Rwenzururu a kingdom only in hearts of people
Jul 21, 2008
The throne is but the men not the crown†is the English rendering of a Kinyarwanda saying: Ingoma s’Umwami, n’abagabo. And there is nowhere this rings true than the yet-to-be recognised Obusinga bwa Rwenzururu (Rwenzururu kingdom). With multiple claimants to the crown, one of the claimants sug
By Asuman Bisiika
The throne is but the men not the crown†is the English rendering of a Kinyarwanda saying: Ingoma s’Umwami, n’abagabo. And there is nowhere this rings true than the yet-to-be recognised Obusinga bwa Rwenzururu (Rwenzururu kingdom). With multiple claimants to the crown, one of the claimants suggested that a popular vote could settle the controversy, thereby rendering the matters of the throne the business of men.
The jostling of the pretenders to the throne has created an aura of royalty that might tempt disinterested onlookers to assume that what is at stake is merely the choosing of the king. Far from it though, one would have to first justify the emergence of a kingdom among a people not known for a tradition or documented history of structures of a kingdom. And the kingdom has to be recognised by the Government.
Yet behind the façade of the confusion created by multiple pretenders to the throne, there exists a palpable popular sympathy for the recognition of Rwenzururu kingdom. Passionate is the demand for the recognition of the kingdom that it manifests itself in political and administrative actions by district leaders of Kasese and Bundibugyo.
Political capital
In the 2006 general elections, the population expressed open support to the opposition FDC which promised to recognise the kingdom the moment it was in power. The result: Kasese is the only district in western Uganda to return FDC MPs (three out of five).
The Government, for partisan political interests and the need to deny FDC an election platform, has all but virtually accepted to recognise the kingdom under the leadership of Charles Wesley Mumbere. But a local politician playing in the ‘big league’ at national level views the Rwenzururu kingdom has another power centre likely to end his stranglehold on the political minds of his people.
The Government’s reluctance to declare Mumbere king of Rwenzurruru is driven by how much political capital they can derive from the action. One can expect the recognition of the Rwenzururu kingdom to be on the cards towards the 2011 presidential elections.
Justification
A predominantly mountain people, the Bakonzo have no evidence of certified or scholarly documentation and tradition of an overlord who ruled over the entire community of the Bakonzo and Bamba.
Even then, the history of state formation and empire building has demonstrated that mountain terrain and forested landscapes does not favour the creation of strong centralised polities. Which perhaps may explains why there were no strong kingdoms between the western arm of the Great Rift Valley and the Pacific Ocean.
The only legitimate argument for the justification of the kingdom is that ‘the people want it as a vehicle for expressing their ‘collective identity and destiny.’
Otherwise any attempt at tracing the existence of a non-existent kingdom from the misty recesses of time may not be appealing. Yet the demand for the recognition of the kingdom is not a mere ‘identity and destiny’ rhetoric; it has some historical talking points.
Identity and destiny
The contemporary history of Bakonzo nationalism is the story of a struggle for national identity and destiny manifested in the resistance of Toro kingdom’s overrule. It is this mindset of resistance that informs the demand for the recognition of the Rwenzururu kingdom.
The kingdom of Toro was a creation of the British colonial administration as strategic response to the Bunyoro Kingdom recalcitrance against the British colonial designs. It started as a confederacy of five counties; Mwenge, Kyaka, Kitagwenda, Kitagweta, Nyakabimba and Toro Proper.
A clause in the 1900 Toro Agreement clearly says areas bordering the Congo Free State (DR Congo now) were ‘to be administered by the principal European official placed in civil charge of the Toro district.’ Even in the seminal arrangement with Capt. Lugard, Omukama Kasagama was warned against exercising his administration beyond what was called Toro Proper.
In 1893, the Bakonzo-Bamba chiefs expressed open hostility for Toro overrule as captured in the journal entry of one of the colonial officials. While in Toro, Roddy Owen took Kasagama on a tour with him to Fort George to the south.
The local chiefs asserted their independence of Toro and their hostility to Kasagama while swearing direct allegiance to the British regime according to Edward Steinhart, in the book: Conflict and Collaboration of the Kingdoms of Western Uganda, published by Fountain Publishers.
Un-royal kingdom
This 1893 incident represents perhaps one of the first recorded attempts by the Bakonzo-Bamba at preserving their national identity.
It was, therefore, not surprising that ‘in March 1902, an attempt was made by the county chief, Petero Tigwezire, to collect Hut Tax in Bwamba, which was still effectively ruled by its own local Headmen. The attempt was met with armed resistance. Eleven men were killed, with Tigwezire returning to Fort Portal to call for a punitive expedition against the tax refusers in Bwamba. The resident commissioner refused to act, agreeing with the Bamba in seeing the alleged tax collection as an unjustified raid for ivory against a people who did not recognise Toro’s right to rule them.
The armed rebellion under the banner of Rwenzururu United Movement against Toro overrule gave birth to the Rwenzururu kingdom, which is viewed among the Bakonzo as the culmination of a long struggle for national identity. And Mumbere, the last leader of Rwenzururu kingdom, is the legitimate king of the kingdom.
This is the only way one can explain the non-regnal (un-royal) Rwenzuru kingdom. However, a kingdom born out of a revolution represents a contradiction and irony likely to interest scholars of political and social progression of peoples.
The writer is a journalist
The throne is but the men not the crown†is the English rendering of a Kinyarwanda saying: Ingoma s’Umwami, n’abagabo. And there is nowhere this rings true than the yet-to-be recognised Obusinga bwa Rwenzururu (Rwenzururu kingdom). With multiple claimants to the crown, one of the claimants suggested that a popular vote could settle the controversy, thereby rendering the matters of the throne the business of men.
The jostling of the pretenders to the throne has created an aura of royalty that might tempt disinterested onlookers to assume that what is at stake is merely the choosing of the king. Far from it though, one would have to first justify the emergence of a kingdom among a people not known for a tradition or documented history of structures of a kingdom. And the kingdom has to be recognised by the Government.
Yet behind the façade of the confusion created by multiple pretenders to the throne, there exists a palpable popular sympathy for the recognition of Rwenzururu kingdom. Passionate is the demand for the recognition of the kingdom that it manifests itself in political and administrative actions by district leaders of Kasese and Bundibugyo.
Political capital
In the 2006 general elections, the population expressed open support to the opposition FDC which promised to recognise the kingdom the moment it was in power. The result: Kasese is the only district in western Uganda to return FDC MPs (three out of five).
The Government, for partisan political interests and the need to deny FDC an election platform, has all but virtually accepted to recognise the kingdom under the leadership of Charles Wesley Mumbere. But a local politician playing in the ‘big league’ at national level views the Rwenzururu kingdom has another power centre likely to end his stranglehold on the political minds of his people.
The Government’s reluctance to declare Mumbere king of Rwenzurruru is driven by how much political capital they can derive from the action. One can expect the recognition of the Rwenzururu kingdom to be on the cards towards the 2011 presidential elections.
Justification
A predominantly mountain people, the Bakonzo have no evidence of certified or scholarly documentation and tradition of an overlord who ruled over the entire community of the Bakonzo and Bamba.
Even then, the history of state formation and empire building has demonstrated that mountain terrain and forested landscapes does not favour the creation of strong centralised polities. Which perhaps may explains why there were no strong kingdoms between the western arm of the Great Rift Valley and the Pacific Ocean.
The only legitimate argument for the justification of the kingdom is that ‘the people want it as a vehicle for expressing their ‘collective identity and destiny.’
Otherwise any attempt at tracing the existence of a non-existent kingdom from the misty recesses of time may not be appealing. Yet the demand for the recognition of the kingdom is not a mere ‘identity and destiny’ rhetoric; it has some historical talking points.
Identity and destiny
The contemporary history of Bakonzo nationalism is the story of a struggle for national identity and destiny manifested in the resistance of Toro kingdom’s overrule. It is this mindset of resistance that informs the demand for the recognition of the Rwenzururu kingdom.
The kingdom of Toro was a creation of the British colonial administration as strategic response to the Bunyoro Kingdom recalcitrance against the British colonial designs. It started as a confederacy of five counties; Mwenge, Kyaka, Kitagwenda, Kitagweta, Nyakabimba and Toro Proper.
A clause in the 1900 Toro Agreement clearly says areas bordering the Congo Free State (DR Congo now) were ‘to be administered by the principal European official placed in civil charge of the Toro district.’ Even in the seminal arrangement with Capt. Lugard, Omukama Kasagama was warned against exercising his administration beyond what was called Toro Proper.
In 1893, the Bakonzo-Bamba chiefs expressed open hostility for Toro overrule as captured in the journal entry of one of the colonial officials. While in Toro, Roddy Owen took Kasagama on a tour with him to Fort George to the south.
The local chiefs asserted their independence of Toro and their hostility to Kasagama while swearing direct allegiance to the British regime according to Edward Steinhart, in the book: Conflict and Collaboration of the Kingdoms of Western Uganda, published by Fountain Publishers.
Un-royal kingdom
This 1893 incident represents perhaps one of the first recorded attempts by the Bakonzo-Bamba at preserving their national identity.
It was, therefore, not surprising that ‘in March 1902, an attempt was made by the county chief, Petero Tigwezire, to collect Hut Tax in Bwamba, which was still effectively ruled by its own local Headmen. The attempt was met with armed resistance. Eleven men were killed, with Tigwezire returning to Fort Portal to call for a punitive expedition against the tax refusers in Bwamba. The resident commissioner refused to act, agreeing with the Bamba in seeing the alleged tax collection as an unjustified raid for ivory against a people who did not recognise Toro’s right to rule them.
The armed rebellion under the banner of Rwenzururu United Movement against Toro overrule gave birth to the Rwenzururu kingdom, which is viewed among the Bakonzo as the culmination of a long struggle for national identity. And Mumbere, the last leader of Rwenzururu kingdom, is the legitimate king of the kingdom.
This is the only way one can explain the non-regnal (un-royal) Rwenzuru kingdom. However, a kingdom born out of a revolution represents a contradiction and irony likely to interest scholars of political and social progression of peoples.
The writer is a journalist