NRM and violence in Kawempe

Why the president and his handlers are misguided on their party’s electoral prospects in Kampala

THE LAST WORD | Andrew M. Mwenda |  I have been asking myself why someone in UPDF unleashed the violent crackdown on journalists and the people of Kawempe during recent byelection in that area. I talked to the CDF, Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who told me that he did not order the crackdown. During a cabinet meeting on Monday March 10, President Yoweri Museveni condemned the crackdown. Yet I am inclined to believe that whoever ordered this violent crackdown must have calculated it was to the benefit of the NRM and the government and that the president and the CDF would approve of it.

Anyone who has read the play by TS Eliot would understand. In one scene the king complains about the bishop, muttering to himself the words akin to saying “who will save me from this troublesome priest”. The overzealous knights hearing this interpret it to mean that the king has issued an order to murder Thomas Becket, which they proceed to go and carry out. The king knows that this murder was carried in a twisted interpretation of his fears and inflicts on him political damage large than the benefit sought. Yet the king would also not like to punish his knights for their overzealousness which he needs in any serious case of crisis.

There was not any chance in hell that NRM would win a parliamentary seat in Kawempe. It has not done so since 1996. It would not do so in 2025. The NRM candidate herself, Farida Nambi, complained that the violence was costly to her as many people showed up in defiance to vote against her. Her own supporters were also revolted by the violence and either stayed home or voted against her. The violence may have dampened voter turnout to 14%. But it did not do NRM any favors. Their candidate, even in these circumstances, got about 50% of the vote.

Yet, the president believes a victory was possible and that the NRM candidate was cheated. Many people dismiss these claims out of hand. Yet despite possessing the power of the state behind it, the NRM does [sometimes] suffer intimidation and cheating in areas where the opposition is very strong. Let us remember that electoral theft favors the very, very strong. When one side has overwhelming support in the area, it can stuff ballot boxes and apply overt and covert intimidation tactics against the other side.

One of the proxies one can use as evidence of vote rigging is voter turnout. In fact, the opposition have used this proxy many times to prove their case – 100 voter turnout at many polling stations in the cattle corridor, especially in Nyabushozi, Kazo, Nakaseke, Bukanga, etc. Yet if you look at the data, it also reveals vote rigging by the opposition in their strongholds. In 2001, there were 1,024 polling stations where voter turnout was above 95% and opposition candidate, Kizza Besigye, got over 95% of the vote. And these were concentrated in northern Uganda, especially in Acholi. Therefore, I do not dismiss Museveni’s claims out of hand. In 2016, Museveni supporters were openly intimidated and chased from many polling stations around Kampala.

Now back to NRM and its strategy of using violence to win Kawempe. First, the NRM revolution was born against the backdrop of allegations of electoral fraud. Even though it has practiced electoral fraud for all its time in office, this militates against its prophesied values. Therefore, many of its supporters get irritated and discouraged by it. However, because this fraud takes place in areas very sympathetic to Museveni and his party, his supporters can afford to claim that it affects the arithmetic but not the outcome of the vote. In any case, in areas where NRM strong and rigs elections, there is never violence against the opposition.

Secondly, the NRM revolution was justified by its claim to end the then rampant impunity and arbitrary violence of the military against civilians. When the Museveni government unleashes the same arbitrary violence against civilians, it revolts NRM and Museveni sympathizers. And in urban constituencies, it tends to mobilize the independent and the opposition to oppose this terror. Violence of this type can subdue peasants in rural areas who sit in awe to power. But youth in urban areas are much more militant. Employment of violence in Kawempe was therefore an own goal by NRM.

Besides, the NRM and Museveni know, or should know, that Kampala will not vote for them this year. And this opposition has strong structural roots. Uganda has a very young population, yet the president has aged and become detached from these youths. At 80 years old, with the median age at 16 years, Museveni is 64 years older than the average Ugandan. At 80, Museveni should be having grand children who are grandparents as well. So, there is little shared interests and aspirations between the president and most of his citizens.

Yet I think age is not the fundamental factor. The problem is that our president is not connected to most of the youths in those areas where they find meaning and flourishing. For instance, young people are into sports and entertainment. But Museveni is detached from this and hence unable to establish emotional connection between himself and these kids. The second problem is that the Museveni government has expanded opportunities for education, producing many educated youths who cannot find jobs. This has led to the pilling up of social dynamite, only waiting for a detonator i.e. the supply of charismatic leadership to catalyze it into rebellion.

Finally, anyone living in Kampala would know why Museveni and his NRM cannot win in this city. Kampala, the capital city of Uganda, has literally fallen apart. The roads are broken beyond imagination, the buildings are murky because of the massive dust that cars raise into the air, the potholes are massive and now look like mini-crater lakes, the boda boda riders have ride above the law, the powerful have escort cars and sirens to intimidate other road users, government officials steal with impunity.

Without investment in sports and entertainment to divert youths’ attention from this crisis, the only thing standing is religion, hence the proliferation of evangelical churches in the city. Yet in an urban setting, religion is not an effective substitute for lack of jobs. It is necessary but not sufficient to keep youths busy. This is happening in circumstances of a largely open society where young people have access to a lot of information, and increasingly disinformation, about the venality of the rulers.

****

amwenda@ugindependent.co.ug