It is easier to create an army than fight corruption, says Museveni

In the first of a two-part exclusive interview, President Museveni tells Monitor Managing Editor, DANIEL KALINAKI, about the icy relations with Buganda Kingdom and why it is easier to build an army than fight corruption. Excerpts:-

This year you became the longest serving leader in East Africa. What is your biggest achievement during your time in office?
I wouldn’t say one big achievement [but] a package. First of all, discipline in the army. We punish very severely, any soldier who commits an offence especially serious offences like murder, rape [and] looting. Since we came from the bush, we have executed 123 soldiers for killing people.
Number two is democracy. Elections were never a permanent feature of Uganda’s landscape, both in the colonial times, and after independence. We had an election in 1962 and the next one in 1980 after 18 years but now it is every five years.
The other big contribution is education for all [which] is leading to other achievements like, for instance, the development of science and innovation. Something recent but which is also very important is modernising and commercialising agriculture. We have already succeeded in [vertical integration] of some sectors like in milk, from the farm to the factory. We are trying to do the same for bananas. There is some improvement in coffee; we have done it for fish.

What are the notable failures or things you should have done differently?
We delayed on electricity and infrastructure. Not that we were not aware but the political clashing blocked us and we didn’t have a way of quickly resolving it. That is why we ended up setting up the Energy Fund now and now we are moving on building the dams without losing time.
The other problem we are remaining with is corruption. Because some of these people, even when we have the money, they try to steal from that money but that one we are handling because there are reference points.

I read a speech you made in 1990 about corruption. Some 20 years later, you are still speaking about fighting corruption. Isn’t there a mismatch between the promise and the reality?
Not at all. For us we don’t talk about corruption only. We talk about corruption and criminality [including] extra-judicial killings by state agencies, rape, defilement, smuggling, poaching of animals, [as well as] embezzlement. So you have got something like eight or so very serious crimes.
You needed different remedies for those different problems. Within a reasonably short time you can train an armed force that can deal with this killing, smuggling, poaching and so on. But embezzlement needs different types of soldiers because it is not an overt crime. We could disband Amin’s army and build a new army quickly but you could not disband a medical service and build another one quickly.

While chicken thieves are quickly arrested, senior people in government accused of corruption appear to be above the law. Some have been censured by Parliament only for you to bring them back into government. Are some people above the law?
No, there is nobody who is above the law. The censuring was not serious. It was being done by some of these people who eventually went to FDC. They were using it as a political weapon so I was not convinced by them. I do not remember individual cases now but when I was looking at them at that time, I didn’t see proven things. It was more or less like a political weapon; let’s censure somebody so that there is a blot on his record.

Some of the people who were censured have since been accused of more corruption. Was it not an error of judgment to bring them back into government?
No, no no. The NRM is a political force that has been able to aggregate the positive qualities of people and use them to achieve results and at the same time try to suppress their negative tendencies. We normally have cut-off points. Somebody makes a mistake which is remediable, we help to remedy them because our aim is to save, not to kill people. We did not have perfect people. We had people who had weaknesses.
But these groups in Parliament are just using it for political fights. So for us we are not impressed by that and we are not part of those groups or efforts.

Does that standard of counselling and reform apply to non-NRM members?
Yes, why not? You see, there is mistake; there is crime. There is a difference. Somebody can make a mistake of judgment but there is crime. Crime is tried in the criminal court. Somebody may make a wrong judgment but it’s not a crime, it’s just wrong judgment. But when you deliberately, for instance, steal money; that is a crime, there are no two ways about it. The problem I have with, for instance, the censuring, they were mixing up bad judgment with crime.

Who should determine the motive and the intent? Should it be an internal NRM process or should it be left to the courts?
That’s what we were advising those MPs when they were having those censures. We were saying; why didn’t you refer this to a professional body? To, for instance, refer it to the IGG, to refer it, in some cases to the DPP if you think it is a crime so that they handle it professionally but they tried to make themselves like a court so we just left them.

You support regional integration to create a large East African market yet you have presided over balkanisation of the country into small districts. How do you reconcile these two contradictory policies?
These administrative units are all part of one market. I am not parcelling out the market. When we introduced decentralisation and transferred resources and power to these local areas, people became very excited and they are the ones who demand. We like decentralisation because sometimes it involved local emancipation.
Within Uganda, there was colonialism but also sub-colonialism within colonialism. You could get some of these local groups colonising other groups within Uganda. For instance, you had Teso [which was] populated by Ateso and Kumam. Kumam are a totally different group, they are Luo-speaking while the Ateso speak Ateso, which is the same as karimajong.
But when they are in this district of Teso, they had to speak Ateso so their language was totally suppressed. So when we created the district of Kaberamaido; that became the centre of gravity of the Kumam. They were liberated. There were also issues of geography, like Kalangala, and some districts were simply too big. Initially they were 56, then we gave them power and money. Oh! Oh! Oh! Then everybody wanted.
So an element of excessive thirst for smaller units came in but I still did not regard it as catastrophic because it simply means you have to spend slightly more on administrative costs but it is not as fundamental as markets.

Aren’t we walking down a dangerous path when we allow tribal identity to be the basis of political decisions? Aren’t we sowing the seeds of ethnic divisions?
Even the old districts were tribal districts only that some of the tribes were oppressing other tribes so how is it better for, for instance, the Bakiga in the old Kabale to suppress the Bafumbira who are Kinyarwanda-speaking in Kisoro District? If you want to get out of the tribal thing, then you go for Swahili.

Your views on ring-fencing elective offices in Bunyoro caused a stir with some people saying they are impractical and bordered on sectarianism. Do you agree?
Ring fencing is not new. We have already ring-fenced the position of President if you read the Constitution. In order to be the president of Uganda, you do not only have to be a citizen, you must be a citizen [by birth] so if you are an immigrant who came recently and you are a citizen after seven years of applying, you can’t compete for this office. That is ring-fencing. Not only that, we ring-fence seats for women. We say here is a seat in each district but it is only for a woman. The idea of ring-fencing is everywhere in our whole system.

But this would introduce a tribal dimension, which is sectarian because people in, say, Buganda, will then say that they should only vote for Baganda, despite people being free to migrate across the country.
No no no. But it is already in the Regional Tier for instance. In Article 178, on the request of Mengo, it provides that the Katikkiro will have to come from the indigenous tribes. That’s ring fencing.
If some people have got some worry that they may be overwhelmed by immigrants and so on, I don’t think it is really sectarian. It is caution. If there is a real need, it should be looked at because it is also not good to be over simplistic.
Those flexible formulas of assuring some group which is worried about the bigger project, is actually a very clever mechanism for integration. Our real interest is not administration, it is economy, the market.

Relations with Buganda are at an all-time low between the Central Government and the Kingdom and – correct me if I am wrong – between Kabaka Ronald Mutebi and yourself. What needs to happen on both sides to restore this relationship and is this a priority to you and your government?
I have paid very close attention to that [Mengo] group. In the Regional Tier we did the maximum that one can put up without interfering with the other crucial elements because we were mixing decentralisation to the districts and those who wanted some level at the region, some tier. And then the crucial national functions I am talking about.
I think when these people sit down, they will see that Article 178 is the most optimal. They may still be having some aspirations…and I don’t know what elements can be improved upon but I doubt very much because I studied it very very closely.
I took my time, I don’t think there is more one can do without interfering with the basic aims of both devolution of power and national integration and regional integration.

We have begun to see a retreat to pre-colonial positions. The Archbishop of Kampala has, for instance, pointed out that Buganda was granted independence on 8th October 1962 as a state, and then Uganda, also as a state, was granted independence the following day. Is it possible to have a strong Buganda Kingdom within a united strong Uganda or is it that one must give way for the other?
As I have told you, Article 178 is the best. You go and study it. In future I can give a more elaborate answer. I have all the answers in my head but I choose not to delve into it today. Not as yet.
But the short answer is Article 178 was the optimum point. If anybody tries to destabilise it, they will fail. To put it politely.

Some of your critics have said that you are guilty of double standards by promoting or defending the rights of minority groups such as the Banyala to express their identity while stopping the reinstatement of the Obugabe of Ankole. Is this criticism fair?
People in Ankole are not interested in those kings. They are very prosperous without kings. If you want to see people who are thriving without kings, go to Ankole. They are thriving and the truth is they have no interest.
No district council has ever passed a resolution calling for that king to be there. So there is no basis. The people do not need it. They have not shown that they need it. So we cannot allow some of these people to come and impose themselves on these people.
On the contrary, in Nakasongola they passed a resolution in the district council calling for Ssabaruuli. Even this Kayunga they passed a resolution in the council some years ago; I even have the copies in my office. I would not allow anybody to create an institution unless there was minimum support or overt support for that institution.