IS THE NRM’S MILITIRIZATION OF UGANDA A STEP TOWARDS TOTALITARIANISM?

The model turns the country into a chain of command with the president on top and the civilians at the bottom

Ministries, agriculture, police, the economy and now medical services in Uganda are among the new areas of operation for Uganda’s military men and women. A military background of sorts has become a major boost to the Curriculum Vitaes (CVs) of those willing to acquire juicy jobs in the Museveni government.

The National Resistance Movement’s 30 years in power have witnessed a massive increase of military men and women at the helms of sectors previously dominated by civilians, and many wonder if the move is slowly driving the Ugandan Republic into a state where the civilian is a subordinate to a military boss who in turn is controlled by the commander-in-chief, the President.

The model turns the country into a chain of command with the president on top and the civilians at the bottom. Such models have famously been used in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and today North-Korea. The dictionary calls it “totalitarianism”.

And a very vital component of totalitarianism is a military that serves the leader and not the people. Kind of what Museveni is trying to achieve by surgically appointing officers loyal to him to head various sectors. And for those members of Museveni’s party that aren’t real soldiers, the solution is in place as well.
  
Members of the President Museveni’s NRM party are annually called to a military type retreat in Kyankwanzi where they don military fatigues and get familiar with the sights and sounds of the AK-47 combined with party strategy discussions for the length of the retreat.

image
Minister's J.C Miyingo and Florence Nakiwala Kiyingi at Kyankwanzi recently

Among those attending the retreat are members of parliament, ministers among other civil servants expected to serve the general public (including the opposition) with the utmost “impartiality”.

The president’s 2014 decision to put the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) under the control of the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) sparked lots of criticisms and outrage as hundreds of civilians were swept aside from the NAADS.

Yet again, similar a decision has been made with the UPDF taking over service provision at a hospital in Wakiso district where a number of civilian medical personnel were fired by the president. The move has inspired the trending twitter hashtag “#WhatUPDFShouldTakeOver” with users expressing all sorts of suggestions to where next the president should appoint the military to replace civilians.

As the Ugandan military continues to take over civilians’ jobs, questions as to whether the country is en route to totalitarian rule grow even bigger.

Thank you for reading. And to ensure you have a great week, I leave you with some of the famous tweets about the trending twitter hashtag: #WhatUPDFShouldTakeOver. Enjoy…

image

image

image

CAN UGANDA PAY THE “PRICE” OF DEVELOPMENT?

Are we ready to enslave millions of foreign people and forcefully make them construct our roads, buildings, tend our farms, mine our minerals?

Flyovers, skyscrapers, private jets, bullet trains, fast internet among other things are the virtues of what we (Ugandans) picture to be a developed country, and one day we wish Uganda can be like America, Russia, Britain or even France, but are we willing to pay the price these countries paid to be developed?

SLAVERY.

slavedealer
Slaves being forcefully marched to the Coast

Are we ready to enslave millions of foreign people and forcefully make them construct our roads, buildings, tend our farms, mine our minerals as we sit back and stroke our cats?  Are ready to lose our senses of humanity, empathy and condemn millions of people to slavery to build our economy? Are we ready to shackle and forcefully march millions of people through horrendous terrain, pack them like straw on boats and ship them across seas, tossing the sick and weak into the water on our way home? Because that’s the price Britain, America, France & other developed countries paid to acquire the development they bask in today.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Nagasakibomb
Nagasaki atomic explosion

 

Is Uganda ready to invest in production of millions of nuclear weapons and if possible use them to obliterate hundreds of thousands of people just to show how powerful we are? Is Uganda ready to have the stain of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on its conscience? Because all developed countries have nuclear weapons, it’s more like a trend. Not to mention the kind of pressure that comes with maintaining nuclear resources and making sure your fellow nuclear powers don’t leave you behind as the technology develops. Is Uganda ready to pay this price?

WAR.

vietnam-war
An American soldier kicks a captive in the Vietnam war

 Are we ready to fight endless, ruthless and in most cases unjustifiable wars to acquire resources we don’t have or aren’t plentiful in our country? Like oil, Uranium, Gold, oil, and oil and more oil….. Are we ready to send our youth as soldiers to their deaths to acquire oil or conquer a foreign land? Because that’s what developed countries do. The United States, Britain, Russia, France are countries that have been engaging in warfare since their inception. France, Russia, America are some of the developed countries born through bloody revolutions and their history has forever been stained with wars. Iraq, Chechnya, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, the list is endless. Can Uganda pay this price?

CHILD LABOR.

child-labour
American child laborers during the industrial revolution

 Are we willing to employ our young children in factories, mines, oil refineries and other hard labor jobs just to reduce the cost of production? Because that’s what developed countries did to strengthen the backbones of their economies during the industrial revolution. Charles Dickens’ book “Oliver Twist” describes the horrors he (Dickens) went through as a child laborer during the industrial revolution in Britain. By 1900, the American industry had employed an estimated 1.7 children, all under the age of 15. And the number had crossed over 2 million by 1910. The revolutionary socialist – economist, Karl Marx said British industries at the time of the industrial revolution, “could but live by sucking blood, and children’s blood too,” Is this a price Uganda is ready to pay? You tell me.

COLONIALISM.

imperialism-17501900-33-638
Africans kissing the feet of colonialists

Being an ex-colony ourselves, we know the pain of the colonial lash, we have lived it, tasted it, bled on its stroke and its less than 60 years since this inhumane treatment was lifted from us. So are we willing to colonize, loot, mistreat, castrate and exploit other countries like our former colonial masters did us? Are we willing to inflict the pain of the colonial lash upon fellow humans so Uganda could have skyscrapers, bullet trains, bridges that open and close, diamonds for our Kings and Queens? Are we willing to go to Egypt and steal their artifacts, mummies, gold and dead pharaoh’s heads? Is Uganda willing to rip and pillage West Africa like France did? Are willing to pay the Price for development????

As Uganda looks forward to attain middle income status in the near future, we should know as a country that however slow our journey maybe, the cleanliness of our conscience when we get there will make the journey worthwhile. Because none of what we would have achieved will be stained will the blood and suffering of others.

Is Africa the new experimental lab for Western foreign policy?

The position Africa is in now was formerly held by the middle East and Latin America where coups and revolutions were instigated by the west to knock out noncomplying oil rich Arab Muslim dictators and drug dealing communist dictators respectively.

Following the recent outbreak of violence in the young nation of South Sudan, a series of questions have sprung up. And among these is whether the western governments who promise peace and democracy to African counties are sure of it, or they are just “experimenting”.

south-sudan-civil-war-looming-e1387765243851

A host of western powers promise “democracy” and “peace” to African countries in exchange for toppling dictators like Gaddafi or seceding from another country like Sudan but in the end, once these objectives are reached, the westerners are nowhere to be seen.

In 2011, the West orchestrated the toppling of Libyan dictator Col.Muammar Gaddafi, which was a good thing. But the promises of everlasting peace and freedom made to the Libyans are still unfulfilled and the people who made these promises are back home enjoying the premier league and basketball.

Still in the same year (2011) support was given to the Southern people of Sudan to secede from the largely Arab and Muslim dominated North of Omar al-Bashir, which was still a good thing as it put an end to the long conflict between the north and south, and gave birth to the new nation of South Sudan.

2 years after independence, the nation plunged into a bloody civil war that claimed thousands of lives while the people who convinced them to secede watched from the sidelines. The short lived peace after this civil war has been interrupted by the outbreak of fresh fighting in South Sudan.

The position Africa is in now was formerly held by the middle East and Latin America where coups and revolutions were instigated by the west to knock out noncomplying oil rich Arab Muslim dictators and drug dealing communist dictators respectively.

The common denominator in this string pulling is the abandonment of the respective countries once the instability worsens. Today Iraq still burns over a decade after dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled. Which is a similar case in Libya, and a few years after the post independence civil war in South Sudan, the bloodshed is back again and the instigators are nowhere to be seen.

So we wonder, when these guys promise peace and democracy to these countries, are they sure about it, or they are just experimenting their foreign policies?

 

CHILCOT REPORT REDUCES BRITAIN TO AN AMERICAN PAWN IN THE IRAQ WAR

There were no WMDs in Iraq, Britain took and lost lives for a false cause, presented to them by the Americans who were playing a bigger game, SADDAM HUSSEIN.

On Wednesday this week, a long awaited report regarding Britain’s participation in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was released. An invasion that toppled Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, left hundreds of thousands dead and has since turned the Middle East into a boiling pot for violence and extremism.

The invasion was led by the United States “and her allies”, Britain inclusive. At the time, the move was seen as display of unity between the two superpowers. But it is now that we learn Britain, was just a pawn in a war so bloody and un-justified that a public inquiry into the country’s role in the war was launched shortly after the war’s end. Chaired by Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry has come to be known as the Chilcot report/inquiry.

Among the highly sung reasons for invading Iraq was its possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction or “WMDs” as they were often referred to in British and American Media shortly before, during, and until now after the Iraq war. It is upon this intelligence, provided by America that Britain joined the invasion, but there were no WMDs in Iraq, Britain took and lost lives for a false cause, presented to them by the Americans who were playing a bigger game, SADDAM HUSSEIN.

According to the Chilcot report, “Saddam Hussein didn’t pose an urgent threat to British interests”. Meaning at the time, Britain had no need to invade Iraq. But on the other hand, Britain’s most powerful ally (America) wanted Saddam gone due to his threat to their oil and other “interests”, and America wouldn’t have removed Saddam without Britain’s participation.

The American’s must have known that the British never saw Saddam as a threat to Britain’s interests, so what did they do? They (Americans) created a story that will make Saddam a threat to British interests. And that’s where intelligence reports of Saddam having WMDs were sent to the British.

Playing the WMDs card was vital in getting Britain and other countries to participate in the invasion because nuclear possessing countries never want a “new kid on the block”. This is evident in how North Korea is being treated by nuclear possessing countries, they don’t want another nuclear power to emerge.

So it is with the same motive and might that Britain agreed to invade Iraq, except it was based on lies. But in the end, the Americans got what they wanted, Saddam was gone and their interests especially in the oil sector rectified, well as the British continued their search for WMDs that were never there, leaving a trail of blood, destruction and laying ground work for the largest refugee crisis since World War II.

Besides the enormous amount of money Britain used to fund the war, a group of 179 families still bear the human cost of the decision to invade Iraq as their mothers, fathers, sons & daughters were killed. And following the release of the Chilcot report, it is more disheartening for these families to learn that their loved ones lost their lives for weapons that were never there and for a country that was simply used as a “pawn” by another.

Thanks for reading, you can help us share our articles and can also follow Adam’s Blog for more access and notifications whenever we publish an article. Till next time.