Connect with us

Op-Eds

The Economic Logic of Regime Change: Venezuela Today. Uganda Tomorrow?

9 min read.

The US is supervising a coup in Venezuela. The pretext: Nicholas Maduro’s brutality, the state’s record of widespread human rights abuses, does not wash. In August 2018, appeals for similar US intervention when Museveni brutally suppressed the youth uprising led by Bobi Wine and his colleagues, were rebuffed. In Zimbabwe, the Mnangagwa government turns on anti-austerity protestors with impunity. Why the double-standards triply-distilled? It’s all about debt, the old Washington Consensus, and the incumbent Big Man’s ability to suppress his people’s right to economic self-determination. By MARY SERUMAGA.

Published

on

The Economic Logic of Regime Change: Venezuela Today. Uganda Tomorrow?
Download PDFPrint Article

The American engineered regime-change taking place in Venezuela should be of interest to Africa and especially those countries which like Venezuela have experienced sporadic episodes of social unrest over a protracted period. President Maduro, like Presidents Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe and Museveni of Uganda has responded with wanton brutality. The actions of all three countries featured in in-depth reports by Human Rights Watch in 2017 alone. Maduro is the only one of the three so far who has attracted the ultimate sanction of regime change.

The Ugandan regime, hopelessly in debt and facing growing disaffection, is vulnerable to a take-over similar to Maduro’s. So strong is the disaffection and so likely are the youth to succeed in displacing the National Resistance Movement in a fair election, the United States cannot afford to be complacent if it wants to maintain the status quo. The only potential barrier to a second phase of structural adjustment (SAP II) is the fact that support for the new and most popular opposition leader, Robert Kyagulanyi aka Bobi Wine, is rooted in the most excluded and disaffected and not the elite who would benefit from the continuation of the status quo.

Going back to 20th-century history, Africa and Latin America formed part of the Tripartite set up in the sixties to represent the global interests of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The high point was the 1966 Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The bloc expanded the then existing alliance known in the United Nations as the Afro-Asian Bloc and solidified at the Bandung Conference of 1955. The bloc was considered a threat by the United States and Europe as it voted against American interests on matters such as allowing Communist China to sit in the General Assembly. The Afro-Asian bloc enjoyed at least the nominal support of the Soviet Union (the depth of that support was tested by the Congo crisis during which the Soviet Union did not in the end support Patrice Lumumba who was assassinated before the colonialisation of Congo resumed unabated).

In the following years, much of Latin Africa signed on for their first phase of IMF development assistance. The results of the austerity that followed have been much written about, and culminated in the ‘IMF riots’ of the 1980s and 90s. Recent austerity protests in Zimbabwe continue this trend. Enter Hugo Chavez and his socialist intervention. President Maduro’s mentor gained popular support from the poorest and most marginalised for his anti-imperialist platform, enough even to recover from being deposed in an earlier American coup d’état in 2002. As Craig Murray put it, “Hugo Chavez’ revolutionary politics were founded on two very simple tenets:

  • People ought not to be starving in dreadful slums in the world’s most oil-rich state
  • The CIA ought not to control Venezuela”

Murray was referring to the twelve Latin American coups organized by the CIA between 1954 and 2019. Neither Chavez nor Maduro were able to rise above corruption and autocracy. Neither has President Trump, but unlike Donald Trump’s America, Venezuela needs outside financial support.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union left African countries in the lurch, still in need of access to capital for development, under pressure to continue to supply primary commodities and yet no longer able to play one superpower off against the other. In addition, the 1980s debt crisis forced most of them to sign onto the IMF’s structural adjustment programme. Austerity-induced social unrest is the enduring result. Uprisings in all three, that is Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Uganda, are a response to extreme and worsening economic conditions of high unemployment, hunger and rising taxes. Endemic corruption and economic sanctions only worsened the situation (and were designed to do so) in Zimbabwe. There are no examples anywhere of the success of structural adjustment in achieving its stated goals of deeper democracy, greater rule of law, higher respect for human rights, good governance, civil service reform, improved service delivery, an enabling environment for FDI and a rising, prosperous middle class. On the contrary there are only examples of countries having to receive further assistance to achieve the unattained goals of the first phase of IMF and World Bank intervention, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Kenya being a few.

There are no examples anywhere of the success of structural adjustment in achieving its stated goals…

Structural Adjustment did achieve the objective of liberalising economies. This ensured Western access to cheap primary commodities not otherwise available to major IMF shareholders. The removal of restrictions on exporting capital has meant foreign investors whose role was meant to inject capital into assisted economies, can now freely transfer profits illicitly earned. It is an indisputable fact that there is a net outflow of capital from Africa of $41 billion every year – that is, the difference between loans, grants and FDI received and the cost of tax evasion, repatriation of aid, environmental damage, land-grabs and other features of the SAPs.

The IMF as an organization ensured its own profitability by locking borrowing countries into unsustainable debt.

When in Uganda political dissent was met by a massive and sustained wave of brutality by the state, in August 2018 Ugandans called on the United States to intervene by withdrawing their material, diplomatic and moral support from President Museveni. Uganda’s constitution like Venezuela’s provides for the removal of the president on various grounds of incapacity. The United States did not invoke the article against Museveni as they have done against Maduro.

The IMF as an organization ensured its own profitability by locking borrowing countries into unsustainable debt.

Washington did the opposite, effectively endorsing the NRM regime by placing the responsibility for the crisis on the opposition, and pressuring on its leadership to reach an agreement with what is ranked as East Africa’s second most corrupt government. They have been assisted in creating a façade of legitimacy for Museveni by organisations such as Transparency International whose global leader handed him an award for his ‘fight against corruption’ in 2018 – in the same week that he was being cited in a New York court for having taken a $500,000 bribe.

This unstinting support is useful in maintaining the economic status quo. Ironically, it is Museveni’s rash behaviour that is tipping the balance in favour of regime change. The United States has turned to Kenya for some of its security needs, transferring a lucrative military base from Entebbe to Kenya.

Washington has been assisted in creating a façade of legitimacy for Museveni by organisations such as Transparency International whose global leader handed him an award for his ‘fight against corruption’ in 2018 – in the same week that he was being cited in a New York court for having taken a $500,000 bribe.

In the first phase of the state’s brutality against its citizens, the regime allows the drama to be broadcast. This has the important function of instilling fear in the population. It is a signal to the world of the regime’s impunity. Later on, rumours circulate of house-to-house invasions by the armed forces in which young people are dragged out of their homes and beaten, ostensibly for supporting the uprisings.

Leaders of both countries have resorted to unconstitutional means to acquire and maintain power. There was the bloodless coup in Zimbabwe during which the uncooperative and China-embracing Robert Mugabe was ousted. President Museveni simply altered the constitution to allow him first to exceed the two-term limit to the presidency and later, the age-limit. Members of parliament were paid to support both constitutional amendments.

In the first phase of the state’s brutality against its citizens, the regime allows the drama to be broadcast. This has the important function of instilling fear… It is a signal to the world of the regime’s impunity.

This brings us to the reasons the United States, backed by the EU, is intervening in Venezuela – why it can justify its intervention of breaches of democratic principles in Venezuela but continue to support Museveni whose method of governance is similar. Officially it is to end President Maduro’s undeniably repressive rule and to prevent him from (further) embezzling and squandering Venezuela’s resources. There is little point in arguing a defense of President Maduro. However, the fact remains that his removal can only be sanctioned by a ruling of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice that the required constitutional ground/s have been met. There was no such ruling before Guaidò declared himself president. So much for the rule of law.

The answer is that Museveni’s continued domination of Uganda until recently met the economic objectives (often cast as security prerogatives) of the United States and Europe, the IMF and the World Bank. However, he is now struggling to remain relevant in global financial circles. The groundswell of opposition to NRM rule renders the enabling environment for extraction and extortion so risky as to be a bad investment. Should the opposition succeed in ousting Museveni and his cabal, there would be no guarantee the IMF’s regime would survive the transition.

In Venezuela’s case, Guaidò is already committed to the IMF and Western goals. His economic advisor, Ricardo Hausmann has been a political exile in the United States for years and has been in talks with the IMF. In January 2019 he made some of his proposals known. Although he has warned that an immediate resumption of debt servicing would not be possible, Hausmann does not call for a debt audit to determine whether lenders were duly diligent in lending to past regimes that he opposed on the basis of their alleged corruption, or whether the proceeds of the loans were injected in to the economy.

In Venezuela’s case, Guaidò is already committed to the IMF and Western goals. His economic advisor, Ricardo Hausmann…has been in talks with the IMF.

“For Hausmann, the key to any turnaround is a swift and massive injection of cash from the International Monetary Fund – to the tune of $60 billion or more.”

“Venezuela is the most over-indebted [sic] countr[ies] in the galaxy,” Hausmann said. “First, second and third priorities have to be the recovery of the country. There’s a humanitarian disaster. There are millions of Venezuelans flooding into other countries. If you want to fix the problem, you can’t take money out of the system to pay yourself back. It will take years to start servicing debt.” (Ben Bartenstein, Bloomberg January 30, 2019)

He does not say that illegal, unsustainable, illegitimate or odious debt should not be paid but merely proposes rolling payments over to a later date. If Venezuela agrees, she will become the new darling of the West.

In return Guaidò has received support unprecedented for a foreign opposition leader. On 24th January, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and the Treasury Department announced sanctions against any persons that continue to do business in Venezuela’s oil industry; on January 25th John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security Advisor announced US intention to shift oil production in Venezuela to American companies. Ambassador John Bolton tweeted, “The United States will not let Maduro and his cronies continue to loot the assets of the Venezuelan people.” And finally, the rule of law in Venezuela was further flouted on 29 January when the United States sequestered Venezuelan bank accounts held there or insured by them, and put them at Guaidò’s disposal.

On his part, President Mnangagwa signed up weeks after ousting Mugabe. He will enjoy continued support as long as he too remains committed to repaying Zimbabwe’s unsustainable debt. His problem is he is simply unable to implement structural adjustment austerity and obtain a new package of concessional loans. The reason being that although Zimbabwe’s outstanding dues to the IMF were paid in 2016, there are unpaid arrears to the World Bank, the African Development Bank and other international financial institutions and development partners. The rules require that these be paid before any further lending can be considered. As their spokesperson pointed out, the IMF “stands ready to help the authorities design a reform package that can help facilitate the clearance of external payment arrears to international development banks and bilateral official creditors and that then would open the way for fresh financing from the internal community including potentially the IMF. But, again, just to stress as we said before, potential financial support from the Fund is conditional on the clearance of those arrears to the World Bank, the AFDB and financing assurances from bilateral official creditors (emphasis mine).”

On his part, President Mnangagwa signed up weeks after ousting Mugabe. He will enjoy continued support as long as he too remains committed to repaying Zimbabwe’s unsustainable debt.

Clearance of those arrears which amount to just over US$5 billion would mean austerity even beyond the conditions Zimbabweans’ experiences today. This outcome is not acceptable either to opposition politicians or the general population. In 2017 when the government tried to arrange financing to clear the arrears, opposition politician Tendai Biti stated: “That will not help much or anything at all in reality. The biggest challenges facing Zimbabwe cannot and will not be addressed by paying off arrears on which we defaulted almost 20 years ago; what really needs to be addressed are structural economic issues, de-industrialisation and unemployment. That money could be better used to fund industry revival to create jobs and boost production, as well as increase exports and improve liquidity.”

Although Uganda has a track record of cooperation with Western financial institutions, it has reached a tipping point. The auditor-general points out that…in 2020, total debt repayment will require 65 percent of all revenues collected.

Similarly, although Uganda has a track record of cooperation with Western financial institutions, it has reached a tipping point. The auditor-general points out that when the principle for some loans becomes repayable in 2020, total debt repayment will require 65 percent of all revenues collected. Mass demonstrations against austerity are likely to escalate. By December 2018 the IMF had made it clear that no new concessional loans were forthcoming until certain steps are taken to rein in overspending, restore fiscal discipline and control corruption. SAP II requires the suspension of infrastructure projects financed by non- or partially concessional loans (mainly from China). Although Kenya agreed to this condition to its own SAP II package in 2018, Uganda still hopes to find alternative funding for the projects. It is unlikely to be found because the IMF works in tandem with bi-lateral lenders – acting as a debt collector for them, even in cases such as Mozambique where funds were borrowed illegally (without parliamentary approval) and subsequently stolen.

If support is withdrawn from either Museveni or Mnangagwa it will not be as punishment for their human rights abuses. It will be because their development partners calculate that their own objectives would be better achieved through alternative proxies.

If support is withdrawn from either Museveni or Mnangagwa it will not be as punishment for their abuses of human rights and democratic principles and public demand that they depart. It will be because their development partners calculate that their own objectives would be better achieved through alternative proxies. The United States and her acolytes will back any candidate that will agree to their terms. Self-proclaimed president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidò is a clear example of that.

Avatar
By

Mary Serumaga is a Ugandan essayist, graduated in Law from King's College, London, and attained an Msc in Intelligent Management Systems from the Southbank. Her work in civil service reform in East Africa lead to an interest in the nature of public service in Africa and the political influences under which it is delivered.

Op-Eds

What Is Trump’s Only Redemption? That He’s an Utter Coward

There is an element to Trump that is almost tragic if he were not such a buffoon. What happens if the next Trump is just mad and brave enough to really commit and go all the way?

Published

on

What Is Trump’s Only Redemption? That He’s an Utter Coward
Download PDFPrint Article

Consider something for a second: how severe could things have gotten, both in America and globally, if Trump weren’t an utter coward?

I can already hear the murmurs of dissent: “How can he be a coward? Trump just tried to overthrow the US government on live television!” Yes, that is entirely true — and yet he didn’t. The entire tenure of his administration seems to have been a series of near misses; flirting with dangerous ideas and flitting back under the umbrella of normalcy just before the precipice. Every disaster that he helped to foist on the world could have been exponentially worse — if only he had been as committed to being the strongman he always boasted to be.

He isn’t. He’s a little daddy’s boy, a frightened man-child who doesn’t have the courage to follow through on the bull he himself spouts in front of adoring supporters. He’s an entitled, rich, spoilt moron and always has been. For all the bluster, when the chips are down, he’s quick to back off. Remember that boastful kid in primary school who was probably dropped off in his family’s C-Class Mercedes and looked down on everyone within insulting distance? He’d puff himself up and spit on others, until one day someone slapped the hell out of him. Upon getting struck, and family power no longer mattering, it became apparent that he didn’t even know how to throw a punch. That’s Trump in a nutshell. But Trump was also the gleeful little sociopath who led the charge in starting a fire only to have it pointed out there could be consequences without Daddy around. Learning of possible repercussions, he was the type to throw others quickly under the bus and backtrack from his own fomented chaos.

To be clear, in the last year especially, Trump absolutely could have gone horrifyingly further than he did. Could you imagine if Trump, the wannabe little dictator that he is, had the convictions (terrible though they are) of a Museveni or an Uhuru? It was within his power to do so, but he kept pulling back. Take for instance the Black Lives Matter movement across the United States in the summer of 2020. Yes, there was horrible police violence, clashes amongst protesters, chaos and destitution. In the midst of all of those charred buildings and the all-pervasive sense of loss in Minneapolis (the city where George Floyd was executed by police), I had a feeling I could not quite shake off as masked marchers swarmed in the streets around me: couldn’t this have been so much worse? To be clear, there absolutely could have been martial law declared but all those Trumpian threats of militarising entire cities never fully materialised beyond a handful of arrests by unidentified officers of questionable loyalties.

Sure, all these things are a horror and an affront to “Western society”. We get it. But all things are relative in politics so imagine if Uhuru had been in Trump’s shoes. Kagame calling the shots. Museveni. What would have happened? Experience tells me that those ugly bruises and lost eyes from rubber bullets would have needed body bags; the amount of live ammunition used would have been innumerable, and the scale of the tragedy would have been of unheard of proportions. Ask a Kenyan university student how their protests tend to wind up; talk to a random Kampala youth about how things shook out a couple weeks after the presidential election. If you can manage to find one, talk to an opposition leader in Rwanda. If there are any brave enough to filter back into Burundi, ask anyone involved in the coup attempt against Nkurunziza a few years back. The point here isn’t to give undue credit to tyrants, but merely to point out that things can always be drastically worse.

What happened in November of 2020 in Kampala? Protests at the arrest of Bobi Wine were met with such utter brutality it was incredible that anyone would dare stick their head out. Officially 54 people were killed but there are claims that the real death toll is in fact far higher. Take the days after the Kenyan re-election of Uhuru Kenyatta back in 2017, when there seemed to be a sort of suspension of what was to come next as the election drama unfolded and the cops came down hard on Kawangware and Kibera. That’s what being a totalitarian looks like. It is cops firing on crowds, social media shutdowns and mass power cuts. Looking back years from now, the reality will prevail that Trump could easily have gone there but didn’t.

That is the essence of Trump, absolutely having the power to be a world-class dictator, but lacking the organisational skills, intelligence, or conviction to jump in all the way. He always dips his toe in at the deep end, but never dives. The waters of reality are always a bit too cold for him, the soup just a bit too hot for his liking. His legacy will be one of having half-assed it in all aspects of his administration, from fascism to COVID-19 vaccine rollouts. I don’t think that it is any real stretch to look at him and state plainly that he’s just too cowardly to really accomplish anything that he aspires to. While Sevo cranks out press-ups on state television, Trump has spent his time cranking out tweets in between bites of “quarter-pounder” cheeseburgers from the comfort of his own bed.

Of course, the Western media will not countenance such comparisons, let alone acknowledge how much worse the situation could have easily become at the US Capitol last January 6th. For the American media, this is (rightly) a major blow to US democracy, but (wrongly) the single worst thing that could have happened. For instance, what if just two more of the thousands of protesters had discharged the firearms they were carrying inside that crowded Capitol Building? What if the pipe bombs planted near the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee buildings had exploded? What if the mob had wedged its way into the chambers of the Senate and the House quickly enough to get their hands on members of congress? And what if Trump himself had not backed off and sent out a tepid message to his supporters at the 11th hour?

Think about this: in coup d’état terms, the Trump mob had pulled it off. They had taken the single most important government building in the US and had done so quite easily. Their flags were draped from balconies and their cronies were climbing the ramparts to continue streaming through the doors. They took the seat of government and, for a brief period during the process of transitioning power, successfully interrupted the proceedings and forced all the democratically elected members of congress to scurry into the labyrinth of subterranean tunnels below the Capitol Building to save their very lives. That is a coup. A successful one at that. For one committed to following through on his calls to overthrow the government, this would be a crowning achievement.

Picture this: if three years ago Raila Odinga had called on his supporters to storm State House, and they had successfully done so while Uhuru’s re-election  was being certified, forcing members of parliament to flee in their government-issue Prados, what would that be called? I know what the Western media would have said about it, that it is another sad story of a developing country in Africa that just could not get over the hump of real democracy. There probably would have been some backroom deals with international powers, and an intervention from all those British troops that hold the base up on Mount Kenya may not have been entirely out of the question. Perhaps Raila is the most eloquent example as he does have a bit of a track record of stirring up his supporters after controversial elections then backing down “for the sake of the country” after chaos has already erupted.

The coup was complete but Trump pulled out of it quicker than from his marriage to a wife turning 40. Why? Could it be that it is only when his advisors managed to get his ear during cable news commercial breaks that he realised that he might drown in the madness? I for one certainly think so. When he realised that there would be consequences for his little civil war charade, Trump felt what he always feels — fear. Trump didn’t realise there could be ramifications for what he was doing until someone (not named Mike Pence) put the fear deep into him. He backed off, and American democracy continues shakily on into an uncertain future

Now there actually might be consequences — legal ones at that. Banks are cutting ties and media partnerships are being snuffed out in rapid succession. Some Republicans are now actively jumping ship, others have deflected blame or finally acknowledged that there is a central symptom to the American political condition. It is too little, too late of course, and the task of getting Americans locked in a tribal political death embrace to try not to strangle each other is now firmly in the hands of centrist Democrats who may not actually follow through on the massive economic recovery needed for the citizens of the US to survive the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic disaster. Is the US still the preeminent superpower as the Trump administration takes the exit? Yes, unfortunately it is. Imperialism is still alive and well, and frankly could have weighed way more heavily on the global community over the last four years.

A lingering question remains, one that hangs like a suspended piano over the heads of the Democratic establishment: what or who will come along next? It is obvious that the cat has been let out of the dark ethers of conservatism for a while now; just how much has that cohort been emboldened? It is a question that I have asked before, but now as flags were draped on the smoldering fences that were brought down around the US Capitol, the core of the issue remains; what happens if the next Trump is just mad and brave enough to really commit and go all the way? There is an element to Trump that is almost tragic if he were not such a showman; he evoked something amongst a huge swath of the public consciousness, only for it to prove illusory for Trump never understood what he had within his grasp in the first place.

Whoever comes next might just push the boundaries further out, might commit to striking Iran, take concentration camps for immigrants to a greater extreme, declare martial law and put armed troops in the streets with a standing “shoot to kill” order. Someone who might take measures to outlaw efforts to combat global warming and do all of this without batting an eyelid or seeing any reason to back down. The part of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic wasn’t what was visible, but the larger mass just below the surface and out of sight. To put it bluntly, next time the United States might not be pulled back from the brink by cowardice.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Published

on

What Kenyans Have Always Wanted is to Limit the Powers of the Executive
Download PDFPrint Article

The tyranny of numbers, a phrase first applied to Kenyan politics by one of Kenya’s most well-known political commentators, Mutahi Ngunyi, was repeated ad nauseum during the week of waiting that followed Kenya’s 2013 general elections.

In ads published in the run-up to the 2013 elections by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), people were told to vote, go home and accept the results. Encouraged by a state that had since the 2007 post-electoral violence dominated public discourse and means of coercion, the military pitched camp in polling stations. Many streets in Kenya’s cities and towns remained deserted for days after the polls closed.

According to Ngunyi, the winner of the 2013 elections had been known four months earlier, that is, when the electoral commission stopped registering voters.

In a country whose politics feature a dominant discourse that links political party and ethnicity, the outcome of voter registration that year meant that the Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto-led coalition, the Jubilee Alliance, would start the electoral contest with 47 per cent of the vote assured. With these statistics, their ticket appeared almost impossible to beat. For ethnic constituencies that did not eventually vote for Uhuru Kenyatta – the Jubilee Alliance presidential candidate in 2013 – a sense of hopelessness was widespread.

For them, a bureaucratic, professionalised, dispassionate (even boring) discourse became the main underpinning of the 2013 elections.

This was not the case in 2017.

Uhuru Kenyatta, pressured by opposition protests and a Supreme Court ruling that challenged his victory and ordered a re-run, met with Raila Odinga – his challenger for the presidency in the 2013 and 2017 elections – and offered a settlement. It became known as the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI).

In his 2020 Jamhuri Day speech, Uhuru reiterated that the purpose of the BBI process is to abolish the winner-takes-all system by expanding the executive branch of government.

As he explained it, the challenge to Kenya’s politics is the politicisation of ethnicity coupled with a lack of the requisite number of political offices within the executive branch that would satisfy all ethnic constituencies – Kenya has 42 enumerated ethnic groups.

The revised BBI report that was released on 21 October 2020 (the first was published in November 2019) has now retained the position of president, who, if the recommendations are voted for in a referendum, will also get to appoint a prime minister, two deputy prime ministers and a cabinet.

Amid heckles and jeers during the launch of the revised BBI report, Deputy President William Ruto asked whether the establishment of the positions of prime minister and two deputy prime ministers would create the much sought-after inclusivity. In his Jamhuri Day speech, the president conceded that they wouldn’t, but that the BBI-proposed position of Leader of Official Opposition – with a shadow cabinet, technical support and a budget – would mean that the loser of the presidential election would still have a role to play in governance.

One could not help but think that the president’s statement was informed by the fact that Odinga lost to him in both the 2013 and 2017 presidential elections –  this despite Odinga’s considerable political influence over vast areas of the country.

The 2010 constitution’s pure presidential system doesn’t anticipate any formal political role for the loser(s) of a presidential election. Raila held no public office between 2013 and 2017, when he lost to Uhuru. This did not help to address the perception amongst his supporters that they had been excluded from the political process for many years. In fact, Raila’s party had won more gubernatorial posts across the country’s 47 counties than the ruling Jubilee Alliance had during the 2013 elections.

While Raila’s attempts to remain politically relevant in the five years between 2013 and 2017 were largely ignored by Uhuru, the resistance against Uhuru’s victory in 2017 wasn’t.

The anger felt by Raila’s supporters in 2017 following the announcement that Uhuru had won the elections – again – could not be separated from the deeply-entrenched feelings of exclusion and marginalisation that were at the centre of the violence that followed the protracted and disputed elections.

The reading of Kenyan politics that is currently being rendered by the BBI process is that all ethnic constituencies must feel that they (essentially, their co-ethnic leaders) are playing a role in what is an otherwise overly centralised, executive-bureaucratic state. This is despite the fact that previous attempts to limit the powers of the executive branch by spreading them across other levels of government have often invited a backlash from the political class.

Kenya’s independence constitution had provided for a Westminster-style, parliamentary system of government, and took power and significant functions of government away from the centralised government in Nairobi, placing significant responsibility (over land, security and education, for instance) in the hands of eight regional governments of equal status known in Swahili as majimbo. The majimbo system was abolished and, between 1964 to 1992, the government was headed by an executive president and the constitution amended over twenty times – largely empowering the executive branch at the expense of parliament and the judiciary. The powers of the president were exercised for the benefit of the president’s cronies and co-ethnics.

By 2010 there was not a meaningful decentralised system of government. The executive, and the presidency at its head, continued to survive attempts at limiting their powers. This has continued since 2010.

As Kenya’s political class considers expanding the executive branch of government, no one seems to be talking about restricting its powers.

Beyond the minimum of 35 per cent of national revenue that the BBI report proposes should be allocated to county governments, it is less clear whether the country’s leaders are prepared to decentralise significant powers and resources away from the executive, and away from Nairobi.

Perhaps the real solution to the challenges of governance the BBI process purports to address is to follow the prescriptions of the defunct Yash Pal Ghai team – it went around the country collecting views for constitutional change in 2003-2004.

According to a paper written by Ghai himself, the Ghai-led Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) had no doubt that, consistent with the goals of the review and the people’s views, there had to be a transfer of very substantial powers and functions of government to local levels.

The CKRC noted – much like Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga now have – that the centralised presidential system tends to ethnicise politics, which threatens national unity.

Kenyans told the CKRC that decisions were made at places far away from them; that their problems arose from government policies over which they had no control; that they wanted greater control over their own destiny and to be free to determine their lifestyle choices and their affairs; and not to be told that they are not patriotic enough!

Yes, the BBI report has proposed that 5 per cent of county revenue be allocated to Members of County Assemblies for a newly-created Ward Development Fund, and that businesses set up by young Kenyans be exempted from taxation for the first seven years of operation. However, this doesn’t amount to any meaningful surrender of power and resources by the executive.

In emphasising the importance of exercising control at the local level, Kenyans told the CKRC that they wanted more communal forms of organisation and a replacement of the infamous Administration Police with a form of community policing. They considered that more powers and resources at the local level would give them greater influence over their parliamentary and local representatives, including greater control over jobs, land and land-based resources.  In short, Kenyans have always yearned for a dispersion of power away from the presidency, and away from the executive and Nairobi. They have asked for the placing of responsibility for public affairs in the hands of additional and more localised levels of government.

This is what would perhaps create the much sought-after inclusivity.

But as the BBI debate rages on, the attention of the political class is now on the proposed new positions within the executive branch. And as the debate becomes inexorably linked to the 2022 Kenyatta-succession race, questions centring on political positions will likely become personalised, especially after the political class cobbles together coalitions to contest the 2022 general elections.

Meanwhile, ordinary Kenyans will be left battling the aftermath of a pandemic, and having to deal with the usual stresses brought on by a political class seeking their votes for another round of five years of exclusion.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Continue Reading

Op-Eds

Uganda: Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others

The coming election in Uganda is significant because if there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment.

Published

on

Uganda: Democracy for Some, Mere Management for Others
Download PDFPrint Article

Western powers slowly tied a noose round their own necks by first installing Uganda’s National Resistance Movement regime, and then supporting it uncritically as it embarked on its adventures in militarism, plunder and human rights violations inside and outside Uganda’s borders.

They are now faced with a common boss problem: what to do with an employee of very long standing (possibly even inherited from a predecessor) who may now know more about his department than the new bosses, and who now carries so many of the company’s secrets that summary dismissal would be a risky undertaking?

The elections taking place in Uganda this week have brought that dilemma into sharp relief.

An initial response would be to simply allow this sometimes rude employee to carry on. The problem is time. In both directions. The employee is very old, and those he seeks to manage are very young, and also very poor and very aspirational because of being very young. And also therefore very angry.

Having a president who looks and speaks like them, and whose own personal life journey symbolises their own ambitions, would go a very long way to placating them. This, if for no other reason, is why the West must seriously consider finding a way to induce the good and faithful servant to give way. Nobody lives forever. And so replacement is inevitable one way or another.

But this is clearly not a unified position. The United Kingdom, whose intelligence services were at the forefront of installing the National Resistance Movement/Army (NRM/A) in power nearly forty years ago, remains quietly determined to stand by President Yoweri Museveni’s side.

On the other hand, opinion in America’s corridors of power seems divided. With standing operations in Somalia, and a history of western-friendly interventions in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and even Kenya, the Ugandan military is perceived as a huge (and cut-price) asset to the West’s regional security concerns.

The DRC, in particular, with its increasing significance as the source of much of the raw materials that will form the basis of the coming electric engine revolution, has been held firmly in the orbit of Western corporations through the exertions of the regime oligarchs controlling Uganda’s security establishment. To this, one may add the growing global agribusiness revolution in which the fertile lands of the Great Lakes Region are targeted for clearing and exploitation, and for which the regime offers facilitation.

Such human resource is hard to replace and therefore not casually disposed of.

These critical resource questions are backstopped by unjust politics themselves held in place by military means. The entire project therefore hinges ultimately on who has the means to physically enforce their exploitation. In our case, those military means have been personalised to one individual and a small circle of co-conspirators, often related by blood and ethnicity.

However, time presses. Apart from the ageing autocrat at the centre, there is also a time bomb in the form of an impoverished and anxious population of unskilled, under-employed (if at all) and propertyless young people. Change beckons for all sides, whether planned for or not.

This is why this coming election is significant. If there is to be managed change, it will never find a more opportune moment. Even if President Museveni is once again declared winner, there will still remain enough political momentum and pressure that could be harnessed by his one-time Western friends to cause him to look for the exit. It boils down to whether the American security establishment could be made to believe that the things that made President Museveni valuable to them, are transferable elsewhere into the Uganda security establishment. In short, that his sub-imperial footprint can be divorced from his person and entrusted, if not to someone like candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, then at least to security types already embedded within the state structure working under a new, youthful president.

Three possible outcomes then: Kyagulanyi carrying the vote and being declared the winner; Kyagulanyi carrying the vote but President Museveni being declared the winner; or failure to have a winner declared. In all cases, there will be trouble. In the first, a Trump-like resistance from the incumbent. In the second and the third, the usual mass disturbances that have followed each announcement of the winner of the presidential election since the 1990s.

Once the Ugandan political crisis — a story going back to the 1960s — is reduced to a security or “law and order” problem, the West usually sides with whichever force can quickest restore the order they (not we) need.

And this is how the NRM tail seeks to still wag the Western dog: the run-up to voting day has been characterised by heavy emphasis on the risk of alleged “hooligans” out to cause mayhem (“burning down the city” being a popular bogeyman). The NRM’s post-election challenge will be to quickly strip the crisis of all political considerations and make it a discussion about security.

But it would be strategically very risky to try to get Uganda’s current young electorate — and the even younger citizens in general — to accept that whatever social and economic conditions they have lived through in the last few decades (which for most means all of their lives given how young they are) are going to remain in place for even just the next five years. They will not buy into the promises they have seen broken in the past. Their numbers, their living conditions, their economic prospects and their very youth would then point to a situation of permanent unrest.

However, it can be safely assumed that the NRM regime will, to paraphrase US President Donald Trump, not accept any election result that does not declare it the winner.

Leave things as they are and deal with the inevitable degeneration of politics beyond its current state, or enforce a switch now under the cover of an election, or attempt to enforce a switch in the aftermath of the election by harnessing the inevitable discontent.

Those are the boss’ options.

In the meantime, there is food to be grown and work to be done.

Continue Reading

Trending