State and Policy Failures in Uganda

Okello Lucima

It is appalling how the Yoweri Museveni regime continues to get its priorities wrong. Uganda is a pan-handling nation-state. Despite its beggar status, it wants to spend over thirty billion shillings it does not have (EC wants Sh63b for 2006 election, The Monitor, 05, March 2005). All this spendthrift mood, while over 52% of its budget is scrounged from charitable governments in the West (UK aid cut pressures Uganda, BBC News, 29, April 2005; Aid: Govt blasts UK, The Monitor, 30, April 2005; and Britain blocks aid to Uganda, The Monitor, 29, April 2005). If there were a lack for where to spend this referendum money, 1.8 million of our citizen are internally displaced in concentration camps in northern Uganda. For their survival, the IDPs depend entirely on international humanitarian charities for their basic and daily needs (80% of IDPs are Women, Children, The Monitor, 19, April 2005; Encampment is NRM, LRA 11th point programme, commandment, The Monitor, 03, April 2005; A Uniquely Savage War, The East African, 212 March, 2005; and Uganda: government fails to protect IDPs in the north, as international presence remains inadequate, Global IDP Database, February 2005).

As if these were not enough privation already, the only relationship the people in these horrendous camps have with their state and government, is through the army and paramilitary groups that enforce curfew and law and order in and around the camps. Writing in the Monitor, Adam Branch came to the conclusion that " Indeed, the government-led counterinsurgency has been vicious: the displaced people's camps themselves were created through a government campaign of displacement, including bombing and burning down entire villages. Those in the camps cannot leave because the UPDF kills any civilian found outside them (International Justice, local injustice: The international Criminal Court in northern Uganda, Monitor, 10 March 2005). This early observation has lately been validated by a rush of extra-judicial killings outside IDP camps. Around here, the UPDF and militia operate on a shoot-on-sight mode. The logic and operational strictures are that, outside the gates and perimeters of the camps is already counter-insurgency operation zones. Consequently, IDPs are shot and killed for as little as venture outside the perimeters of the camps to forage for wild plants, fruits, leaves and cassava in their abandoned fields; a compelling necessity to supplement the inadequate supplies doled out by the World Food Programme ( Army Kills 5 displaced Women, Radio Simba, 21, 2005; Army kills two women in Pader, The Monitor, 05 April, 2005; Who'll weep for the women of Mucwini?, The Monitor, 28, April 2005).

Within and without these camps, some IDPs are not registered with WFP-as if there is any criteria of impoverishment any one in Acholi -other than the NRM elite and gun runners-would fail to fulfill-. Despite this reality, the Ugandan Government has no relief or humanitarian programme of its own, let alone policy, to cater for the IDPs generally and those who have supposedly not been recognised by government and unregistered, and are therefore, ineligible for WFP assistance. Talking to a twenty-two year old Acholi woman in one of the camps, the East African notes that "The food she has been given is meant to last a month. But she says it will run out before the week ends. She looks after five orphaned children and has two of her own. Her grandparents share her hut as well." The writer further poignantly observes that " WFP alone stands between them and mass starvation" (A Uniquely Savage War, The East African, 21 March 2005; see also 80% of IDPs are Women, Children, The Monitor, 19 April, 2005; End This African Horror Story, The Washington Post, April 7, 2005; Uganda: government fails to protect IDPs in the north, as international presence inadequate, Global IDP Database, February 2005).

While this cauldron of human pain, neglect and suffering bubbles and boils over, our parliamentarians, particularly those from Acholi: Hon. Hilary Onek, Lamwo; Hon. Jacob Oulangyah, Omoro; Hon. Betty Akech, Women, Gulu; Hon. Santa Okot, Women, Pader; Hon. Jane Odwong, Women Kitgum, and Hon. Henry Okello Oryem, Chua, have chosen to wrap themselves in Cung labolo, and are busy humouring the emperor, by voting for the motion to rescind the parliamentary decision of last week, which had defeated the propositions for a referendum on political transition. Every Member of parliament who is supporting the referendum motion simply because Yoweri Museveni wants it passed, are complete sissies. Not only do they lack testicular fortitude, but they have lost their individuality, independence, ability to think rationally and make personal decisions for which they are accountable, and responsive to the needs and aspirations of their constituents. In essence, they have taken refuge in the death of their self and surrendered their responsibilities as conscious beings, to automated conformity to the whims of an autocratic executive, an abdication and dereliction of representative duty, which they lamely want us to believe is a mark of patriotism and loyalty to their country, Uganda (Fruits of the referendum, The Monitor, 1-7, May 2005; sycophancy stifles the democratisation process, The Monitor, 2o, February, 2005; MPs order Museveni: Declare us unopposed, we give you third term!, The Observer, 28 April, 2005).

Unlike their counterparts from peaceful and prosperous parts of Uganda, members of parliament from geopolitical greater northern Uganda, particularly Acholi, Lango and Teso, are simply mindless puppets to vote to squander thirty billion on a needless exercise, without a care and thought for the welfare of their electorate, and what impact thirty billion shillings could have on the lives of IDPs in their constituencies, who are hungry and sleepless under the open skies, and dying like flies from preventable causes. And all this bother and waste, when there is a more cost effective and efficient means of achieving the same goal-if indeed it is ritualistically necessary-through the country's legislature and district councils, which are populated, in theory, with people's representatives and therefore, the repository and embodiment of popular will and sovereignty.

Looked at more critically, however, it seems that the more nationalistic, liberal, tolerant and progressive Ugandans who yearn for an open, liberal and democratic society, are in a catch twenty-two or lose-lose situation, given the calibre, behaviour and mentality of our parliamentarians and district councillors and local leaders who don the NRM moniker (MPs order Museveni: Declare us unopposed, we give you third term!, The Monitor, 28 April 2005; MP Mao blasts former LRa rebels at Kaunda Grounds rally, The New Vision, April 24, 2005; Cancel 2006 polls-former LRA rebels, The New Vision, 21 April 2005; Movement trains 700 Pader Cadres, New Vision, 17, April 2005; Uganda: Torture Used to Deter Opposition, HRW, 29 March 2004; Regime of tyranny and torture back to haunt Uganda, The Telegraph, 19, April 2005; sycophancy Stifles the democratisation process, The Monitor 20, February, 2005; Fruits of the referendum, The Monitor, 1-7, May, 2005). Were we to go that route, as we seem to suggest in our frustrations, chairpersons of district councils would be summoned to Rwakitura and lectured by Museveni, while his tutorial assistant, Kakooza Mutale, listens in and takes notes on class participation by their pupils. At the end of the day, Kalangala Action Plan, the RDCs and their respective district security committees will swing into action and bully every councillor to fall in line, or else they are branded terrorists collaborators and locked away, or obscure and unsolved murder cases are resurrected and pinned on them. As for parliamentarians, it is even more hopeless.

One would think that it is alright for parliamentarians to horse-trade for a school here or a dispensary there or a bore- hole here for their constituencies. For northern MPs, may be lobbying for weekly food distribution for IDPs in northern Uganda or that a project in their constituency is inserted into the national budget in return for their votes. However, they are more preoccupied with self-serving personal aggrandisement. From imploring Yoweri Museveni, the NRM-O and KAP to guarantee that their seats would not be contested, to restraining their potential opponents from as much as shake hands with anyone in their constituencies, to an absurd demands for one hundred million shillings as political war chest, to fend off prospective challengers (MPs order Museveni: Declare us unopposed, we give you third term!, The Observer, 22, April 2005). If there were still any sceptics who doubted the rumours that this country had gone to the dogs, they need not question their sanity any longer, what they are seeing are indeed running dogs prancing their council halls and the labyrinths of their hallowed and august legislative assembly.

If we had a serious government, a serious parliament and a serious leaders and statesmen, the conflict in northern Uganda, the peace process and the plight and well being of IDPs in northern Uganda would be on top of any national agenda. For parliamentarians, particularly those from Acholi and Lango, to wrap themselves in cung labolo, vote for holding a referendum and spending thirty billion shillings for it, while more than one million of their voters sleep under open skies, have nothing to eat and depend on international charities, is not only misguided, but Tolstoyesquely absurd. It would appear that the only sane people in Uganda are members of the opposition, religious leaders, the independent print and electronic media and other organised civil society groups outside of the Movement. Ironically, Museveni and the Movement treat these strata of our society as the Lunatic in Tolstoy's Memoirs of a Lunatic. Contrarily, these are the only sane people in an absurd world. What voices that speak specifically to the callous and irresponsible behaviour of our legislators, the tragedy in northern Uganda and the need for a peaceful, negotiated settlement and a just peace, are detracted and drowned out by boisterous and insensitive rustlings of cung labolo for third term and politics as usual.

Writing on the doctrine of state-citizen fit, Immanuel Kant surmised that, when the interests and aspirations of the people are at variance with the interests of the state-and by extrapolation-or leader or representative and the policy platform and aspirations of the political party or organisation he or she stands for, it is necessary that the interest of the people must prevail and a new leadership and change sought in the interests of the people. In other words, the popular will and consent should be withdrawn and legitimacy denied. The caveat and corollary is that, the people must be free to choose and elect a representative who will articulate their interests, and a political vehicle, party or organisation whose policies are responsive to their needs and aspirations. As a civic citizen of Lamwo County, Kitgum District, Acholiland and Uganda, I am disaffected with my representation and it is my belief that Lamwo and Chua counties, together with all the Women's representations in Acholi, are ripe for just this kind of change. I should admit that, this may not wholly be fair for Hon. Jane Akwero Odwong, who has occasionally demonstrated some level of personal independence and occasionally acquitted herself well on why she is in parliament. The same may be true for Hon. Jacob Oulanyah, who continues to be dubious with scary streaks of self-serving opportunism and ideological eclecticism (See those who voted for the motion, The Monitor, 30, April 2005). They simply cannot seem to get their priorities right.

If they are real leaders and representatives of their people and they understand the problems of their constituents, I challenge them as NRM proponents to rise up in parliament or at NRM caucus meetings and impress upon their leader and party to seek a cheaper means to the referendum and channel that money to improve the lives of their constituents who go hungry, have no medical services, exposed to the elements, impoverished and their children uneducated and destitute (80% of IDPS are Women, Children, The Monitor, 19, April 2005; A Uniquely Savage War, The East African, 21 March 2005; Uganda: government fails to protect IDPs in the north, as international presence remains inadequate, Global IDP Database, February 2005). On the other hand, if they like the status quo as some of them certainly do, they should go to camps in Pabo, Amida, Padibe, Agoro, Madi Opei, Palabek, Lukung and Mucwini, and declare to their constituents that as their leaders, they are very pleased to see how well fed, clothed, healthy, safe and secure and prosperous the IDPs are (See Who'll weep for the women of Mucwini?, The Observer, 28 April, 2005; Army kills two women in Pader, The Monitor, 05, April 2005; Govt probes UPDF gang rape, New Vision, April 22, 2005; Uganda: Govt soldiers Charged with Rape of IDPs, UN IRIN, 22 April 2005; Army Kills 5 displaced women, Radio Simba, 21 April 2005; UPDF Rapists show creeping problems, The Monitor 22 April 2005). And for good measure, they may want to add that, these are the enviable fruits of economic prosperity and peace that the NRM and its successor, the NRM-O has brought, and that, the glittering townships they IDPs inhabit, which opposition politicians-who are all invariably rebel collaborators-euphemistically and enviously call concentration camps, are their dividends from this unparalleled national progress!

The other crucial area of national policy issue is on the conflict and the peace process. There is no doubt that there must be peace and it cannot wait a day longer. However, there are many ways and means and processes of bringing peace, and not all can be equally suitable. In our case, any more military component should be unacceptable, because it is still Acholi that continue to bear the heavy burdens of this war. This is because Acholi youths -government militia-arrayed against abducted Acholi youths-LRA combatants. The end result is that, it is Acholi civilians, abducted Acholi children, and deprived and strategically impoverished and subtly coerced Acholi children who join the government militia who are dying. This scenario has gone on for far too long, and it is high time we called the bluff on this callous, immoral, calculative and skewed national security policy. Therefore, while we desire peace and must work for it, the military component as advocated by some self-serving pundits or those without victim experiences of this tragedy must be eschewed in the interest of the Acholi people (Peace Prospects in the north are brighter, The Monitor, April 24, 2005; Broad Array of Options Needed for Peace in Northern Uganda, US Department of State, (Washington, DC), News, 21 April 2005; President rules out ceasefire, New Vision, 19, April 2005; Shock therapy for peace process in the north, International Crisis Group, April 11, 2005; US should change policy on military help to Uganda, New Vision 07, April 2005).

Furthermore, the process design for peace as it stands under the Betty Bigombe_NUPI framework, is unworkable and not designed for dialogue, but as mere delivery mechanism for Museveni's ultimatum and terms of surrender on a belligerent party over whom they do not have full control or have not completely subdued militarily. In the event of a stand-off, as does exist today, it is the non-combatants who continue to suffer. Even if widespread killings have subsided, the security situation remains fluid and conditions in the camps deplorable. If the Bigombe-NUPI peace process had the welfare and human security of and peace for the non-combatant population as their overriding goals, rather than the peace and security for men under arms, and the pride and ego of an insensitive and incompetent government, they would have insisted on extracting from both the government and the LRA, agreements and undertaking that puts the safety and security of civilians ahead of all other considerations. Such agreement should have involved prodding and leading the parties to agree to total cessation of hostilities over the entire northern Uganda, and sign on a general and permanent ceasefire to that effect, as a first, necessary and important step on the way forward in the peace process. This condition would have had to be fulfilled, as a demonstration of LRA and GOU willingness to come to the table in good faith and commit to ending the human tragedy in Acholiland without any further human costs, on a calibrated , graduating and ascending framework to drive the process forward to the next level. It would have had to be made clear to the belligerents that, failure to execute and respect this undertaking, would trigger immediate response from the international community to invoke appropriate measures and robust and potent actions sanctioned by international humanitarian law, to protect the non-combatants and IDPs. Once it were independently verified that the parties had complied with such condition, a simultaneous but gradual process of dismantling the IDP camps would commence, and continue concurrent with the negotiations, without having to wait for final agreements before people begin rebuilding their shattered lives and communities.

Much as the Acholi population have suffered, I think they should not fall for just anything, which has peace as its last name, even if it might offer some short term solution. We should reject tentative and half measures. Our people are desperate, but let their desperation not force us to desperate measures or short term solutions that fall far too short of realistic expectations. Acholi needs to define the kind of peace it wants and expects. We must reject a peace process and outcome that promotes impunity and deploys perpetrators of atrocities in Acholi, to continue their terror and brigandage by other subtle means, upon the hapless population and conscientious Acholi leaders who have not lost their individuality and independence to speak their minds and stand up for their oppressed constituents. In a normal world, Kenneth Banya, Sam Kolo and their likes should not be roaming Acholi as free men, and if they should be out and about, every breath they draw must be punctuated by prostration and profuse apology at the foot of every non-combatant Acholi they chance upon. However, we are in an absurd world, that only Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy or Kafka could have contrived. That is why, Banya and Kolo are today the most privileged and secure people in Acholi, moreover, thanks to the ingenuity of the Betty Bigombe peace talks, they get to keep as wives, our children they abducted, raped and brutalised. Speaking of Kenneth Banya, a BBC correspondent had this to say: "The former rebel leader is now a guest at Gulu's smartest hotel, the Acholi Inn, where he enjoys VIP treatment, rubbing shoulders with officers from the Ugandan People's Defence Force and local politicians" (Uganda torn over the price of peace: seven days: a countdown to killings, BBC Radio 4, 31 March, 2005). And this, with complete acknowledgement and support from local NRM honchos in Acholi, who are traversing Acholi with former rebels - and God forbid!-campaigning for third term for Museveni, at the same time demonising Acholi leaders who are unsympathetic to the NRM cause, for reasons that needs no further simplification (Hefty LRA Surrender Packages tolerable but....The Monitor, 20 February, 2005; Cancel 2006 polls-former rebels, The New Vision, April 21 2005; Acholi Leaders scapegoat for failure to end northern war, New Vision, 24 April 2005).

Finally, another national policy issue related to the conflict and demands clarity and leadership, is the ICC indictment and investigation of the LRA. If we are leaders in Acholi or Uganda, and we are serious about peace with equitable justice for northern Uganda, we should be campaigning for the UN Security Council to institute a Special Tribunal for Northern Uganda-to carry out comprehensive investigations of all the parties to the conflict-, rather than denounce the ICC indictments and investigations as hindrances to a peaceful settlement and justice for northern Uganda, or uphold that it in itself will adequately address the enormity and magnitude of the crimes committed in northern Uganda. Speaking to a CNN correspondent, Bryn Higgs, Uganda Program Development Officer for Conciliation Resources, declared tha the "ICC has committed a terrible blunder. To start war crimes investigations for the sake of justice at a time when northern Uganda sees the most promising signs for a negotiated settlement of the violence risks having in the end neither justice nor peace delivered." Talking to the same reporter, Gemma Houldey, Programme Officer for Christian Aid in Uganda, pursued the same defective logic. That "There are many rebels coming out and at the moment, we even have rebel commanders coming out of the bush. So for ICC to come in at this moment is not seen as a positive development. And even President Museweni has backed away from the investigations acknowledging that there are alternatives." (ICC under fire over Uganda probe, CNN, 23 February 2005).

I for one, am supportive of the moral principle of the ICC indictment; the crimes committed in northern Uganda are despicable and the perpetrators must be punished. Although I am at the same time opposed to the limitations of the ICC indictment and investigations and its operationalisatuion. My opposition to the ICC indictment and investigations is not because it interferes with the meaningless Betty Bigombe and NUPI public relations for the Ugandan dictatorship; or that it delays justice for northern Uganda, nor that Mato Oput is efficacious; but rather that the ICC indictments and investigations are too limited, too little, too late, and too inadequate to do justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by all belligerents since 1986. Therefore, the way forward is through a Special Tribunal for Northern Uganda, similar to that of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda and Yugoslavia. But not a peace process and policy that not only liberates, but rewards those who perpetrated the crimes, while at the same time maintaining and enhancing their power and authority over their former victims, who continue to suffer neglect, insecurity and destitution. In effect, putting foxes in charge of chickens!