“Beyond redemption” Why Uganda needs no savior

In a little over a week, Ugandans will walk down to the polls to renew their marriage to the governing regime. If you are not a citizen, it is probable that you have seen in some corner of the internet, or through mainstream media, reports which highlight the matchup of presidential aspirants — an incumbent who has presided over the country since 1986 pitted against an assortment of contenders, the main of whom is a musician-turned-politician. Local news reports and social media are rife with reports of arrests, disappearances, shootings and state-sanctioned violence against members and supporters of opposition political parties, journalists and unassuming citizens. Authorities have referred to the latter as “collateral damage” in press briefings. My country cannot lay claim to a single, peaceful transfer of ‘power’ from one administration (more accurately, “regime”) to another since its independence in 1962.

Civic discourse during this season revolves around the urgency of maintaining the peace, in large part an undeniable (and repeatedly touted) achievement of the current administration. However, when handcuffs start to click and bullets begin to fly, one cannot help but notice an undying undertone; a fetishization of the violence that has characterized every change of the country’s leadership for the entire span of its independent existence. What better person to summarize it than the Minister of Defence?

“The police and army have a right to shoot you when you threaten them.”

Civic participation, especially when leaning towards an anti-establishment inclination, is in reality a call to arms. It’s probably the transitional hangover.

The country is fairly polarized. On one hand, there is a persevering callousness towards the sins of the State — however shocking — in some voter groups, provided the illusion of normalcy and safety can be prolonged (“By whom else?” they ask). Across the political divide, the demand for change among more marginalized flanks of the electorate continues to grow. The substance of this change remains to be unraveled and scrutinized. To mention this in the context of public debate, however, invites backlash…not the civil kind. People that ask these questions in what we call ‘The Struggle’ tend to be perceived as a belonging to a status class and at that, detached from the concerns of the common man.

Enter anti-intellectualism.

This phenomenon has characterized multiple movements like Brexit, the election of DJT in 2016 — but also reared one of its uglier heads in previous revolutions, among which I point to the Khmer Rouge regime led by Pol Pot in Cambodia (then known as the Communist State of Democratic Kampuchea) where potential political opponents, especially the educated middle-class and the intelligentsia were pre-emptively massacred. Richard Hofstadter in his 1963 classic, Anti Intellectualism in American Life identifies some of the types of anti-intellectualism:

• Anti-rationalism: the rejection of critical thought as a desirable quality for individuals to hold.
• Unreflective instrumentalism: the preference for short-term pay-offs irrespective of carefully reasoned long-term consequences.
• Anti-elitism: the distrust, and perhaps even dislike, of individuals who claim to have superior knowledge or wisdom about a subject matter.

Does any of this sound familiar? It is pervasive. My favorite demonstration of the phenomenon features a popular city pastor dismissing a viral gaffe in which a political candidate was unable to sufficiently answer a question about fiscal policy, in a sermon to his flock:

“They go live on television and start speaking of terms like GDP! GDP? Who needs to hear that?”

Part of me understands the frustration that applying doctrinaire analyses to vet persecuted aspirants – men and women that risk their lives and those of their closest associates – (often futilely) opposing a regime famed for its repressive tendencies can evoke. The idea of a country that plays dice at every turn, hoping to hit the jackpot, as long as the process ejects the elephant in the room is not comforting either.

No more heroes, please.

The din in the political arena will most likely drown out these considerations. What remains clear is that the gun-given right to rule is omnipresent. The difference between this election and those before is that the demographic composition of the country (more than two-thirds of the population are below 40) points towards a future in which majority of the population is awake to the makings and machinations of their government. Regardless of the result from the polls in ten days, the status quo for the previous 34 years is waning. The generational difference in civic participation will bloom in the short term future. The kind out of which no authority can shoot its way. The present offers an opportunity to effect meaningful change: not the kind where another warrior-hero changes the guard of an inherently troubled country, but the kind fueled through ideas, discourse and foresight — redefining and practicing active participation. That, or to indefinitely hold our peace.

Observe. Consider. Does the possibility that this marriage may be for life appeal to you? I thought so. Engage.