Uganda’s politics of frustration

How Besigye’s failure to inspire Ugandans out of Museveni’s failures led to Bobi Wine’s narrow ethnic base

THE LAST WORD | Andrew M. Mwenda | The government of President Yoweri Museveni is old and exhausted. It has no zest for anything new or imaginative. Lacking its own project of national transformation, it now only responds to pressures from mobilised demand groups. Its initiatives are narrow bureaucratically-generated technocratic policies that cannot inspire anyone. The rest are social welfare bribes to the masses in exchange for their votes – like the Parish Development Model. Today, it has only one goal which it executes with increasing difficulty – to stay in power. It survives (in large measure) not so much by its own cunning but by the fecklessness of its opponents.

Uganda’s opposition is narrow-minded. It has one objective: to remove Museveni from power. It does not see power as a means to an end; the end being to build a politically democratic, economically prosperous and socially harmonious society. Rather it sees power as an end itself. Its maxim: “Seek ye first the removal of Museveni from power, and the rest will be added onto to you.” As a brand, it has failed to distinguish itself from the very ills it seeks to cure the country of: intolerance of dissent, reliance on rumours for action, inability to institutionalise and chronic intrigue.

Consequently, a large cross section of the public has lost interest in politics. They no longer see it as a vehicle for improving society. Many see it as arena where elites compete for attention to garner votes, get into public office and line their own pockets. There is an acute poverty of innovative policy ideas across the political spectrum, creating an emptiness in public discourse. What goes for public debate today are emotional shouting matches on talk radio, television and social media. Each side seeks to score political points against the other. Hence, nearly all debate rotates around personal attacks either on the debaters or on Museveni.

Thus, the battles between the government and the opposition resemble professional wrestling: you have two adult men in the ring pretending to hurt each other. A section of the public gets emotional satisfaction from these slanging matches as so many wrestling fans in America do of this pretentious sport. But most Ugandans are disinterested and bored with this kind of public discourse. As a result, viewership of these political debates on television, listenership on radio and readership in newspapers has been going down. And it has been happening on social media as well.

There is, therefore, an absence of moral purpose in national politics, creating a void in the politics of our country. Public debate can be about mundane issues that excite interest to particular segments of society at local levels. But politics also needs to be about big things of national importance. We are a very poor country. The government keeps talking of social-economic transformation but only as a slogan than a policy objective. Public debate needs to be about how to transform the economy and society from agrarian to industrial and from poverty to affluence. But public debate in Uganda is about Museveni personally and how he exercises power. Yet Museveni is transient and his clock is ticking.

Development takes place in the context of international trade, which is a value chain: some countries produce cotton, others weave cloth while others market high fashion. Some countries mine iron ore, others make steel and others sell automobiles. How much a country earns depends on its position in this value chain. Uganda has been producing and exporting raw cotton and coffee for 120 years and earning 2-3% of the international market price. That is why we are a highly indebted poor country. Mauritius weaves and knits cloth and earns about 20% of the international market price. So, it is a middle income country. France and Italy market high fashion: Louis Vuitton, Dolce and Gabbana and take 65% of the international market price. That is why they are advanced countries.

So, we need a debate on value addition on the products we produce and sell abroad. Only this can transform our economy from being agrarian and poor to being industrial and rich. If we focused on this debate, we would find ourselves debating the role of Ugandans in the development of our country. Who owns the economy of Uganda is a critical issue in any debate on development. But it is also a serious political issue for an independent country. Museveni is obsessed with foreign investors on whom he showers state rents such as tax exemptions, free land and other subsidies. The commanding heights of our economy are thus owned by foreign firms. Ugandans participate only as employees of multinational capital.

Is foreign capital the solution to our production and export of low value products? As a rule, multinational firms do not transfer the most innovative components of their business (where most value is created) to their subsidiaries. Apple is not going to relocate the design and marketing of the iPhone (64% of the value) from the Silicon Valley to Uganda. China assembles iPhones and earns about 20% of the value. However, it is aggressively moving up the smart phone value chain with its own brands Techno, Huawei, Oppo, Vivo, etc. This is what is making China rich, not assembling iPhones. Where are Uganda’s brands?

Nurturing firms owned by our own citizens to produce high value products is an inspiring national objective. It brings feelings of a sense of national pride into public, of justice and fairness, of the value of our independence (we need to be in charge of our destiny), of ownership of our country and how to serve the common good. Ugandans need to be inspired by efforts to produce our own brands, take pride in national champions and find, not just employment, but most critically fulfilling work in such companies.

FDC failed to promote such a debate. Instead, Dr. Kizza Besigye focused it on a narrow regime-change agenda. Politics became about removing Museveni from power without providing an alternative to his patronage-driven corruption-ridden low-energy system. Having failed to inspire Ugandans to dream bigger, FDC created a void in people’s hearts. Unable to find inspiration, most Ugandans retreated from politics. Voter turnout plummeted to 57% in the 2021 elections. But there is a default way of filling the void, this emptiness in public discourse. It is a retreat to identity. This is most expressed in central region and manifested largely in NUP sweeping both NRM and FDC out of Buganda. That is where Baganda could find meaning in their identity.

*****

amwenda@independent.co.ug