{UAH} Enablers of "elected" Governments can Face Boycotts and Sanctions

Mr Sam Musoke,

We are now going in circles.  I started out saying that those that support the current state of affairs in Uganda have every right to do so.  But I added that those that want to boycott enablers of the current state of affairs have the right to do so too.  On several occasions, I have labored to give you examples of boycotts imposed on enablers of "elected governments".  e.g the US and the EU impose sanctions on businesspeople that are thought to be very close to the leaders of Iran, Russia, Syria, etc. The E.U has also passed a law to force Israel to clearly lable products made in occupied territories so that the Europeans that want to boycott such products can easily identify such products. Israeli leaders are democratically elected. 

You can't get a visa to come to the US if you were a member of Nazi party.  The Nazi party was democratically elected.

Many enablers of the Serbian nationalist party have sanctions on them yet the Serbian nationalists were democratically elected....I think you get my point.

thanks

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:19:09 AM UTC-8, Sam Musoke wrote:Mw. J. Musoke and why would you put pressure/boycott on enablers of an elected government?  The arbiter of a contested election the Supreme Court as powered by the constitution not mob actions 

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:31:25 PM UTC-6, Joseph Musoke wrote:

Mw Sam Musoke,

If your point is that the boycott should expand to many other enablers of the regime in Kla, then I totally agree with you and I think I memntioned it in one of emails yesterday.

In my view, the system in Kla, just like other governments allover the world, depends on enablers...police, army, businesspeople, members of parliament, local administrators, etc.  Of these enablers, the businesspeople obviously have the most to lose if changes happen.  In addition, the businesspeople have easy access to the leaders, in a way that other groups of enablers do not have.  For example, I remember seeing an interview of Amelia Kyambadde that business people could easily access the president via his family members:

"We have a president who is also a family man: didn't you find yourself on a collision course with the family needs of the president?

Ohhh yes.  Family was another challenge. It was very difficult for me to manage family. The family cannot say I am coming to see him and you say no.

And when they come, they have to bring people. Then people learnt that there was a gap there; so, they [would] go through the family. That one I had no control over."

Therefore, it makes sense to apply pressure on the economic interests of the business people because they have easy access to the leaders and can tell the leaders that things are not going well. But most importantly, because they need to protect their ecomomic interests.  The other enablers live off tax payer money.  Business people live of their business earnings.

That is probably why the US and E.U impose sanctions on businesspeople that are close to leaders that these governments want to influence.  e.g Russia, Syria, Iran, etc. 

thanks