{UAH} Allan/Pojim/WBK: Museveni to Bidandi: I find your public views annoying

http://www.observer.ug/news-headlines/43476-museveni-to-bidandi-i-find-your-public-views-annoying

I find your public views annoying

Written by Observer Media Ltd

This is our continuing series on letters between PRESIDENT MUSEVENI and his then minister Jaberi Bidandi Ssali, who would become president of the People's Progressive party. Today, the president replies to Bidandi's letter that we published on March 30.

President Museveni addressing NRM supporters recently

State House, 
Kampala, 
Uganda.
February 2003 
Hon J. Bidandi Ssali 
Minister of Local Government 
Ministry of Local Government 
Honourable Bidandi, 
Your Political Stand 
I have received yours of 23rd January 2003. I congratulate you for, finally, learning how to handle organizational matters by communicating confidentially on any matter that is not previously agreed upon, and only externalizing the agreed position in the agreed manner. I have found your unilateral public positions very annoying. 

They are, of course, disruptive apart from distracting me from my bigger struggles in the field of security and economy in the interests of your people . Although you mention, at length, your activities in UPC, I have no doubt that is why these political organizations failed.

Not only did they lack vision, they also lacked proper methods of work. It is because of adhering to, not only the correct vision, but also a correct work-method that this National Resistance Movement handled really very difficult tasks:-

• Fighting Amin; 
• Fighting Obote without an external rear-base and without arms; 
• Bringing back the Indians;

• Abolishing the parastatals, and the marketing boards; 
• Adopting a programme with the World Bank-IMF; 
• Restoring the traditional rulers' institutions;

• Restructuring the ranches peacefully in Ankole-Masaka area; 
• Downsizing the civil service from 320,000 to 215,985 employees; 
• Reducing the size of the army from 100,000 to 40,000; 
• Abolishing the monopoly of Bank of Uganda over forex and introducing the forex bureaus; etc. etc. 
As you may remember, these were very contentious issues; but they were well handled because of the 'closed meetings' of the NRC as a Movement organ. In recent times, these have been eroded by saying that Museveni "confuses" people once they go in such "closed meetings".

Indeed, the people that framed the 1995 Constitution made sure that the president would be divorced from and opposed by Parliament; yet the two were supposed to work together.

As a consequence, Uganda lost a number of opportunities. Bujagali was delayed for seven years until the energy companies in the USA got into problems of their own. Uganda Airlines died "democratically", with no trace, in spite of my appeals to the Honourable Members of Parliament.

I, of course, salute your stand on national politics in the 1960s. That is how I heard about your group although I was in DP. It is good that  we linked up in 1980 under UPM. Even then, we could not agree in the end. That is how we had to go to the bush without telling you. I am glad we worked together after 1986.

It is true that the bad politics of the past were responsible for the past failures. What constitutes bad politics? I can think of two broad categories of components:-

(i) a wrong vision (aims) and 
(ii) wrong methods of work -- mainly using wrong fora to raise issues; intrigue; etc.

It is now more than 40 years since many African countries gained independence. Yet none of them has transitioned from a pre­industrial society to an industrial one like Singapore (a mere rock), Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea did. Why? Wrong vision. The only political organization that, finally, illuminated a correct vision on  the African continent was NRM when in, 1987, we enunciated the strategy of private sector, export-led growth and transformation.

We "also espoused nationalism and Pan-Africanism. Our Pan-Africanist aspirations have not yet been seriously realized. One cannot tango; you need more than one to do so.

Nevertheless, we have made our contribution to the independence of Namibia and democratization of South Africa; the struggle of the African people of Sudan; supported the rights of Tutsi people of Rwanda regaining their right of  citizenship and supported the formation of an East African Federation. On the issue of the export-led, private sector-led growth and social transformation strategy, you know the benefits yourself.

You have seen the great transformation: UPE, secondary and university education, fighting Aids, industrial recovery, infrastructure rehabilitation and, recently, a break-through in exports. We pioneered this strategy in the whole of Africa - I am glad almost everybody has now followed our example.

Examined against this background, you will find that "national politics" of a group like UPC were hollow, mere slogans devoid of content. If UPC had a national vision, why did they nationalize the private business companies in 1970 (Nakivubo Pronouncements)?

Those capitalist companies were the glue that was beginning to join Uganda really together by bringing Ugandans together in factories as workers, generating taxes to support education for all (UPE), generating funds to build infrastructure so that Uganda is linked together, etc, etc.

That is why, such groups failed in the end. What matters is not just form but substance. That is why, you can also not dichotomize the struggle between [the] military and political; the two depend on each other and nourish each other. However, all depend on a correct vision and correct work methods.

That is why, in the Cabinet meetings, I brief all of you extensively on military matters and also write detailed papers so that the dichotomy between "military" and "political" wings of the Movement is narrowed.

It is right that you participate right from the design stage of any discussion if you are mandated to do so. How were you stopped from participating in the design stages?

You are a member of the cabinet; you are even a member of the "Political High Command". If there is any urgent matter, you can cause anyone of these organs to meet and discuss the issues. The cabinet, most times, meets without me.

You can request the vice president to call the Political High Command in case I am busy as I have been most of these months. By expressing unilateral views publicly you are not "designing" any position. You are propagandizing for your personal views without giving the Movement a chance to actually "design" a correct position.

On the question of a "third term," I gave you my written position. First of all, the words "third term," are a misnomer. The issue really is whether there should be a limitation to two terms for the present and future leaders of Uganda; not a third term for any particular one. I do not see the great importance of this issue.

What is primary is the correct vision of a political organization. If many cadres of an organization have thorough grasp of the way forward in matters of "social transformation", then there is no problem as to who leads.

Anybody that is chosen will pursue the agreed and value/vision. The problem comes when many cadres "leave undone things they ought to have done and do things they ought not to do". That is when the question of who leads becomes important and decisive.

By 1965 we had three specimen leaders in the Third World: Kaunda, Obote and Lee Kuan Yew. Today, 37 years after, the results of their "vision" are here with us: Uganda – backward but starting the long journey on the right road 21 years later (1986); Zambia – backward and, hopefully, starting the long journey; Singapore (a mere rock) is today a first world country. Leadership, where the vision is not well formed and grasped, is decisive and we will not compromise on such an issue. 
That is why in my radio broadcasts, I have been advising those concerned to spend more time discussing the vision rather than who leads. A leader without a vision or with a wrong vision is disaster for a country, especially for the emerging economies. We cannot afford another 40 years of stagnation.

President Museveni addresses NRM MPs in Kyankwanzi

Therefore, the issue of two terms or no limitation on the presidential terms is secondary. What is primary is the vision. In the case of Uganda (NRM), the vision is of an export-orientated, private sector­-led growth and social transformation strategy in a Pan-African framework.

This is the one we should not compromise about. We have already missed many opportunities because of those that do not understand this vision but are in leadership. Otherwise, the issue of two terms or no limitation of terms would be of no significance.

Therefore, my view is that both the vision and the forms of leadership that can shepherd the continued illumination and implementation of the vision must be discussed by the people.

Nobody has got a right to stop them from discussing whatever they feel. At the right moment, like when the Constitutional Review Commission presents its conclusions, we can come in to harmonize the conclusions with the politics. We should not be slaves of the forms; rather, we should focus on the vision. Vision is mandatory, forms of leadership are not only optional, but are, actually, dependent on the vision.

On the question of Museveni "playing a role" as an "elder", I can assure you the least point I am interested in is "a role" and will never 'accept one where the vision is not crystallized.

I have never looked for "a role". I have struggled, fought and sacrificed for "a vision" – initially  for security of person and property; for non-sectarianism; for social transformation; and for Pan-Africanism. I do not need to play "a role" in any other context.

About the 'Kiro Kitwala Omunaku', I am already investigating. I will inform you of my findings.
Yoweri K Museveni,
PRESIDENT.
To Be Continued...

Museveni to Bidandi: I find your public views annoying

http://www.observer.ug/news-headlines/43476-museveni-to-bidandi-i-find-your-public-views-annoying

‎

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.