Screenshot
One of the key lessons I learned in graduate school was getting the question right – and defining it in precise terms.
The biggest part of any project – intellectual or political – is getting the question right. It is getting the diagnosis right. Otherwise, without defining the question succinctly and precisely, whatever else follows will be simple politicking.
What is the question the Protection of Sovereignty Bill seeks to answer? As many have pointed out, the bill is bad politics. But to his credit, the main man behind it, AG Kiryowa Kiwanuka was brave enough to come and defend his bill. This was in an article generously published in New Vision, “Regulating Foreign Influence Without Stifling Growth.”
Sadly, our lanky and dandy AG comes off as incoherent, (like he has not read his own bill), contradictory, vague, and simply politicised. You can tell a man deeply steeped in neoliberalism and capitalism logics (not a word about foreign extraction), and enjoying his access to the tools of violence.
At a personal level, this bill is not only a threat to journalism and commentary – publishing information and criticism – but also a threat to activism such as the work AGORA and Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG). All critical commentary and documentation are covered under economic sabotage. We’ll be charged of treason for these columns. This is fascism masquerading as sovereignty.
SOVEREIGNTY AS POLITICS
In his explainer, bwana Kiryowa Kiwanuka struggles with basic definitions: a foreigner, foreign agent, a citizen, interests of a foreigner vs interests of Ugandans; influence vs interference, etc.
He creates utterly illogical distinctions such as “interests of a foreigner against interests of Ugandans.” What is this supposed to mean in a global world connected by capitalism (and our Marxist opposition to this world) be it in Kampala, Berlin or London.
What is the good AG talking about? Would “human rights” be considered an interest of foreigners and not Ugandans? Would the pursuit of democracy or opposition of democracy be an interest of foreigners and not Ugandans?
How does Kiwanuka sustain these distinctions? Check this out: Having identified the problem “foreign interference,” Kiryowa attempts to explain the difference between “interference” and “influence.”
For him, influence is okay especially since influence “is open, and transparent” while “interference” is bad since it tends to be “covert, coercive and deceptive action.” In his own words, cutting a scholar’s posture: “the task is definitional: Foreign influence which is open, transparent engagement is not foreign interference. Foreign interference is often covert, coercive and deceptive action.”
How did foreign influence become good for simply being open. The World Bank and IMF influenced Yoweri Museveni to ruin Uganda’s economy. They did so in the open. Does this mean Ugandans should support them for simply doing so in the open?
Sadly, the article is titled “regulating foreign influence,” while at the same time making “influence” as its positive analytical terminology. Later, in the same article, Kiryowa seems to have forgotten his pre-defined parameters and starts to use influence and interference interchangeably.
He says, for example, that the bill targets “activities influencing the public to oppose the policy of Government.” Indeed, as one commenter noted, Kiryowa’s explainer states a soft ambition – an idea – while the bill is far more explosive, more comprehensive, and more dangerous in its overall stated claims.
One is pressed to imagine KK didn’t read his own bill while commenting. What is unmistakeable is that a lawyer or a set of lawyers wrote a bill with one obsession in mind: stopping (foreign) funding for opposition political parties, NGOs/ CSOs activism, and the diaspora communities.
But in doing so, their intellectual overreach exposed them. Clearly, they have identified an inexistent problem – foreign interference/funding –especially that foreigners run the show in Kampala. We are foreign-led country.
SOVEREIGNTY AS ECONOMICS
In truth, sovereignty is an anti-colonial terminology. It is independence. In fact, in high school, sovereignty and independence are used synonymously to signal self-reliance. To understand sovereignty well, one has to understand colonialism from where the terminology emerges.
Defined correctly, colonialism underscores a set of processes and practices through which Europe and North America continue – to this day – to steal our resources. Thus, sovereignty signals a rejection of foreign interference especially as regards country’s resources.
Look, there would be no colonialism if this would not end in the stealing of the resources of the colonised. It would be a useless exercise. At the same time, there would be no need for sovereignty if it did not seek to safeguard countries resources from a foreign country.
In fact, at first, from hearing the name, the “Protection of Sovereignty Bill” meant “Nationalisation.” Look, as my friend Kalundi Serumaga has often said, Uganda does not have an economy, but Uganda hosts a foreign economy.
Out of 24 commercial banks in Uganda, only three are locally owned. All banking profits end in the western world. The major telecommunication companies in Uganda (MTN and Airtel) are foreign- owned.
In fact, you are laughed at for using UTL line. On the ruins of Uganda Coffee Marketing Board, 70% of our coffee is exported by foreign companies. We only recently recovered power generation through UECDL. Umeme had enjoyed a field day in Uganda making humongous profits.
Who are our gold dealers? Who are the men stealing 98,000 tonnes of fish from Lake Victoria annually? Our oil will be exploited by foreign companies and are just looking forward to a commission!
You cannot have all these core aspects of your economy in the hands of foreigners – the things foreigners are obsessively interested in – and then turn around and talk about political sovereignty.
If sovereignty is defined purely in political terms – as KK and team do – you’ll be concerned about what enters the country. But if you do define it in political economic terms, you’ll depressed about what leaves the country.
The Auditor General seems to even be unaware that for every dollar ($1) that enters Uganda, $24 leave the country through other means.
yusufkajura@gmail.com
The author is a political theorist based at Makerere University.
