PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni launched the Movement caucus at Speke Resort Munyonyo recently. Below is his full speech.

HON. Members of the Movement caucus. I greet all of you. In the Bible, in the book of Exodus (Chapter 3, verse 5), God told Moses as follows: “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” I do not want to engage in sacrilege by equating our meeting here with God’s rendezvous with Moses in the Sinai desert around the year 1491 BC. Nevertheless, I am tempted to address you in a manner appropriate to this historic occasion. I am tempted to say: stand up and congratulate each other for you are engaged, tonight, in a very important historical event: helping the glorious liberation Movement of the people of Uganda, the NRM, metamorphose into a competitor for political power in the anticipated multi-organisation political dispensation as well as re-enforcing the historical leadership of the Movement and enriching it with fresh members.
Bearing in mind the Aegean stables of the political, social and economic filth NRM, as a liberation Movement, swept out of Uganda (inflation, shortages of essential commodities, collapse of physical and social infrastructure, extra-judicial killings, absence of democracy, etc), you, who are seated here tonight, are successors to a generation of heroic and patriotic strugglers.
Apart from ending extra-judicial killings and enabling the 500,000 Ugandan exiles from West Nile that were living in Sudan and Congo to return home, ever since the NRM victory in 1986, the following have been achieved: GDP has almost doubled from about $4.2b in 1986/87 (at factor cost) to about $7.3b in 2004/05 (at market prices), primary school enrolment jumped from 2.5 million to 7.7 million, secondary school enrolment went from 200,000 to 600,000, university enrolment climbed from 5,000 to 65,000 (within Uganda), the number of households made out of permanent materials climbed from 400,000 in 1991 to 3.4 million in 2002, the number of telephone lines jumped from 28,000 in 1986 to 67,000 fixed lines and 870,000 mobile lines today.
The achievements during the time of the resistance and after the victory were not accidental at all. At each stage we had to engage in a debate as to which direction we should take. Here, I will give you two examples. The first one was liberalisation. You remember, during the 1996 campaigns, our opponents were saying that we had sold Uganda while attacking our policy of privatising government companies, returning Asian properties confiscated by Idi Amin and liberalising the economy generally. In nearly a century, up to the 1990s when we liberalised the telephone sector, Uganda had only 28,000 lines. We now have more than 900,000 lines (fixed and mobile).
In 1986, in one of the early Cabinet meetings, some of the ministers complained that house-owners, especially the Indians, were charging exorbitant rents. Some of them argued that we should use the law that was then on the books to control rent chargeable by the house proprietors. We rejected that policy. House proprietors, indeed, charged exorbitant rents. These very exorbitant rents attracted more investors into the housing sector. As a consequence, you have seen for yourselves the housing explosion in the Kampala-Entebbe area. These are just two examples that go to illustrate that all the positive results in the time of the resistance and since the victory have not been accidental. They have been results of correct policies and practices.
There have been recognisable road-junctions on our long and torturous journey. There was 1966/7 when Obote abrogated the Constitution. There are those who opposed that mistake and those who collaborated. Before that there was 1961-1962 when our leaders were promoting sectarianism of religion and tribe. By 1965, our anti-sectarian group had emerged. There was the different ways of handling army indiscipline as shown by the 1964 mutinies of former East African colonial forces and the handling of the Nakulabye massacre in 1965. Mwalimu Nyerere of Tanzania disbanded the colonial army while our leaders in Uganda promoted the mutineers and awarded them salary increases. Then there was the 1971 coup of Amin. Although unconstitutionality had started in 1966 with the abrogation of the Constitution by Obote, it was clear to some of us that Amin could only make matters worse. As Mwalimu Nyerere put it once:
“If Ugandans thought they were on the frying pan under Obote, under Amin they were in the fire proper.”
At this historical junction some of us opposed Amin, some collaborated with Amin and some tried to pursue their private interests in the midst of the carnage. During the struggle against Amin, there were differences on the way forward. Obote’s line was always adventurous — quick action that would result in toppling Amin even though we did not have the means to do so; or relying on external forces, principally the Tanzanians, to do our work of liberating ourselves. FRONASA that eventually became NRM, on the other hand, always insisted on a people’s protracted armed struggle for self-liberation. In the anti-Amin struggle we combined some limited people’s effort with the main effort of our Tanzanian brothers. As FRONASA had maintained, the overthrow of Amin using, mainly, outside brother forces could not provide a lasting solution to Uganda’s political problems for the simple reason that even our Tanzanian brothers could not understand Uganda’s problems well. They, inevitably, made mistakes by, for instance, siding with Obote. They did not understand very well that Obote had become untouchable politically for, at least, 75% of Ugandans.
I remember very well how my very much respected colleagues were advising me to work with Obote. “Why don’t you work with Obote? You are young, he is old; the two of you can compliment each other,” I remember them saying. “You are both our friends,” they would say. “It is much easier for us to support you when you are united.” I told them that the only way we could work with Obote was under the omnibus UNLF. In the absence of UNLF, we could not work bilaterally with Obote. In fact, at that time it would have been easier to work with DP if only DP had agreed to change their image of being a sectarian party. I talked to the DP leaders in order to make them see this without success. I had long meetings with Mr. Ssemogerere, Mzee Boniface Byanyima, Mzee Tiberio Okeny, etc without success. DP lost credibility by misleading people to vote for it when it did not have the capacity to guarantee people’s electoral victory in the face of Obote’s machinations.
At this juncture, we had differences among those of us that had gathered under UPM after the DP and UPC leaders, erroneously supported by the Tanzanian officials who were here who misled their government, broke up the UNLF. Some of our people advocated for working with Obote after his second coup against democracy in Uganda — the rigged elections of 1980. How do we know that elections were rigged? Very simple! In some cases the results were announced with UPC candidates losing. Then Muwanga simply reversed the results. Some of the examples: Samwiri Mugwisa in Mubende North got 3,000 votes while his DP opponent Dr. Sebuliba got 19,000 votes. This was announced locally in Mubende. Then Muwanga simply declared Mugwisa the winner. I believe that was the same story in Busiki with Peter Wangoola of DP and somebody else. In Tororo, Chango Machyo, a university lecturer, could not be nominated because he could not “read” and understand English. He had failed the fluency test by UPC election officials that had not gone beyond secondary education probably. In West Nile, DP candidates were stopped at army roadblocks until the nominations were over — and UPC candidates were elected unopposed. Even before the elections, the UPC, through Muwanga, had refused to reform the electoral laws. All the electoral practices you know now had been rejected by Muwanga: constituencies with fixed boundaries, one ballot box, one ballot paper, marking the ballot paper secretly but casting it openly instead of hiding ballot boxes in an enclosed polling booth to get freedom to stuff illegal ballots in the box, the presence of candidates’ agents etc. The only reform that they accepted was to count the votes immediately after voting. That is how we could establish some of the results like the ones of Mugwisa.
It was after this massive rigging that we arrived at a new historical junction. Do we accept the rigging or do we not? Some advocated for accepting the rigging; but we rejected it. Those who rejected this rigging went to the bush so as to restructure Uganda’s politics, economy and State structure, including the army, forever.
After five years of vicious fighting, we won. This victory enabled us to restructure the State of Uganda by finally disbanding the remnants of the army that had been started by the British and had been responsible for the horrendous crimes against the people of Uganda. The civil service, the Judiciary and the Police were not restructured as you know; and you know the lingering problems arising out of that. We also restructured the politics of Uganda away from sectarianism of tribe and religion to, finally, patriotism, national consciousness and, even, Pan-Africanism. The phenomenon of the ekisanja people’s resistance movement against sectarianism and opportunism is approval for all the political, social and economic reforms the Movement has put in place as well as approval for the contribution of the leaders that have been responsible for this revolution. This massive kisanja Movement, was spontaneously initiated by, mainly, the peasants when they detected betrayal among the elements of the elite. This is really the litmus paper test for the success of the Movement-led people’s revolution. Gone is the tribalism, religious sectarianism and subservience to foreign interests. It is amazing and most gratifying.
That this massive Movement could have been initiated by the peasants on their own is even more gratifying. For many months, I did not even understand why these peasants chose to use the word: ‘ekisanja’. It was much later, that I understood that it means “turns” of a husband spending a night with one of the wives in the traditional polygamous marriages. How could members of the elite have known such imagery? The ‘ekisanja’ means lifting of the limits on terms, enchuro in Runyankore, zaamu in Swahili. However, the ‘ekisanja’ means much more than that. It means: Let the revolution and the revolutionary leadership and their achievements continue. It is another re-affirmation of the “No change” of direction as was the slogan of the 1996 and 2001 presidential elections. The people are not blind, as some had assumed. That the peasants can defy massive radio campaigns, foreign pressures, etc is quite amazing and gratifying.
This, therefore, means that Ugandans have again come to another historical road-junction just as in 1961-1962, 1966, 1971, 1980 and 1996.
On this road-junction, there are two roads: One road leading to Ugandan people’s wishes and interests and, another road, leading to the alienated interests of the elite, hegemonic and illegitimate interests of some foreign forces that are apprehensive about Africa’s potential and other parasitic interests that fear the massive power of the people.
This is why, for instance, the latter group fear a referendum. If you are democratic, why do you fear a referendum?
Coming to the role of foreigners, in our politics, I would like you to remember the mistake of 1980 with our Tanzanian brothers. The people closest to me politically in the whole of Africa are the Tanzanians, especially during the time of Mwalimu Nyerere. Nevertheless, in respect of Uganda’s internal affairs, they made very serious mistakes because it is not easy to understand well a problem that is not your own. Yet these were our brothers and neighbours. How, then, about real foreigners such as Europeans, Americans, etc who make it their business to readily and carelessly “dispense” freelance prescriptions about the way Uganda should run its politics, its security etc? In 1961, external forces negatively intervened in Congo, killing Patrice Lumumba, the only legitimately elected prime minister of Congo up to today. Since that time, Congo has never settled down. Successive waves of foreigners operating in Congo have not provided a solution: the UN — 1961-64; the Belgians, 1965; the white mercenaries 1967-69; the French and Moroccans — 1977, 1978 etc. Why hasn’t all that amount of foreign involvement given Congo capacity to stand up?
Even today there are UN forces there. Ivory Coast has been under the tutelage of the French since independence. Why hasn’t that French involvement created capacity in Ivory Coast to stand up on its own? When there was a rebel attack against an elected government, the country immediately collapsed. Why? We were, on the other hand, attacked by Sudan on August 22, 1986, barely seven months after coming into power. We, on our own, stood up against Sudan, Mobutu, Habyarimana, and at one time, the government of Kenya under Moi. At the same time, as we have been dealing with vicious terrorism, we have scored the achievements you well know.
We are now finalising the constitution-making exercise. I appeal to the Speaker and Parliament to give priority to the Constitutional Bill so that, by latest July 15, 2005 we have finished every thing involving Parliament; and referendum on political systems should then be held so that the Electoral Commission starts preparing for general elections next year.
On the issues themselves, I hear that there is some debate on a number of points:


1) The omnibus Bill was brought as a package of interests that need reform: Opening the political space, lifting the term limits, regional tier, etc. The idea was to have a win-win formula for interest groups. Besides, that Bill is according to the Constitution and law as they are currently written.

It is interesting that some of those who attack the omnibus bill are the same ones against the referendum. If you are democratic, why do you fear a referendum, the most democratic way

When the people were demanding a referendum on certain issues, it is these very elements who were opposing that alleging, untruthfully, that Article 1 of the Constitution notwithstanding (all power belongs to the people), the people had no power to decide on “any matter” as per Article 255 because they are constrained by other articles of the Constitution. First of all, I strongly believe that this interpretation of this Constitution is wrong. There is no way the framers of the 1995 Constitution could have had that view in mind remembering that they were sent by the people. Nevertheless, even assuming that is the case, why wouldn’t democrats say this was a terrible oversight; let us correct it quickly, not to constrain the people, our masters?

Therefore, the omnibus Bill should be handled according to the present Constitutional and legal provision. If any matter is contentious, since all political interests are represented in Parliament, we should do all that is needful to refer those articles to the people in a referendum. Besides, I am sure we shall get two-thirds majority on all important proposed amendments.

2) Regional tier: I recommend to the Movement MPs to support the regional tier mainly because of our supporters in Buganda apart from the fact that there is nothing harmful in whatever we have agreed to put on the regional tier. I negotiated that agreement myself. All the powers that were previously at the district level have remained there. The central government shared whatever powers it had with the regional tier. All group rights within a region are protected. Abuse of office by CAOs and RAOs is removed. Above all, it removes the dilemma for our supporters in Buganda who were being subjected to the pressures of having to choose between the Movement and Mengo. Moreover, it also satisfies those in Buganda who yearn for their identity within a united Uganda.

3) Article 105 (2) — lifting term limits: Hon Mutebi Kityo talked to me about his motion. I hope this meeting has given him time to explain his reasoning.

Nevertheless, when I talked to him I could see that he still had the fear that a president who has stayed in power for along time can become a dictator, “life president”, etc. I told him that this is not borne out by facts. As long as there is political competition, especially under multiparty competition, there is no way an unpopular president can use longevity of service to survive. Dr. Kenneth Kaunda had stayed in power for almost 30 years. When multiparty elections were held, he lost to Frederick Chiluba by a massive margin. In fact, his party has never recovered. Kamuzu Banda the same. Mzee Moi won the two presidential elections after the re-introduction of multipartyism only because the opposition were not united

Otherwise, both times he would have lost because he won with a minority as they do not have a constitutional provision like ours that requires a winning candidate to have an absolute majority (more than 50%). President Abdou Diouf is the same story. I, therefore, frankly speaking, have never had this fear.

On the contrary young constitutions need flexibility to maximise the optimal use of all your leadership resources. Look at Israel. Freedom struggle leaders (Ben Gurion, Begin, Golda Meir, Rabin, Shimon Perez, Sharon, alternated with younger leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu, Barak etc. This is not to mention other Western countries like the UK, Belgium, Italy, etc. Even the US which is supposed to be the Mecca of democracy, did not introduce this control until recently. Suppose I retire today and go back to my beautiful ranches at Rwakitura and Kisozi. Then, after some years the people in the government generate a very serious crisis for the country.

My ability to help the country would be constrained if you still have this limitation. Of course, a retired leader can help the country out of a crisis by supporting positive elements to rescue the country. It is safer, however, to have full flexibility with the potential to use all the political reserves of the country to address problems if necessary. It is better to have all the options rather than having limited options. If there is no urgent need, then, the capacity of the retired leaders remains latent but available.

Some people were saying it is time for me to be an elder and depend on giving advice. Museveni retiring is not a problem at all. I am actually looking forward to it. The problem is the mission and vision of the Movement. That irreversible retirement would be all right if you had a critical mass of leaders that shared your vision. How can you be a useful elder if people who are aspiring for leadership have got a diametrically opposed vision and often defy your vision even when you are still in charge of the country?

Given the fact that the biggest problem in Africa is the vision, I think the most useful type of constitution is a flexible one. Rigidity will only service careerists seeking to improve their CVs by taking turns at the leadership. The greatest challenges for us today are to solve the question of employment creation by expanding private sector generated jobs, producing quality goods and services for the internal, regional and international markets, expanding the tax base and addressing the strategic inferiority of Africa (Balkanised, technologically backward, a pre-industrial society etc). Leadership is a means, not an end in itself. Until the question of the vision is resolved, Africa’s future is doomed. This is not acceptable. The rituals of taking turns at being the principal beggar on behalf of Uganda are another aberration that will cost Uganda dear. Uganda is being liberated from this begging. The direction must be maintained. At our meeting in Kyankwanzi, I pointed out that the harmonisation of our vision about wealth-creation as well as on other strategic issues involving Africa is more important than just talking about rituals of taking turns at leadership (vaako nange ntuleko).

As already pointed out, retirement is, indeed, most desirable! This retirement should be politically and, not constitutionally, determined and should be calibrated in tandem with the vision of the revolution. The Constitution should empower the people to audit the work of the revolutionaries through regular elections or referendums.

Otherwise, you will abandon the vision and concentrate on rituals. Therefore, a flexible constitution is better for nations that are still in search of a direction.

4) The practice of NRM senior cadres supporting rivals of sitting MPs or being against any Movement person is not acceptable to me. We have got enough “enemies” (opponents) and there is no need to waste time and goodwill on friendly forces. There were some of our people who were in PAFO. They have now come back. Welcome them. Those were football clubs in the relaxed “individual merit” atmosphere. Also remember that a lot of confusion was sown by the misinformation and misrepresentation by supposedly “senior Movement cadres” whose political background the young Movement MPs did not know. Indeed, you remember it was government ministers that were constantly sending contradictory statements to the backbenchers. I have come back from the war with terrorism and Sudan and I am ready to devote my time with the Movement cadres in Parliament and the country at large.

5) The ministers should work on the urgent projects in the MPs’ constituencies. We shall, of course, also implement all important projects in the whole of Uganda irrespective of the colour of the MP. Otherwise, we shall penalise our people and economy.

6) The MPs should be involved in the mobilisation and registration of NRM members. I have raised enough money to start the printing of registration cards.

7) The NRM primaries for MPs should, probably, be conducted by the registered Movement members at every parish. Then you total up all the parishes.

8) If we move into political organisations or parties, we should, in addition to sourcing from our traditional sources, also make our own contributions. You know under POA, there are limits to how much foreigners, foreign-owned companies etc can contribute to a party/organisation. This is not a problem

We can raise big sums of money by kushonda (group contributions). In this way we shall fund our activities. The state should also be able to fund organisation/party activities but equitably according to the POA.

In conclusion, I would like to salute you as you have taken the right turn at this historical road junction. It is my pleasure to launch the Movement caucus in Parliament.

I wish you good luck.