Cabinet should draw lessons from the 1966 crisis
Jun 08, 2004
BUGANDA Kingdom on May 24 commemorated the 38th anniversary of the attack on the Kabaka’s palace at Mengo.
BUGANDA Kingdom on May 24 commemorated the 38th anniversary of the attack on the Kabaka’s palace at Mengo. Katikkiro Joseph Ssemwogerere declared that May 24 should be a day of mourning in the kingdom with the flags flying at half-mast. He said Buganda was mourning because the kingdom’s assets were destroyed by the Obote regime and noted that although traditional leaders were restored, many of the kingdom assets have never been returned.
Many people, particularly from outside Buganda, perceive the 1966 crisis as a ‘Buganda affair’. This explains why only Buganda Kingdom found it worthwhile to commemorate the attack.
But even in Buganda, the day passed virtually unnoticed judging from the number of people who turned up for the ceremonies. This, in my view, shows many Ugandans don’t appreciate the fact that the bloody 1966 crisis ignited the subsequent instability that has been characterised by military coups, rebellions and wanton destruction. The armed conflict in northern Uganda should logically be regarded as a long-term consequence of the 1966 crisis. There is a narrow view that the 1966 crisis was caused by personal misunderstanding between the then Prime Minister Milton Obote and the President Sir Edward Mutesa II, who was also the Kabaka of Buganda. In my view, the crisis was result of unprincipled political manipulations and undemocratic maneuvers. It was also partly the result of a serious lift within the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) with a section of the Party maneuvering to oust Obote from leadership. In order to oust Obote, this faction enlisted the support of the opposition in Parliament as well as Buganda Kingdom, which had been aggrieved by the 1964 Referendum on the ‘Lost Counties’.
This brings to mind the split in the Movement and the phenomenon of the Parliamentary Advocacy Forum (Pafo). It is important Ugandans, particularly our political leaders, draw lessons from the 1966 crisis to avoid taking this country along the same disastrous political path. Some politicians, notably former minister Bidandi Ssali, have drawn a parallel between the latest political developments in the country and the events that both preceded and followed the 1966 attack on the Mengo palace. The immediate was the unilateral abrogation of the 1962 independence constitution that subsequently resulted into the dictatorship and military tyranny.
In 1964, the Obote government disregarding objections from Buganda Kingdom, organised the Referendum on the Lost Counties. This led to the collapse of the alliance between UPC and Kabaka Yekka (KY). Probably the tragic events of May 24, would have been avoided if Obote had sought to resolve issue of the Lost Counties through dialogue. Unfortunately Obote believed he had the support of the majority and that it was a constitutional matter. He opted to ignore the objection of a minority (Buganda). As it turned out, this was a costly mistake that not only precipitated the May 24, bloody clash, but also has brought suffering to people far beyond Buganda. As it considers the constitutional amendments, Cabinet ought to reflect seriously on the long-term consequences of its decisions. It is important that ministers don’t take decisions to serve their selfish interests, but future stability and prosperity of the country.
Ends
Many people, particularly from outside Buganda, perceive the 1966 crisis as a ‘Buganda affair’. This explains why only Buganda Kingdom found it worthwhile to commemorate the attack.
But even in Buganda, the day passed virtually unnoticed judging from the number of people who turned up for the ceremonies. This, in my view, shows many Ugandans don’t appreciate the fact that the bloody 1966 crisis ignited the subsequent instability that has been characterised by military coups, rebellions and wanton destruction. The armed conflict in northern Uganda should logically be regarded as a long-term consequence of the 1966 crisis. There is a narrow view that the 1966 crisis was caused by personal misunderstanding between the then Prime Minister Milton Obote and the President Sir Edward Mutesa II, who was also the Kabaka of Buganda. In my view, the crisis was result of unprincipled political manipulations and undemocratic maneuvers. It was also partly the result of a serious lift within the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) with a section of the Party maneuvering to oust Obote from leadership. In order to oust Obote, this faction enlisted the support of the opposition in Parliament as well as Buganda Kingdom, which had been aggrieved by the 1964 Referendum on the ‘Lost Counties’.
This brings to mind the split in the Movement and the phenomenon of the Parliamentary Advocacy Forum (Pafo). It is important Ugandans, particularly our political leaders, draw lessons from the 1966 crisis to avoid taking this country along the same disastrous political path. Some politicians, notably former minister Bidandi Ssali, have drawn a parallel between the latest political developments in the country and the events that both preceded and followed the 1966 attack on the Mengo palace. The immediate was the unilateral abrogation of the 1962 independence constitution that subsequently resulted into the dictatorship and military tyranny.
In 1964, the Obote government disregarding objections from Buganda Kingdom, organised the Referendum on the Lost Counties. This led to the collapse of the alliance between UPC and Kabaka Yekka (KY). Probably the tragic events of May 24, would have been avoided if Obote had sought to resolve issue of the Lost Counties through dialogue. Unfortunately Obote believed he had the support of the majority and that it was a constitutional matter. He opted to ignore the objection of a minority (Buganda). As it turned out, this was a costly mistake that not only precipitated the May 24, bloody clash, but also has brought suffering to people far beyond Buganda. As it considers the constitutional amendments, Cabinet ought to reflect seriously on the long-term consequences of its decisions. It is important that ministers don’t take decisions to serve their selfish interests, but future stability and prosperity of the country.
Ends