The primacy of nonviolence in Uganda's regime change should remain the focus

I want to thank commentators on my two articles that appeared in Ugandans at Heart website last week and are still being discussed including on the radio. Exchange of views in a substantive way is a very important first step towards finding a right path to unseat NRM regime.  The discussions so far have been civil in tone and hope they will continue that way.

In the two articles an attempt has been made to demonstrate that we should – in the first instance – use nonviolent means to unseat NRM regime (other options are not ruled out) because they minimize costs,
unify diverse people and make it relatively easy to bring about national reconciliation. The destructive and divisive experience of wars in Uganda is still fresh in our minds. Wars should therefore be avoided but not ruled out.

Studies have shown that since 1900 three out of four nonviolent campaigns have succeeded (Chenoweth and Staphan 2011).  We know that to succeed Ugandan nonviolent campaigners will need support of
neighbors and the rest of the international community through for example reducing financial, technical and diplomatic support to NRM regime and imposing targeted sanctions. We should, however, not expect
the international community to send troops to Uganda to unseat NRM government unless a situation similar to Libya’s develops whereby Museveni tries to destroy Uganda citizens by military means as Gadaffi
tried to do to Libyans.

The idea that Ugandans in opposition should prepare for plan B to defend themselves militarily should NRM apply force should remain on the table. However, it is not recommend that it should be the first method of removing NRM from power. If Museveni is attacked first that action will give him justification with support of his friends in Africa and beyond to unleash disproportionate force in the name of national peace and security. Second, as noted above we have enough bitter experience of armed struggle. It should be the last resort.

The best strategy is to suffocate NRM regime economically and diplomatically. NRM is vulnerable in these two areas. What we need is to identify the right people to do the job. Successful progress through nonviolent means will create an enabling environment that will split the security forces as happened in the Philippines before Marcos was removed from power and weaken NRM regime. In these circumstances the international community may put pressure on the regime to step down.

Pessimistic commentators have reasoned that NRM government cannot be removed by People Power because Ugandans are ‘cowards’ or ‘docile’. But that is what had been said about Egyptians and Philippinos before Mubarak and Marcos were removed by People Power respectively.

Ugandans have been holding their fire hoping that they would defeat NRM at the ballot box. That possibility has receded since the massively rigged February 18, 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections. Some Ugandans have pleaded that opposition parties do not participate in elections until NRM has been removed by nonviolent means with a helping hand of the international community.

Ipso facto, we are now focusing on removing NRM from power by peaceful means and are boldly talking about it. We have just begun and are so far doing pretty well. Organizations are being formed and networks
established at home and abroad and between Ugandans at home and those in the diaspora. The growing number of opposition organizations, discussion groups and content in the debates is a clear indication of
a shift in political direction away from elections to other means. Docile or coward people would not be doing that.

The United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) an umbrella organization formed in July 2011 has begun to harmonize opposition activities and speak with one voice to maximize efficiency and effectiveness by removing
duplication or issuing conflicting messages. The formation of UDU was the result of comments from home and abroad. We call on all opposition organizations to support UDU and come to the Boston (USA) conference
scheduled for October 8, 2011 to inter alia adopt UDU constitution and National Recovery Plan (NRP) as alternative to NRM failed policies. The two documents will be sent out for comments in due course.

Some commentators have argued that NRM cannot be defeated because Museveni has solid support of the international community. There is evidence that that support is declining following classification and declaration that Uganda is a failed state under military dictatorship. Uganda is no longer a structural adjustment success story and darling of the west. Donors may soon realize that their national interests might suffer by continued support to a regime that stole the election, is corrupt and sectarian and dividing up the country into economically unviable districts that could breed instability as resources to
sustain them dwindle.

Uganda’s failed and abandoned structural adjustment program experiment that attracted generous financial, technical and diplomatic donor support has dealt a severe blow to the government as support will be
cutback. Uganda’s ruthless exploitation of Congolese resources and allegation of Uganda troops’ participation in genocide against Hutu people in eastern DRC have further eroded Uganda’s standing in international
relations.

When a government or leader is devalued, donor support is withdrawn or significantly reduced.  Ongoing suspension or reduction of donor support to Uganda and warning about inappropriate policies like on
Mabira forest may represent the initial signs of what is in store for NRM. Once donors are satisfied that there is a viable alternative, they will decisively move against NRM. Opposition groups should therefore focus on preparing a credible alternative development model and lining up a cadre of credible leaders.

Other commentators have reasoned that Museveni is here to stay because he has unshakeable backing of security forces. But there is so much evidence of security forces abandoning their Commanders – in – Chief and joining the dissenting public. We witnessed it recently in Egypt and Tunisia. Earlier it happened in Ethiopia in 1974, Philippines in 1986, Romania in 1989, Soviet Union in 1991 and in many other places. It is not clear what makes it absolutely impossible that Uganda soldiers cannot abandon their commander-in chief in favor of their dissenting and long suffering fellow citizens. Apart from the privileged commanders and a few others, Uganda soldiers are basically poor in everything – clothing, nutrition and shelter etc. It is therefore in their own interest to join the dissenting voices and make their welfare better in post-NRM period.

As we embark on this noble journey for a second liberation of Uganda we need to realize that there are going to be moments of frustration, exhaustion and even a sense of failure. These situations should not force us to turn back but to figure out how to address them and march to victory. As said before our principle challenge is fear but once that wall has been torn down – which it will be – we shall march to victory with our heads high.

ERIC KASHAMBUZI
NEW YORK