Corrupt politicians are killing our society
Nov 12, 2009
<b>By Anthony Okech</b><br><br>I write in reaction to two articles published in The New Vision of November 9, one by Michael Baingana about the immorality of the state, the other by Morris Komakech about the prescriptive patriotism demanded by Uganda’
By Anthony Okech
I write in reaction to two articles published in The New Vision of November 9, one by Michael Baingana about the immorality of the state, the other by Morris Komakech about the prescriptive patriotism demanded by Uganda’s political class.
Going by what one reads and hears in Uganda today, it is hard not to agree with these articles. Both argue one point: The state and the corrupted political class have no moral authority to demand honesty or patriotism from the citizenry they are exploiting through corruption.
What worries me, however, is the cynical undercurrent in both articles. They seem to go further and justify corrupt and unpatriotic behaviour in the civil society because the state is corrupt and the politicians unpatriotic. Behind all their sophisticated eloquence seems to be the very simple argument: The corrupt political class is damaging Uganda; since they cannot reform, let us just join them and destroy the doomed country.
The problem is that the argument is made in a very subtle manner. For example, suggesting that the Ugandan society is not immoral when it offers bribes or supports the stealing of public funds because they do not own and cannot control the state. Having justified such action, how do you reconstitute a moral state as one of the two writers suggests? One big illusion in Uganda today is to believe that one day the corrupt will initiate a successful fight against corruption among themselves.
A revolutionary Brazilian called Paulo Freire emphasised that those who try to dehumanise others through oppression and exploitation themselves become so dehumanised that they can no longer rescue themselves. Unfortunately, as Freire points out, the oppressed sometimes admire the oppressor so much that they take on the persona of the oppressor with the danger that given the opportunity, they become worse oppressors. The writers I have quoted above seem to be pushing the oppressed Ugandans to emulate the oppressor, leading to the ruin of the society. It will reach an extent when everyone is dehumanised and looking for ways to oppress and exploit each other.
Uganda is going through a demoralising, frustrating situation; but woe upon this country if the civil society accepts to be demoralised and frustrated.
The oppressed civil society are the only ones with the solution, but they must undergo a process that Freire called “conscietisationâ€. That is, developing a critical awareness of their situation to the extent that they will rise up and take action to stop corruption. The analyses by Baingana and Komakech provide basic elements for understanding the causes of the current situation, which is a crucial starting point.
However, it is wrong not to recognise that corrupt politicians are corrupting the civil society, but the civil society must not allow that to happen. Corruption remains immoral, no matter who else is corrupt. Damaging one’s country remains suicidal, no matter who else is unpatriotic.
The example one of the writers gives of Rwanda’s effort to reconstitute a moral state as a credible attempt is an interesting one.
If that effort is coming from the state, then the state was most likely not yet dehumanised by corruption. Corruption in Uganda will only end if the fight is led by the local people.
The writer is a member of the Uganda Adult Education Network
I write in reaction to two articles published in The New Vision of November 9, one by Michael Baingana about the immorality of the state, the other by Morris Komakech about the prescriptive patriotism demanded by Uganda’s political class.
Going by what one reads and hears in Uganda today, it is hard not to agree with these articles. Both argue one point: The state and the corrupted political class have no moral authority to demand honesty or patriotism from the citizenry they are exploiting through corruption.
What worries me, however, is the cynical undercurrent in both articles. They seem to go further and justify corrupt and unpatriotic behaviour in the civil society because the state is corrupt and the politicians unpatriotic. Behind all their sophisticated eloquence seems to be the very simple argument: The corrupt political class is damaging Uganda; since they cannot reform, let us just join them and destroy the doomed country.
The problem is that the argument is made in a very subtle manner. For example, suggesting that the Ugandan society is not immoral when it offers bribes or supports the stealing of public funds because they do not own and cannot control the state. Having justified such action, how do you reconstitute a moral state as one of the two writers suggests? One big illusion in Uganda today is to believe that one day the corrupt will initiate a successful fight against corruption among themselves.
A revolutionary Brazilian called Paulo Freire emphasised that those who try to dehumanise others through oppression and exploitation themselves become so dehumanised that they can no longer rescue themselves. Unfortunately, as Freire points out, the oppressed sometimes admire the oppressor so much that they take on the persona of the oppressor with the danger that given the opportunity, they become worse oppressors. The writers I have quoted above seem to be pushing the oppressed Ugandans to emulate the oppressor, leading to the ruin of the society. It will reach an extent when everyone is dehumanised and looking for ways to oppress and exploit each other.
Uganda is going through a demoralising, frustrating situation; but woe upon this country if the civil society accepts to be demoralised and frustrated.
The oppressed civil society are the only ones with the solution, but they must undergo a process that Freire called “conscietisationâ€. That is, developing a critical awareness of their situation to the extent that they will rise up and take action to stop corruption. The analyses by Baingana and Komakech provide basic elements for understanding the causes of the current situation, which is a crucial starting point.
However, it is wrong not to recognise that corrupt politicians are corrupting the civil society, but the civil society must not allow that to happen. Corruption remains immoral, no matter who else is corrupt. Damaging one’s country remains suicidal, no matter who else is unpatriotic.
The example one of the writers gives of Rwanda’s effort to reconstitute a moral state as a credible attempt is an interesting one.
If that effort is coming from the state, then the state was most likely not yet dehumanised by corruption. Corruption in Uganda will only end if the fight is led by the local people.
The writer is a member of the Uganda Adult Education Network