Pulkol outburst quite strident
May 06, 2004
OPINION<br><br>THE refusal, so far by President Yoweri Museveni to state his political position after May 2006 has given some people the blind notion that they can roll him and the Movement down the drain.
OPINION
By Owono Opondo
THE refusal, so far by President Yoweri Museveni to state his political position after May 2006 has given some people the blind notion that they can roll him and the Movement down the drain.
As critics including those who were yesterday in senior government positions at Museveni’s pleasure rant and rave, hurling accusations on the on-going constitutional proposals, the Movement will hold a fast line on the side of the masses.
Museveni’s patience and willingness to listen to all views has compounded the insultingly provocative posturing, the latest being former External Security director-general David Pulkol.
To Pulkol, being a “naked-walking,†Karamojong is being “transparentâ€.
But I wonder, why doesn’t he move in Kampala with his trousers off? By invoking the backward ve Karimojong tradition, Pulkol mistakenly hopes he can intimidate others into submission like they have done to neighbouring tribes whose wealth they have ruined.
For Pulkol and PAFO, the fringe group he has joined, Museveni is guilty of complicity for not “stopping,†or “condemning,†those advocating lifting the presidential term limit.
Pulkol charged Museveni with making himself a “subject of speculation†and being “surrounded and misadvised†by a clique connected to him by “marriage, history or similar interestsâ€.
Yet it is the critics of Museveni and the Movement who are fanning political speculation about the transition to multipartyism when the Government has openly proposed its interests to the Constitutional Review Commission.
“Never question another man’s motives. His wisdom, yes, but not his motives,†President Eisenhower used to tell his staff.
The public ought to know that Pulkol is so far the only former spy chief to be deployed twice in the same office.
Therefore he cannot accuse Museveni of working only with those related to him by marriage or history! Also apart from political association, there are no other known ties, historical or by marriage between Pulkol and Museveni.
One false allegation that all Movement turncoats have been making is that there is “hard-line clique,†that has become “impervious and intolerant†to “constructive criticism.â€
However, what the so-called “hardliners†object to and will continue to challenge are the deliberate and calculated lies by people like Pulkol to gain cheap popularity.
Among revolutionaries, constructive criticism does not include lies and falsehoods as it now seems to be the basis for pseudo-democrats.
Pulkol now resembles former US Wisconsin senator Joseph R. McCarthy: in his communist phobia,
he fanned hatred against leading US military
and political figures from 1940-57.
The overall strategy of the critics especially former Museveni subordinates, is to lure the President into vulgar public exchanges with them,without succcess.
They want this strategy because they know that a one-on-one exchange between Museveni and any of them can only enhance their influence. Some of us the so-called hardliners have advised Museveni not
“to get into a pissing
contest with the skunksâ€.
With time, the turncoats will hang themselves if given enough rope and we are certain that the best option is for Museveni
to ignore responding to them directly, each time a mad one springs up.
Peddling from the late James Wapakhabulo, Pulkol also objected to the proposed referendum as merely for “propaganda valueâ€.
Wapakhabulo is dead and Ugandans should not be bound by
a dead man’s wish, which, if he was courageous and truthful, never put on the public table when still alive!
The “intellectualsâ€
who qualify as “experts†and are opposed
to the peasant and rural majority like Eriya Kategaya and Pulkol on the referendum issue are nothing but panderers of minority interests.
All these populist new-found anti-Museveni and anti-Movement politicians ought to know that the Movement is a liberation mass organisation. Its strategic objective is national liberation, security, peace, stability and the transformation of Uganda.
And such, it must first represent the interests of the peasantry, rural masses, women, youths and informal business people, who are the majority.
Assessment of the current phase of the democratic struggle and motive forces show that the Movement should maintain its character as a broad national organisation whose strength must continue to reside in its mass base guided by an enlightened and focused leadership.
Attempts by the old anti-democratic forces to co-opt national and smaller groups into undemocratic political and constitutional frameworks are becoming visible with each passing day.
Those like Eriya Kategaya, John Kazoora, Jack Sabiiti and David Pulkol, who accuse Museveni of having “changed†or “diverted†from the original principles, are the ones who cannot show their individual achievements for
the years they worked
in Government.
By Owono Opondo
THE refusal, so far by President Yoweri Museveni to state his political position after May 2006 has given some people the blind notion that they can roll him and the Movement down the drain.
As critics including those who were yesterday in senior government positions at Museveni’s pleasure rant and rave, hurling accusations on the on-going constitutional proposals, the Movement will hold a fast line on the side of the masses.
Museveni’s patience and willingness to listen to all views has compounded the insultingly provocative posturing, the latest being former External Security director-general David Pulkol.
To Pulkol, being a “naked-walking,†Karamojong is being “transparentâ€.
But I wonder, why doesn’t he move in Kampala with his trousers off? By invoking the backward ve Karimojong tradition, Pulkol mistakenly hopes he can intimidate others into submission like they have done to neighbouring tribes whose wealth they have ruined.
For Pulkol and PAFO, the fringe group he has joined, Museveni is guilty of complicity for not “stopping,†or “condemning,†those advocating lifting the presidential term limit.
Pulkol charged Museveni with making himself a “subject of speculation†and being “surrounded and misadvised†by a clique connected to him by “marriage, history or similar interestsâ€.
Yet it is the critics of Museveni and the Movement who are fanning political speculation about the transition to multipartyism when the Government has openly proposed its interests to the Constitutional Review Commission.
“Never question another man’s motives. His wisdom, yes, but not his motives,†President Eisenhower used to tell his staff.
The public ought to know that Pulkol is so far the only former spy chief to be deployed twice in the same office.
Therefore he cannot accuse Museveni of working only with those related to him by marriage or history! Also apart from political association, there are no other known ties, historical or by marriage between Pulkol and Museveni.
One false allegation that all Movement turncoats have been making is that there is “hard-line clique,†that has become “impervious and intolerant†to “constructive criticism.â€
However, what the so-called “hardliners†object to and will continue to challenge are the deliberate and calculated lies by people like Pulkol to gain cheap popularity.
Among revolutionaries, constructive criticism does not include lies and falsehoods as it now seems to be the basis for pseudo-democrats.
Pulkol now resembles former US Wisconsin senator Joseph R. McCarthy: in his communist phobia,
he fanned hatred against leading US military
and political figures from 1940-57.
The overall strategy of the critics especially former Museveni subordinates, is to lure the President into vulgar public exchanges with them,without succcess.
They want this strategy because they know that a one-on-one exchange between Museveni and any of them can only enhance their influence. Some of us the so-called hardliners have advised Museveni not
“to get into a pissing
contest with the skunksâ€.
With time, the turncoats will hang themselves if given enough rope and we are certain that the best option is for Museveni
to ignore responding to them directly, each time a mad one springs up.
Peddling from the late James Wapakhabulo, Pulkol also objected to the proposed referendum as merely for “propaganda valueâ€.
Wapakhabulo is dead and Ugandans should not be bound by
a dead man’s wish, which, if he was courageous and truthful, never put on the public table when still alive!
The “intellectualsâ€
who qualify as “experts†and are opposed
to the peasant and rural majority like Eriya Kategaya and Pulkol on the referendum issue are nothing but panderers of minority interests.
All these populist new-found anti-Museveni and anti-Movement politicians ought to know that the Movement is a liberation mass organisation. Its strategic objective is national liberation, security, peace, stability and the transformation of Uganda.
And such, it must first represent the interests of the peasantry, rural masses, women, youths and informal business people, who are the majority.
Assessment of the current phase of the democratic struggle and motive forces show that the Movement should maintain its character as a broad national organisation whose strength must continue to reside in its mass base guided by an enlightened and focused leadership.
Attempts by the old anti-democratic forces to co-opt national and smaller groups into undemocratic political and constitutional frameworks are becoming visible with each passing day.
Those like Eriya Kategaya, John Kazoora, Jack Sabiiti and David Pulkol, who accuse Museveni of having “changed†or “diverted†from the original principles, are the ones who cannot show their individual achievements for
the years they worked
in Government.