Dear Ugandans,
Andrew Mwenda should Stop telling lies. The opposition in Uganda does have alternative policies on almost every sector. In all his writing in the article:”Uganda bigger than Museveni, Besigye”, Mwenda has not mentioned whether he approached FDC or UPC for alternative policies and they told him that they didn’t have any.
He also assumes that we can have an opposition where every member has to agree with Besigye or any other leader. People enjoy their freedom of thought/ conscience. If some people in FDC disagree with ”Walk to Work”, that is their right. If they fear to express their views because of blackmail, then they better look for other jobs and leave politics to those who are ready to stand the heat in the kitchen.
Mwenda gives an example of Betty Kamya but he did not fully inform the readers about Betty Kamya’s bigoted/ tribal views.
In English, Mwenda’s article can be described as “a curate’s egg” because it is partly good and partly bad, but as a result, it is entirely spoiled.
Mwenda began by expressing anger as if this was his motive. Then, he informed the audience about economics yet in the beginning, his intention was expressing his anger about blackmail. What exactly was his intention? What was it that he wanted to inform the audience?
Did he use “blackmail” as a caveat for blackmail-pathology or what?
”So what is ailing Uganda is not policy failure as the opposition has been saying, but failure to adhere to existing policy and practice. In response to inflation, the opposition had demanded that government intervenes to reduce prices”( Andew Mwenda 2011).
The above statement from Mwenda shows how uninformed he is social policy. Social policy does not only mean adhering to existing policy and practice, it also means what can be done to you when you fail to comply with the existing policy and practice.
For example, first of all, there must have been a disciplinary policy and procedure which can be invoked if President Museveni did not follow policies and procedures in different departments. This policy is not there. Museveni can walk into the treasury and take away money and no single policy can be used to discipline him. At the same time, there must have been a policy where Bank of Uganda Governore,Mutebire, can refuse Museveni to take away money without following policies and procedures. Mutebire must also have been forced to resign because he never went to parliament to report Museveni’s misconduct. Instead, he only informed a news paper of a foreign country.
“Since the economic crisis set in, the only person who has spoken openly about the mismanagement of economic policy by government is Emmanuel Tumusiime Mutebile, governor of the central bank” Mwenda (Andrew 2011)
The above statement is pure lies. The opposition reported this financial crisis even before the elections. Opposition politicians have been talking about this everyday in their campaigns. May be Andrew Mwenda chose not to listen to them because he wanted to give kudos to Mutebire.
“In such a crisis, one would expect the opposition to put forth a sound analysis of the problem and offer a convincing alternative policy response. They have done neither. However, the opposition (especially the pro-Besigye faction of the FDC) demands that everyone agrees with it because it criticizes government. But merely shouting “wolf” at Museveni’s scarecrow is not enough”.(Andrew Mwenda 2011)
Mwenda, are you sure that the opposition did not put forth an analysis of the problem?
Secondly, when he uses the terms “sound analysis” and “convincing alternative” critical thinking dictates that he is using vague language. How does he judge what is sound and what is not?. And sound according to who? Who is the judge here?
Why didn’t he use the term “In my opinion”? He used the term “convincing alternative” but this is vague language as well. Convincing according to whom? How did he reach this conclusion? If the alternative policy was not convincing according to him, does it mean that it was not convincing to everybody?
In response to inflation, the opposition had demanded that government intervenes to reduce prices. This could only be achieved either by cutting taxes or directly subsidising prices. Reducing taxes would reduce the revenues available to meet government’s other public expenditure requirements. So government would have to print money to finance lost revenue or directly subsidize prices – both of which would again drive up inflation. (Mwenda 2011)
Mwenda is naive when it comes to economics. Actually cutting taxes can increase but also decrease revenues. The most important issue in cutting or increasing taxes is the rate to be cut or increased.
I wonder if Mwenda ever studied the Laffer curve. The laffer curve is the theory used to illustrate the taxable income elasticity. For example, if the government raises the tax by zero percent, it will not raise its revenue. But at the same time, if the government raises taxes by 100 percent, it will also not raise revenue because, at such a high rate, there will not be any incentive for the tax payer to earn any income which the government will over – tax.
The dangers of angry professional journalists like Mwenda is that they use simplicity and common sense when writing about professional issues. Common sense has boundaries and empirical knowledge always supplements common sense through the use of research, data and theories. If you critically look at Mwenda’s article, you will realise that it is entirely flawed and it lacks merit. It is all about anger against the opposition and specifically Besigye. Believe me, Mwenda never thought through what you wrote.
If Mwenda claims that he thought through what he wrote, how can he condemn a tax cut strategy without considering boundary conditions? What theories and data did he use to back up his reasoning?
He condemns printing money without explaining circumstances where it will be right to inject more money into the economy through not printing more bank notes. For example, the government can inject money directly into the economy by buying assets from private sector institutions – that could be insurance companies, pension funds, banks or non-financial firms – and credits the seller’s bank accounts. So the seller has more money in their bank account, while their bank holds a corresponding claim against the Bank of Uganda (known as reserves). The end result is more money out in the wider economy.
Direct injections of money into the economy, primarily by buying gilts, can have a number of effects. The sellers of the assets have more money so may go out and spend it. That will help to boost growth. Or they may buy other assets instead, such as shares or company bonds. That will push up the prices of those assets, making the people who own them, either directly or through their pension funds, better off. So they may go out and spend more. And higher asset prices mean lower yields, which brings down the cost of borrowing for businesses and households. That should provide a further boost to spending.
What I’m laboring to explain is that printing money is not the only way that the economy can be sorted.
This shows how dangerous our situation in Uganda is. When you have these half baked professionals like Andrew Mwenda as the informers of the public you will end up with a less informed generation.
RICHARD MUKASA
UAH FORUMIST
LONDON
No comments:
Post a Comment