now become. Our country is now a monarchy in everything else but name! The man who claimed to hate monarchies has instead created one in which he is king! f anything were to happen to him today, God save Uganda and Kaguta’s family!

    Corruption contnues to reign supreme in Uganda not least of all among the NRM cadres and biggest shots. Anyone who has followed the CHOGM scandals, the GAVI scandal, the valley dams scandal, the AGOA girls scandal, The Temangalo/NSSF saga, the UCB/Westmont banking scandal the junk helicopter scandal understands by now the way corruption works in Uganda. In almost all of the above scandals, the president himself has come out to declare the charges political persecution of his cadres! In 24 years there are virtually zero convictions by a government that claims to have corruption as a part of their primary agenda from day one! Yet these same people want us to trust them with our future!

    Now he is promising roads, hospitals, an end to corruption and nepotism all things he has failed to deliver in 24 years. the gap between the poor and the rich continues to expand.

    Binaisa who coined the concept of a movement stated clearly that “Entebbe ewooma”, the chair is sweet! It has also been stated that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Prolonged incubence creates a distance between the man on the street and their rulers. Museveni is out of touch with the aspirations of the common man on the street in a way that reminds me of a play by Alex Mukulu that my parents took me to watch many years ago. Museveni himself watched that play. In the play Mukulu depicted all previous rulers as blind or deaf to their peoples wishes and demands and Museveni as a student yet to pass his exams. It can now be declared that Museveni has fialed his exams.

    Museveni has perfected the art of using state patronage to further his aims which appear to be to further entrench himself in power indefinitely.

    All of this can only end badly. Many years ago Museveni explained the strategy used to rout rebels in the east. He described the ‘ankole horn’ strategy in which his soldiers surrounded the enemy on all sides but left them an exit route. he explained that an enemy surrounded on all sides became a more desperate enemy. An enemy surrounded is a more depaerate and dangerous enemy he explained!

    As Museveni continues to close all political avenues for democratic expression, his incubence breeds a more radicalised electorate. the very same conditions that led to the success of his own war are the ones that his strangle hold on power create.

    My generation has left the country in droves. Save for those who are connected or those who have no options, they continue to leave. this was the generation that believed in Museveni most. it is also the generation that should be stepping up to take their place politically but having been born of the X and y generations still leave it to their fathers. Many do not see a future for themselves or their children in Museveni’s Uganda. The irony is that they are also probably the best trained of uganda’s professionals having attended school before the schools were all run down by UPE and the universities turned into little better than secondary schools offering degrees that are not worth the paper they are printed on!

    The increasing radicalisation of Ugandans has been displayed by the Buganda riots which despite his governments protestations were virtually spontaneous flash riots that rapidly got out of control! Such a scenario reminds one of the way Kenya imploded virtually overnight!

    Like Steven I would like to ask Museveni;

    1. What exactly is his vision?
    2. What happened to that idealistic man who swore a convenant with ugandans?
    3. What is the difference between him and a life president?
    4. What makes him believe that he still has something to offer after failing for 24 years?
    5. What does he see as the role of his family in Uganda’s politics after his demise?
    6. What makes him believe that his fate and that of his family will be different from that of Mobutu, Sadam or even Obote and idi Amin?
    7. How does one get to challenge him within the movement? What happened to ‘individual merit”?
    8 Why are his cadres so corrupt and why has his government continued to shield them?
    9. what does he think of his roads as well as his hospitals? Where does he, his family and his government official go for healthcare and why?
    10. what makes him think that a doctor, a teacher, a soldier, a policeman can survive, pay school fees for four or more children, go to work everyday, have lunch on less than what it costs him in toilet paper per day?
    11. What happened to those claims of wastage that resonated with ugandans -no fancy cars, no fancy beds, no jets. Is he the same man who ridiculed African leaders who fly to New York in jets?
    12. What are my chances as a Uganda without connections to his state patronage duplicating the success of his son in the army?

  13. Twino Speaks

    December 3, 2010 at 16:12

    Drew, that is a master-piece you’ve written. Your historical perspective brings to the fore the tragedy that Uganda has now become. Like you, I indeed wonder what makes Museveni think that he will not suffer the fate of some of the manipulative autocrats of the past. He has the misfortune of listening to people that only tell him what they think he wants to hear, people who think they can only tell him what will bring them rewards. After all he has bred patronage.

    As ordinary citizens who talk to the common man on the ground, we know that Musesveni is sitting over an angry population. We know Musesveni is sitting on a population that would leech him if they got an opportunity. And we know all this he has invited upon himself. Museveni should also know that he is leading a Uganda that that has citizens who are more connected and influential globally than his predecessors. These are Ugandans that are able to invoke all relevant structures to track down his wealth in future and ensure that it rightfully returns to the country. These are Ugandans that are connected to governments and international organizations around the world. Therefore Museveni may think he is taking Ugandans for a ride but he is actually making matters harder for himself in future, and few will feel sorry for him because he has brought it unto himself despite all the advice and pleas.

    Drew, you correctly mention that the generation that had the highest hopes in Museveni is the one that has been disappointed most but crucially as you mention, it’s the one now stepping up to take their place. This is the generation, within and outside the country, that will step up and drive change. I positively position myself with that generation. We are educated, we have the brains, we are connected, we are exposed, we can pull strings, we know where Uganda came from and more importantly, we know where Uganda needs to be. More so, the world nowadays has the advantage of communication technology. Much as those in the NRM may want to deny it, these debates are focusing us and they have a spreading effect. Never, never underestimate the power of people identifying a problem that is affecting them and being able to discuss it.

    All changes in history, even where they were effected by peasants, were influenced by the brains at the top that correctly identified the problems and put them to the masses. Any group of people should at any point be able to say they need a change of leadership if the leadership is no longer delivering what is expected of it or if it has lost credibility. Uganda is no different and I firmly believe we are at that stage.

  14. henry

    December 4, 2010 at 10:13

    Congratulations to all of you guys. Now i can see that the gloves are off. The media is a big tool. For sure there is no leader who doesn’t fear the media. Look at the wikleaks have done the world, the work victim being USA. Let us intensify on media

  15. drew

    December 5, 2010 at 01:08

    I wrote this note in January 2010 …

    The price of prolonged incubence!

    by Drew Ddembe on Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 9:00am

    That is the scary part -25 year olds who have only ever known one president!

    25 year olds who have only ever seen a hand over of power from the same man to the same man!

    25 year olds who have never seen a hand over of power from one government to another!… See More

    25 year olds for whom it is normal for a president, his wife, his brother, to be in cabinet, his son to be a senior army commander, his daughter to be a worker in the presidents office, whose sons in law have businesses toing business with government!

    25 year olds who have grown up with the knowledge that it is normal for the senior command, the cabinet, some major businesses doing business with government to be literally from the same village!

    25 year olds who go through school knowing there is no future in the job market for them if they do not have enough “know who” rather than “know how”!

    25 year olds who think “panda gari” was a “funny story” or a “tall tale”! Museveni has delinked Ugandans from their past. A past that is not “funny”! Adults soiled their pants at the mention of “panda gari” -both a symptom as well as result of Museveni’s war for which we all paid the price yet hearing him talk you would think only he, his family and band of 27 fought or paid for this war which he uses to perpetuate himself in power!

    25 year olds who believe that the old thugs who commanded “panda gari” are the protectors of our morals, ethics and virtues!

    25 year olds who believe that the police have to “approve” a peacefull demonstration rather than use their presence to ensure safety for both the public and the demonstrators, and that it is normal for police and soldiers to shoot civilians for expressing dissatisfaction with the government!

    25 year olds who believe it is normal to have serving soldiers in parliament!

    25 year olds who believe that it is normal for a country to have a personal army whose allegiance is to one man, his brother or his son as a nations army!

    25 year olds who believe that corruption, nepotism, sectarianism are all normal and the right of those in power!

    25 year olds who believe that they should not expect anything from a government unless they voted for it!

    25 year olds who believe that they can only get services to their area by petitioning the president, making a pilgrimage to Rwakitura or electing the presidents wife as their parliamentary representative!

    God help our country!

  16. Twino Speaks

    December 5, 2010 at 01:49

    How so true and spot-on Drew…!!! Great piece of writing that indeed brings out the reality – a sad reality.

  17. Seth Muhairwe

    December 20, 2010 at 08:34

    I think to we who sucked NRM breasts till now have lost the war.I rill do know wetha our president doesn’t see things going wrong..!!!

    I wonder why he shud have 120 RDCS,over 70 Ministers and still have Corruption,lack of accountability,inefficiency with all these Supervisors in place

    Mr,President,please engage the youth who constitute 70% to carry this country forward,Imagine Prof.Kabwegere,Kirunda Kivenjinja 2mention bt a few…!!!

  18. Twino Speaks

    December 27, 2010 at 23:55

    Peter, I hope you get some answers from Mr. Adhola’s response.

  19. Ejibua Sam

    December 29, 2010 at 12:27

    Just reading the postings

  20. Peter

    February 10, 2011 at 05:06

    Stephen, I do hope that you are keeping a tab on the political temperature down here. I am now convinced beyond doubt that the monetization of the conduct of politics (and to an alarming degree the electoral process) will be their very dearth here and will one day boomerang on the practitioners thereof. In your opinion, is this a case unique to Uganda or does it cut across the the board, not only in Africa but globally? Kindly give me some answers if you may.

  21. Twino Speaks

    February 10, 2011 at 22:21

    Peter I can feel your sentiments and believe me, I feel like you. Yes, money is involved in all campaigns the world over – private money. Uganda has taken the use of public money in party-funding campaigns to another level. The misuse of public money in Uganda stands alone and it’s sad where we are heading. Already all government ministries are broke half way into the financial year. Their money has not been used to advance anything in those ministries and to make matters worse, all projects and programmes have been put on hold. God, what did Uganda do to deserve this?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: