Re-examining Museveni thesis: A call to contextual understanding

First, the article’s portrayal of “Musevenism” as a monolithic ideology is inaccurate. President Museveni’s leadership style and policies have evolved over the years, addressing various challenges and adapting to changing circumstances. Reducing his presidency to a single ideology overlooks the stages in this county’s governance.

Second, the article’s focus on “Generation Z” as a homogeneous group is misleading. This generation is diverse, with varying experiences, aspirations, and political views. Assuming that the zoomers had similar aspirations with those of Museveni of the 1970s in staging a flopped protest neglects the complexity of their perspectives.

Third, the article implies a false dichotomy between “Musevenism” and “Generation Z.” It’s not necessarily a zero-sum game, where one must replace the other. Uganda’s future can benefit from a blend of experienced leadership and fresh perspectives.

More so, the article advances a narrative suggesting that Yoweri Museveni’s undergraduate thesis; ‘Fanon’s Theory on Violence: Its Verification in Liberated Mozambique’, advocates for violence as a means to achieve and maintain power, and deceptively this interpretation points to concerns about his leadership approach. 

However, a closer examination of the thesis reveals a more nuanced exploration of Frantz Fanon’s ideas, rather than a proposal to advance violence.

Ludwig Wittgenstein in his book Philosophical Investigations (1953, published posthumously), specifically, in Part 2, Section IV, states that: “The context is the sum total of all the circumstances that play a part in our understanding of a word, a sentence, or a piece of language.”

The authors of the Monitor article fall short of Wittgenstein’s emphasis on context as crucial for understanding meaning which is a central theme throughout his Philosophical Investigations.

The thesis was written during a time of widespread liberation movements in Africa. Museveni’s work must be understood within this historical context. It was written in 1971, during a time of liberation struggles in Africa. His thesis aimed to understand Fanon’s theory on violence within the context of Mozambique’s fight for independence. Museveni’s exploration of Fanon’s ideas was an academic exercise, not a blueprint for his future leadership.

Second, Museveni’s thesis was an academic work, not a political manifesto. It explored Fanon’s theory, rather than advocating for violence. I draw the authors’ attention to the fact that the Generation Z concept has only as recent as 2010-2012 gained traction, yet Museveni has been very consistent with his aspiration for peace and non-violence approaches as traced in his campaign manifestos, as evidenced on  Page 12, of the 2001 manifesto where Museveni remarks that, “Our emphasis is on peace, stability, and development. We must avoid violence and conflicts.” 

The 2006 manifesto Page 25: “We shall promote a culture of peace, tolerance, and non-violence in our society.”

The 2011 manifesto Page 30: “Our goal is to create a society where citizens live in peace and harmony, free from fear of violence and intimidation.” 

“We must prioritise dialogue and negotiation over violence and confrontation.” (2016 Manifesto, P. 18)

“Our vision is for a Uganda where all citizens live in peace, prosperity, and harmony, regardless of their background or beliefs.” (2021 Manifesto, P. 10)

Needless to mention, is the fact that Museveni’s thesis was a critical analysis, not an ideological endorsement.  

Museveni’s verification of Fanon’s theory does not imply an ideological endorsement. Rather, it demonstrates a critical engagement with the ideas. For instance, Museveni states on Page 12 of his thesis that, “Fanon’s theory of violence is not a prescription for revolution, but rather an analysis of the conditions under which violence becomes necessary.”  

This quote indicates that Museveni saw Fanon’s work as an analysis, rather than a call to action.

Further still, on Page 25 of the thesis, Museveni states that, “While Fanon’s theory may have relevance in certain contexts, it is not a universal truth.” This shows that Museveni recognised the limitations of Fanon’s theory and did not see it as applicable in all situations.

And on Page 30, Museveni says, “The use of violence must be carefully considered and justified in each particular context.” 

This highlights Museveni’s emphasis on careful consideration and justification of violence, rather than blind ideological endorsement.

Intriguingly on Page 40 of his thesis, Museveni states that, “Fanon’s emphasis on violence as a means of liberation must be balanced against the need for constructive and creative solutions.” 

This suggests that Museveni saw Fanon’s ideas as one aspect of a broader discussion, rather than the sole solution.

On Page 50, Museveni notes that, “The role of leadership is crucial in determining the course of revolution... Fanon’s theory does not provide adequate guidance on this issue.” 

This is a clear indication that Museveni saw limitations in Fanon’s theory, particularly regarding leadership and the complexities of revolution.

It is my humble submission, therefore, that Museveni’s thesis was a critical examination of Fanon’s ideas, rather than an endorsement of violence as the authors seem to allege. And the quotes from his thesis are a clear demonstration of his critical engagement with Fanon’s ideas, a fact that the authors try to corrode.

In conclusion, therefore, it is vital for the authors to draw a clear distinction between Museveni’s leadership style and his academic work. Museveni’s leadership style should not be solely judged by his academic work. His actions and policies as a leader should be evaluated separately.

The narrative that Museveni’s thesis proposes violence as a means to advance his leadership is an oversimplification. By contextualising the work, we see a refined academic exploration of Fanon’s ideas, rather than a call to violence. It is essential to separate Museveni’s academic work from his leadership style and actions, ensuring a fair and balanced understanding of his contributions.

The writer, Mary Mutesi, is a lawyer, political and policy analyst

[email protected]

@Mary Mutesi