LESSONS FROM THE FORBES LIST’S CELEBRATION OF WEALTH

Last week the Forbes list was released.

The list is an unabashed celebration of wealth accumulation, listing the richest individuals in the world. The list accounted for 1,826 dollar billionaires with an aggregate networth of $7.1 trillion or about twice the total economic output of Africa, population 800 million.

Africa was well represented with Nigerian industrialist Aliko Dangote on top of the heap with other Nigerians, Egyptians and South Africans accounting for most of the continent's Forbes listers.

I suspect that for the members of the Forbes list it does not change very much, if anything at all, in the quality of their lives. But as journalistic project, now in its 29^th year, it is a winner. People like lists. They simplify information and what best way to provide context than by presenting from best to worst?

"What is interesting is to go down the list and notice that while the richest man in the world Bill Gates and few other billionaires have made their money in the ICT sector, the old economy industries of manufacturing, finance, real estate and even agriculture dominate...

Among other things this means that to make outlandish fortunes one still has to build capital over years, decades even generations before you can even be on the list.

Also interesting is that more than half the people on the list were from the USA and Europe, while resource rich Africa only accounted for 106 or less than a tenth of the total list occupants.

This points to the fact that it is not the abundance of natural resources that produces the wealth of nations. The individual entrepreneurs are key but more importantly is the economic and legal framework they operate in.

The US is a single $17trillion dollar market, Europe is not very far behind with an economy of about $14 trillion. On the whole the number of billionaires depends on the size of the economy they are playing with.

The love of money is the source of all evil and it interesting to see how when interviewed most of the billionaires are not in it for the money. Even at their most extravagant they cannot consume their accumulated dollars.

Two things come out. That the bigger they get the more people they employ and the more people they serve. Secondly, that the growth of their companies is a real survival mechanism. There is no such thing as staying in the same place you are either growing or shrinking.

"The poor convince themselves that such accumulation of wealth is evidence of the supersized greed of the superegos that own it.  This thinking probably helps them sleep better at night...

Interestingly billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have between themselves pledged to give away all their wealth to charity by the time they die. Buffett last year gave away $2.5b. Ironically however his net worth as an individual during the same period grew by $14.5b.

Of course the argument is that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer, a situation that is unsustainable and bound to cause instability in the future. They are right and they are wrong.

Inequality is inevitable. What is not, is the growing chasm between either side of the wealth divide.

This growing inequality is actually an indictment on governments. Either through poor policies that do not allow businesses to create wealth, jobs and taxes or by failing to spread the tax of the surpluses businesses make for the benefit of the rest in terms of security, social services and infrastructure.

"Despite our poor mentalities we need more wealthy people in our midst, businesses create wealth not governments. So the more wealthy people you have the better chance your society has of uplifting the general population, especially if government is doing its job well...

Which comes around to how government should aid businessmen. Giving them handouts does not work.

Last week the Economist had an article “Brazil’s business Belindia”, wondering why Brazil while it has a handful of world class companies it has hundreds more mediocre to bad businesses.

As it turns out the winners such as aeronautical company, Embraer or JBS a meat processor (they slaughter 100,000 cows a day) are private companies benefitting from investments in education and progressive policies that allow them to compete on the world stage. State owned oil company PetroBras on the other hand has been brought to its by mismanagement and scandal that have come to light with the fall of global world prices.

So we have to stop looking at the Forbes list as a vanity project, but as a tool, for both individuals and governments, that can point us in the right direction in our efforts to raising te living standards of our people.

SHILLING COLLAPSE IS OUR FAULT NOT THE DOLLAR’S

Last week the US dollar burst through historical highs against the shilling raising inflationary fears and more stress for local businessmen.

The dollar traded above sh3,000 on Tuesday and held there by the time of publication. This is the highest the dollar has been against the shilling.

There was very little we could do about it.

During the financial crisis in 2008 the US decided that to jump start the economy they would risk the threat of inflation and pump more and more dollars into the economy. They called it Quantitative Easing.

This and other interventions got the economy back on its feet and last year the US Federal Reserve – the central bank, announced it would start mopping up the excess dollars as the economy was on a steady growth path. The effect of this announcement and subsequent actions have strengthened the dollar.

However the other major economies – Europe and Japan, held back on their own Quantitative Easing programs hoping their economies would just recover organically. They did not. So at the end of last year Japan kicked off its own program and Europe started in March.

So while the dollar is strengthening the other major currencies are weakening against it.

Locally, the drought has affected coffee exports, which have been down almost a fifth in the first months of the season, which begun in September, compared to the same period last year. In addition, while donor funding has returned the taps have not been fully opened. While our supply of dollars is not as healthy as it was a year or two ago, our demand for imported goods and fuel continues to grow unabated.

The usual suspects -- the importers, are jumping up and down calling for government and the central bank to do something about the galloping dollar.

"The best the Bank of Uganda can do – and they know it, is to moderate the movement of the shilling either upward or downward, so there are no dramatic jumps in the value of the shilling either way. To try and hold the shilling to certain rate would be a fool’s errand....

To hold the shilling to say sh2000 to the dollar would require that the central bank flood the market with dollars, which they would have bought using shillings. The artificial supply – supported by no production, would only last for a while before either the central bank gives up or runs out of reserves to sustain the defence of the shilling. At that point the shilling would suffer a spectacular collapse, possibly shoot past sh3,000 and who knows even touch sh4000 before the forces of supply and demand return it to a more sustainable level.

In 2011 the Swiss National Bank (SNB) declared it would hold the Franc from appreciating against the Euro, whose economy was in throes of depression following the global financial crisis.

At the end of last year, four years and $400b later, the Swiss gave up their defence and the Franc gained 30 percent in one day against the Euro. Imagine if the Uganda shilling jumped from sh3,000 to sh3,900 in one day against the dollar? Mayhem!

Central bank interventions are often the equivalent of treating a deep wound with a plaster. One would only be treating the symptom and not the real cause.

There are no short cuts.

To shield ourselves from the vagaries of the market two things must happen.

One, we have to produce more. And we are not talking about incremental improvements in production, but exponential leaps.

Secondly, with increased production agro-processing will become a more viable proposition. We need to process these products in order to have better control of the market prices. When the world price of coffee drops, like it did in the late 1990s from $4.00 to $0.40 a kilo, we did not see a corresponding drop in the price of instant coffee, if anything it has continued to rise ever since.

"The way our economy is structured, based on huge donor inflows and exportation of raw materials, we can expect that we will every so often suffer these fluctuations against international currencies. The antidote of course is to reduce donor dependency and add value to our exports...

Restructuring the economy is a long term project that will involve reforming the land tenure system, the resuscitation of the cooperative movement, the reskilling of our manpower and the rejigging of the financial system.

Of course in the short term it is much less painful to seat on our hands just allow things to take their own course. It really is too hard and potentially politically expensive to do what needs to be done, but we put off the necessary to our own detriment.

LACK OF STRATEGIC CLARITY HURTING THE OPPOSITION

Politics is a lot about perceptions – creating them and defending or dispelling them. So too is marketing. Politicians can learn a lot from marketting to sell their message.

Marketting should make selling easier. Through the creation of awareness, enhancing the customer experience with the product or service, ensuring the associations are positive all in the hope of creating customer loyalty.

How one goes about doing the above will depend on the product or company’s position in the market.

In the classical book Marketing Warfare by Al Ries & Jack Trout they identify four positions in the marketing environment – the leader, the challenger, the flanker and the guerrilla. So the trick is to know your place in this hierarchy, important because it would make no sense to use the leader’s marketting tactics when you occupy the guerrilla position.

Basically if you own the leadership position in an industry in addition to innovating you have to watch the challenger, replicating or executing better any new initiatives they may come up with. If you are a challenger you should be looking to turn the leader’s strengths into weakness as part of a strategy to unseat them from the top. If you are the flanker you should only contest for space in the areas where the leader and challenger are uninterested.  The guerrilla is a variation of the same theme, identifying a niche market and exploiting and even dominating it.

Of course these positions are not static, changing as the competition goes along, depending on the ambitions and execution of their respective strategies by the players.

"Also given the different strategies the players employ in the market, their respective calibration of what constitutes victory will, out of necessity, differ...

It would be instructional to learn from the history of the NRM.

In the wilderness of Luwero they fought as guerrillas. Understanding their limitations in terms of human and material capacity they were keen not to engage the UNLA in any frontal battles. Hitting and running, not offering a stationary target. Building their capacity painstakingly slowly while losing as little of their hard earned capacity as possible. Victory at it’s bare minimum was that you were still alive the next day.

They graduated to flankers taking over uncontested territory in western Uganda. Victory here was that they could protect these marginal areas from government attacks.  They eventually challenged for the prize by turning the UNLA’s strength, their heavy armaments and fixed positions into weakness, attacking on many fronts, using speedy and lithe mobile units to which UNLA was slow to react.

When in power and as the leader, beyond casting their net every which way they can in formulating policy, they have not been averse to adopting opposition proposals as their own and even spreading dissension in the “enemy” camp on the odd occasion.

Going by this segmentation it is futile to bunch the opposition together. That being said the individual parties have not been clear to the public what their unique selling proposition is and even worse they are not clear about their positioning in the grand scheme of things.

That is a problem.

"You will be doomed to failure if your party should be pandering to a niche audience and yet you are posturing like a mass party. Or for lack of resources a party, which should be looking for uncontested ground is challenging for the political leadership of the country...

Of course, it is one thing what parties tell the electorate and a totally different thing what they are truly capable of.

This is an important discussion because ten years after the return to multiparty democracy it is safe to say, the opposition parties have not made progress, in fact they have already ceded ground.

It’s this lack of strategic clarity that is dooming them to worse than the perennial bridesmaids of Ugandan politics.

FIFTY YEARS OF WARREN BUFFETT

Last week investor billionaire Warren Buffett put out his annual letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, the US conglomerate he controls.

Reportedly the most anxiously awaited company annual letter in the world, it was noteworthy this year because this is the fiftieth year that Buffet has led the company. And his shareholders are not complaining.

In the half a century that he has been in charge the company’s share price has grown from about $20 to $219,500 a share on Thursday. This represents a 19.4% compounded annual growth. So if in 1965 you had the good sense to invest $1000 with Berkshire you interest would now be worth $7m (sh20b).

No one comes close to this level of investment acumen and consistency.

Buying his first share at 11, Buffet, now 84, graduated to buying whole business to create the current company that has a few dozen companies under its roof, but whose main business is insurance, energy and logistics.

Buffett’s annual letters are a popular read – a compilation of them is one of the best selling Business books. The thing that made this annual letter unique is his and co-chairman Charlie Munger’s  attempt to peek into what the future holds for the $220b colossus.

For the full annual letter check, http://berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2014ltr.pdf#page=33&zoom=auto,0,742 but below are excerpts from letter that are a must read for all managers with ambitions beyond 4WDs, little brown girls and extended holidays abroad.

On buying businesses ….

“Forget what you know about buying fair businesses at wonderful

prices; instead, buy wonderful businesses at fair prices.”

On Capitalism …..

“One of the heralded virtues of capitalism is that it efficiently allocates funds. The argument is that markets will direct investment to promising businesses and deny it to those destined to wither. That is true: With all its excesses, market-driven allocation of capital is usually far superior to any alternative”

On why Berkshire is a different kind of conglomerate ….

“Sometimes pundits propose that Berkshire spin-off certain of its businesses. These suggestions make no sense. Our companies are worth more as part of Berkshire than as separate entities. One reason is our ability to move funds between businesses or into new ventures instantly and without tax. In addition, certain costs duplicate themselves, in full or part, if operations are separated. Here’s the most obvious example: Berkshire incurs nominal

costs for its single board of directors; were our dozens of subsidiaries to be split off, the overall cost for directors would soar. So, too, would regulatory and administration expenditures.”

On the attitude you should adopt around the market ….

“Periodically, financial markets will become divorced from reality – you can count on that. More Jimmy Lings ( past manger of a conglomerate that went burst) will appear. They will look and sound authoritative. The press will hang on their every word. Bankers will

fight for their business. What they are saying will recently have “worked.” Their early followers will be feeling very clever. Our suggestion: Whatever their line, never forget that 2+2 will always equal 4. And when someone tells you how old-fashioned that math is --- zip up your wallet, take a vacation and come back in a few years to buy stocks at cheap prices”

On maintaining long term viability ….

“Financial staying power requires a company to maintain three strengths under

all circumstances: (1) a large and reliable stream of earnings; (2) massive liquid assets and (3)

no significant near-term cash requirements. Ignoring that last necessity is what usually leads companies to experience unexpected problems: Too often, CEOs of profitable companies feel they will always be able to refund maturing obligations, however large these are. In 2008-2009, many managements learned how perilous that mindset can be.”

“At a healthy business, cash is sometimes thought of as something to be minimized – as an

unproductive asset that acts as a drag on such markers as return on equity. Cash, though, is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent”

“At Berkshire, our “breathing” went uninterrupted. Indeed, in a three-week period spanning late September and early October, we supplied $15.6 billion of fresh money to American businesses. We could do that because we always maintain at least $20 billion – and usually far more – in cash equivalents.”

On the next 50 years …

“Choosing the right CEO is all-important and is a subject that commands much time at Berkshire board meetings. Managing Berkshire is primarily a job of capital allocation, coupled with the selection and retention of outstanding managers to captain our operating subsidiaries. These duties require Berkshire’s CEO to be a rational, calm and decisive individual who has a broad understanding of business and good insights into human behaviour. It’s important as well that he knows his limits.”

“A Berkshire CEO must be “all in” for the company, not for himself. He can’t help but earn money far in excess of any possible need for it. But it’s important that neither ego nor avarice motivate him to reach for pay matching his most lavishly-compensated peers, even if his achievements far exceed theirs. A CEO’s behaviour has a huge impact on managers down the line: If it’s clear to them that shareholders’ interests are paramount to him, they will, with few exceptions, also embrace that way of thinking”

“My successor will need one other particular strength: the ability to fight off the ABCs of business decay, which are arrogance, bureaucracy and complacency. When these corporate cancers metastasize, even the strongest of companies can falter.”

“All told, Berkshire is ideally positioned for life after Charlie and I leave the scene. We have the right people in place – the right directors, managers and prospective successors to those managers. Our culture, furthermore, is embedded throughout their ranks. Our system is also regenerative.”

THE CABINET RESHUFFLE WAS A POWER PLAY LIKE ANY OTHER

The much anticipated cabinet reshuffle came and went with the usual brouhaha, commentary of the event tended towards criticism of the regional mix and the average age of the cabinet.

There was a powerful subtext, which suggested that the purging of former Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi loyalists was complete.

The chattering masses were barking up the wrong tree.

The need for a broad based government, with players from different political shades and parts of the country, was embraced as a means to patch up a country divided by civil strife along mostly religious lines. There was some tribalism but, even now, we do not hold a candle to the Kenyans on this.

It also served to co-opt established political bases into the NRM’s project. At the time the NRM fresh out of the bush, while militarily superior was politically thin on the ground. So riding on the desire for national unity they bolstered their support with the use of the broad based government mantra....

But in terms of service delivery regional or tribal considerations should not be a criteria for choosing minster neither does it necessarily enhance the lives of the people from which the respective minsters come.

Do a poll of all Uganda’s finance ministers, the official holders of the country’s purse strings, it would be hard to argue that the people from their districts – beyond a small elite around the minister, have benefitted.

In fact the biggest pushers for balanced regional representation in the government are the political elite and their allies who stand to benefit. Mama Barungi or Akello might jump on the band wagon to clamour for a minister from her area but if the security works, the roads are a passable and social services work in her area she couldn’t care less whether she had a minister from her village or not. Which is as it should be.

Let us be honest, this whole regional balancing thing has passed its sale-by date.

Secondly, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the competences required of a minister. A minister need not be technically proficient in his ministry’s core business, but he must have leadership competence – the ability to form and work with teams towards achieving a goal.

Granted the attorney general must be a lawyer, as must the speaker, but beyond that, it is hard to see how specific proficiency would beat out leadership ability as key to running a ministry.

So we have it wrong when we insist health ministers must be doctors or energy or works ministers be engineers or agriculture ministers be farmers. The technical competence is best found in the technocrats who work under the minister.

Which brings us nicely around to the issue of age.

Howls of derision were heard in bars around Kampala with the appointment of Philemon Mateke, a minister in the Obote II government – 30 years ago, and NRM minister and more recently Kisoro district chairman.

He is also 79 and looks it.

But no one seems to have anything bad to say about him apart from harping on about his advanced years.

Not to compare any of our leaders with legendary investor Warren Buffett, but this year he will have led his $200b conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway for 50 years, with no sign of slowing down. His age, 85, is only a concern when the issue of who will succeed him “when he is run over by a bus” arises but not as an indictment on his competence to continue leading his company as CEO/Chairman.

There are two motivations at play in forming a government, which need not be mutually exclusive.

On the one side are the citizens, we want better service delivery, which the ministers are responsible for. For the ruling party, in addition, cabinet appointments are a tool to maintain hold on power. The appointing authority rewards allies and dangles the prospect of ministerial appointment in front of difficult regions (which swallow the “we must have a minister” mantra) to get them in line.

The formation of the cabinet has always been and will always be a power play, to see it as otherwise is to engage in an exercise in futility...

It is a counterintuitive argument, but maybe if the cabinet was even more biased, service delivery nationwide would be much better. Because in a democracy in order to hang on to power, since one tribe or region had all the ministries the government  would fall all over themselves to deliver services. Service delivery would actually be a tool of regime survival.

MAO, OTUNNU DEPATURE TAKES AWAY FROM 2016

This week UPC president Olara Otunnu announced that he will not be standing for re-election for the party’s top job when his term expires next week.

This comes only days after DP president Norbert Mao announced he was taking leave from his duties as leader to recuperate. Mao last year was hospitalised in Nairobi for acute pneumonia and has not been back to his best since.

"Between the two of them they did not win five percent of the vote in the last election – Mao got 1.86 percent while Otunnu managed 1.58 percent of the votes cast in the 2011 presidential elections, but their colourful characters, earnestness of their losing campaigns and unvarnished conviction that the NRM must go for the country to progress will be missed...

Mao, ever since his bruising battle for the guild presidency in 1990 against the Noble Mayombo, has always seemed destined for state house. Unfortunately Mayombo passed on, but there was a promise made that, down the line they would replay that famous guild election, but this time for the highest office in the land. A seasoned battler who successfully faced down the NRM thrice in Gulu –twice as MP and the third time for the chairmanship of the district, and then prised the leadership of DP from its traditional Ganda stewards, one felt that in full flow his oratory and confidence would be a match for anyone standing in his way.

In Otunnu, swept into this city on the wave of optimism that came with the victory of Barack Obama in the US. Not averse from bluster and bombast Otunnu moved quickly to wrestle the reins of UPC from his local rivals before standing for the presidential elections in 2011. A campaign that petered to an embarrassing halt with him refusing to vote. Since then he has been the most beleaguered party leader in Uganda, a situation which was not rescued by his show of bravado in facing down the water cannons of the Uganda police in full public view.

The former UN Under-Secretary also cemented a perception that his rival Yoweri Museveni learnt almost three decades ago, that you have to be on the ground to make a telling political challenge. Being in “exile” – however accomplished you are, will not help you at home. A useful lesson for all those intending candidates abroad.

We shouldn’t forget too, that perennial presidential contender Kizza Besigye stood down as leader of FDC, though it does not disqualify him from being the party’s flag bearer again.

The three men’s stepping back may very well mean that their respective parties get a new lease of life. Initially one can expect some chaos as rivals jostle for position --- even in the case of DP, but as they settle down one can expect some new vigour.

"Looking forward to the 2016 polls one may be forced to question the timing of Mao and Otunnu’s actions. Will their respective parties be able to resolve the internal political struggles in time to promise a credible campaign?...

At least the FDC has accepted General Mugisha Muntu’s leadership being a flag bearer at next year’s polls may be another thing, but there is a semblance of stability in the party that could serve them well next year.

Another lesson from Besigye, Mao and Otunnu has to be that discontent with the government and a charismatic flag bearer count for little without an organised structure to project your intentions. There really are no miracles in politics, a leader’s first order of business is to build, takeover or co-opt an organisation to further their aims. There are no short cuts.

MONEY IS NOT FOR SPENDING

Last week former professional boxer John "The Beast" Mugabi flew into town, the first time he has been back to the country in 26 years.

Mugabi at his peak fought for the middle weight tile against Marvin Hagler, in a fight that earned him the equivalent today of $1.6m (sh4.5b).

However,  mismanagement of his money and spending sprees for which the phrase "a rural approach to urban excitement" was coined, blew this and all his prior earnings and today has little or nothing to show for it.

He is not the first and will not be the last professional athlete to squander his earnings.

Other athletes have had better guidance. Former professional tennis Andre Agassi made millions of dollars in prize money in his two decade long career. However, his manager, put him on an annual salary, which was fraction of his annual earnings while the difference was invested in businesses and real estate. Agassi, who retired about a decade ago now lives off the proceeds of his investments, which have since grown to be many times larger than the total earnings of his career.

One may argue that Mugabi's earnings pale in comparison to Agassi's and therefore Agassi was less likely to have blown it all even if he tried, but there is no fortune that can't be blown.

Former undisputed heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson once made a $20m in one fight in the 1990s, but now lives on the edge of bankruptcy. His career earnings were many times over what Agassi made.

"The difference between Agassi and the two boxers -- it's coincidental that they are both black, is their respective attitudes to money. Agassi's actions were dictated by the attitude that money is not for spending but for making more money unlike his boxer colleagues for whom money was for eating...

This is the same reason why fishing communities around the world are poorer than other agricultural communities.

Fishermen consume all their catch and when they do, they just push their boats out to go and catch more fish. A maize farmer on the other hand keeps some of his harvest aside to plant the next crop. This ability to delay gratification is at the bottom of determining the relative wealth of individuals or communities.

Poorer individuals are quick to wolf down their earnings or any windfall that comes their way, wealthier people on the contrary invest or save some money before consuming what's left.

About fifteen years ago one wealthy Asian told the Financial Times of London, when asked about how he accumulated his millions,  his answer was, "It's an old Indian trick. For every ten shillings I made I ate one shilling and reinvested the other nine. I repeated until I was rich"

Given the experience of financially illiterate boxers its clear that money does not make money, its how we think that makes -- and ultimately ensures that we keep, the money.

Said differently there are only two ways to spend money -- to consume it or invest it, the wealthier members of our society, those who have grown genuine wealth not those who have made a profession of dipping their fingers in the state coffers, is that their spending habits are biased towards investment and not consumption.

An 1980s survey reported in the book "Millionaire next door" that the average US millionaire owned a car that was on average not more expensive than seven percent of his net worth -- the difference between the value of your assets and liabilities. So in today's Uganda if you bought a $48,000 4WD your net worth should be at least $700,000(sh2b). If your networth is higher you are in illustrious company if not you have a good chance of following Tyson and Mugabi down the slippery slope to poverty.

"Networth however is not a practical indicator of wealth. You may be asset rich ---have square miles of land to your name, but still be cash poor...

On the scale of financial well being you have poverty at the bottom, a situation where a person can not sustain himself either for lack of income or very low income. Then you have financial independence, where a person earns enough to sustain himself but is often a paycheck away from falling into poverty. The there are those who are financially independent, they have accumulated income earning assets that can sustain them even if they don't earn a paycheck. And then of course there are the wealthy whose assets throw off so much more income than they can consume that they nor generations to come may ever need to work another day in their lives.

So what Mugabe and Tyson needed to hear twenty years ago, is that money is not for eating but for making more money and secondly, invest or save first and consume the rest and not the other way around.

And you need not wait for the windfall money, in fact it would do you a lot of good if you can shift your mentality before the windfall comes.

EXIT SEKAGYA, CONTINUE KIPROTICH

Last month’s retirement of former Ugandan Cranes captain Ibrahim Sekagya followed only days later by marathon runner Stephen Kiprotich’s second place finish in the Tokyo marathon, maybe considered a passing of the baton between two of our generations most accomplished athletes.

Kiprotich, the current Olympic and World Champion, may have captured our collective imaginations with his burst from obscurity in the last three years, but Sekagya has been a consummate professional in his sport for close to two decades.

There is every indication that the level headed Kiprotich, barring any injuries, will be a contender for top honours in any marathon he races for a few years to come, but Sekagya has displayed a consistency in performance only reserved for the truly great.

True, Sekagya’s Cranes teams never won the Africa Cup of Nations, leave alone qualify for the continent’s premier showpiece or the World Cup for that matter. Sekagya played in the Champion’s league but his teams never won.

Success is relative. 

In a country like Uganda ,starved of high level sporting success Sekagya is a god, in Brazil he would be a straggler. But credit to Sekagya he did not rest on his laurels, even though for the greater part of his career he was head and shoulders above his local contemporaries.

The story has not been told but how many times did he dread returning to the European winter after a holiday break back in Uganda? How many times did he look at what he had achieved, accumulated, looked at his friends here and wondered why he was sweating? How many times away from home, hounded by injury and his mind wracked with self-doubt, did he wish he could just lie down and give up?

"Whichever way you look at it, it is hard to take away anything from Sekagya’s achievements. The true accomplishment of Sekagya’s career was that he was able to rise above the mediocrity, the whining and bitching of his countrymen, which would have easily weighed his spirit down to not only survive but thrive on a greater stage. He committed to the discipline on and off the pitch not only for days or weeks or even months, but for years on end, in order to unleash his full potential.

We forget that he was part of a talented team that made it to the semis of the All African Games soccer competition in 1999. While he was a talent, some people who watched him play then would not choose him ahead of Andrew Mukasa, Hassan Mubiru or Willy Kyambade. 

The difference between the best and the rest on any level is not down to physical attributes --- talent, speed, strength or stamina but it is down to the more spiritual aspects, emotional maturity and mental toughness.

At a certain level of achievement in sport, the physical side is a given but what separates the boys from the men is the inner man or woman.

When we drill down to the real difference between Sekagya and his contemporaries, I wouldl not be surprised to discover that Sekagya first, did not aim for glory with a mind of blowing his earnings in the night clubs and getting back at all the girls in his younger days who never gave him  the time of day. He probably did it for the love of the game and the thrill of pushing beyond perceived limits. The fame and fortune were a by-product of the process and nothing to get distracted by.

"There is a formula that applies to sport but also life: mental discipline leads to concentration, concentration leads to consistency, consistency leads to momentum and momentum leads to victory...

Which brings us to Kiprotich. 

No one, who has half an inclining of what work Kiprotich puts into getting ready to perform, would accuse him of being a natural talent. He probably doesn’t think he is a natural talent himself.

It about grinding out the kilometres come sun or rain, no excuses, no complaining.

We might put down their phenomenal success to some inborn talent. We might even go further accusing them of being lucky, of being, at certain points in their lives, at the right place at the right time.

But those will all be excuses on our part to justify our continued wallowing in mediocrity.

They say to tell how a man will turn out later in life, look out for who his boyhood heroes were. If he was impressed by the glitz and glamour of the village playboy he will somehow gravitate in that direction. If on the other hand his heroes were the no frills neighbour, honest to a fault, a diligent worker and thrifty with his resources the boy might have a chance in life.

So let these be our children’s heros, these young men who have risen from the mediocrity of their societies, never shirked a day of hard work and while reveling in their success, have kept a good head on their shoulders.

OUR SECURITY IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO THE POLICE

Tomorrow Saturday, February 28^th Inspector General of Police Major General Kale Kaihura will be leading hundreds of runners through the hills of Ibanda in attempt to raise awareness about the benefits of community policing.

The inaugural run will be contested over 5-, 12- and 21-km, funds from the event will go towards the welfare of the 900 crime preventers in the area. The recruitment of crime preventers in local communities was an initiative by the police to augment their own capacity in preventing and detecting crime. The crime preventers are volunteers who are taught basic policing skills to help secure their respective communities.

In 2013 about 100,000 criminal cases were reported to the police a marginal decrease from the previous year, but seen in a different perspective, one criminal case avoided is one less person living in fear.

"Of course all crime is not reported and it’s probably a compliment to the police that people even report crimes to them, a sign probably of growing confidence in the force by the public...

Better manned, better equipped and better facilitated than a decade ago the police presence cannot be ignored.

However even if there were police men patrolling at every street corner they would not take away the role of popular vigilance, the determination by the very society they police to look out for crime and play an active role in preventing and aiding in the apprehension of offenders.

They say there is no secret between two people. For every crime committed someone knows something either before it is committed or after the fact. If the right reporting structures are put in place imagine how dramatically the crime levels can fall.

Beyond that the initiative is being driven by the private sector and spearheaded by the police. The people who stand to lose the most by an escalation in insecurity are the business community. They would have to incur higher costs to secure their business and also have to factor in the cost of uncertainty that comes with insecurity or pack up their business and take them elsewhere or wait out the cycle of insecurity.

The irony is that since the insecurity is often caused by restless, jobless youth, a slow down or shuttering of businesses denies the youth the very jobs that would keep them out of trouble. A vicious cycle.

"Its good to see businessmen putting aside their daily rivalries to try and solve a community problem that if resolved would benefit everyone...

However we have to always guard against them doing it to obtain some leverage over our government institutions. The police budget is channeled through the consolidated fund. However it does not take a genius to recognise that the police remain woefully underfunded.

The funds from these and future runs will go mainly to beefing up the community policing capacity – the crime preventers and constructing police booths for instance. This money should be monitored and accounted for so that it goes to the purpose it is meant, if only to maintain public confidence in the partnership.

And finally there is a way for the public to contribute to these kind of endeavors in a more structured way.

The police can borrow from the public using the bond markets. People are always weary of increasing public debt – the debt contracted by government and its institutions from the public, but if there is one thing we have learnt in the last 30 years is that without security nothing matters.

It is by the grace of God that crime rates are not higher in Uganda, given how badly the police is facilitated, but we shouldn’t wait for all hell to break loose before we make a move.

The Ibanda Marathon is a good initiative that should be supported and rolled out in other districts in Uganda.