Resistance Movements

Part of Uganda's sordid and unhappy history includes a number of resistance and rebel movements. The most recent and notorious has been led by Joseph Kony. Called the "Lord's Resistance Army," (see sidebar) he and his group of officers mix witchcraft and religion to establish a polity based on the biblical ten commandments.

No doubt there are problems with the government and issues which need to be addressed, but are the rebel movements helping to bring about the right solutions?

What makes a rebel group legitimate or illegitimate?

The LRA has been accused of killing and maiming the very civilians they claim to be fighting for. Children have been the main targets of abduction and abuse and there are a number of reports of sexual assault, rape, polygamy and forced labor imposed upon these young children.

There are a number of other rebel groups operating in other areas of Uganda operating with varying levels of violence: the West Nile Bank Front, Uganda National Rescue Front II, and the Allied Democratic Forces. In Eastern Uganda, there are the Anti-Referendum Army, the Uganda Salvation Army, and the Citizen's Army for Multiparty Politics.

What strikes me, first, is the number and variety of rebel groups. This says seems to reflect something about the government in power...

At the same time, I am struck by the grandiose claims being made about the groups. All seem to tout freedom, political rights, 'salvation' or solution - yet often their means and methods are quite to the contrary.

Is it necessary to use violence to obtain legitimate political objectives? It is often said that the ends do not justify the means. But I wonder if it is misleading to separate the two components of any endeavor in this regard. Too often the means are actually a reflection of the ends. It may be that the two go hand in hand.

It matters little what these groups claim to be fighting for, look at how they go about it. In the same way, human rights groups, well-meaning NGOs and international organizations or even individual advocates attempting to fight poverty, promote justice, freedom and peace should also be scrutinized. Do their means correspond to their message? If not, it may be wise to question whether these aren't a reflection of the goals themselves...and the foundation on which they rest.

Just some food for thought.

I remember a comment made by a friend who graduated from Columbia's School of Social Work: she was struck by how many of her colleagues - idealists and advocates for social justice - were embittered, angry, negative people...I have thought about that comment a lot. We often assume, when we see the goals being promoted by individuals or organizations, that we can trust the means and the motives are in direct correlation. Not so. Look first at the means, look first at the person and then you may well see if the two go hand in hand. What claim does one have to promoting justice when one cares little about one's own family members or friends? What claim to promoting women's rights when one treats women with little respect or dignity at home?

I can think of only one person whose message and means matched his personal commitment and integrity...Jesus.

Hmmm. Funny, I keep coming back to the same place, and the same person.