Last week, I made the case against what I consider to be lazy denunciations of the so-called ‘elites’ in the context of Uganda’s current sociopolitical landscape, specifically the endemic problems we face and the elusive quest for transformational change. It has become somewhat appealing, for what it is worth, to single out ‘elites’ for condemnation.
However, the basis and precise target are not exactly clear or apparent. No doubt, there are valid criticisms to make against the educated, privileged and relatively powerful social classes, but as with many questions and controversies, nuance is necessary.
We must start by asking, who are Uganda’s elites? Are they a distinct social class? What are they at fault for that sets them apart from the rest of society? Are elites part of the ruling class or are they enablers and servants of the actual ruling class? Are there elites among the opposition parties, leaders and activists or the much-maligned elites are exclusively working with the rulers and against the masses?
In the absence of distinct or organised social classes, it is hard to identify and name a group that has shared interests and who work in concert in a clear and consistent manner.
In the old days of ideological debates on economy, society and politics, the Marxist tradition used the notion of ‘petty bourgeoisie’ to denote most of what today many loosely call elites – civil servants and bureaucrats, professionals like lawyers, doctors and teachers, small business leaders and entrepreneurs, etc.
A major criticism against the bourgeoisie was that they were counterrevolutionaries bent on keeping the status quo that accorded them trappings of power, comfort and wellbeing, thus were unwilling to join the suffering masses in overthrowing the extant system.
At a 1966 tricontinental conference in Havana, Cuba, Amilcar Cabral the heroic and inspirational leader of the fight for independence in Portuguese Guinea and the Cape Verde islands famously called on the ‘petty bourgeoisie’ to commit class suicide by giving up their current privileges, then move to join the masses in bringing about revolutionary change.
Still within Marxist intellectual circles of the 1960s and 70s, the ‘petty bourgeoisie’ were referred to as a comprador class, who were ostensibly working as agents of imperial interests or neocolonialism in Africa and constituted a major impediment to the total liberation of the continent from the yoke of colonial control and domination.
In western societies, the bourgeoisie class, writ large, both the ‘petty’ and the big business classes or the owners of ‘capital’ (meaning the economy), to borrow Marxist terminology, was seen as having a revolutionary sentiment to the extent that revolutionary change would advance their class interests against other classes, especially the rural landed gentry.
In terms of driving the wheels of change, however, it was the mass of the working class that was seen as the ultimate revolutionary class.
Today, in Uganda, beyond convenient broad-brush strokes of calling out a vague category of ‘elites’, there is no organised and clearly identifiable class one can point to for what has gone wrong.
We have clicks and coteries of various stripes and in different positionalities. For example, the rulers and their acolytes are a hotchpotch of the intellectually savvy, semi-illiterates and functionally illiterates. We have a combination of professionally competent operatives serving the regime but also non-credentialized courtiers lined up in the service of the status quo.
There are sycophants among the educated and uneducated, the salaried and substance lot. This admixture holds true across sectors and spectrums of our politics and social structure, in the central government and local governments alike, in urban circles and rural settings, among the rulers and in opposition trenches alike.
Whatever has gone wrong in Uganda is the product of the sum total of Ugandans, if we take agency seriously and want to allocate blame or assign credit. Even the fiercest critic of the current ruling regime must concede it is not just about one man – Mr Museveni – solely responsible for all that has gone wrong, allowing for the fact that he is the biggest player and the topmost culprit; at the general level there is a collective national psyche at play.
At any rate, the so called ‘educated classes’ or those with financial and political power are a tiny minority.
If the majority, the masses, rose up demanding a different direction and course for the country, it is impossible that the ‘elites’ can succeed in stopping the wheels of change. This has played out in many countries in our times not to mention countless historical cases of mass uprisings that upend the status quo.
As I noted last week, pitting a rather imaginary evil elite against hapless if angelic masses is a misleading binary. It is not just intellectually dishonest as it strips the masses of their due agency, more importantly it also obstructs a proper grasp of the possibilities of change.
Our aspirations as a nation, the pursuit of a Uganda we want, cannot be the exclusive business of a minority of elites, however powerful.