Was the Obote II Government not following the socialist path anymore?

In September 2006 Patrick Rubaihayo made the following claim, which is reproduced on the UPC´s party website: “When the parties were allowed to function again after the fall of Idi Amin in 1980, UPC shifted its ideological position from socialism to a free market economy.”¹ When this would be true, Obote´s second government would not have pursued the path of socialism anymore. But is it the truth? For that let us look at the 1980 UPC Manifesto.

The UPC Manifesto of 1980

If the UPC would have “shifted its ideological position after 1980”, then this must be visible in documents of that time, like the UPC Manifesto of 1980. But I will show that this is not the case. Unlike in the Common Man’s Charter, socialism is not mentioned by word. But that says nothing about the content of the Manifesto. So let us look after the concrete content.

Did Obote stop supporting cooperatives? No, he did not. The Manifesto clearly states:

“UPC has always encouraged and promoted co-operatives as a means of accellerating economic growth and development. Co-operatives unite a considerable part of the population in the struggle to constantly raise the people’s material standards of living, advance democracy and act as a school of public self-government.”²

Formally the Manifesto says: “The co-operatives and non- cooperators shall receive equal treatment.”But these are just words. Right afterwards, in the next sentence, the Manifesto clearly says:

“The management of the co-operatives shall be strengthened by loaning to them qualified government officers and the co-operative school shall be given every attention to enable it to train staff and co-operators.”

So the cooperatives got advantages over the non-cooperative sector de facto. This is correct to do, since cooperatives are more efficient.

Also the Marketing Boards were kept:

“Marketing Boards shall be re-shaped and suitably strengthened for the benefit of the farmer who shall receive promptly a fair and remunerative price for his produce and an immediate examination of present prices shall be undertaken with a view to increasing them.”

The UPC did not abolish them, the NRM did.

The Manifesto also mentions this:

“Encourage new industries, especially small-scale industries.”

Small-scale industries are mainly a rural matter, like food processing. This becomes more clear by the Manifesto explicitly mentioning this:

“Promoting rural crafts and agro-based cottage industries, such as grain-milling and fruit-canning.”

This was a good idea, which could be connected to the cooperative efforts. The agricultural cooperatives could cooperate with producer cooperatives in this field. Lenin also encouraged that: “Producers’ co-operatives will help to develop small industry, which will supply the peasants with greater quantities of necessary goods.”³ This helps the addition of value to the product and therefore the generation of income by having a higher demand for the agricultural production and being able to sell more industrially processed goods.

And how about the field of industry in general?

The Manifesto clearly states that Uganda’s economy was in bad shape due to Idi Amin´s disastrous rule. There are some things stated that are important to mention here:

“Given our limited resources, the UPC shall evolve an industrial policy to optimise gains to the country.”

Nowhere the state industry is mentioned by word, though it still existed. This is probably the only indirect mentioning of it. The Indians were given back their assets Idi Amin took away, when they were Ugandan nationals:

“Mindful of the pioneering and meaningful role those Asians in industry who were expelled by Amin in 1972, the UPC government would welcome such persons to open dialogue with the government to repossess and reactivate their abandoned industrial units: those who are citizens are, of course, entitled to take-over their enterprises.”

This was part of a desperate attempt to get foreign investments into Uganda to compensate for Idi Amin´s destructions:

“Negotiations with friendly countries for loans and technical assistance for the rehabilitation of factories, ginneries, mill and other industrial units will be urgently initiated.”

“Permit where essential the immigration of skilled professional and technical personnel for specific jobs and periods of time.”

“The Foreign Investment Protection Act shall be suitably strengthened to give investors greater confidence and provide adequate guarantees on the repatriation of profits and capital.”

“Encourage Ugandans to promote joint ventures with foreign enterpreneurs especially where foreign enterpreneurs provide both finance and technical know-how and skills.”

“Assist in the creation of Ugandan industrialists by supporting all capable Ugandans to go into industry and help mobilise for them funds, skills and techniques from within and without.”

Is this just a full restoration of capitalism without any hope? Not really. The early USSR also had such a policy. Lenin said:

“Is it right for the Soviet government to invite foreign capitalists after expelling the Russian landowners and capitalists? Yes, it is, because, seeing that the workers’ revolution in other countries is delayed, we have to make some sacrifices in order to achieve a rapid and even immediate improvement in the condition of the workers and peasants. The sacrifice is that over a number of years we shall be giving away to the capitalists tens of millions of poods of valuable products.”

It is fine, when the treaties for the concessions are limited in time and benefit the country’s economic development. Does that mean, that this would be without danger? No, it is very dangerous. Lenin said on that:

“It is, of course, no easy task to harmonise a concession geared to capitalist production with the Soviet standpoint, and every effort of that kind is, as I have said, a continuation of the struggle between capitalism and socialism. This struggle has assumed new forms, but it remains a struggle nonetheless. Every concessionaire remains a capitalist, and he will try to trip up the Soviet power, while we, for our part, must try to make use of his rapacity.”⁴

The issue was in the USSR, that most concessions were unacceptable because of too low offers, too long durations and too high demands. This is why Stalin concluded in 1925: “We can now quite confidently say that there are no prospects for concessions in our country. It is a fact that the proportion of the output of concession industry to our total industrial output is insignificant, and that proportion is tending to drop to zero.”⁵It is hard to judge how and if at all this would have worked in Uganda. Also if Obote would have been steadfast enough like Lenin and Stalin to refuse bad offers that decrease Uganda’s independence.

When it comes to foreign technicians and skills from abroad: These could also be hired on state cost to start up a state industry (though the investments then would have to be done by the state itself of course). When the USSR was building a telephone network in 1921, Lenin wrote on that matter: “All this already exists abroad; what is lacking can and must be bought.”⁶It is totally fine to buy foreign knowhow at own cost.

Cooperatives are, together with state industries, foes of the “free market economy”. This is why they were later mostly dissolved in the 90s under the NRM. So on this field Obote still held to socialist principles.

Planning mechanisms also were not abandoned:

“Work out a well-planned system of transportation and distribution of commodities.”

Also a National Planning commission was to be set up:

“UPC recognises that Uganda is richly endowed with national and human productive resources. One major reason for the slow pace of development in the past decade was the failure to identify social and economic priorities and to make appropriate plans to realize these priorities.

The UPC will, therefore, establish a strong National Planning Commission, to which experts in various disciplines will be attached. The Planning Commission will be charged with the responsibility of identifying our economic and social priorities and recommending to the Government ways and means of realising these objectives within the national frame-work.

Because of the important role played by reliable, scientifically collected data in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the development projects, UPC Government will set up a National Statistical Bureau to provide the necessary statistical and other data for the National Planning Commission.”

There is not full economic planning mentioned, but still this is obviously not leaving everything to the “free market” as it was claimed by Patrick Rubaihayo.

The Manifesto also renewed the UPC´s commitment towards the trade unions:

“The UPC Government will give every possible support to Trade Unions for the betterment of the workers’ lot.”

This shows that the UPC still saw the workers besides the peasants as the basis of their party’s mass basis. That is typical for a socialist party.

Overall the Manifesto was still having a socialist orientation. Maybe due to the concessions Obote did not mention socialism as a term in this Manifesto? It is possible that he did so. This would mean that he fully understood the situation Uganda was in and that socialism could not as immediately be reached as before Idi Amin´s fascist rule. And still, the long-term perspective stood.

The aftermath until Obote´s death

The aftermath of the Obote II Government should also be mentioned here. By the early 2000s Obote seems to have lost faith in a third socialist approach in Uganda.

Accusing the NRM of “plagiarizing” the Economic Recovery Program in September 2004⁷ and April 2005⁸ is jealousy on something that brought the people of Uganda nothing than long-term problems. The NRM privatized the state industry and de facto abolished most of the cooperatives by abolishing the Marketing Boards via which the state bought up agricultural products⁹. Is that an “achievement” to be jealous of from exile? Is that what Obote truly wanted after all of his two government efforts? Obote seems to have lost touch with the realities in his home country.

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both dictated Uganda these privatizations to “recover the economy”. On the field of industry the privatizations helped nothing. In 1982 Uganda’s GDP had 6.3% share by manufacturing; in 1997 8.4%; in 2008/2009 6.7%; in 2012 8.8% and accounting for only 5% of the labor force¹⁰. This is by no means a success but stagnation on a low level. Cooperatives were abolished in the 90s which led to a worsening of the livelihood of the peasantry. Dan Okello criticized:

“The liberalisation policy was imposed by IMF, World Bank and capitalist ideologues who are opposed to any institution representing a socialist organisation such as the co-operative unions, societies, Co-operative Bank etc.”¹¹

He is correct on that. The Obote II Government openly still supported cooperatives. And then Obote is jealous of the NRM? This is an ideological degradation.

At the end of his life, Obote gave interviews that look like he has given up the socialist goal. For example the 2004 interview with Andrew Mwenda for the Daily Monitor, in which he said:

“I also regret the move to the left. With hindsight, I think we should not have attempted socialist or nationalisation policies.”¹²

He does not deliver an actual explanation. It seems as if he has given up out of fear of failing again. Instead of developing a proper military doctrine to put the army on an iron chain under the control of the party (like in the Marxist countries) just capitulating in fear of another defeat. Patrick Rubaihayo had to admit:

“The move to the left, caused a great concern to the western powers. They could not understand or tolerate the pronouncements. Partly as a result of the move to the left, the UPC government was overthrown on the 25th of January 1971 which was largely engineered by the western powers using Israel as a proxy.”¹³

This is very true. But the conclusion is not that Uganda was in the middle of a Cold War conflict between capitalism and socialism – in general Ugandans seem to be unaware of that, as if they would be a country behind the moon, far away from the events of world politics – and that not the Western imperialists are solid allies, but the socialist countries of the East. Instead Obote in his last years criticized the West for supporting Museveni, calling them “older democracies”. He wrote in April 2000: “Neither the Uganda dictatorship nor any government in the older democracies accepts it as a fact that dictatorship has existed in Uganda for over 14 years now.”¹⁴ He sounds as if he feels betrayed. But betrayed by whom? By the imperialist countries, which hate socialism and have supported Idi Amin to overthrow him already once in 1971? Instead of seeing that he trusted the wrong people in foreign politics, Obote instead compared the NRM rule to a “communist dictatorship”¹⁵ in the same year. I do not even want to point at the December 1969 decision by the UPC to make Uganda a one-party-state, since Obote claimed that he was against it. But I want to point out that Obote in his last years begged his worst enemies and did not leave nice words towards his potentially best allies. It is embarrassing to read.

We all know the saying from the movie “The Dark Knight”: “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” It would be an exaggeration to take the quote literally, especially when transferring it literally on Obote. But there is some truth in it here: When Obote would have died a few years earlier, this whole issue would have never come up.

Obote lived long enough to lose hope as it seems, but this should not prevent us from picking up the socialist banner he threw into the red dust of the African soil and carry it forwards!