Lt. Col. Felix Kulayigye
3 June 2011
opinion
The military is the main armed wing of a State. It is a part of a society’s political structure and an instrument of the policy pursued by the sitting government in regard to internal and external affairs. Although it is impossible to determine precisely when and how Uganda emerged as a State, it is undeniable that force was a factor in bringing it about.
The military in Uganda came into being, among other things, to maintain internal peace and order and to protect the State from external dangers; a role it has played exceptionally well – domestic and foreign.
We need to note that Uganda, like other developing countries, has ‘services’ other than the army. Although the ground forces play crucial roles in military interventions and subsequent rule, it does not always follow that the other services do not play important roles.
The phrase ‘military regime’ has been traditionally used when a military official has come to power as the Head of State. With Uganda, that is history which cannot repeat itself, I believe. Ugandans having undergone a liberation struggle from the hands of the misers, tyrants and sadists, through a fundamental change, not a change of guards.
Today, Uganda has moved from a guerilla conduct to statesman governance guided by civil norms of tolerance and respect for divergent views. This is true with the periodic elections the country has gone through with eligible Ugandans electing their leaders, not being intimidated, tortured, maimed and hoodwinked.
As a liberation movement, the NRA/UPDF has stuck to its founding doctrine, irrespective of the fact that all liberation movements come to power through the force of arms. The NRA/NRM 10-Point programme (later expanded to 15) has seen Ugandans live and value their lives. What kind of democracy do some people want? A democracy to drive their selfish interests? I think by doing this the NRA/UPDF would have forgotten its main cause to fight a people’s protracted struggle.
The relationship between military and civilian groups has an important bearing on performance. The smooth performance, coexistence and operation of civilian regimes are not solely determined by the civilians who occupy the official seats of power. The UPDF’s behaviour and attitude has had an important impact on the final performance of the sitting government.
Therefore, to arbitrarily categorise this governments as military or civilian is to miss the fundamental mix of military and civilian elites at our places of workplaces of interaction and our communities at large. By applying military-civilian coalition model, one can easily transcend national boundaries and focus on common political factors for the good of our people irrespective of their social, political, religious and economic backgrounds.
It is very important to note that a regime (military or civilian) can survive for a time when the civilian bureaucracy opposes it. But no regime can survive if the military does not at least acquiesce in its rule. The State needs the military for many functions, and therefore winning their backing is a crucial concern of any leader. When the NRA came to power in 1986, after a liberation struggle, it went through events which has seen Uganda taking shape – from military government to a democratic one.
When the NRA/UPDF took over political power, we maintained and continued to develop mass political mobilisation in the interest of Ugandans. This is totally different from the very much quoted Hitler regime. Important to note is that the UPDF has its establishment and hierarchy. There is no doubt whatsoever to say that UPDF has maintained such notions of behaviour, as acceptable and required by the people of Uganda and the Constitution at a time when Uganda is governed by the people’s rule of law.
Lt. Col. Kulayigye is the Defence and UPDF spokesman
AllAfrica – All the Time
More:
Militarisation Has Strengthened Liberation Movement