Federo can unify Uganda

By Peter Mulira I found Joshua Muvumba's articles on federo (The New Vision January 24 and 31 respectively), at once misleading and unresearched. Muvumba quite erroneously blames the events of 1966 on Federo and claims that the word "Federo" implies lost glory. The facts of history do not bear him out. The 1966 events were not triggered off by Federo as some detractors want us to believe but were the result of personality differences among the leaders of the day as well as the unbridled use of military might by some of these leaders to resolve their political differences. Perhaps the chief player in the events of 1966 was Dr Apollo Milton Obote himself. In a statement to the National Assembly on May 25, 1966, Obote attributed the cause of the chaos in the country to a certain gentleman who had been a member of his government but whom he did not name. Obote is reported at page 55 of the Official Proceedings of the National Assembly of that day as saying: "That gentleman and others, I do not want to mention his name, it is quite clear everybody knows his name....decided that the best way to get the Baganda to support a declaration of rebellion was to plot for the removal of the Kabaka's Council of Ministers at Mengo by directing a most obscure member of the Lukiiko to move a resolution which the Ssaza Chiefs had failed to do in the Lukiiko. It is clear from Obote's statement that neither the Mengo Government nor the chiefs in Buganda supported either the rebellion or the resolution in the Lukiiko expelling the Central Government from Buganda's land. It is not even clear whether or not the resolution was properly passed. After pointing out that there was a strategy to fill the Lukiiko gallery with hooligans whose duty was to shout down any member of the Lukiiko who dared speak against the expulsion motion Obote informed the House that: "The motion was moved last Friday, the Speaker of the Lukiiko was powerless, the Katikkiro could not be heard, it was simply impossible for the Ministers to speak in the Lukiiko. The hooligans were conducting the Lukiiko from the Gallery (Laughter)." Obote confirmed to the House that the motion did not enjoy general support in Buganda. But inspite of this he ordered the army to attack the Kabaka's palace, abolished the Kingdom and its government (Federo) and concentrated all administrative powers in the President to the extent that even muluka chiefs were his appointees. It is pertinent to note that Obote also abolished the other kingdoms which were not remotely connected with the so-called rebellion. What we learn from all this is that there was a power struggle within the ruling group which had nothing to do with the federal idea, a point supported by the fact that Obote arrested and detained five of his cabinet ministers who had nothing to do with the government at Mengo. Unfortunately some of the players in this conflict must have tried unsuccessfully to use the Baganda through Mengo. These people were known to the Government. Obote himself had this to say: "I want to inform the House that government is now in possession of documents which show only clear on the persons who are promoting this rebellion." From the above historical background it is clear that Federo as such was not the direct cause of the crisis and had not been in conflict with national interests as people like Muvumba want to make us believe. Rather it is the rapacity of the leaders at that time which subjected Ugandans "to the most repulsive and obnoxious human abuse", to use Muvumba's words. In both articles Muvumba makes the cardinal mistake of confusing the terms Federation, Federalism and Federo to mean the one and the same thing. He claims that you cannot have Federo without a Federation. This is erroneous. Scotland has acquired its Federo i.e internal autonomy from England through devolution and today has its own Parliament (Olukiiko) and government headed by a Prime Minister (Katikkiro). However, this does not mean that the United Kingdom is now a federation. Neither is it necessary in a federal arrangement of government for the component units to have equal sovereign status. The provinces of Canada are not sovereign units but Canada has a federal constitution. A federal arrangement can also result from what has come to be known as legislative federalism. The Indian federal constitution which was signed on January, 26, 1950, had its genesis from the government of India Act, 1935, an Act of the British Parliament, and not from a union of sovereign autonomous states. We agree with Muvumba that a federation is a league or union of equal willing territorial units which adhere to a federal constitution that is a political system or federalism. But a federation is not a condition precedent for realisation of federalism as a political system. Political systems which call themselves federal differ in many ways but share three basic characteristics namely:- - a written constitution, - nonconcentration of power at any one centre, - a real division or territorial democracy which ensures equality among the various units in the polity. As we have seen there can be a federal arrangement without necessarily having a federation of independent states. India and Canada are good examples of this. The states of the Indian union or the provinces of Canada are not independent sovereign states but autonomous parts of united nations. Lastly federo is not the same thing as federalism. Federalism refers to the constitutional division of power under the national constitution among equal units in a state namely the central government, regional and local governments. It is the nemesis of centralism. Federo, on-the-other hand has come to mean in our local lingua, the system of internal administration and aspirations of a particular community. Once the national constitution has divided power among the various units, it is up to the individual unit to organise its administration according to its norms but subject to the constitution. Any part of the country should be free to have its own federo so long as it is not inconsistent with the constitution. For example, California's federo is different from that of Florida but this has not caused hiccups in the United States of America. Muvumba needs to get better arguments in order to satisfy us that a federal arrangement in Uganda will lead to hiccups. Ends