The complete analysis of President Museveni’s speech at NRM national conference, Namboole Stadium and personal views & insights (Part 1):

The president opened his speech with general greetings which, to an extent, blocked any bias from some of the delegates who felt deep within themselves that they were not very welcome. Also, his beginning with shouting out condolences to all the people who could have lost their loved ones marked him as a public speaker since speakers always begin in the unselfish kind of tone. The specific consideration of Eriya Kategaya among so many who could have passed away said volumes of insights which some of them will be discussed down.

The president then quickly jumped onto to his day’s package. Most inexperienced speakers lose confidence and start with some excuses and requests for patience from the public especially if the speech is too long which creates negative impulses in the audience. His using the words “if we are to do it meaningfully and profitably” while trying to explain political organizations simply meant that it is also possible to define political organizations in non-meaningful and profitable way. Here, he must have been bearing in mind the opposition parties that are usually blamed for not having organized and well defined political pillars.

The president goes ahead and explains the three words that make up a political organization (ie ideology, progressive politics, and organizational work. Museveni is a speaker who is seen as a teacher before pupils. His explanations using quotes, proverbs, and examples makes every category of people understand his points. In this context, he used vast examples and insights from about 7 authors of history and politics, a fact that proved him as a leader who reads so much and seeks other people’s knowledge and advice. However, the continued disintegration of him and his great friends that try to disagree with him on some issues may mean that he takes advice from people of his own choice or that he has a mindset while reading books and will drop any advice that goes contrary to what was already in his mind. In other words, he knows what he wants before he seeks it.

His approval of Adam Smith’s views of industrialization being a greater determinant of any nation’s development than agriculture and the need for self-love of any leader meant to serve well explain exactly the today’s Museveni’s behaviors. His release of most agricultural land and forests plus other features into the hands of investors and the said family tree leadership in Uganda depict the above two views respectively. Museveni quotes Adam as saying, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner but from their regard for their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love”. While interpreting this quote, the president gave a vivid explanation of all the accusations that people and the opposition have had against him for using Uganda for his self-interests and the continued favors towards Banyankole (his tribe) and his close family friends and the family.

It is this insight that excites me much. For those who follow my writings, we agreed in action-reward principle that we are only able to do actions that carry reward (s) of some kind. The same applies to the president. He is ready to stay in power, to lead the nation, to sacrifice his time and life for the nations programs not only because he loves Uganda and Ugandans but because of love for himself, his children, his family friends, his tribe and all those who have special attachment to him.

Here, president Museveni shows an exception from other leaders who deliberately try to convince the public that their struggles and sufferings are entirely because of their love for the nation and people. In my observations, I have noticed two important motivational reasons that make someone fall out with the leading party and decide to go solo or join an opposition party: 1. Either the president is overdoing the cheating and defiling the very goals and objectives they together decided onto lead the country and he doesn’t listen to the advice. In this case, the other individual will break off and start to revolutionalize the almost disappearing vision (the reason that many opposition figures give). 2. Or the individual has been denied of expected wages and interests and thus decides to go solo so as to win and bear the national bread alone (which I believe is the most motivator of many opposition figures).

His disapproval of the bullionist’s view that wealth is measured by the amount of precious metals owned, a belief that made Spain and Portugal concentrate on stealing gold and silver from South America speaks volumes about the increased takeover of Uganda’s features like lakes, forests and land by investors. According to Museveni, it is useless to have such vast number of features in a country yet nothing big or economical is coming out. Here, I agree with him. It is of no value to hold on a plot in the city and live a poor life yet you would sell the plot to rich men and also find enough money to live a descent life out of the city. What do we gain by boasting and bragging that we stay in Kampala yet we rarely have breakfast or lunch which are common songs to village dwellers? What does it mean to have Mabira forest, Lake Victoria, and land in Uganda yet pupils don’t have chalks for study in primary schools?

However, the problem that arises here is when such features are handed in to investors in relation to personal reasons and interests instead of the whole Uganda and Ugandans. Museveni and his colleagues have been cited on many occasions selling out such properties and mismanaging the funds that come out of such deals or transactions.

While explaining the meaning of prosperity, one of the two words NRM saw as the cure for the diagnosed problems, the other being security (see the explanation of ideology), Museveni stated the only five sources of income [ie commercial agriculture, industrialization both small and big industries, services (shops,  hotels, transport, professional services etc), ICT, and public service]. This proved him to be a great entrepreneur. He further cites the 3 factors that can greatly influence the first four areas of income sources. These are Market (where to buy or sell goods and services), infrastructure (roads, electricity, railway, ICT etc), and security of persons and property. His use of local language while explaining some things to the gatherings proves him as a president who is interested in his people in all the tribes. This challenges those who accuse him of tribalism and lessens the bias other tribes other than Banyankole may have towards him.

The whole of this introduction brought him down slowly until he stated all the four principles of NRM (iepatriotism/nationalism, Pan Africanism, Socio-economic transformation, and Democracy). His explanations that internal market is not enough for all the country’s products explains his eagerness to see East African Community in progress and probably being its chairman, a thing that many politicians cite as Museveni’s continued desire and greed for riches, power, and fame. This whole point explained the first two principles (ie fostering inter-tribal trade and relations and also fostering country to country trade and relations).

His explanations for the third principle cited the reason for UPE and USE, the two programs that the opposition has criticized for being inefficient and declining the education standards in Uganda. His citation of improved equipment and modernized labor denied him since his government has greatly failed to deliver such services. However, vivid elaborations define him as a leader who knows what is needed. Whether what is needed is provided or not provided is another thing. Yeah, leaders fail to explain exactly what it is that a country needs. The failure to have the knowledge of such things disapproves any leader’s strength to execute any plan if given one. Thus Museveni’s ability to define and explain what is needed gives him the chance of winning people’s trust and confidence even when he would fail to deliver the stated services. Many leaders lose this aspect. They could be having all that it takes to transform a nation but they fail to convince the public.

The fourth principle of democracy is questionable. According to the common international understanding of democracy, museveni didn’t even mention one of such elaborations. He instead confused the delegates by describing the NRM leadership structure which really doesn’t explain the meaning of democracy. While he has continuously allowed public elections (a good sign of democracy) in the country, they have all always ended up being undemocractic due to the rigging and intimidations that always characterize such exercises. To me, I think he didn’t want to elaborate much about this which would later affect him in what he later did: Acquiring all the powers to appoint Secretary General, a political move that ended up vomiting out the Secretary General Amama Mbabazi. His amendment of the constitution to extend his presidential limits was enough to prove him undemocratic. But as many cited, whether the amendment of the constitution or overstay in power are both moves that have been voted in by majority over the minority. Thus, leaving other factors constant, Museveni still remains a democratic leader.

According to me, President Museveni is not all that democratic. Even though the above moves including the one he acquired during the conference of appointing the Secretary General are always voted in by the majority over the minority, the methods he uses to win the hearts of such support, including bribery, intimidations, and deception are all not ingredients of democracy. Thus to say that Museveni is democratic is to undermine the power and the true meaning of democracy.

To be continued…………………………………………………………………………………














Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The demonstrations: Having a productive strike (6 proven things to consider)

The Only One Thing You Need When In Despair And You Want To Quit

So Why Does A Good God Allow Evil To Happen?