By: Crispy Kaheru
We are very privileged to live at a time when Uganda is experiencing high political turbulence. Even with the increasingly narrowing space for alternative voice in the country, Uganda still carries the title of a ‘good-governed, multi party democratic country.’ As you might realize, democracy has lately become like an ISO certification of quality for states. If one wants to market a product called Uganda, they are compelled to slap a seal of ‘democracy‘ to make the country more appealing to investors, tourists, donors, diplomatic calls, and possibly, hoodwink its very own citizenry about the quality of governance in the country.

Elections today have become too ritualistic, symbolic, periodic events that many times usher in premeditated leaders at the top echelon of the state. While elections must underpin characteristics of competition, surprise, and anxiety over results, here they have become a simply calculated affair for authentication of certain leaders. Those who run for elective office are lately being sieved on the basis of how much money they have rather than what manifestos they carry. Even with such shortfalls, many countries, not only Uganda continue to glorify themselves as democratic citing their practice of carrying out regular elections.

I would to some extent agree with those who say that lately democracy is regressing into a government of the few, by the few and for the few. Take an example of the 2011 elections in Uganda; out of 13,954,129 registered voters, we have a president voted into office by just 5,428,369 people. In practice it means that the five million people decide the destination of the estimated thirty four million Ugandans. Percentage-wise this reflects 16% segment of the entire Ugandan population. Is this the rule of the majority?

When Uganda moved on to multi party politics in 2005, people mainly from the political parties and civil society organizations were excited thinking that the governance jinx had been broken. Little did they know that this would probably be more of a symbolic gesture than a real maneuver. It has since become increasingly hard to divorce the party in leadership from the state structures; subsequent direct and indirect laws to curtail the ability of opposition parties to operate freely have become the order of the day; despite the passing of the Political Parties and Organizations (Amendment) Act, 2010, the government has since failed to operationalise it. Because this Act has not been operationalised, political parties have not yet accessed state funding for their operations.

Multi party politics is not just about a multitude of political parties. In Uganda, there have been unconfirmed allegations about some of the thirty eight political parties being purposefully founded by the ‘intelligence’ or the party in power as a way of duping the public that indeed the country embraces ‘multiparty democracy.’ So, is this the construct of the dispensation that we eagerly envisaged about six years ago?

The rule of law has lately become a very jelly connotation incapable of setting standard benchmarks. In Uganda just like in many other countries, there are bad laws; does this mean that the citizens must heed to these simply because they are ‘laws’? Take for instance the NGO Registration (Amendment) Act 2006 contains provisions that hinder the operations of NGOs in Uganda; many of the media laws restrict press freedom and have often led to self-censorship; the institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, 2010 makes traditional or cultural leaders personally liable for any civil wrongs or criminal offenses committed by their agents; the proposed Public Order Management Bill, 2009, seeks to grant the police wide discretionary powers to regulate the conduct of public meetings and also regulate the content of the discussion of issues at such meetings; the proposal to scrap bail for certain categories of offenders, among many other laws.

Probably it is time for us to start measuring democracy and good governance through simple values like: happiness, satisfaction, fulfillment, harmony, mutual respect, love, peace rather than complex philosophical terms such as democracy, elections, multi party system, rule of law, transparency, accountability among others. These composite descriptions are lately becoming subjectively mutilated and seem to remain farfetched for the common citizen to associate with.

Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU)

   By: Crispy Kaheru
I spent my eid el fitr reading literature on some of the world’s one time powerful men – Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This was not because they are my inspiration figures in any way but because I wanted to have a clear understanding of how they maneuvered to become the world’s most powerful leaders of their time; and why they later one earned themselves a position as the most hated men who have ever lived on earth till today.

Interestingly, both men rose to power as uncontested darlings of Europe and the world at large but were later stoned to death like chicken thieves by their very own citizens. Borrowing from William Shakespeare’s description of the seven stages of human life, I think there are also seven ages of a leader – the first being that where a leader is more or less an embodiment of fresh ideas, charisma, action, strength, focus and drive.

The seventh stage then describes a time where a leader is exhausted, has lost focus of long term goals, communicates poorly with his or her followers and is driven by fear of failure. The truth is that almost all leaders in the world reflect the characteristics of the first age of the leadership cycle when they have just taken up office. Some wade faster to the seventh stage other take a very long time – a decade, a quarter of a century or even half a century.

Nevertheless, taking you back to the once ‘all powerful’ Italian Duce, Mussolini spent about a quarter of a century in power in the early twentieth century. During his later years in power, he took over most of his government ministries and directly supervised as many as seven departments simultaneously. He single-handedly headed the all-powerful Fascist Party and the armed local fascist militia, the “Blackshirts”.

Mussolini progressively dismantled virtually all constitutional and conventional restraints on his power. He was no longer responsible to Parliament and could only be removed from office by the Grand Council of Fascism, a body he had personally appointed made up of his party henchmen and relatives. Much as Mussolini could have succeeded in keeping power in his own hands and preventing the emergence of any “rival”, he descended into what usually consumes everyday leaders – micro management. He got subsumed into directly managing every segment of his government and got consumed with the trivial and unimportant aspects of his state – he lost sight of what was important.

In the contemporary world, we have so many examples of such state leaders especially in Africa who have attempted to manage all aspects of government business but have ended up getting sidetracked from the long term strategic state goals. Recent events in Uganda explain this scenario better – the president seems to have lately defined himself as the sole figure of ‘solution’ in the country. It would be rather different if the Presidency attempted to identify itself as capable of solving all crises that come up. In other words the presidency might be powerless but the president is all powerful. When the teachers, traders, doctors, journalists, lawyers, have issues in their respective lines of duty, it’s not their immediate supervising authorities that have to deal with their problems but rather it takes the direct intervention of the president. Well, this would have been branded ‘effectiveness’ if the president was providing conclusive interventions but in a situation where the president’s intervention is widely perceived as a mere ‘ceremonial’ gesture, then it paints a different picture. Actually some people could possibly have been right to think that some government officials such as ministers are not professionally trusted by their appointing authorities to preside over ministerial business.

Leaders must discern the importance and the need for the existence of structures as well as credible people to work with. If a leader cannot trust his or her appointees to tackle the range of state issues, then possibly one could aptly presuppose that, that leader has crossed into the seventh age of the leadership cycle. As political analyst, Gwada Ogot puts it, “no single leader can be the all solving hammer“.

Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU)

   By: Crispy Kaheru
When President Museveni first proposed the scrapping of Bail for specific categories of people, I thought it was one of the usual political jokes that he throws around to crack people up during his long speeches. Little did I know that his move was real and would raise such extraordinary national dust as has been witnessed in the past couple of months.

Nevertheless, in the event that the President continues to passionately push for the passing of this ironic Bill, we will need to thoroughly debate the definitional issues embedded in some of the concepts that the Bill carries. My personal views would be, while defining economic saboteurs, the Bill should broaden its definition to also focus on individuals who are suspects of committing economic crimes of omission. The Bill should provide for no Bail for public office holders who demonstrate reluctance in responding to serious public economic questions.

Actually, I think as a country, we would require a corresponding law under which any public officer who makes cynical statements in response to key national economic issues should be arrested and not granted Bail. In my view, cynical statements would then include both satirical verbal and action-oriented gestures – failure to keep government spending under reasonable and agreeable check, loathing about building up rainy-day reserves, plunging currencies, failure to intervene in controlling run-away inflation, as well as apathetic public officials’ reaction to economic issues.

This corresponding new law would also tackle issues of moral turpitude. This should be watertight to provide for no Bail to public official suspects of acts of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private, social and public duties.

Nonetheless, reverting to the President’s proposal to scrap Bail, my personal thinking is that this Bill is being brought in the spirit of hoodwinking Ugandans from the host of unresolved issues of national concern. The spiraling poverty, unemployment, and inflation levels; the receding aggregate demand; weakening external demand for Uganda’s exports; the diminishing levels of local commodity production; the despicable misuse of public resources; the progressive disregard of the citizen’ voices, all put Uganda at a brink of governance collapse.

Introducing the proposal to deny Bail to ‘economic saboteurs’ and rioters at this particular moment also confirms government’s mastery of the ancient law of political diversion. At a time when there is unprecedented public outcry over the harsh economic conditions, the last thing on a responsible government’s mind would be introducing laws that further muzzle the voices of the victims of the situation. Although pitched as a measure to rid ‘bad’ elements from society, it is actually a thinly veiled plan to detain those who try to speak on the visible deteriorating economic and governance situation.

Judging from the impromptu introduction of this Bill, I am really tempted to think that the present administration has always been using this tactic to save itself from embarrassing exposures that would uncover suspicious and specious behavior and most probably even crimes of commission and omission.

It is definite that the seemingly alien law of political diversion is at work in Uganda. This also ‘validates’ why some so-called government representatives have continued, without remorse, to perpetuate mendacity upon their very own citizenry. During such times, citizens need to beware of shrewd political tricks to hide the negative consequences of the crisis in the country.

Today, it looks like the state has completely taken over the role of a social regulator of conflicts and its judgments are dependent on ‘context’ and perspective, garnished with power dynamics. With such increasingly limited elbow room for the ordinary citizen to be heard on public matters, it is time for citizens to talk and radically act to revoke any proposed bad laws or government actions.

   Dr. Wolassa Kumo
The cradle of mankind, Horn of Africa, remains the land of untold human tragedy. While we still have a vivid memory of the 1984 famine in Ethiopia that killed over a million people, 12 million more people are facing agonizing famine once more. The death of over 29000 Somali infants during the past few months will always remain a scar on the conscience of Somali politicians, the leaders of Horn of Africa and the continent, as well as, the global community. While leaders of these countries bear prime responsibility for such calamities, lack of political will on the part of the international community, particularly the African continent, is ignominious. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone on the planet, but there is no political will to distribute it. It is, nevertheless, recognized that while continued relief aid by the global community can save lives it cannot prevent another famine and is, therefore, paradoxically undesirable.

The current famine is triggered by the most severe drought that hit the region in 60 years, but it is not caused merely by climate changes. The current famine in the region is the result of deeper structural and geopolitical anomalies. First, Somalia, the hardest hit by the current famine, does not have a functioning state, and hence a functioning market. Lack of functioning state and market undermines food security and expose the people to vagaries of nature. Nature just took toll of the already vulnerable people; it did not cause the vulnerability.

Second, economies of the Horn of Africa countries are characterized by severe structural weaknesses. Over 80% of the population in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya lives off traditional subsistence agriculture. However, no concrete measures have been put in place to improve the productivity of this vital sector by the governments of the respective countries during the past five decades. Subsistence agriculture in Horn of Africa is still today characterized by archaic technology, hand ploughing and oxen driven farming, with insignificant use of mechanization and irrigation technologies. According to IFAD (2011) only 1% of the land in the Horn of Africa region is irrigated, versus 7% in Africa and 38% in Asia. Thus underinvestment in agriculture and in adequate management of natural resources including soil, water and forestry are the main reason behind chronic food insecurity in the region and the recurrent famine we witness in the region today.

Agriculture contributes 44% of GDP and 85% of employment in Ethiopia; 33% of GDP and 80% of employment in Sudan; 21% of GDP and 75% of employment in Kenya; 22% of GDP and 82% of employment in Uganda; 17% of GDP and 80% of employment in Eritrea; and 65% of GDP and 71% of employment in Somalia. Clearly, Horn of Africa’s economy is predominantly agrarian and therefore the least developed economy in the world. Sustained and higher economic development in the sub region therefore depends crucially on the transformation of the predominantly traditional agriculture. The current famine haunting the sub region is therefore the direct consequence of decades of failed agrarian policies pursued by the countries in the sub region.

Key macroeconomic indicators provide further testimony to such failed economic policies. The combined GDP of the 7 Horn of Africa countries in 2010 was US$139 billion, while the total population of the seven countries in the sub region in 2010 was 222 million, with the implied average nominal per capita income of US$626. The sub region contributes 22% of the continent’s total population, but only 9% of the continent’s nominal GDP. The GDP of the 7 Horn of Africa countries is only about 60% of the GDP of Nigeria, itself not a shining economic star.

The much praised fast economic growth during the past decade in Ethiopia and Uganda has not made any dent on the level of underdevelopment and poverty either nationally or in the sub region. The major economic hub in the sub region, Kenya, is plagued with endemic corruption as well as low investment that for decades stifled any economic progress in this otherwise dynamic economy. According to the IMF World Economic Outlook Database (April 2011), Kenya’s average annual real economic growth for the period 2001-2010 was just 4% compared to over 7% recorded by Uganda and Ethiopia. Investment increased to 22 % of GDP in both Ethiopia and Kenya in 2010 slightly lower than Uganda’s 24%, but still falls far short of that needed to fundamentally transform the structure of the economy. In other smaller countries in the sub region, such as Eritrea, investment remains below 10% of GDP while the war-torn Somalia has not seen any meaningful investment in two decades.

Therefore, while undesirable, climate change was not the root cause of the current misery in Horn of Africa. It is the failure of the governments of the region to collectively or individually address the fundamental structural weaknesses in their respective economies and ensure political stability, in the case of war-torn Somalia, during the past decades that are behind the current malaise.

During the past two years most Horn of Africa countries, such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya and Uganda leased large chunks of fertile lands to investors from emerging economies of Asia and the Middles East to produce food for export or biofuel. While the host governments and foreign investors claim that this constitute proper investment in agriculture to ensure food security, civil societies in Africa and the west label it as “Land Grab” that is bound to further undermine food security in the continent. It is premature to conclude, given a relatively short period of time since global land lease began, that land lease contributed to the current worsening food insecurity in the sub region, but the signs are worrying that it may worsen food insecurity in the future. Leasing large portions of fertile land to few foreign conglomerates in countries where 80% of the population live under subsistence farming, does not fundamentally address the structural anomalies of these economies and is therefore bound to fail.

The transformation of traditional agriculture as an engine of growth and development was emphasized by Theodore Schultz (1964), who states that all resources of the traditional type are efficiently allocated, and hence the rate of return to increased investment with the existing states of the art is too low to induce further saving and investment. According to Schultz, therefore, the development of traditional agriculture depends on breaking the established equilibrium. Based on a theory of the price of income streams, he suggests that breaking such established equilibrium requires the introduction of modern inputs in the form of human and material capital, not leasing the most fertile land to foreign conglomerates whose primary concern is food or fuel security at their own homeland. We are not sure to what extent the recent massive land lease arrangements in Africa have been based on economic theories or pragmatism, what we are sure is that they are not the most innovative of the policies to address the structural imbalances in African economies.

Correcting such imbalances in African economies need African solutions; of course, with the right mix of foreign direct investments in all sectors of the economy, while the root causes of the chronic famine in the Horn of Africa can only be addressed by (IFAD, 2011):

•   Protecting and restoring degraded land resources.

•   Improving water management and expanding irrigation

•   Improving animal, plant, and range management practices of small scale farmers to make them less vulnerable to hazards and climate variability

•   Strengthening community-based animal health services.

•   Identifying viable and acceptable alternatives to pastoral livelihoods.

Further, appropriate land use policy including tenure security, and agriculture development centered industrialization strategy are key to ensuring sustainable rural development in the sub region. Horn of Africa is a home for millions of pastoral farmers. As indicated in the last bullet above, recurrent rain failures and drought have made the survival of pastoral communities increasing precarious over the past five decades. It is time for governments of the Horn of Africa countries to act decisively to create a viable alternative livelihood to the pastoralists in the sub region. Governments must mobilise resources both domestically and globally to permanently address the pastoral problems of Horn of Africa. Such supports must be sustained and be backed by provision of other basic services such as education, health, clean water and economic infrastructure. Failing this, the governments of the region and the international community should brace themselves for the worst during the next drought cycle.

   By: Jerry Okungu
Finally, the forces bent on toppling the strongman of Libya have entered Tripoli. With two of his sons reportedly captured by rebels, it is only a matter of time before the rebels lay their hands on the strongman himself.

Gaddafi was Libya and Libya was Gaddafi. Libyan oil money was his personal wealth.

With oil dollars in his pockets, he dazzled and mesmerized fellow heads of state in Africa making many of them literally eat from his palms. Time and time again, he bankrolled almost every AU summit in various capitals when the host country was cash strapped and could not bear the shame of hosting his peers.

When Gaddafi landed in any African country be it South Africa, Ghana, the Gambia, Uganda or Sudan, the colonel was the man of the hour. His entry was always delayed for maximum effect. He would come in dressed in flowing robes befitting his pet dream of becoming the King of Kings. His entourage, consisting of well trained and armed female body guards was equally ruthless; no one dared stand in the King’s way.

In a way King Gaddafi tried his best to imitate the way American presidents behave when they visit Third World countries. For the American presidential security detail, there is hardly any distinction between an African president and an ordinary public spectator. I saw it in Abuja when Clinton arrived there in 2000 on his first state visit soon after Obasanjo was elected the first civilian president in decades. The American Marines were so arrogant and intimidating such that the equally arrogant Nigerian security drew their guns warning that unless they backed down and played second fiddle in security arrangements then they were ready to call off the visit. The Americans backed down.

While on the same trip; Clinton visited Tanzania and specifically Arusha. Why he did so I cannot remember but it must have been some peace memorandum between either warring Sudanese or belligerent Somalis. When he landed, a number of IGAD presidents had gathered to meet him. Some of them were not even allowed to get closer to him, let alone greet him. It was America’s arrogance or was it their insecurity at its best?

A few years ago, I had the privilege to attend a number of AU meetings in Addis Ababa, Accra and Banjul. While in Banjul in 2006, Gaddafi arrived in a plane load full of white stretch limousines manufactured in America. These Limos were all offloaded in Senegal so that the King of Kings would snake his way in to the Gambian capital in style. As the convoy moved along, he stopped at every village market and dished out petro dollars to poor Africans along the way. Meanwhile his team of bodyguards and publicity handlers had combed the city for security detail as they splashed the entire city with Gaddafi’s life-size portraits. Any tourist visiting Banjul at the time could be forgiven for thinking that Gaddafi was the Gambian head of state or better still, he was running for election in that country.

I remember him making a grand entrance later in the day having missed the opening ceremony during the APRM forum when Rwanda and Kenya were being peer-reviewed. Instead of coming to sit in the hall, his aim was to attract media attention and disrupt the proceedings. No head of state raised a finger as far as I can remember.

During the same summit, he refused occupy one of the villas he had built for visiting heads of state on behalf of the Gambian president. Instead, he chose open ground and pitched tent like the Bedouin that he was. The following year, he threw tantrums at the AU Accra Summit over the seating arrangement. He insisted that he must sit alone in an enclosed area, far away from any other head of state. When John Kufuor of Ghana declined to grant him his request, Gaddafi stormed out and went to address university students at one of Accra’s campuses.

Gaddafi’s arrogance knew no limits. When his dream of forming the United States of Africa with him as the first Head of State failed, he hit the roof. This was despite having bribed many heads of state to vote in his favour. When he realized that fellow heads of state were not with him, he gathered traditional leaders across the continent, made them kings and forced them to declare him King of Kings!

Of all fallen despots of the continent, Gaddafi’s fall must have been the most painful of them all for Gaddafi. His pomp and glory could not be matched by Emperor Bokassa, Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Idi Amin, Joseph Mobutu and Sani Abacha before him. He was the mightiest of them all and when his time came, he surely fell from grace to grass. The question to ask is this: Will the King of kings allow his enemies to capture him and try him publicly like his comrade Hosni Mubarak of Egypt or Ben Ali of Tunisia? Or, will he commit suicide like Adolf Hitler? Only time will tell.