The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Caught between a corrupt government and a radical extremist cult, the moderate forces with potential to promote democratic reform have lost their feet and voice. Social media today is the one that shapes public debate. Studies of group dynamics show that when you put people of similar views into one place, they reinforce each other’s biases. This forces most people to move to the extremes of their opinions. Social media facilitates like-minded people to create virtual communities where they drive each other to the extremes of their biases – hence the radicalism we see today. It also promotes both fake news and fake arguments.
It is easy to make a radical argument in a radical way. But it is extremely difficult to make a moderate argument in a radical way. This is especially so in this age of social media where there are no gatekeepers to control the flow of information. Going back to group dynamics, when you put people of divergent views in one community – most people tend to move to the centre. Centrist politics was the stuff that was fostered by traditional media. In their search for reaching the largest audience, they tended to sit in the middle or publish diverse views. This meant readers, listeners and viewers had a variety of views moderating their biases.
Jonathan Haidt, in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion makes an interesting finding: when people write expecting someone to review their work before it is published, they are inclined to think more deeply about their arguments and present them in moderate tones. The reverse is true when people know they can publish something without anyone to vet it. Social media removes all restraints on what one can publish, thereby bastardising free expression. This is how hate speech has become trendy again.
What NRM has lost to corruption and incompetence has been significantly compensated by the growth of extremism, radicalism and intolerance in Besigye’s faction of FDC. For Museveni, one is either against him or with him. His approach is, therefore, inclusive and accommodating. For Besigye’s radical extremist faction, one is either with them or against them. This is exclusionary, alienating and antagonistic. Museveni’s strategy may not ignite passion but it allows many to feel safe with him. Besigye’s strategy raises passions but it alienates and antagonises independents, fence sitters and NRM moderates willing to jump Museveni’s ship.
This explains Museveni’s speech on January 26. It seems to me that Museveni’s strategy is to keep Besigye as his opponent. He is the devil he knows. He can mobilise passions but he lacks the organisation to be an effective challenger. Without organisation, Besigye has become a single-issue opponent only interested in being president. It, therefore, makes sense to reinforce Besigye’s narrative of voting being useless since it demobilises potential voters from polling stations. Nothing works for Museveni than very low voter turnout.
The other way to speculate about Museveni’s rhetoric is that it
reinforces the myth of his invisibility. Museveni and his NRM survive
better in contradiction than in stability. More often, it is
counterbalance of contradictions that creates fictitious stability in
his regime. This keeps people guessing. And it works well with his
incredible inclusive and accommodative ability as people keep gesturing
towards him as the most viable alternative to work with. The mixture of
unpredictability and tolerance explains his magnanimity and the myth of
him as a very powerful leader. Judging his words at their face value, as
many are inclined to, reinforces the myth of his unassailable power. I am inclined to believe that his rhetoric is a provocatively intended gesture that feeds
well into his political strategy. Just thinking!
1. No one doubts M7’s comprehension of the English Language.
2. 26th January is liberation day when you contextualize what M7 meant by the term not being anyone’s servant he simply meant that he was a freedom fighter who voluntarily(without pay)fought the bad regime of UPC. he is simply dying to see Ug attain the level of a middle income earning economy .
3.Love..Love ..Love Andrew; he shock the hell out of FDC thats why Ingrid lost imagine after “giving” the FDC party (KB) all she had.
4.What did we learn from Jammeh’s dramatic exit from power?He demonstrated that; (i)African leaders also have feelings.(ii) As they leave power,they need moral/psychological support e.g,thier supporters have to 1st cry and faint as a sign of their undying love for them(iii) Never threaten them with ICC talk(iv)Give them time as they pack their belongs like ;Cars,saucepans etc.
5.The Kasimo committee appears stupid to me; they are asking so many irrelevant qns to the URA staff this was a unique payment in Ug History there was no formal way of sharing the cash it just had to be shared .M7 okayed the payment who can hang him?Was there any trace of theft by the URA officials of course no? The only qn they should ask Akol (Which should take only 30 minutes)is why did they request for a supplementary Budget?the payment was straight forward simply get 0.2% from the trillions paid..
It is all speculation, for the only person who knows what exactly the utterance is all about is Museveni himself. My only take is whatever the circumstances, the only ones shocked by the utterance are those who up to now have not yet or do not understand the person of Museveni. He took the entire nation to war for purely personal ambitions and he has always been clear and steady about it. So for those who think that Museveni has diverted from the original objectives, let them know that they have no idea what they signed up for. If he set out to achieve personal goals and objectives why should anyone think that he works for them? Parliament and the elections are impediments in his frame mind, even with their existence, does anybody think they affect him in any way?, he always gets what he wants when he wants it.