Dear Ugandans,
I like the owner of the Independent Newspaper, Mr.Mwenda Andrew, but as of recent, he has been either soiled in the banana or ‘bogoya’ republic or he has accidentally lost his touch. He nowadays tries so hard to impress those with power yet he used not be that kind of person. Anyway, let me try to use my little time and respond to some of the issues published by his editor, Weere, in his article entitled: ”How Museveni gained 10% and Besigye lost it” , views which Mwenda seems to have supported at Capitalfm political show immediately after the elections.
‘
’Did Besigye make Ugandans want a change from Museveni desperately? There are three questions that answer this according to Kotter’s model’’ His paper, the independent, reported or asked.
Kotter’s model is mainly essential in transforming organizations rather than implementing changes or showing the urgency for change. Jick’s tactical ten step model is the one that deals with implementation while General Electric (GE)’s seven-step change acceleration process model deals with showing the urgency for change. I have attached a pictorial version of the Kotter’s model below to this message.
Clearly, anybody can manipulate it and make an argument either in favour or against the opposition in Uganda as the Independent did, but im not gonna do what Mwenda and his team did. I’m just gonna show that some of these theories are not applicable in a situation such as Uganda.
Kotter's Model
One of The major lessons from the Kotter Model is that change process goes through a series of phases, each lasting a considerable amount of time. So how does Mwenda expect Besigye to ‘win over outside stakeholders like other opposition leaders, the army, foreign diplomats and governments’ in a specific period of time in a situation , like that in Uganda, which does not allow change to take place any level. The way Uganda is now it is impossible to get rid of Musevenism evenif Museveni died today or lost power in an election.
Mwenda’s team rightly quotes Kotter’s model which explains that Creating short-term wins motivates employees during a long change effort, but he wrongly looks at the short term wins Besigye failed to have as :’’failure to dislodge the Electoral Commission(EC), opposition coalition, et.c. These should not be the short term wins to judge any political leader because all those were not in Besigye’s control. He could not have done more than he did before the elections.In any case, Besigye’s short term wins should be those wins he had in both 2001 and 2006 elections before the 2011 elections. I also think Kotler was particulary looking at managers of organisations who seem to be in control of the situations around them, which was not the case with Besigye. Nevertheless, I think Besigye’s failure to win the youths in elections was his own making, as this was in his control and we pleaded with FDC executive to persuade Besigye to come up with a song that would conteract Museveni’s ‘Mpekoni’, but all in vain. There was some bit of excitement created among Ugandans including myself- by listening to Museveni’s rap.
It seems that “change” is just poorly understood by some people, based on misinformed assumptions or some management theories, poorly executed or all of these. Besigye was expected to meet resistance at all levels of Kottler’s model by trying to bring change to the institutions he does not control. Besigye does not control or appoint the EC, so what better could he have done to get the EC disbanded? What better could he have done which he has not done before to win the army support? What better could he have done than what he did to unite the opposition and bring the Baganda to his side?
There were some people in the population who saw/see the need for change but they don’t want it out of fear and survival. For instance, some Ugandans fear that president Museveni will plunge our country into violence if anybody, other than him, wins an election. As Lewin( 1958) explained change happens if Ch = f(D x V x P) > Co. Change (Ch) takes place if the Dissatisfaction (D) with the status quo, multiplied by a Vision (V) of the future, multiplied by agreed Processes (P) that remove obstacles blocking access to the desired state is greater than the Cost (Co) of change. The way things stand change cannot come to Uganda through so called elections because the ground for free and fair elections is not there at all. There are some countries in East Africa,particulalry Kenya, that have moved a step to better elections because the institution such as the EC are fairy independent.There is nothing like a Kenyan president appointing the head of the EC as is the case in Uganda.Rigging in Kenya might have ended with the Kibaki presidency going by the way the Kenyans have set up their system now.
Therefore, when one deeply analyses all these theories, one finds that Dr.Besigye actually tried to do exactly what the models are telling managers of organizations to do. He could not have done it in any better way. Those criticizing him now have got their own intentions but could not have done better. Most of these management theories are a fallacy when it comes to practice and I normally compare them to love making between a man and woman. Theoretically, everybody has got an idea on what they are supposed to do in the process of lovemaking but practically the results tend to differ among different couples. So, it would not be wise for any of us to go on a blame game just basing on theory without looking at the reality of the situation.
Money in the campaigns
Money is a big factor in any election anywhere in the world. A candidate with money has higher chances of winning the election. The returns from such an investment are undisputable. However, president Museveni clearly used national coffers to campaign and that itself is not only illegal but it is immoral. It was a clear sign that the incumbent was not ready to hand over power and was willing to operate outside the law to achieve his aims. That’s why some of us called this election a ‘remote control’ election where the incumbent was capable of ‘organizing the event, choosing the dancers and master of ceremony’ throughout the process, with the inner knowledge that the situation was favoring him more than his opponents.
Opinion polls
An opinion poll is something that should be taken seriously in any free and fair election. I’m saying ‘free and fair’ because I don’t think this was the case with the just concluded presidential elections in Uganda. For instance, in USA, during the first two years of the Reagan administration, information from opinion polls was discussed in more than half of the senior staff meetings of the White House. Richard Wirthlin, the pollster met with Reagan more than 25 times just to discuss polls.
Actually, almost all USA presidents had their own pollsters: Roosevelt had Cantril, Kennedy had Harris, Johnson had Quayle, Ford had Teeter, Carter had Caddell, Reagan had Wirthlin, while Nixon used most of them. This is because the opinions of the population are something that leaders of the developed nations take seriously before they make any decision.
But in Uganda’s case, with or without opinion polls, president Museveni is not bothered with the opinions of the people of Uganda. For instance, removing presidential term limits was unpopular policy among Ugandans, even within his own party, but he went ahead and removed them. He has been sending our troops to fight on foreign soil regardless of how people feel.
So what is the meaning of holding opinion polls in an environment where the incumbent has got no respect for people’s opinions? So the Afrobarometer polls might have been a reflection of a society that is still caught in fear and survival rather support for president Museveni. Secondly, opinion polls tend to be manipulated by some leaders depending on what they want out of the situation, and they tend to do it differently. For instance, In the 1970s, Harris and Gallup were the giants of the polling industry. Because of their prominence, they attracted Nixon’s interest and became prime candidates for attack and manipulation by the administration. Therefore, I would not be surprised if president Museveni or his team had a hand in the Afrobarometer polls one way or the other, and may be that is why the opposition did not take them seriously and ‘’ buried their head in divisions’ as reported by Andrew Mwenda and his team. Who can blame them, anyway?
The truth is that we shall never know who genuinely won the 2001, 2006 and 2011 elections because the ground for elections was not free and fair. Yes, Uganda is not like Belgium for us to have totally free and fair elections, and this alone is enough for us to discard all arguments made by some people showing that Museveni won the 2011 elections fairer compared to the 2006 elections- just because there was less violence in them. Text-book theories, such as those put forward by Mwenda and his team, are totally inapplicable in this case. We cannot work out the percentage of rigging based on assumptions of violence and nonviolence when the ground for free and fair elections was not there in the first place.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
source: http://semuwemba.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/mwenda-and-his-team-selectively-applied-the-kotters-model-in-their-analysis-of-besigyes-performance/
