The Rise and Rise of The Monitor

The Rise and Rise of The Monitor

By Solomon BareebeSaturday February 4, 2012

"When you came

We never caught the vision,

That your desirous mission,

Would go this far in fame." ¹

"Twelve months ago, you

Were a visitor

Tonight, a reliable

Colleague for information." ²

"Dear Monitor, if flaws in thee some see,

Take heed and wither not before even me

Soon I will adopt a song for thee -

Con it day and night, for this is my plea" ³

Four theories have been advanced to explain the phenomenal rise of The Monitor newspaper.

According to the most radical of anti-government activists, The Monitor and Museveni eat from the same table and are bedfellows despite their rivalry. One of the best proponents of this theory was Wilson Ogola in an article he wrote ironically published in The Monitor in 1996; ?Monitor, Museveni are enemies by day and lovers by night.'⁴ He argued that Museveni tolerates the paper as a way of legitimising his movement system that shot its way to power. Since he wasn't considered a democrat, the existence of the newspaper, despite being a thorn in his flesh paints him as such. Thus, the ?minor' pains suffered by The Monitor, mostly incurred from blows inflicted by his government then become the best testimony of the movement's and Museveni's tolerance and love for the press, one of the pillars of democracy in any free society. If he were a dictator and his system closed, then the newspaper would have been banned altogether! The extreme conclusion of this view is that Museveni actually bankrolls the paper and its editors are nothing more than puppets. The more moderate conclusion on the other hand is that the relationship is not by design but by coincidence. The Monitor's true colours are only revealed when it's pressed to choose between the movement and the opposition: " The Monitor, when pressed against the wall to choose to out rightly condemn the NRM and call on it to relinquish power, always takes a middle course that gives the NRM a chance." The writer thus sums up this relationship by stating; "The Monitor needs the movement to survive, and the movement needsThe Monitor in order for it to be credible and continue hoodwinking many unsophisticated Ugandans and the outside world that it is ?democratic'."⁵

The second theory is peddled by movement government supporters, who argue that the supposed backers of the paper are the opposition. They claim that The Monitor is a reactionary anti-government mouthpiece that was started to embarrass the movement government of Museveni. Thus, it owes its survival to opposing the government. Core to this criticism is that The Monitor as a business organisation should be primarily concerned with profit and since it isn't, this vindicates it being an anti NRM mouthpiece. "Many NRM fanatics I have met complain thatThe Monitor is anti-government, anti-NRM and has an editorial policy which is anti-westerners (the ruling ethno group in this country)."⁶

The third theory is related to the one above. It is a reconciliation of the two theories above, in a way. It argues that The Monitor owed its success primarily because it was the only opposition to President Museveni's Movement government in the absence of a free political opposition and a viable civil opposition. This view is especially seductive when one considers the fact that the Movement system of the NRM restricted opposition parties from operating. This theory gained prominence and gathered momentum vis a vis the governments growing and strangling hold on Uganda after rendering the opposition hapless. Since there was no legalised opposition, the only way the government's opponents could express and organise themselves was through The Monitor. The newspaper guaranteed that their press releases were published, gave them coverage in general and helped in reminding the public and the world that there was an opposition in existence in Uganda, despite it being muzzled. It gave them thus a platform where the government wanted them ignored and shunned. Proponents of this theory will argue that Museveni confirmed their suspicions when he said, "there is no opposition in Uganda, it only exists in the media."⁷

The fourth theory is popular in The Monitor. They see themselves as neither for the government nor for the opposition but rather, for the public. "In the eyes of the UPC, they were ISO because they were associated with government while government saw them as UPC because they were from the east."⁸ Thus, it's the readership that rewards them for being independent and for not leaning on either the government or the opposition's side. Henry Muwanga-Bayego sums up this view when he says: "True, The Monitor is a creature of the NRM but it is not only annoying but also insulting to insinuate that it is a prot?g? of the NRM. The paper is instead a product of NRM's intolerance and its growth and survival largely credited to the ordinary reader."⁹

The above four theories are all be reflected in every stage of The Monitor as it attempted to fulfil its journalistic role. Every duty it performed was seen in the eyes of partiality, whether their action was pro-government or anti-government, was The Monitor for the movement or for the opposition, was a question the newspaper was asked to answer a million times. The clash between the two, or their relationship, was not equal. It was rather one sided. It was dominated by the government by virtue of the country's past history, thus, it's important for us to remember that it was more of David and Goliath relationship. Andrew Mwenda says of it: "My conclusion is a bit different from that of Ogola. I know there is no deliberate pro-NRM policy at The Monitor. The independent and neutral many times slants in favour of government than it does to the opponents."¹⁰

Indeed, any talk of The Monitor cannot be divorced or separated from the movement government and President Museveni. And it is this relationship that we are going to scrutinise from the inception of the paper and the questions that were raised about its ownership, the role of the NRM government in its growth.

The Questioned Ownership of The MonitorNewspaper

Many Ugandans were baffled by the fact that the newspaper managed to survive, let alone become a leading challenger to the well-funded state run New Vision. Few believed that the independent journalists who resigned after their friend and Editor was sacked from The Weekly Topic with their meagre savings could start a newspaper of their own and lead it into growth. The Monitor's growth was phenomenal. Less than a year after its inception, it became a bi weekly on Tuesday 2 of March 1993. By mid 1995, The Monitor was appearing three times a week. It started appearing on all the week days in November 4th 1996. In the same month of November 1996 was Sunday Monitor borne. By 1994, The Monitor's circulation had reached 30,000, and in 2000 when the Nation Media Group took over, it had 500 employers, a far cry from the sixteen it employed at its inception.

Thus, from the onset, the ownership of The Monitor was a mystery, at least to the public. Some saw it as an opposition funded paper set up by the defeated UPC government in particular and the northerners in general. This view was popular in most parts of southern Uganda where the people are ethnically different from those from northern Uganda. It was presumed that because most of the shareholders names started with the letter O, then they were ?northerners' and therefore pro-UPC. It was rumoured that deposed President Obote gave The Monitor Ushs20 million to kick start it. Many fans of the NRM government argued along that line of thought. The fact that the journalists jumped off the ship of a pro-government paper, Weekly Topic, to set up their own newspaper was the best evidence to them.

Meanwhile the anti UPC monarchy of Buganda and many Baganda deemed the newspaper hostile because of its republican streak. It was the best evidence that the newspaper belonged to the anti-Baganda northerners and that it was being funded by former President Obote. A reader summed up this view when he complained "in many issues of The Monitor there are several articles about former president Milton Obote."¹¹

This did not spare The Monitor from the ire of the opposition. Most members of the opposition deemed it too soft on the government. They were suspicious that the government set it as a counter revolutionary ploy; to criticise the government but at the same time remain largely pro-government. Cecilia Ogwal, a leading opposition politician firmly stated that; "oh, that paper was set up by ISO,"¹² when it published an article critical of the UPC. In 1995 The People newspaper of UPC run an article criticising The Monitor for an opinion poll it conducted that showed Museveni in the front; "Monitor: go to hell for opinion poll sin." The People went on to argue that the opinion poll "showed the paper as supporters of NRM or is it Museveni's supporters. A thing many Monitor fans wished was not true."¹³ As if that wasn't bad enough, President Obote accused The Monitor(a newspaper he supposedly owned) of supporting the suppression of human rights in Uganda by keeping silent about atrocities he claimed the government was committing, and also, claiming he was a killer.

The newspaper during the years changed ownership from being owned by Colonel Kahinda Otafire, William Pike, Betty Bigombe to Sudhir Rupareilla, all leading NRM luminaries or sympathisers.

The questioned ownership and allegiance of the paper emphasises the fact that a newspaper independent of any influence was a new experience in the history of the Ugandan press, a position many were not comfortable with. They would have preferred it took a side, and this also explains why the pre-occupation with The Monitor's management was survival.

The fact that the public was divided as to its true loyalties emphasises its independence. It was deemed as being neither for the government nor for the opposition because precisely it wasn't. The criticisms from both the government and the opposition emphasises the desire by the two opposing sides to have them in their hooks.

This is because the newspaper believed that it was a mirror of society and so its primary goal was to reflect the exact image of society. Secondly, it was run on democratic principles and so it wasn't for any of the shareholders to dictate the content of the paper or its editorial. "But in this paper there is a lot of democracy. I don't decide alone what goes into the paper. My colleagues can even fire me as editor if I played the dictator,"¹⁴ Wafula revealed. This safeguarded the paper from any dominant political view and preserved the papers independence.

The Monitor's coverage of wars

One of the outcomes of the newspapers independence policy was to question government policies, especially the various wars it was fighting. The Monitor, right from its inception, took an anti war stance that ensured it clashed with the belligerent NRM government at every opportunity.The Monitor's coverage of the local wars was exhaustive, and not without controversy. The government's accusation was that The Monitors ?negativity' frightened away investors. And that it was biased towards the rebels. As a result the newspapers war correspondents such as Tolit Olour Atiya and later on Muto Ono p'Lajur were denied access to ?restricted places' by the army for security reasons. At the same time other correspondents from the government owned daily,New Vision would be allowed access. This course of action was helped by The Monitor's policy of playing the devils advocate and giving audience to various spokespersons of the rebels and rebel leaders themselves. Examples include Peter Otai and Colonel William Omaria, leaders of the rebellion in Teso, and Nyekorach Matsanga and Dr. James Obita spokespersons of the LRA. The Monitor's policy made many pro-government persons to ask like Muhammad Ogwang: "Why isThe Monitor of all the newspapers in Uganda, the leading pro-bandits paper?"¹⁵

The Monitor's anti war stance had it advocating for a political settlement to the Northern Uganda War. It never stopped advocating for peace talks between the rebels and the government. Their stance was best amplified by Obbo when he firmly and defiantly stated, "The Monitor has always, and WILL continue, to argue for a political settlement to this country's problems, and demand that government take care of the grievances of ALL aggrieved Ugandans. If that is supporting Kony or ADF, then be it. Yes, you must accommodate both Kony and ADF."¹⁶ This was of course a position the government never tolerated, since the President in particular and the political leadership of the movement in general considered the rebels as bandits whom they had no business negotiating with. The Monitor as a result gave space to anti war crusaders like Betty Bigombe and Bishop Ochola McLeod.

In the same vein, The Monitor devoted a lot of its time in covering the suffering caused by the war, highlighting the suffering of people in the protected camps in Northern Uganda. The camps were started with the aim of isolating and protecting civilians from LRA rebels. It especially paid attention to the plight of children affected by the war (the so-called ?night commuters' who trekked to various townships in Northern Uganda every night to spend the night in the cold out of fear of being abducted by the rebels). The newspaper in the process added a moral argument to the debate, insisting the government settles the conflict peacefully because most of the rebels they killed were children the government failed to protect from abduction in the first place!

Surprisingly, although The Monitor was aware of the geo-political dimension of the Northern Uganda War, Sudan insisting that it supported the LRA because Uganda supported the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M), some voices within the newspaper were for war with Sudan. One such voice was Onapito Ekomoloit, later to become the President's Press Secretary. "Given that Sudan's provocation has gone on for as long as the NRM has been in power, it baffles one why the government just doesn't say ?enough is enough' with Sudan."¹⁷James Tumusiime a guest writer was pissed off by Uganda's inability to retaliate following repeated provocations by the Sudanese government such as bombarding Northern Uganda on the pretext of attacking alleged SPLA bases. "So, instead of pretending that we do not support the SPLA well knowing that Bashir cannot believe us, let us openly declare war on Sudan just as they have done to us. Fortunately we have many allies; Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the USA."¹⁸ in other words, The Monitor's Sudan policy seemed unclear – whether they were anti war or for war with Sudan!

This wasn't to be the case with the rest of the region. The Monitor's anti war stance so distinct in Uganda extended to most of it. The Monitor's view was that war discouraged and chased away investments and therefore development. The Monitor reserved most of its criticisms particularly for President Museveni whom it viewed as a warmonger bent on the exportation of wars across the region. Various theories were peddled to explain his role in fanning trouble in the great lakes region, ranging from his being a failed revolutionary to a tribal warlord extending the Tutsi-Hima Empire. Thus, The Monitor was always quick to catch the NRM governments' wrong foot in the many wars she fought.

The first foreign war that The Monitor covered involving the young Ugandan government was not a war as such (in fact The Monitor found this war in existence), but rather a simmering border conflict that resulted in a shootout among many minor skirmishes between Kenya and Uganda. The roots of the Ugandan-Kenyan conflict lay in the Nairobi peace talks. The Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi felt President Museveni undermined his role in brokering a peace deal between the Lutwa junta and NRA/M during the Nairobi peace talks by stabbing the former in the back. Consequently, many anti-NRM rebels established their bases in Kenya following the NRA victory, and she ignored them. These included Aggrey Awori's FOBA and Peter Otai's UPA. The lugubrious President Museveni's diagnosis was that the poor relationships between his government and the Kenyan one was due to a failure of the leaderships of the two countries agreeing, and the fear that Uganda's actions could be replicated in Kenya. "Because we came to power through the gun and have been successful, Moi thinks we set a bad example which his own people might follow (and overthrow him)."¹⁹

The relationship between the two countries worsened when the Kenyan government accused Uganda of hosting a dissident group bent on overthrowing it headed by Brig. John Odongo, the February Eighteen Resistance Army (FERA). The Odongo saga proved a thorny issue with the Kenyan leadership mobilising its people to protest against Uganda and calling for the expulsion of the rebels. It even went as far as deporting thousands of Ugandans. Uganda relented to the pressure eventually. Brig. Odongo was deported and relocated to Ghana. The deportation didn't seem to improve the relationship between the two countries. In fact, the relationship continued deteriorating because of the entry of another rebel leader, this time allegedly based in Kenya. Major John Kikomeko Itongwa was a renegade NRA soldier who started a rebellion in Buganda to fight against the government. He eventually fled to Kenya from where he was relocated to Sweden by the Kenyan government. The relationship between the two countries dramatically changed in 1997 after President Moi won a disputed election by a third of the votes. President Museveni uncharacteristically sung Moi's praises, and disagreed with those who claimed Moi had rigged the elections. It must be pointed out that The Monitor was patriotic, in the Ugandan government side's point of view, when it came to Uganda – Kenya relations.

Following the break-up of the NRA into the RPA and the latter's invasion of Rwanda, this patriotism was not evident, in the government's point of view. The Monitor's correspondent sent to cover the war, Aliro, wrote extensively about the war: his opinions greatly influenced by the views of radical historians who saw the conflict as more than a Hutu problem but rather through the long term seeds of the conflict, the social stratification of Rwanda into a three caste system, and the role of foreign powers especially Uganda and France. As a result, the relationship between The Monitor and Rwanda like that between The Monitor and the Ugandan government was not good. Because of the authoritarian nature of the Rwandan government, many of its functionaries consistently attacked The Monitor.

When Uganda and Rwanda invaded Zaire in the 1990′s, The Monitor again was the thorn in the Rwandese flesh. It kept on drumming to the world the differences between the two invaders – Uganda and Rwanda – how Uganda was the more disciplined of the two and how it had the Zairean interests at heart as opposed to the Rwandese. This stemmed from the different war ideologies of the two governments. The Rwandan government believed in a lightening strike and doing most of the spadework, while the Ugandan government insisted on a slow protracted Zairean peoples struggle like the one in Luwero. It must be said though, that The Monitor held its breath with the rest of Ugandans as one Zairean town fell quiet easily after the other like a pack of cards. "Uganda and Rwanda seem surprised by the speed with which Laurent Kabila's ADFL forces have captured nearly 20 percent of Zaire"²⁰ it reported. Following the overthrow of Dictator Mobuto Sese Seko to the combined armies of Rwanda and Uganda and the installation of Laurent Kabila Desire as a puppet President, The Monitor again questioned why Uganda got less, to the irritation of Rwanda of course!

This was to change gradually with the Second Congo war (President Kabila changed the name of the country from Zaire to Democratic Republic of Congo or DRC) – or rather still, Africa's equivalent of a World War that sucked in seven countries including Rwanda and Uganda on one side. The war commenced like the first one, because of the question of the Hutu's responsible for the 1994 genocide as Uganda and Rwanda alleged and because of President Kabila's attempts to free his country from Ugandan-Rwandan dominion depending on which side you listened to. Was Kabila arming the Hutus or not? Was he being fought because he was trying to free himself from the lordship of Uganda and Rwanda? The war gave rise to questions about the conduct of both the Rwandese and Ugandan forces, and their motives. Were they fighting for the good of the people of Congo, or to enrich their respective countries? Could the two undemocratic countries of Rwanda and Uganda do what they'd failed to achieve in their countries, exporting democracy when they were undemocratic themselves? "This raises the old question as to whether their can ever be stability and peace in the Congo as long as those who attempt to shape the country's future have questionable democratic credentials themselves."²¹ The Monitor dug in and asked questions, embarrassing and annoying ones to the two countries. That was until the two former friends famously fought each other, a battle, ironically predicted by Aliro. "There is real danger that if the Congo war drags too long, simmering rivalry between Rwandan and Ugandan troops could, in the long run also undermine the close personal ties between Kagame and Museveni."²²

The Monitor soon shifted its support and seemed to favour Rwanda over Uganda. Monitor's Pius Matsiko wa Mucoori seemed to capture the essence of the whole shift when he wrote "there are no permanent friends nor enemies in journalism."²³ Was the Ugandan army inferior to the Rwandese one The Monitor asked? The question had no ready answer, but it confirmed that the reverse had happened – Rwanda and The Monitor had become cosy. As if on cue, the Rwandan government from that point developed a close relationship with The Monitor, publishing many of its articles in it. In confirmation, Aliro developed a close relationship with the Rwandan President Kagame. Another of the new breed of The Monitor's journalists in Andrew Mwenda likewise became close to Kagame. The Monitor at this point devoted more of its time in exposing the deficiencies of the Ugandan armies' Congo mission, especially it's drubbing in the hands of the Rwandese army. Was the Ugandan army only interested in profiteering and corruption other than defending the country from the ADF menace? The death of Lt. Col Jet Mwebaze raised more questions especially after the government refuted The Monitor's story that he died in a helicopter crash.

All in all, the two divergent views of The Monitor and the NRA government as concerns war ensued that the two were always at loggerheads, reinforcing the theory of the clash between the two.

Viele GruBe

Robukui

--
UAH forum is devoted to matters of interest to Ugandans and Africans in general. Individuals are responsible for whatever they post on this forum.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com or Abbey Semuwemba at: abbeysemuwemba@gmail.com.