Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Democracy And Development In Uganda History Essay

republic And Development In Uganda History EssayThe matter of Presentation, is solicited and linked by the makeer, to a variety of suggested evolution topics, which bear indistinct concern and relevancy to the concept of holistic benevolent culture, based on un cut republican Governance.Holistic Development in general, as punctually embracing the complaisant and scotch growth, in relation to come aparting countries, much(prenominal) as Uganda, bears a significant brotherhood, as puff up impacting relationship to straight resign, where it is simu recentlyn and exclamatory as an inevitable basis and root of holistic gracious nurture.The selected topic of Democracy and Development significantly connote as whole whatsoever implies that commonwealth, in an un diluted form, is an inevitable basis of holistic mankind corporate learning and that such exploitation, should be rooted in the attributes of tumefy be aroused, accountable, transparent, as healthyhea d selfless positive elective governance of a people.It is, in that respectfore, to be noted that the serviceable practice and front man of democracy, or the profound lack of it, or presence of the same, in diluted unconventional forms and content, in a developing domain, such as Uganda, in the defined aspects of human corporate, governmental, social and correct so heathen endeavors, does also add up to, as salutary imply a interdict reversal of that development, whatever it may be.It is to be noted throw push by means of, that holistic development denotes as intimately as implies the physical and spiritual growth of holistic human endeavors and efforts, in the inevitable context of morally good antiauthoritarian corporate governance of a people. This means that human beings, duly struggle and work for holistic development, as well as prove growth, in both the physical and spiritual worlds, as the governance and leading structures, the implementation of such str uctures, their functional lay go forths, practices and operations, as well as leadership styles, are popular and morally rooted in concentrated democracy, for republican institutions, of moral elective orientation and great dealting.Note the rationalization, as duly enunciated and amplified above, is quite perceivable in Uganda, as an African country, within the prescribed scenario of a developing world, (call it to a lower placedeveloped for some intercourse emphasis). The researcher and author of the concept paper, is a Ugandan, working and coming from Uganda, for which this paper of presentation, demonstrates and amplifies, for inter bailiwick consumption, beneathstanding, analysis, appraisal, evaluation, in addition to fetching cognizance of the essential concepts of diluted democracy, as impacting human holistic development, in a particular emphasis to Uganda, as an self-employed person country of Africa.2.0 THE BACKGROUND2.1 The Recent Historical PerspectiveSince 1986, Uganda (located in the east African interland), has do acclaimed substantial progress, in promoting good governance, at the governmental, frugal, social and even cultural fronts of Uganda and elsewhere in the world.The country, has been officially and widely declare, as sustaining a positive economic development and growth, which, in the statistical sound judgment and assessment of the vox populi technical perpetuators, averages 6%, over the recent peerless and half decades, the country having progressively, moved from mere economic recovery spot and reconstruction status, to fightds a substantial sustainable economic development and progressive growth, targeting a massive poverty reduction from among the grassroots macrocosm. It is being pull ahead utter that Ugandas Macro economic stability, much as it is progressively and positively improving, remains a major area of the countrys grassroot guidanceed reforms and development efforts, for the testify purposes o f wider resource allocation.Indeed, Ugandas fiscal and m whiztary restraints, as coupled with the attributes of prudent and fugal m unrivaledtary management and administration, has appropriately and inevitably, supported the countrys robust economic development and systematic growth, and has, consequently, forestalled, and contained the hyper inflation, to a single digit level, over most of the one and half decades of the prospective limitic review.Nevertheless, according to the official statistics, the proportion of Ugandans, as defined and prescribed, as living in absolute poverty, did over the result of economic review, accordingly decline from 56% to 35%. It has been officially further highlighted that, the per capita income gains, among the forms 1992 2005/6 were quite modest, allegedly because of the countrys high population growth rate at 3.4 per 1000 people. The same is feared to further increase, in the prospective approaching.It has been further averd, that signific ant challenges are poised, for the economic attainments, as stated and highlighted, in the acknowledgement reports of international nature for Ugandas economic and even policy-making appraisal. These, among others, includeThe place setting up of a sustainable fight and impactive mitigations of gloomy poverty, at grassroot levels.Putting up impacting measures of mitigating high level economically regressive corruption, which is endemic in the countrys top and middle level leaders.Resolving the semi semi governmental and perpetrate booking in the Northern Region of the country, this has persisted, for over deuce (2) decades.Addressing others, but not duly specified sub terranean cores which hamper, as well as derail the countrys democratization process and positive economic development of sustainable growth, as already highlighted.All in all, Ugandas political, social and economic development, is duly linked up with improvement in democracy and parliamentary governance, of th e country, if all things, and the political will associated thereto, and the systems and practices established for the due installation of an undiluted democratic dispensation, were not tho cosmetic and inherently, distracted by the countrys consequent political leadership.2.2 The Instruments and Measures to Address the Development Dimension, but Rife with Diluted Democracy.This is right demonstrated and amplified in the paper as follows2.2 (1) Diluted Democracy and mislead Political GovernanceOne has to note inter alia that Uganda, as an consequence-by-case country and nation of colonial creation became of diluted democracy and misguided political governance went by means of a tumultuous draw political history, since the attainment of freedom and standing, as a new country in the year 1962. The country has gone full circle from assumed parliamentary form of diluted democracy, to the long time of full vetted and sporadic concealed military benevolent dictatorship of quasi civilian rule, of tactic political cajoling, to the present day.The short lived burst of apparent prospective political enthusiasm to independence, and shortly later on it, was soon replaced by a long, almost unremitting period of near despair and disappointment, up to 1986, when Yoweri K. Museveni, an accomplished disciple of diluted democracy syndicate took over state designer by pierce of arms. In the minds of m either democratic foresighted Ugandans, this was in essence, not different from the 1966 Crisis, where the consensus ridden, and in general accepted independence constitution of the country, was violently overthrown and abrogated by similar force of arms by benevolent dictatorship of the Late Milton Obote. He did this, in his capacity as second Executive Prime Minister of the Country, after Uganda had become internally self governing in March 1961 under the initiative Political Leadership of the country of the Late Ben Kiwanuka who was manipulated out of power with British connivance.However, the distinguishing political feature between the Museveni and National Resistance impulsion NRM Military take over, in 1986, and the Obotes Uganda Peoples Congress UPC take over, after abrogating the 1962 Constitution, was that in 1980 a Uganda grassroot peoples mandate, to govern the country, had been violently infringed and violated by a massively rigged general elections, which brought back Obote, to power, for yet some other time, after his first violent overthrow from power by General Idd Amin in 1971.The inherent advocacy and justification of the Musevenis NRMs take over of political sympathies by force of arms, was, thereof, made on the commensurate pretext, that there had been massive rigging of national elections by Obote, and his UPC party, in December, 1980, and that there had been fragrant dictatorial misrule of the country, by Obote and his party, which provided Museveni, with a blank Cheque of governance, in Uganda, after the military take over of power, in January, 1986..It is, therefore, to be noted here, that since the year 1966, to the present day, disdain the positive and inherently appreciable Museveni and NRM cosmetic democratic innovations, as well as plausible features, of due reliance to the military, rather than the established democratic institutions, to govern, has over the time, persisted in Uganda. Hence the assertion that the army, has to be represented, as an organ of state, in the Parliament of Uganda, a prerogative of civilian rule and governance, in well oriented democratic states of the world.Therefore, with diluted democracy in Uganda, at the centre stage, the country, has been characterized by civil wars restrictive governance policies, as well as statute laws of mere political expedience a war monger governance style a persistent refugee influx and to deep extent, a reversal and retrogression of would be attained social and economic gains, as presumably having been acquired, in the pos itive wake of the rather cosmetic democratic systems which unfortunately experience duly and inadvertently, persuaded committed and uncommitted political observers both locally and internationally.The negative impact of the political, social, economic and even cultural instability and overlapping political confusion, brought about as a result, is destine to leave a circuit of deep scars in the general model of the country, for m any(prenominal) years to come, across the countrys political and social spectrum.Nevertheless, there are, as it were, undeniable overt developments, since Museveni and NRM captured state power in Uganda in year 1986. It is also to be noted that the progressively concealed military politics change in 1986 was incidentally hailed locally, most especially in the countrys important region of Buganda and even across the globe. The regime brought relative peace and guarantor in those areas, of the country, where it was not resisted, for obvious reasons. Whi le one part of the country, was at war with the regime, for now over 20 years, the part not at war, got the thrift of Uganda, partially and somewhat rejuvenated as well as resuscitated, under the mistaken guise that the whole country was not at war.The regime, has to some debatable extent, safeguarded the conventionally accepted principles of human liberties, through selected and guided promotions of relative press freedom, allowing some form of multiparty political dispensation, while limiting the primordial freedoms of assembly and also did selectively, put an end to the fragrant open human rights abuses, as exercising appreciable controls over the army, from being an arm of repressive tacit political abuses, and to progressively make the same an apparently informal organ of the civilian population, which was not the case to begin with, for any of the past Government regimes of shoes independent Uganda.However, amidst these fairly positive attributes and apparent overt achie vements, Uganda faces a momental task, as well a challenge for establishing and nursing, as well as fostering visible and feasible functioning democratic institutions, which shall be beyond the whims and outright undemocratic dictates of incumbent Executive prexys of the country.3.0 WHAT HAS DODGED THE CURRENT UGANDAN governance IN INSTITUTING DURABLE DEMOCRACY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN UGANDAThis is to be the major subject of address and presentation of this paper, on Democracy and Development in Uganda.The Paper target areasThe Key Objectives for this paper therefore, are3.1.1 Objective OneTo dodge the brief events of thwarted democracy in Uganda, which have resulted in the checkered post independence history of the country, which has bred overt and covert military dictatorships.3.1.2 Objective TwoTo state and demonstrate the profound failings, as well as shortcomings of Ugandas post independence dictatorial Government regimes including the NRM, in entrenching undiluted democracy wh ich is the root and sound sanctuary of holistic genuine corporate development of the country.Objective ThreeTo show why despite the apparently worthy progress in putting in place a embarrassment of regulatory institutions, policies, a constitution and statutory laws for building and establishing a democratic state of Uganda, there is unfortunately a looming and impending political calamity which might reverse and retrogress all apparent economic, political and even social gains, if nothing is done to forestall the same genuinely.3.1.4 Objective ivTo illustrate a lack of genuine commitment and political superpatriotic will to mitigate and fight the rate of high level corruption, which duly impacts democracy and holistic development, in Uganda.3.1.5 Objective FiveTo demonstrate, as well as show that Museveni and the NRM duly displayed undiluted democratic tendencies and practices from the beginning, up to the twelfth year of his rule in Uganda. It is in these years, that the coun try did genuinely develop and built the impetus that has pushed the NRM regime, to live up to the present day, albeit the diminishing fortunes, arising out of the incessant repressiveness overtime.4.0 CONCLUSIONBy the end of the paper presentation, it is hereby envisaged and pass judgment that the presentation, as envisioned, by this paper, shall lead to an international understanding, appraisal and evaluation of the democratic and developmental overtures, in Uganda, to lead to an appreciation of functions, innovations of fitting approaches and their due rationalization, in a Ugandan African context of congenial democratic development.THE diachronic CONTEXT OF UGANDA AFTER INDEPENDENCE5.1 IntroductionPlease, note the paper objectives, as pin pointed above. This section of the presentation is now, to focus on the stated objectives, as laid down in Nos. (3.1.1. 3.1.5)The British rule Uganda, not as a colony, which they overrun, but as a Protectorate, to which they were reciprocall y invited by the late Kabaka (king) of Buganda, Muteesa I. Before that, Arab traders had had their contact with Buganda as contrasteders in the 15th Century, in 1745. other foreign contacts were of John Speke, in 1862, from Britain and HMS Stanley in 1875, again from the same country, which resulted in the invitation of Christian Missionaries, as the kind of functional people, wanted by Kabaka Muteesa I, as a sign of mutual corroboration and cooperation between Buganda, and people of foreign lands. When the missionaries came to Uganda, as responding to Muteesas call, the final result was, so to speak, colonization of Uganda, where the British ruled Uganda, for over 60 years, until independence was granted in 1962.When the country became independent, the future looked quite good and prospective, compared to its neighbors, Uganda is nonaged and compact, compared in size, to Britain. It was endowed with substantial resources and roaring tropical climate.When Uganda became independen t in 1962, the future looked quite promising. The country which was small and compact (and still is), was endowed with substantial resources and favorable climate. It had a relatively developed social and physical infrastructure. Roads, enlightens, hospitals and the public service were amongst the best in black Africa.Besides, at independence, the country enjoyed relatively prosperous agricultural economy based on cotton, coffee, tobacco, tea, sugar and variety of food crops, as well as livestock. It was self sufficient in food production. Due to its lush wild life and subjective beauty, the country had untapped tourist potential. though the manufacturing sector of the economy was small, it was rapidly growing, thanks to the policy of import commuting and economic diversification. Indeed, in hurt of overall economic progress, Uganda was comparable to Ghana, southwest Korea and Malaysia, and was indeed ahead of India and Indonesia.Ugandas great expectations, however, did not m aterialize. Shortly after independence, the country degenerated into tyranny, chaos, violence, war, economic collapse and moral degeneration. Constitutionalism and the rue of law ceased to exist. Extra discriminatory killings were elevated to the level of public policy. By 1986, Uganda had become the land of untold human misery and an object of pity in the world. Its human rights bring down was appalling. An estimated over one million people, had lost their lives between 1966 and 1986. Thousands to a greater extent, fled into exile and were disperse all over the world. The economy was in shambles. Indeed, when the NRM came to power, the country looked somehow stubborn and was on the verge of Somalia-like war-lord-ism.What went wrong? Why did Uganda make such a false start? How can the decomposition of post independence Uganda between 1966 and 1986 be explained? Why did Uganda become so unhinged or disordered? There are no definitive answers to the questions. Nevertheless, histo rians have explained the countrys post-colonial turbulence, in terms of colonial distortions, neocolonialism, under development, incompetent post independence leadership, sociality, militarism and religious bigotry. This brief historical survey from 1895 to 1986 attempts to explain why and how Uganda became the sick man of Africa before the NRM captured state power, in the hope of putting the country on the lane to un diluted democracy.5.2 The Legacies of British ColonialismThe modern state of Uganda, which assumed its geopolitical individuation between 1890 and 1926, was a product of European colonialism. In drawing up the boundaries of Uganda, the British colonial authorities brought together fifty six (56) discrete communities, with diverse languages, cultures and historical traditions. At the same time, the colonial boundaries partitioned various African peoples, who had lived together for centuries in two or more colonial states.In Uganda the ethnic incompatibility was basic ally a product of British disposition and may have been a colonial strategy. Before colonialism, the various peoples of Uganda had co-existed in relative peace and equality, and in cases, such relative peace and equality, and in cases, such Buganda, the people had even inversely integrated through marriages and mutually beneficial cooperation activities of life sustenance and survival. People did not believe that they were more developed or cultured than their neighbors, except under threat and unsusceptibility of the new comers. Various Ugandan communities knew that they were different but equal, as human beings, for any material benefits as well as according one another the requisite human rights. Even civil wars and conflicts took place among would be equals of divergent interests. plainly the British progressive conquerors or in the case of Uganda, protectors, changed all this. They halted and froze the natural process of peoples integration and evolution for the better, or worse.The natural process of cultural diffusion and mutual dissemination into one another for, mutually identified social goals and benefits through trade, intermarriages and migration, as well as movement, was duly disrupted. For their colonial and administrative strategy, the British duly emphasize mutually disruptive differences, as well as adverse prejudices, which put differently co-operative and corroborative people further apart. Peoples mutual similarities were never identified and emphasized to ensure harmony and mutual solidarity among people of different cultural identity. The British policy of break and rule not only enhanced the negative spirit and attributes of ethnic consciousness and social chauvinism, among ethnic peers, but exploit and made it become a source of tension and disastrous conflict, for post independence Uganda, when selfish ill fated politicians inherited the mantle of political power. It is said that once the British established the multi-ethnic-s tate of Uganda, through the quash underlying agreements made with the different tribal chiefs or kings of more established nationalities of Uganda, they made no deliberate, well conceived efforts to forge Ugandas inhabitants and their possible leaders, into a unifying force of cadres, for possible and viable integrated Uganda.Some ardent scholars have pointed out that unity in diversity was not one of the British cardinal grosbeak colonial intentions, for a people as diversified as Ugandas. quite a the British colonial and administrative mission was to exploit it with the four (4) coded intents of colonialism, at the broader level, namelyProcurement of industrial raw materials.Acquisition of prospective market place for finished products.Employment of excessive qualified manpower.Attaining a sure celestial sphere of political cultural influences, for the prospects ahead.It is said that what the British set out to do, groomion in mind their cardinal intentions, was to establis h an efficient, but cost in force(p) colonial administration, but not a Nation State, of a prospective viable future. Nevertheless, this does not represent the whole truth about British colonialism, compared to their counterparts, the French in their Colonial policy of Assimilation.The thrust of British Policy before, 1945 was therefore, to keep Africans, as apart as practically possible, and to more or less promote disunity, ethnicity and parochialism among them, so that the future prospects of unity among them, would inevitably be kept at bay. This ethnic focused policy was duly implemented, through the system of Indirect Rule, more especially in Buganda (Ugandas rally region, which became the focus of development). This is where the British were quite intent of entrenching their Anglicanism and all that it entails, and to use it as a springboard, to other areas of Uganda. In effect, the Baganda were profoundly devided on the basis of religious bigotry, which was later, to scr atch political developments in the country, not mentioning other dimensions of British colonial set ups.It is said, therefore, that the British knew, well before, that as long as they designed and constructed a Uganda that would remain a house devided, the future of British influence in Uganda, would be guaranteed by use of mere ethnic and nationality manipulation. Accordingly, the subsequent development of Uganda, became an artificial, disintegrated entity of British colonialism, with antagonistic nationalities of British cultural influence, but which are not prone to see themselves, as a united viable nation, springing from their well nurtured coherent cultural identities, across the board, without much mutual suspicions, as was strike out by post independence local politicians to ensure certainty of political office and longevity therein.In concerted conformity to the politics of divide rule, the British Protectorate administrators and policy authorities treated various Ugandan cultural entities differently. It is alleged that Buganda was singled out for unfairly allotted favors, if not profound envy, on the part of the British to employ Baganda, to conquer the rest of Uganda and to establish, with them, an hard-hitting Protectorate administration, which lasted over sixty (60) years.In some specific instances, Buganda was overtly and somewhat rewarded, and in other instances the British only gave tacit thanksgiving and appreciation, for the alleged Bugandas corroboration and cooperation with the British, in their endeavors to rule Uganda for their own acknowledged standing(prenominal) and lasting intents. It is further emphatically pointed out by some unorthodox history authorities, that Buganda gained extended territory at the expense of the hostile Bunyoro and non combatant Nkole Kingdom. It is not however, thoroughly discussed, how in the vagaries of peoples open movement from territory to territory, and acknowledged mutual equality, respect and s olidarity for mutually acknowledged common benefits, how Buganda managed to do this, unless there are other unaccounted for, factors, in the Geopolitical re-alignment of Ugandas ethnic entities.This in the view of such historical authorities gave rise to the contentious issue of the so called lost counties of Buyaga and Bugangaizi, presently known as Kibaale District of Uganda. The Baganda chiefs who corroborated with the British were allocated the traffic and functions of administering the said territories, it is duly highlighted.In the year 1900, the British and Buganda signed the well known Buganda Agreement, which defined the mutual relationship, between Buganda and British Protectorate Administration. In this agreement Buganda retained its own Government and local administration, as it were, for a system not merely overran by the British, in their bid to colonize. By this agreement, Buganda was devided into crown and privately owned land tenure, known as Mailo and go past Lan d systems. The Kabaka, his chiefs and other Baganda notables, were by the agreement granted Mailo land. It is said that in this, the British sought to create a landed aristocracy which was to be one of the pillars of British policy protectorate administration, in Buganda.For the British, it has been said and acknowledged, that the Baganda were the Nipponese of Africa, to which Professor Ali Mazrui, has also alluded. It has also been stated that by the British treating Buganda, as state within the state of Uganda, which is their own colonial creation, but which Buganda was, even before their coming, the British, created a recipe, as well sowed seeds of ethnic tension and conflict in Uganda. This is a contentious subject, whose settlement can only be addressed by the restoration of Ugandas independence constitution, which unfortunately, was abrogated and violently overthrown by Apollo Milton Obote by force of arms, in 1966. In so doing Milton Obote committed a traitorous act, for vio lating a peoples will, which had been enshrined in that Constitution at independence as the British left Uganda, and constituted nation of their creation. It could only be changed, through democratic constitutional genuine and legal means and not violently, as it was by Milton Obote.It has been categorically stated that the Baganda developed a high sense of ethnic nationalism, which also was reinforced by Bugandas economic, political and social centrality in the state of Uganda. For the perpetuators of these views, the British are accused of seeing the rest of Uganda, as merely a satellite of Buganda. Thus, the British are assumed by this school of thought, to have created Buganda, as a thorny problem, for independent Uganda, and for them, before independence. further one wonders what the British could conveniently do, to Buganda, which they found as a nation, already with management and administrative structures in place with a relatively forward-looking culture of its own.It has profoundly been highlighted that, during the 1950s and 1960s, the ambitions of Bugandas unwanted nationalism clangoured with integrative policies and processes of the central government. Buganda is said to have sought to maintain their deserved identity, but through narrow minded and aggressive neo-traditional separatism.On the part of those in central government of Uganda, the government is said to have been determined to keep Buganda at any cost, as an integral part of Uganda, but without any hearing, nor providing any redress to Bugandas major concerns, and sense of cultural pride.In the view of Uganda flag-waving(a) advocates, Bugandas concerns and identity pride, which in their understanding and estimate, are untenable, led to a clash of interests which exploded into the crises of first, 1953, when the Late Kabaka of Buganda, Sir Edward Muteesa II, was exiled to Britain by the former Protectorate Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen, and second to the 1966 in which the Late Milton Obot e, overthrew the Independence Constitution, which he had been sworn to uphold, as well as, protect, as executive Prime Minister, at independence.The privileged status of Buganda, it is said, that sooner or later, generated the profound anti Buganda sentiments in the rest of Uganda. Non Baganda, are said to have resented the wholesale untruth of the Kiganda Administrative system, manned by Baganda chiefs, with the tacit consent of the British.Bugandas question in Uganda therefore has remained a thorny issue for the democratic governance of the country, created by the British as a super imposition over existing viable nationalities, which were nation states, in their own right. But all said and evaluated, Bugandas right to exist, within the independent state of Uganda, postulate to be respected and rationalized within the national constitution framework of Uganda, taking account of its role and function to Uganda as a nation without any tresses of apparent subjugation.The Buganda q uestion and the equitable status of the same, in the independent state of Uganda, as created by the British, has defied the self seeking, biased unpatriotic post independence political leaders who not only play the fiddle of diluted cosmetic democracy, but impact holistic development by their direct or indirect political overtures. The stagnated rate of development in Buganda, since independence, is therefore attributed to this. Buganda and other parts of Uganda, excluding the North, is claimed to be developing, since 1986, because Museveni and the NRM tended to demonstrate indicative attributes of democracy, in setting Ugandas outstanding problems such as the Buganda question. He received a lot of support in the so called war of liberation, before and after the shrub struggle, which gave him propelling political impetus that gave rise to his longevity, in power.See figures below, as demonstrating economic development and growth in first ten (10) years of Musevenis rule in Uganda, but which are going down progressively, as direct result of diluted democracy, playing the rounds in Uganda.Year task Revenue collected in U.Shs in billionsTax Revenue as % of GDP1988/9144.65.161989/9089.66.811990/91135.97.841991/92179.77.001992/93286.67.851993/94374.09.561994/95522.510.761994/96625.511.60Table 1 Indicating the progressive rise in statistical economic development and growth in Uganda, as President Museveni and NRM, tended, in some measures, to walk the emphatic talk of undiluted democracy in Uganda, in the 1st ten (10) years of NRM with Bugandas support as well as patronage.5.3 The Demonstrative AspectsLooking at the dramatic political events, which have shaken Uganda overtime, behind them, the profound causes have been a lack of Democracy, or democratic governance systems. In the end such events have not only affected national development, but have shaken the countrys foundation to the core, and

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.