We should not be divided on tribal, religious lines
Jul 31, 2008
WHEN Karl Mark noted that religion was the opium of people, he probably had not thought about countries in Africa with tribes and clans. In Africa or Uganda in particular, tribe is the opium. One only needs the right switch; the cause could be land or cattle and the fire starts.
By Gregory Muheki
WHEN Karl Mark noted that religion was the opium of people, he probably had not thought about countries in Africa with tribes and clans. In Africa or Uganda in particular, tribe is the opium. One only needs the right switch; the cause could be land or cattle and the fire starts.
Currently, the differentiation is about long and flat noses but these are difficult anatomical human structures to impute differences in tribe. But why would people want to base on this considering how poisonous it can be?
I have heard some people say musaayi mutabule (mixed relations), Nabawanuka (a person with a long nose but with all the credentials of being a mukyala w’Kabaka), or a Mucunguzi with a different shape of nose who you would think is a descendant of Kabaka Mwanga’s close body-guards. Conversely, one can find an Amoit from Teso resembling a Kasya from Kiruhura.
Despite these features, we are the same people. Miniscule individual arrogances and cultural egos will not move us anywhere. We will remain as backward as the US where vying for power raises questions like the schools one has gone to, their preachers’ individual opinions, where one’s grandparents migrated from and their middle Arab or Kikiga (read African) name, will make headlines not as a compliment but to discredit them.
The difference between us and Americans is that they have tough legislation and policies to discourage capitalisation on these issues. Hence one may not use them to their advantage.
Our politicians, pseudo politicians and intending politicians can be sure that they can never use tribal statements for an elective post or political executive appointment.
They would rather focus on issues in sectors like the economy, health care, education or foreign policy because with tribe or religion, they are perhaps beeping disaster.
Who said Uganda cannot be the Rwanda of 1994 or the post-election Kenya of early 2008?
President Yoweri Museveni, in the early years of his rule, rightly wanted to create a middle class that is, as he thought then, devoid of these tribal divisions. But maybe this middle class was not aggressively pursued to its proper creation.
The middle class tend to be in opposition and perhaps disruptive. So the idea was disbanded in favour of the peasantry population, because it is supportive of government programmes and was, therefore, encouraged to grow in numbers. The problem with the peasants is that they are easily confused with distorted ideas. We need a middle line because the issue of tribe and religion is real and potentially disastrous.
Now the land issue is triggering the tribal inclination but in future it may be a cattle issue like it has been before though on a smaller scale.
We must learn to co-exist with these differences and learn to negotiate. There is no tribe that thinks it is inferior to another. Speaking or attempting to speak ones language or practicing ones culture or religion for the material time to conform should not be interpreted as submission and, therefore, ones superiority or inferiority.
The name Muheki, for example, should not imply my competence or skill cultural or religious superiority. We need national dialogue and change in hearts.
The writer is a resident of Kabale Town
WHEN Karl Mark noted that religion was the opium of people, he probably had not thought about countries in Africa with tribes and clans. In Africa or Uganda in particular, tribe is the opium. One only needs the right switch; the cause could be land or cattle and the fire starts.
Currently, the differentiation is about long and flat noses but these are difficult anatomical human structures to impute differences in tribe. But why would people want to base on this considering how poisonous it can be?
I have heard some people say musaayi mutabule (mixed relations), Nabawanuka (a person with a long nose but with all the credentials of being a mukyala w’Kabaka), or a Mucunguzi with a different shape of nose who you would think is a descendant of Kabaka Mwanga’s close body-guards. Conversely, one can find an Amoit from Teso resembling a Kasya from Kiruhura.
Despite these features, we are the same people. Miniscule individual arrogances and cultural egos will not move us anywhere. We will remain as backward as the US where vying for power raises questions like the schools one has gone to, their preachers’ individual opinions, where one’s grandparents migrated from and their middle Arab or Kikiga (read African) name, will make headlines not as a compliment but to discredit them.
The difference between us and Americans is that they have tough legislation and policies to discourage capitalisation on these issues. Hence one may not use them to their advantage.
Our politicians, pseudo politicians and intending politicians can be sure that they can never use tribal statements for an elective post or political executive appointment.
They would rather focus on issues in sectors like the economy, health care, education or foreign policy because with tribe or religion, they are perhaps beeping disaster.
Who said Uganda cannot be the Rwanda of 1994 or the post-election Kenya of early 2008?
President Yoweri Museveni, in the early years of his rule, rightly wanted to create a middle class that is, as he thought then, devoid of these tribal divisions. But maybe this middle class was not aggressively pursued to its proper creation.
The middle class tend to be in opposition and perhaps disruptive. So the idea was disbanded in favour of the peasantry population, because it is supportive of government programmes and was, therefore, encouraged to grow in numbers. The problem with the peasants is that they are easily confused with distorted ideas. We need a middle line because the issue of tribe and religion is real and potentially disastrous.
Now the land issue is triggering the tribal inclination but in future it may be a cattle issue like it has been before though on a smaller scale.
We must learn to co-exist with these differences and learn to negotiate. There is no tribe that thinks it is inferior to another. Speaking or attempting to speak ones language or practicing ones culture or religion for the material time to conform should not be interpreted as submission and, therefore, ones superiority or inferiority.
The name Muheki, for example, should not imply my competence or skill cultural or religious superiority. We need national dialogue and change in hearts.
The writer is a resident of Kabale Town