Let the Baganda have their federo
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN<br><br>WHENEVER the Luganda expression “byoya bya nswa†is used to describe what has been restored to Buganda by the Movement government there is confusion. There are always two schools of thought — one broad-minded and informed, the other narrow-minded and naïve.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN
By Paul Waibale Snr
WHENEVER the Luganda expression “byoya bya nswa†is used to describe what has been restored to Buganda by the Movement government there is confusion. There are always two schools of thought — one broad-minded and informed, the other narrow-minded and naïve. The former accords the expression “byoya bya nswa†the correct metaphorical interpretation, while the latter gives it an obviously misconceived literal interpretation. Of course, there is a world of difference between the two.
In my submission, byoya bya nswa metaphorically means an insufficient provision that is much less than the ideal. I earnestly believe that is what knowledgeable Baganda mean when they complain that Buganda was given back byoya bya nswa.
On the other hand, the literal interpretation, inadvertently used by the less knowledgeable, attaches the meaning “worthless†to the expression. If that were the correct meaning, the Baganda would not be wasting their time and resources to celebrate the anniversary of Ssabasajja Kabaka Mutebi’s coronation every year.
Recently, newspaper reports claimed that the Kabaka had publicly stated that all that was returned to Buganda was byoya bya nswa.
Needless to add, the expression was used in accordance with its metaphorical interpretation without any allegory to its literal counterpart.
I have it on good authority that the use of the expression byoya bya nswa, which in my contention was perfectly in order, was not initiated by the Kabaka himself. According to my source, the Kabaka made an affirmation when the leader of a group known as “Tuli mu Kulya nga Katonga Ajjula†inquired if it was correct to refer to what was given back to Buganda as “byoya bya nswa,†and he retorted, “That is right.â€
The group had paid a traditional visit to the Kabaka in his palace at Banda for the purpose of okulanya (paying respects and presenting gifts to the Kabaka).
It was after okulanya that a spokesman of the group made a speech in which he complained that Kabaka Mutebi had failed to maintain the development of Buganda at the rate set by his late grandfather Ssekabaka Daudi Chwa and his late father Sir Edward Mutesa. He recalled that during the reign of Kabaka Mutebi’s father and grandfather, numerous county headquarters were constructed, several hospitals established, forests protected, the roads properly maintained and the majority of the people reasonably prosperous. But today, he complained, virtually all progress in those areas of development had halted.
Responding to those remarks, Kabaka Mutebi explained that his father and grandfather were able to promote development in Buganda because the Buganda Kingdom was an institution which had administrative power and financial resources to facilitate the implementation of development programmes.
Kabaka Mutebi explained that although the Buganda Kingdom was restored, neither the Kabaka nor his government had any administrative power or sure means of raising the funds needed for development. He said that the only way of overcoming that problem is to restore Buganda’s federal status so that the Kabaka and his government regain the power and authority to effectively manage all the affairs of the kingdom. As far as the present is concerned, the only weapon I have is influence, but even that has to be backed by financial facilitation, the Kabaka explained.
It was at the conclusion of the Kabaka’s explanation that the spokesman of the visiting group posed the question whether what Buganda got back was in fact byoya bya nswa and the Kabaka affirmed that this was the true position. I am told that the Kabaka stands very firmly behind that contention.
Fortunately, the case for according federal status to Buganda and other areas that might desire it has won support among the majority of Ugandans. Even the architects of the destruction of federalism in Uganda, the Uganda Peoples Congress, have now repented and declared support for the proposal of re-instating Buganda’s federal status.
But the type of federal status accorded to Buganda and other areas that might demand the same must not be a mere paper tiger. The federal state must have the power to plan its order of priorities and collect taxes to finance its administrative, social and economic programmes.
But it is pertinent to observe that the areas demarcated as federal states must be big enough to be economically viable entities.
Whereas restoring Busoga as a federal state (it was known as the Federal Territory of Busoga when I worked there as information officer), it would be an insult to award federal status to any one of the five districts in which it is now divided.
None of any of those five districts can ever acquire the financial ability to build high class secondary schools such as Namasagali and Butiki colleges which were set up when Busoga was a federal state.
In a nutshell, let the Baganda have back their Federo for which they have agitated for nearly two decades. And those who, like the Basoga, have expressed the appetite for that delicious meal, should be accorded a seat at the high table.
This time there should not be any room for peddling byoya bya nswa even in the metaphorical interpretation of the expression.
By Paul Waibale Snr
WHENEVER the Luganda expression “byoya bya nswa†is used to describe what has been restored to Buganda by the Movement government there is confusion. There are always two schools of thought — one broad-minded and informed, the other narrow-minded and naïve. The former accords the expression “byoya bya nswa†the correct metaphorical interpretation, while the latter gives it an obviously misconceived literal interpretation. Of course, there is a world of difference between the two.
In my submission, byoya bya nswa metaphorically means an insufficient provision that is much less than the ideal. I earnestly believe that is what knowledgeable Baganda mean when they complain that Buganda was given back byoya bya nswa.
On the other hand, the literal interpretation, inadvertently used by the less knowledgeable, attaches the meaning “worthless†to the expression. If that were the correct meaning, the Baganda would not be wasting their time and resources to celebrate the anniversary of Ssabasajja Kabaka Mutebi’s coronation every year.
Recently, newspaper reports claimed that the Kabaka had publicly stated that all that was returned to Buganda was byoya bya nswa.
Needless to add, the expression was used in accordance with its metaphorical interpretation without any allegory to its literal counterpart.
I have it on good authority that the use of the expression byoya bya nswa, which in my contention was perfectly in order, was not initiated by the Kabaka himself. According to my source, the Kabaka made an affirmation when the leader of a group known as “Tuli mu Kulya nga Katonga Ajjula†inquired if it was correct to refer to what was given back to Buganda as “byoya bya nswa,†and he retorted, “That is right.â€
The group had paid a traditional visit to the Kabaka in his palace at Banda for the purpose of okulanya (paying respects and presenting gifts to the Kabaka).
It was after okulanya that a spokesman of the group made a speech in which he complained that Kabaka Mutebi had failed to maintain the development of Buganda at the rate set by his late grandfather Ssekabaka Daudi Chwa and his late father Sir Edward Mutesa. He recalled that during the reign of Kabaka Mutebi’s father and grandfather, numerous county headquarters were constructed, several hospitals established, forests protected, the roads properly maintained and the majority of the people reasonably prosperous. But today, he complained, virtually all progress in those areas of development had halted.
Responding to those remarks, Kabaka Mutebi explained that his father and grandfather were able to promote development in Buganda because the Buganda Kingdom was an institution which had administrative power and financial resources to facilitate the implementation of development programmes.
Kabaka Mutebi explained that although the Buganda Kingdom was restored, neither the Kabaka nor his government had any administrative power or sure means of raising the funds needed for development. He said that the only way of overcoming that problem is to restore Buganda’s federal status so that the Kabaka and his government regain the power and authority to effectively manage all the affairs of the kingdom. As far as the present is concerned, the only weapon I have is influence, but even that has to be backed by financial facilitation, the Kabaka explained.
It was at the conclusion of the Kabaka’s explanation that the spokesman of the visiting group posed the question whether what Buganda got back was in fact byoya bya nswa and the Kabaka affirmed that this was the true position. I am told that the Kabaka stands very firmly behind that contention.
Fortunately, the case for according federal status to Buganda and other areas that might desire it has won support among the majority of Ugandans. Even the architects of the destruction of federalism in Uganda, the Uganda Peoples Congress, have now repented and declared support for the proposal of re-instating Buganda’s federal status.
But the type of federal status accorded to Buganda and other areas that might demand the same must not be a mere paper tiger. The federal state must have the power to plan its order of priorities and collect taxes to finance its administrative, social and economic programmes.
But it is pertinent to observe that the areas demarcated as federal states must be big enough to be economically viable entities.
Whereas restoring Busoga as a federal state (it was known as the Federal Territory of Busoga when I worked there as information officer), it would be an insult to award federal status to any one of the five districts in which it is now divided.
None of any of those five districts can ever acquire the financial ability to build high class secondary schools such as Namasagali and Butiki colleges which were set up when Busoga was a federal state.
In a nutshell, let the Baganda have back their Federo for which they have agitated for nearly two decades. And those who, like the Basoga, have expressed the appetite for that delicious meal, should be accorded a seat at the high table.
This time there should not be any room for peddling byoya bya nswa even in the metaphorical interpretation of the expression.