Kampala — On Monday in Outlook, the exiled former presidential candidate Col. Kizza Besigye argued that there has been a double-standard in the administration of justice in this country. In this 3rd part, Besigye argues that government has responded to political dissent by mobilising for war:-

There has been a lot of focus, by political analysts, on the role of the military in the turmoil Uganda has gone through. However, the role of the Ugandan civil "elite" or "middle class" (of which I am a part) has not been appropriately dealt with. It is my contention that the Ugandan civil "elite" has played a more primary role in the origin and continuation of turmoil in Uganda. In fact it may serve our country well to research into the behaviour of this "class" or group, especially, to help understand better the behavioural patterns and the influences responsible for them. With the usual exceptions to the rule, I can make the following general observations about this class of our society:

It is composed of people who have demonstrated extreme selfishness, rapacity, cowardice, opportunism, hypocrisy, laziness, moral decadence and an inferiority complex.

Some of the possible causes of this despicable and detrimental behaviour may be attributable to the absolutism of our colonial and feudal legacies, peasant culture, type of formal education, and general privation due to the small economy serving a rapidly rising population.

In practice, the will of the people is exercised through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives or through referenda. The manipulation and interference with people's free expression that was significant under the NRM rule first surfaced during the 1994 elections to the Constituent Assembly. That has since increased by leaps and bounds. This is partly what I wrote about in 1999 and Museveni ordered that I be marched to the court-martial.

What Ugandans saw during the elections of 2001/2002 came as a surprise to many of them. They had not imagined that the heinous acts that unfolded could be associated with the man who promised a fundamental change. If there was still any doubting. Thomas, an extensive record of the violations of the law, electoral offences, and malpractice now exists, and many of these were confirmed in court.

It is these experiences that have rudely shaken people, some from deep slumber, to look up to the reality that perennial usurpers of their sovereignty (the military with sections of the elite) are at it again.

The realisation has generated a lot of despondency, which is to be expected after people's hopes have been badly dashed. The people however, are quick to realise that there is no option but to get back on their feet and continue with the struggle, having learnt a few more things from the latest abortive process.

An important silver lining to the current cloud is that many in the current military do not support usurpation of peoples' power (attributable to the freedom-fighting nature of its origin); yet they know that if they talk, they will be condemned and then taken to a court-martial to be sentenced.

Conditions for armed rebellion exist in Uganda today, because force is employed to deny people their rights and freedoms, justice, and sovereignty.

This, however, does not mean that war is the only solution and that it must be resorted to. If other avenues for legitimate and peaceful expression and organisation by those demanding political changes are available, they would be used to struggle for their objectives.

No oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organised effort to free itself. If it is possible to organise peacefully and lawfully, then that would be done. If that possibility does not exist, then the organisation will be done illegally, and the process violent. What is hopelessly unrealistic is to expect that people will not struggle for their freedoms and rights.

The words of Patrick Henry in old St. John's Church in Richmond in 1775 (at the beginning of the American Revolution) that: "Give me liberty or give me death", fully captures the reality of peoples' spirit of resistance to oppression.

It is therefore, the "Government of Uganda" (as controlled by sections of the military together with sections of the civilian "elite"), who can prevent armed rebellion from being used as a form of struggle.

In the circumstances, the oppressed people remain with the following initiatives:

Appeal to the government to rethink its position and take steps to avoid violent conflict.

Appeal to the regional governments and bodies, and to the international community to "persuade" the Ugandan authorities to take the necessary steps to avoid violent conflict.

Take up arms and fight to liberate themselves.

The first two have been extensively undertaken, and are still being pursued; details and evidence of this is available and can be published under a separate cover.

The responses to these initiatives have been largely disappointing.

The government has responded by preparing for war: expand the size of the military, buy more weaponry, enact laws to provide for further repression, and intensify acts of repression.

It is understood that some of the regional centres made some contacts with the Ugandan authorities in response to our appeals, and that these were curtly brushed aside as being a response to the whining of a few disgruntled people. Some in the international community have even been reported to have made public statements in support of the military build up by government; justifying it as a show commitment to deal with "terrorism".

So the stage seems to be gradually getting set for violent confrontation.

On the one hand, if the people making "noise" or "sounding war drums" are a few disgruntled people, bad losers, mad, traitors etc. as has been widely projected by the governments' propagandists, then everyone may rest assured that there is no prospect for armed rebellion at all. On the other hand, if the conditions described above exist, and given the response of government and other sections of influence; then whether Kizza Besigye and other "malcontents" like him are dead, I can swear that, as day follows night, there will be armed rebellion in Uganda.

This leads me to the second question: can armed conflict result in a peaceful, stable and democratic society?

As submitted earlier, no oppressed group has ever been liberated except by its own organised effort to free itself. If peaceful and lawful ways of organising are prohibited through use of force, then force will be resorted to in order to acquire the ability to organise and struggle for the desired changes.

This means that the primary objectives of the struggle are political, and the primary course of struggle is necessarily a political one. The intervention of force has the relevance and use of only removing the obstacle of force that may exist on the path of organised political struggle. It would therefore be wrong to view or rely on violence as the deliverer of peace, political stability and democracy. It would be equally wrong to avoid violence if violent constraint has been placed on the path of peaceful organisation and struggle. Whether the intervention of violent means becomes necessary or not, the successful attainment of the objectives depends on the peoples' consistent focus on those objectives and the essential milestones en route to them.

Where people engaged in a struggle are not vigilant enough, leaders in the struggle can hijack it and recourse it to their personal or clique's ends- irrespective of whether there was violent intervention on not. Uganda has witnessed several peoples' struggles getting hijacked; both the largely peaceful ones, like the struggle for Independence, and all the violent ones so far experienced. The need for vigilance and the risk of hijack are, no doubt, greater following violent intervention. As pointed out earlier, war has the effect of concentrating power in the hands of a few, and promoting militarism. It is also pertinent to note that even when the main objectives the struggle are not realised, there are usually significant positive and irreversible advances made on which subsequent struggles build.

It is my firm assertion, therefore, that when violence becomes necessary in a struggle, and it is appropriately applied and guided, it can contribute to the realisation of the objectives that include peace, political stability and democracy.

In the fourth and last instalment of this series, Col. Kizza Besigye argues that no matter, he who rules by the gun will probably go by it.