To what extent was Idi Amin anything more than an unstable despot?
Sachin Shukla
Idi Amin ruled Uganda for eight years – from 1971 to 1979 – and in that period was he was responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths. He expelled 80,000 members of the country’s Asian community, giving them only 3 months’ notice to leave, and murdered close allies whom he had worked with for thr ee decades on the basis of mere rumour. Amin transcended a challenging upbringing and limited education to gain global prominence. Confronting internal and international opposition, Amin skilfully formed alliances benefiting Uganda today. Despite tribal roots, Amin instilled unity in a divided society. Amin, it can be argued, was an autocrat with some ability, a monster with vision. While the regime he led cannot be rehabilitated, it arguably should be reinterpreted. In characterizing Amin as ‘ despotic ’ , critics of his regime have seen him as, firstly, tyrannical, but also as oppressive, ruthless and impulsive. Amin, from the Kakwa Tribe, rose to power despite lacking formal education. He joined the British colonial forces and rising through the ranks, due to Kakwa men's athleticism and obedience, he gained prominence during Kenya's Mau Mau uprising. After British rule ended in 1962, Amin built a strong rapport with President Milton Obote, eventually taking control of the Ugandan Army in 1965. In 1971, he executed a coup against Obote, showing calculated thinking. An early example of Amin’s portrayal as an ‘unstable despot’ was his policy of expelling Uganda’s Asian community. Although the community had been in Uganda for around 70 years, and was only 80,000 strong, it was disproportionately wealthy and influential, and, because they were of Indian origin, the great majority of its members were British citizens. Asians in Uganda were heavily engaged in trade, commerce, and industry, heading major businesses and owning significant property. They held a strong grip on local retail trade. 1 Amin mandated departing Asians to sell assets and businesses to the government at reduced rates or surrender them outright. Moving savings abroad was restricted, and private property transfers were prohibited. 2 The expulsion was widely condemned at the time, and the abrupt and unfair manner in which it was carried out could certainly be considered despotic. However, it was not the act of a single unstable leader. Amin’s predecessor, Obote, had also considered appropriating Asian wealth, but had ultimately decided not to implement the policy, not least to maintain good relations with Britain. 3 Amin cared less about the British than the economic benefits that accrued to him and his followers – senior army figures secured much of the resulting wealth – and about his popularity among the Ugandans who benefitted from the redistribution of work that followed. 4 The expulsion of the Asian community was harsh,
1 Patel 1972: 13. 2 Ibid.: 17. 3 Leopold 2020: 229. 4 Patel 1972: 18.
260
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting