A learned friend With a historical perspective

Peter Mulira Mayanja

It was recently reported that Mrs. Miria Obote, the UPC presidential candidate, has called for a federal system of government throughout Uganda. At first glance this would appear as if Mrs Obote who has suddenly brought grace and glamour to our political scene is departing from the policies of her late husband and predecessor in office Dr. Apollo Milton Obote, who abolished the system in 1967.

However, all literature on this issue suggests that Obote was not opposed to the federal system as such but instead had problems with people who managed it.

There is ample evidence in Obote’s speeches in Parliament soon after the troubles in 1966 that he had no love for Sir Edward Mutesa II, Amos Sempa as well as some saza chiefs and it seems that for him removing these people from the scene would solve all the country’s problems. In fact, after detaining Sempa and three saza chiefs he banished all the saza chiefs from membership of the Lukiiko which he did not abolish at once.

The three saza chiefs who were detained were alleged to have been the masterminds behind the attempt to move a resolution in the Lukiiko requiring the central government to move itself from Buganda soil.

The abolition of the Buganda government and its administrative system under the 1967 constitution came a year after the attack on Mengo palace.

During the ‘60s it was generally believed in Africa that you could only build a united nation through a strong president and central government. Independent centres of power detracted from this concept and to appear like other so-called revolutionary leaders, Obote concentrated all power in the presidency to the extent of the President being the appointing authority for even muluka (parish) chiefs!

The modern concept of governance today encourages a minimalist central government with power decentralised to units nearer to the people.

The aim of decentralisation policy therefore is to return power and responsibilities to the people in line with universal practice and this is amply captured by article 1(3) of our Constitution of 1997 which provides that “All power and authority of government and its organs derive from the constitution, which in turn derives its authority from the people who consent to be governed in accordance with this constitution”.

Indeed Article 176(1) of the Constitution lays down how people are to be governed by providing that: “The system of local government in Uganda shall be based on the district as a unit under which there shall be such lower local governments and administrative units as Parliament may by law provide”.

The amendment to Article 178 allows districts which so wish to unite and form regional governments but without lower structures.

This is where the federal issue comes in. Mrs. Obote, to her credit, has been the first leader to recognise that the right to decide how people want to be governed is theirs and this is what federo is about. The people of Buganda have made it clear time and again that they want to be governed under a federal system and nobody has the right to deny them this desire.

This right to decide on how to be governed is protected under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, 1987, which declared that “All peoples shall have the right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen”.

This provision combined with Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, encapsulates the federo idea as we understand it in our circumstances.

The latter article provides that “In those states in which ethnic, religious and ethnic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right in community with others of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language”. It is within the above context that the debate about election or nomination of the Katikkiro loses meaning because people concerned are entitled to practise their culture within the political status they have chosen.

Before the political structure has been agreed on, issues such as the election of the Katikkiro or the appointment of saza chiefs are premature. All that is needed now is to prevail on the Parliament to put in place legislation implementing the provisions of the constitution and the international obligations of the country by giving to the people the political status they want under their own local constitutions. But it is worth remembering that such rights are exercisable subject to the other provisions of the constitution.

Theodore Roosevelt a former President of the United States was instructive when he said, “As it is with the individual so it is with the nation. It is a base untruth to say that happy is the nation that has no history. Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history.” In Africa, unlike elsewhere in the world, our leaders have looked at our culture and history disdainfully.

In Uganda, we have replaced administrative terms our people understand with numbers which are impersonal. There is no doubt the administrative structure we had up to 1967 in the area where I was born, Buganda, was developmental, democratic and superior to what we have in place today.

Since 1900 and building on the earlier administrative system of ebitongole or departments which existed for centuries, Buganda had local government councils at the levels of saza, gombolola and muluka units and although originally councillors were nominated by the Kabaka, they became elective in 1945 under the “The Law for Electing People’s Representatives to the Lower Councils”.

Each unit had an elected chairman and secretary and the councils put in place policies which were implemented by the chief at each level who acted as executive officer.

Mrs. Obote must be thanked for having brought the federo issue within the domain of political parties. UPC is a major party with a significant following in its traditional areas. If it can settle issues relating to its relationship with Buganda that settlement will serve as a major contribution to the unity of the country.

However, Buganda too should stop brow-beating over an issue which happened 40 years ago. The perpetrators of the indignities against the community are all gone and the party has new leaders. Its secretary general may not have even been born in 1966. In the interests of a better Uganda, we should sort out our past problems in a mature way and move on.