Buganda’s history reveals democracy
Oct 03, 2004
Prof Apollo Nsibambi is a highly respected leader due to his principled and liberal ideas on national and local issues.
Peter Mulira
Prof Apollo Nsibambi is a highly respected leader due to his principled and liberal ideas on national and local issues.
However, some of his views on Buganda which appeared in your issue of September 26 under the headline “Buganda Problem†cannot be left without correction.
In particular, the article overlooked the level of democratisation Buganda had reached by 1966.
Nsibambi is wrong to use the present structure at Mengo which is transient and voluntary as a point of reference on Buganda matters.
Within the context of its provincial administration, Buganda was able to democratise itself as a response to local stimuli and most of the concerns Nsibambi raises were dealt with in Buganda by 1966.
For example, the process of giving power to the people started in 1945 when elections to all local councils were democratised through The Law for Selecting Unofficial Representatives to Councils, 1945, and in 1953 a similar law, The Law for Electing Representatives of the Lukiiko, 1953, was passed providing for indirect election of 60 representatives to the Lukiiko.
This progress, in allowing the people to elect their representatives was consummated in 1962 when 60 members to the Lukiiko were directly elected on the basis of constituencies which were demarcated by an independent electoral commission headed by the late William Kalema.
New changes in 1955 saw the Katikkiro and his cabinet entirely elected by the Lukiiko and as such the executive was accountable to the people’s elected representatives. In fact in 1964 the Katikkiro, Michael Kintu, and his cabinet resigned rather than face a vote of no confidence in the Lukiiko.
The administration in Buganda itself went through a metamorphosis so that after the 1955 constitutional arrangements ssaza, gombolola and muluka chiefs became executive secretaries to their councils where the elected chairman and his executive held the political power.
All chiefs later became appointees of an independent Buganda Civil Service Commission and in 1965 a Local Government Law was passed which remains a model to this day.
The democratisation process was augmented by regular transfer of functions and responsibilities to lower councils. For example, on 1st January, 1958, the Buganda government unveiled its decentralisation programme, the first such move in East Africa and undertaken 30 years before the government of Uganda introduced its own programme of decentralisation.
The argument for having a democratic Lukiiko is conceded but there is no reason why there should be two councils in Buganda, one cultural and the other political.
The great Lukiiko (Olukiiko Olukulu) at Mengo has always been legislative with no cultural function at all. Its role of electing a new Kabaka is a political act which symbolically ordains one of the princes with the right to be sovereign over his people.
Article 11 of the 1900 Agreement which set up the modern Lukiiko defined the Lukiiko’s functions to be to “discuss all matters concerning the native administration of Buganda, and to forward to the Kabaka resolutions adopted by the said administration.†The Kabaka (as head of an entity known as Buganda) would then assent to those resolutions in consultation with the Governor of Uganda.
The office of the Kabaka is a dual one. As Ssabataka, a title conferred on him culturally, the holder of the office is the head of all clans of Buganda and as such the cultural head of his people. The title Kabaka, on the other hand, refers to the sovereign head of the Buganda tribe or nation.
The Kabaka reigns but does not rule, the latter role being played by notables such as the Katikkiro whom he previously appointed personally up to 1955 when such appointments were progressively democratised ending in the 1962 Constitution changes.
The 1962 Constitution represents a fine compromise between a modern monarchy and the democratic right of the people to govern themselves.
Article 31, which we recommend, married the role of a constitutional monarch with that of a democratic legislature when it provided that:
- The legislature of Buganda shall consist of the Kabaka acting with the advice and consent of the Lukiiko.
- The power of the legislature of Buganda to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by the Lukiiko and assented to by the Kabaka.
- When a bill has been passed by the Lukiiko it shall be submitted by the Katikkiro to the Kabaka, who shall sign the same in token of assent.
- A law passed by the legislature of Buganda shall be published in the Akiika Embuga in Luganda and in the Uganda Gazette in English.
The above provisions have nothing to do with culture or politics and only represent the constitutional role a monarch can play in a modern world. The cultural organisation of Buganda itself does not admit of an overarching cultural council since each clan is independent of each other without a fusion of cultural roles except at the level of the Ssabataka/ Kabaka.
It is also wrong for the White Paper to propose, as Nsibambi approves, that the Kabaka be elected by the cultural council since, according to custom, the Kabaka in Buganda, unlike elsewhere, is a commoner’s king (Kabaka w’abakopi) who elect him through their representative body, Olukiiko Olukulu. A cultural council will therefore be meaningless and without a role.
We should maintain the Lukiiko in its model under the 1962 Constitution. Such a council will not be sovereign since its powers will be defined either in a local constitution or under an enabling law and anything done outside these powers will be ultra vires.
That way the fears that an elected council can arbitrarily ambush our cherished traditional institutions can be addressed.
Prof Apollo Nsibambi is a highly respected leader due to his principled and liberal ideas on national and local issues.
However, some of his views on Buganda which appeared in your issue of September 26 under the headline “Buganda Problem†cannot be left without correction.
In particular, the article overlooked the level of democratisation Buganda had reached by 1966.
Nsibambi is wrong to use the present structure at Mengo which is transient and voluntary as a point of reference on Buganda matters.
Within the context of its provincial administration, Buganda was able to democratise itself as a response to local stimuli and most of the concerns Nsibambi raises were dealt with in Buganda by 1966.
For example, the process of giving power to the people started in 1945 when elections to all local councils were democratised through The Law for Selecting Unofficial Representatives to Councils, 1945, and in 1953 a similar law, The Law for Electing Representatives of the Lukiiko, 1953, was passed providing for indirect election of 60 representatives to the Lukiiko.
This progress, in allowing the people to elect their representatives was consummated in 1962 when 60 members to the Lukiiko were directly elected on the basis of constituencies which were demarcated by an independent electoral commission headed by the late William Kalema.
New changes in 1955 saw the Katikkiro and his cabinet entirely elected by the Lukiiko and as such the executive was accountable to the people’s elected representatives. In fact in 1964 the Katikkiro, Michael Kintu, and his cabinet resigned rather than face a vote of no confidence in the Lukiiko.
The administration in Buganda itself went through a metamorphosis so that after the 1955 constitutional arrangements ssaza, gombolola and muluka chiefs became executive secretaries to their councils where the elected chairman and his executive held the political power.
All chiefs later became appointees of an independent Buganda Civil Service Commission and in 1965 a Local Government Law was passed which remains a model to this day.
The democratisation process was augmented by regular transfer of functions and responsibilities to lower councils. For example, on 1st January, 1958, the Buganda government unveiled its decentralisation programme, the first such move in East Africa and undertaken 30 years before the government of Uganda introduced its own programme of decentralisation.
The argument for having a democratic Lukiiko is conceded but there is no reason why there should be two councils in Buganda, one cultural and the other political.
The great Lukiiko (Olukiiko Olukulu) at Mengo has always been legislative with no cultural function at all. Its role of electing a new Kabaka is a political act which symbolically ordains one of the princes with the right to be sovereign over his people.
Article 11 of the 1900 Agreement which set up the modern Lukiiko defined the Lukiiko’s functions to be to “discuss all matters concerning the native administration of Buganda, and to forward to the Kabaka resolutions adopted by the said administration.†The Kabaka (as head of an entity known as Buganda) would then assent to those resolutions in consultation with the Governor of Uganda.
The office of the Kabaka is a dual one. As Ssabataka, a title conferred on him culturally, the holder of the office is the head of all clans of Buganda and as such the cultural head of his people. The title Kabaka, on the other hand, refers to the sovereign head of the Buganda tribe or nation.
The Kabaka reigns but does not rule, the latter role being played by notables such as the Katikkiro whom he previously appointed personally up to 1955 when such appointments were progressively democratised ending in the 1962 Constitution changes.
The 1962 Constitution represents a fine compromise between a modern monarchy and the democratic right of the people to govern themselves.
Article 31, which we recommend, married the role of a constitutional monarch with that of a democratic legislature when it provided that:
- The legislature of Buganda shall consist of the Kabaka acting with the advice and consent of the Lukiiko.
- The power of the legislature of Buganda to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by the Lukiiko and assented to by the Kabaka.
- When a bill has been passed by the Lukiiko it shall be submitted by the Katikkiro to the Kabaka, who shall sign the same in token of assent.
- A law passed by the legislature of Buganda shall be published in the Akiika Embuga in Luganda and in the Uganda Gazette in English.
The above provisions have nothing to do with culture or politics and only represent the constitutional role a monarch can play in a modern world. The cultural organisation of Buganda itself does not admit of an overarching cultural council since each clan is independent of each other without a fusion of cultural roles except at the level of the Ssabataka/ Kabaka.
It is also wrong for the White Paper to propose, as Nsibambi approves, that the Kabaka be elected by the cultural council since, according to custom, the Kabaka in Buganda, unlike elsewhere, is a commoner’s king (Kabaka w’abakopi) who elect him through their representative body, Olukiiko Olukulu. A cultural council will therefore be meaningless and without a role.
We should maintain the Lukiiko in its model under the 1962 Constitution. Such a council will not be sovereign since its powers will be defined either in a local constitution or under an enabling law and anything done outside these powers will be ultra vires.
That way the fears that an elected council can arbitrarily ambush our cherished traditional institutions can be addressed.