When the Archbishop warned Kabaka on partisan politics

IN 1961, as the country prepared for the first democratic elections, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, Joseph Kiwanuka, issued a pastoral letter guiding Christians on conduct during elections. Below is are extracts of the letter.

BELOVED CHILDREN IN CHRIST,
having heard that I was called to attend a conference in America and that I shall be away for a certain time, many of you have asked me to leave you some guiding principles, which you could follow during the critical period of my absence, that is during the time of changes in Government. Read this letter carefully: it will guide you in many ways

A FEW FACTS
Since the middle of September, I have heard grave complaints from many of you. Some came to show me wounds inflicted by their neighbours who had beaten them. Your appeals to me always contained the fact that the major reproach addressed to you was “You are a Catholic! You are a traitor to the Kabaka and to your country.”

I ask you, “Why do they make such preposterous accusations against you? Have they got any ground for it?” The answer is always the same. “It appears that among the Catholics, there are some who registered for voting (for the last, elections), and there were also some who joined the Democratic Party”.

To this, I reply: There are also Catholics who registered as members of the Uganda People’s Congress and of the Uganda National Congress. However, none of them are molested.

My conclusion in such cases is that there must be other grounds for such attacks. I advised many to go to those in authority: If what they say is true, I added, the authorities will certainly give them justice. But their answer is that they came to me because they have found that the authorities to whom I would send them, many, who held responsible posts, were behind the attacks.

I was still hearing of such cases when the Katikkiro sent a telegram from England, which stated, “among those attending the London Conference, there are some people who do not want Buganda to receive what belongs to her” (kufuna byayo).
This disturbed the country more still and many said, “Let them be cursed”, although we were not told what it was that “belonged to Buganda” and what it was that they did not wish to give back to the country.

I was still considering this when I was told of a new accusation: “It must be the Catholics who object to the return to Buganda of what belongs to her.” This was now being said everywhere, on the roads as well as in places where people were gathered together.
However, I still did not worry much about reports of such accusations, and I still believed that they were rumours or mere exaggerations.

Shortly after that, I was personally the object of such an accusation. I was jeered at and followed by a mock escort who shouted: “What are you looking for here, near the Kabaka’s palace? You people you don’t like the Kabaka and it is you who do not want us to ‘receive what belongs to us.’

I did not pay much attention to these insults but they led me to make further investigations. And more recently, after His Highness the Kabaka’s return, we went to welcome him. As our car entered the road known as “Kabakanjagala” and as we went to Bulange, people shouted at us: “What are you Bishops looking for here? You don’t like the Kabaka. Wait until tomorrow and go to welcome Benedicto Kiwanuka.”

Then I could hesitate no longer and I knew that the appeals and the complaints of my people were well-founded. When we came back to Bulange the other day, many shouted at us, Even the Kabaka confirmed it: “You are the people who do not want Buganda to receive what belongs to her.” As we entered our car, a man came forward from the crowd and danced in front of us shouting, “From now on your religion will find nowhere to stand.”

Nevertheless we went away rather worried and shaken. What we saw and heard on that occasion shows clearly that real hardships are in store for you as Catholics in this delicate period of changes in Government.

THE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
The three forms of Government found in the world up to this day were described long ago by a Greek philosopher, Aristotle.
(1) The first form is the absolute Monarchy. In that form of Government, the power to make laws obliging the whole country (legislative) and the power to judge trials and to punish (Judiciary), are all vested in the king.
2) The second form is that of the Aristocracy (Bakungu) sharing in government. Then the power of ruling is in the hands of such chiefs.
3) The third form is that in which all citizens take part and the government is that of people (Democracy). The citizens themselves elect their representatives.

However in certain countries, these three forms have been joined together, so that the government is formed of a king with the chiefs and the representatives elected by the citizens. England has such a government.

Buganda
For a very long time, the form of Government in Buganda was of the 1st type, an absolute Monarchy, but with wide powers left to the Aristocracy (Bakungu).

The absolute power of the kings (Bakabaka), in all fields, was never questioned until the Europeans made a repartition of powers.
When Buganda came under the protection of the British Government, the absolute power of the Kabaka came to an end, but he remained one of’ the governing body.
Monarchy separated from politics
By virtue of the 1955 Agreement, which was signed by the Kabaka himself, His Highness withdrew from politics and a form of Government was set up known as “Constitutional Monarchy”, which means that the Kabaka does not enter personally into politics, but leaves that responsibility to the Ministers and the Parliament (Lukiiko). However, the Kabaka retained the power, to approve, and confirm what is decided by Parliament.

Since 1955, we have been given that form of Government “Democracy”: It was introduced for the first time in the government of Buganda, when Buganda began governed by elected members of parliament. However, elections were not on a common franchise: only a limited number of voters took part in them. Moreover, the elections were not on a “party” basis since Buganda had not yet accepted political parties.

First Election on a Party Basis
In the Parliament of Uganda, formerly called Legislative Council (Legco), however, it was accepted that the members would be elected by those who agreed to register and to vote and this was on a political party basis. On that occasion, all those who wanted to use their right registered and they voted for the party they supported. Even in Buganda, there were some who used that right.

Difficulties begin in Buganda
A number of Baganda disagreed with this registering and voting; many who wished to register and vote were threatened and fear prevented them from exercising their right, but there were also many courageous people who did exercise their right. Although among the many who registered and voted were people from many parties, the only ones I have heard blamed in the press and elsewhere were the members of the Democratic Party.

And although there were people of all religions who registered, the only ones to be hunted for it were’ the Catholics: Nobody can deny this. I have already given the reason why only Catholics and only D.P members are blamed. It is the fear that some Catholics might emerge and become candidates for government posts, those who had ‘up to now controlled the government, fear that their’ monopoly might soon decline and they might even be withdrawn altogether.

London Conference
The London Conference brought further changes in government, and the Buganda Parliament now embraces the three forms of Government I enumerated above.
(1) First the Monarchy which is strengthened in the new agreement, but with the Kabaka still remaining outside politics as a Constitutional Monarch.
2) Secondly the part played by the Aristocracy (Bakungu) remains unchanged. The Ssaza chiefs and the six Bakungu (nominees) appointed by the Kabaka still remain members of the Buganda Parliament.
3) Thirdly, the people themselves having a voice in government by electing their representatives. This is also accepted by Buganda; that is 68 representatives, and six Ministers to be chosen by whoever will be elected as leader of the Government (Katikkiro).

Buganda still in Doubt
Buganda accepts to choose its government by a general election. However, I am not yet clear about whether or not the candidates will be elected on a party basis. All other parts of Uganda have agreed long ago to choose their councils through a general election, as well as to have those elections on a party basis.

The Central Government which rules over all Uganda follows the third form of government, Democracy. Most of the members of that government will be chosen in a general election.

All parts of Uganda, except the kingdom of Buganda, have already decided that every single person qualified to vote may elect the candidate of his choice, that is free election Buganda is still doubtful as to whether its people are also ready to elect their representatives in the Central Government, it leaves it to those who will be elected to the Buganda Lukiiko to decide whether Buganda has reached the state where it can elect its own representatives in the central government, the National Assembly.

This is enough to show that changes can take place in Government, and many did take place even in the Buganda government. Changes have occurred in all parts of Uganda and more are bound to come. I believe that if everybody could understand these changes in government, there would be an end of the charges made against others because they joined political parties or because they registered for voting.

Democracy does not Destroy Kingship
If people understood that Democracy does not destroy kingship, they would not be angry with others who follow democracy and say about them: “They don’t like the Kabaka.” Moreover, if they understood that the three forms of government I have mentioned above are in fact accepted in Buganda, they would not bring up the slogan “Kabaka Yekka” (the Kabaka alone), because in Buganda there is not only the Monarchy involved, but also the Aristocracy and even democracy.

State and Church
Let us turn now to the second part of this letter in which I shall speak of the relations between the forms of Government explained above, and the Church. Time and again I have heard such things as “keep religion out of politics, leave religious ideas out of politics and take religion out of schools.” Among those who speak like that, some do it out of pure hatred of religion.

It could not be explained otherwise since in fact religion strives to remind people of their duty to serve God, which in no way harms politics, on the contrary it is a real help to it.
But there are others who are induced to say they don’t want religion, to be mixed with politics by the mere fact that they are afraid of the truth and justice inherent in religion. They would like to deceive people in order to bring them to their side, but religion helps people at the time of choosing a government to see objectively what is right and to choose a good government.

There are finally many people who repeat “keep religion out of politics” without any understanding whatsoever of what it is all about.

What the Church can and must do?
I wish here to clarify for you this question of what the Church can and must do in relation with politics, and what is outside of her domain. Also you must understand what the State can and must do in relation to the Church. God Almighty has appointed the charge of the human race to two powers: the Church and the State. The two powers are distinct, each in its kind is supreme. In other words, neither the Church nor the State interfere with each other. Each has what it needs to attain its end.

Each one is a domain of its own, whose limits are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each. (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

I hope that those who will read this letter with an open heart will find in it a clearer view of the present political situation and will not be deluded by speeches of those who are merely preoccupied with securing votes. People who will try to influence weaker minds to choose any party or merely deceive and lead others into dishonest activities.

To this pastoral letter, I recommend that you add what has been written in a previous joint pastoral letters of all the Bishops of Uganda (1952): “The Christian and His Country”. (Omukristu n’ensi yabobwe). Read that document again carefully.

In all your present difficulties and those which might befall you in the future, trust in God, have recourse to the blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of God and Queen of Buganda they will never forsake you.
May the Virgin Mary continue at all times to show that She is really OUR MOTHER.

Constitutional Monarch
Many Baganda might not understand for what reason the Kabaka was taken out of politics to become a Constitutional Monarch.
I have already explained to you how the form of government in Buganda went through changes until it allowed representatives to be elected by the people

When a country with a king reaches the stage where its government is ruled by its people, such a country may, still want to keep its kings and for that reason it takes its kings out of politics.

When political parties are established in a country, if the king still mixes up in politics the kingship is on the way to digging its own grave. We have the example of, other countries to prove that, and therefore Buganda showed clear-sightedness when she decided on Constitutional Monarchy many countries have lost their kings, even though the people loved them and took much pride in them. They lost them because they remained in politics after the country had accepted political parties opposing one another.

These parties clashed with the kings whom they saw blocking the way to their ends, and they overthrew them in such a way that they could never again find supporters.
The reason is evident since the country stands on parties in opposition to one another and the king remains involved in politics, he himself supporting one of the parties. When a king supports one party, he shows himself as being no more the king of all his people, but only of that section of his people of which he says. “These are my men who really care for me, and among whom I am hiding”.

Those whom he has chosen in such a way may flatter him as much a they can so that they may pass or reject whatever they want, even if they themselves know that what they are going to do is not right. As for the people that the king has rejected, their hearts sink into rancor.
They still struggle in the political field, and as in politics there are always changes in which there is much friction.

One day, they might overthrow the party that the king has supported and then, as they hold power, they will say to the king: “Go with the others, follow your friends.”

And then those who were supporting him since they have been overthrown will merely look at what is happening. They can no more fight for him even should they wish to do so.

That is why I do not like these slogans of “Kabaka yekka” (the Kabaka alone) or the party or the activities, which they say is “to be behind the throne or “to fight for the throne” or “support the Lukiiko”. Among the parties already established, there is not a single one that has done anything on which could be based the accusation: “Now it is evident, that such party wants to destroy the throne!” Even more, if the Government could prove such a thing, it would be deeply guilty not to take that party to the Court of justice and file a suit against it.

Those “Kabaka Yekka supporters and the others who flatter themselves that they are the defenders of the throne and of -the King, are the ones who will spoil our royalty by dragging the king in the hack-wash of politics. In fact, they are just seeking their own end.

If it as accepted and approved by the Lukiko that the people throughout the counties would elect the candidates who say; “We are behind the Lukiiko, we are the defenders of the Kabaka, we fight for the “throne”, it is possible that it would succeed.

But this would be only temporary and would be most detrimental to the nation, because the opposition of the other candidates who do not support that party would turn against the Kabaka himself and the Lukiiko, who would belong to a different party.

Perhaps those who support one side will be angry with me because I brought them, to light and exposed them and because I gave, the alarm to the Baganda who still have a sincere love for their country and for the throne.

However, I hope that many who were blindfolded will be grateful to me and will be pleased to see that I have brought to light the snare hidden in the ground which was invisible to them; now if anyone wants to tread on it and is caught in it, everyone will be able to tell him: “After all, you trod on it while you saw it clearly”. Compete in parties which are known; but such slogans as “Kabaka Alone” “we are behind “the throne”, “we back the Lukiiko”, keeping away from them.

Who was Archbishop Joseph Kiwanuka?

By Vicky Wandawa

Archbishop Joseph Kiwanuka was born on June 11, 1899, to Victor Kato Katumba and Felicitas Namukasa Nankya, in Nnakirebe, Mawokota County in the present day Mpigi.

In 1914, he was admitted to Bukalasa Minor seminary, a school with a curriculum specifically designed for students aspiring to become priests. Five years later, he joined the major seminary, Katigondo, where he excelled and was awarded an opportunity to pursue further studies in Rome.

On May 26, 1929, Kiwanuka was ordained priest by the missionary of missionaries in Uganda, Archbishop Henry Streicher. Soon after, he joined the missionary society of white fathers, becoming the first black white father.

In 1961, he was appointed archbishop of Rubaga. He wrote a pastoral letter that spelt out the roles of the church and the state as well as a constitutional monarch. He then traveled to Rome to attend the sessions of the second Vatican council from 1962 to 1965.

In 1965, following a crisis in Milton Obote’s government, Kiwanuka wrote another pastoral letter on political leadership and democratic maturity, which turned out to be his final legacy.

He died suddenly on February 22, 1966, a day before Obote assumed presidency. He was laid to rest at Rubaga Cathedral.