We need to choose our political model carefully
Political economist, Francis Fukuyama, in 1989 penned his famous essay titled "The End Of History?" as a commentary on the apparent triumph of the Western ideals of liberal democracy over strong man communist dictatorships led by the USSR and China. The great political/economic struggle between the western values of democracy and free market ideals had triumphed over the eastern ideals one party state dictatorships and centrally planned economies.
With those facts established, the Western world set about reordering the world in its image, mostly through its surrogates (the World Bank and IMF). Of course, most of the world, stunned at the sudden collapse of the mighty Soviet Union, could not wait to privatize and liberalize to escape the same calamity that had befallen the comrades. History had ended, or had it?
While Russia had attempted to liberalise its politics (perestroika) to stave off economic collapse, the diminutive man who ran China in the 1980s had realised that Francis Fukuyama was only half right. Declaring that it did not matter whether the cat was white or black as long as it hunted rats, Deng Xiao Ping set about liberalising China's economy while maintaining a firm grip on political freedom. In the 20 years since Deng Xiao Ping ruled China, the greatest economic transformation that the World has ever seen has shifted more than a billion people upward on a trajectory from poverty to world power status.
Economic success
It turns out that democracy is not a necessary condition to economic growth, a free press not necessary to produce gleaming highways, power stations and cities to rival New York. The Chinese model, closely modeled on other East Asian success stories is a mix of central industrial economic policy collaborating with private enterprise and supported by abundant and efficient labor. It is a very attractive alternative model for a would-be-African-dictator who is tired of the donors and their democracy demands.
What implications does the growth of China as a super power have for us as Ugandans? For one it could legitimise the idea of a strong man one party (NRM) system as an alternative to the Western model with its bothersome insistence on competitive politics, alternative power centres and a free press. Many Museveni supporters are bothered by Western insistence that Uganda devolve away from the strong man model and develop strong institutions. The Ekisanja crowd believes sincerely that only Museveni can lead Uganda, that out of all those 28 million other Ugandans no other leader is capable of running the country.
They are at a loss to explain how Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, South Africa have all had peaceful changeover in government and yet continued to thrive, more successful and more peaceful than Uganda. Their reliance on the continued beating of one ageing 60-something leader's heart as the be- all and end-all of Uganda's destiny is justified by pointing to the barbarous leaders of the past, as if Uganda can only benchmark leadership by reference to the past. Their expectation that Uganda can thrive with only one ageing capable leader is irrational...after all who would invest in a country of such poorly talented people whose leader was in the twilight of his years?
Alternatively, the ekisanja supporters suggest that Uganda now has a cadre of people who would not let the country sink into ruin because they have too much at stake? But who are these people, how have they made their fortunes? Why are they never mentioned by the president for their big contributions to the URA? Why would we prefer them as a means of assuring the destiny of our nation rather than the transparent legitimacy of democratic free elections, and the assurance that comes from a free Judiciary, a free legislature and an executive that can survive the death of any individual? In the end, the question really is what do we want?
Do we want to live as forever grateful peons to the Almighty Leader who leads us to greater fortunes in His all knowing benevolence (Chinese model), or do we prefer to live as free men, willing to fall and rise again, trusting that we are an intelligent people and can produce many capable leaders just as other Africans all around us are able to?
Examples
Our ideals should be the Nelson Mandelas, the Thabo Mbekis, and the Julius Nyerere's of this world. These are the greatest of Africa's leaders; yet they knew that it was really not about them, but about building institutions that could outlast them. It was not about surrounding oneself with generals from one's tribe and family, but creating a real rainbow nation. Africa's greatest statesman, Nelson Mandela, stood humbly in a court docket and revealed intimate details of his personal life as he divorced Winnie so as to set the example that even he, a living legend, is not above the law.
Who then are these people who imagine themselves indispensable to this nation, who monopolise "wisdom" in the country, who will stop at nothing, emasculate constitutions, courts and laws to assure their hold on power? Who are these people to imagine themselves wise men leading a nation of fools?