Intercultural dialogue can iron out our fears
May 14, 2008
The world has become one big village of cultural and ethnic diversity as a result of immigration and local conflicts. As economic immigration and forced displacement due to wars bring people of different cultures to live together the need has arisen to understand each other’s cultures as never be
By Peter Mulira
The world has become one big village of cultural and ethnic diversity as a result of immigration and local conflicts. As economic immigration and forced displacement due to wars bring people of different cultures to live together the need has arisen to understand each other’s cultures as never before.
In many cases, cultural conflicts have ensued in what one social commentator has described as a clash of civilizations which testifies to people’s resilience in sticking to what they are on one side and a rejection of “otherness†on the other. With this in mind, the European Union (EU) has been in the forefront in promoting intercultural dialogue not only within its member states but even outside them. The EU has declared this year as “The Year of Intercultural Dialogue†and recently sponsored the first ever “Uganda National Cultural Dialogue†held in Lira on May 5, drawing together 14 representatives of our cultural institutions. At the end of the one-day dialogue, the representatives signed a declaration in which they undertook to work with government in the promotion of peace and development.
Although intercultural dialogue has become a worldwide phenomenon, there is as yet no single definition of the term which has been accepted and applied to the exclusion of the others.
The International Association of Universities has defined the term as an idea that takes its starting point from the recognition of difference and multiplicity of the world in which we live. These differences of opinion, viewpoints and value exist not only within each individual culture but also between cultures.
The association goes on to say that intercultural dialogue approaches these multiple viewpoints with a desire to understand and learn from those that do not see the world in the same way as ourselves with the aim of encouraging the respectful sharing of ideas and an exploration of the different thought processes through which the world is perceived and understood.
This method has been used in Italy as a way of incorporating newly arrived Muslims in the wider Italian community without doing violence to their faith and beliefs while at the same time preserving the core values of the Italian society.
Although the text which was adopted by the EU in declaring “The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue†does not use a specific definition of the term, it nevertheless underlines the role of intercultural dialogue in promoting:
a) respect for cultural diversity in the complex societies we live in today;
b) greater mutual understanding in the development of equal opportunities for all and c) partnerships with other cultures or countries.
Preservation of cultural identity and heritage has often led communities to demand local autonomy within their states. Such desire for local autonomy is normally expressed through demands for federalism whose nuances have often escaped us.
According to one dictionary, “federalism†means “the principles of a federal government†where “federal†itself means
“Of or formed by a compact specifically designating a union of states in which each member agrees to subordinate its powers to that of the central authorityâ€.
This means that in ordinary terms federalism brings together independent or autonomous units which agree under a compact to form a new state under one overarching national government.
In constitutional language, however, emphasis is not on ordinary definitions but on models and formulations. Thus, for example, we have the American federal model which was based on the 11 independent colonies which came together under a compact they called a constitution to form the United States of America under one federal government to which they surrendered segments of their independence.
All states which have followed the American model have been previously autonomous starting with the five Australian colonies which formed the Australian union. Likewise, the provinces of Canada, India and South Africa which formed those countries’ federal statehood had been autonomous.
The original states of Nigeria became self-governing in 1949 before they formed the federal union in 1960 and the Malaysian union was formed by the autonomous British territories of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawaka and Sabah although Singapore left two years later. The same formula was followed in the federal unions of Germany, Switzerland and Brazil, among others.
This means that if we are to introduce the American model of federalism in Uganda, parliament will first have to grant autonomy to the regions which want it before those regions as autonomous units formed a union with Uganda. This is what was done in 1962 when the British government granted independence to Buganda on October 8, 1962, before Buganda as a federal state pursuant to its 1961 agreement with the British formed a union with independent Uganda on October 9, 1962.
Since it is unlikely that the Uganda parliament will grant independence to the regions which cherish local autonomy it is time we started thinking about alternatives to the American model. There are only three systems of political organizations of a modern state.
The first one is the American federal model. The second is the centralized state which came into being in the wake of the first world war in which no local autonomy is allowed.
Our 1967 constitution in which even the miluka chiefs were appointed by the president as chief executive is an example of a centralized state.
The third model is where unitarism denoting a situation where centralism precedes autonomy is balanced with autonomy of geographical areas determined by the people themselves in what has become to be described as the Scottish model which is achieved through devolution or the system of surrendering power and functions by the state to autonomous regions. The rationale behind both the American and Scottish models is the guarantee of local autonomy the only difference being in their formulation.
The federal status Buganda enjoyed in the 1962 constitution was based on the American model which the Lukiiko itself has rejected. At page 72 of the Lukiiko’s submission to the Ssempebwa Constitutional Review Commission it is stated: “Does Buganda want to return to the 1962 federal system? No…….. This is because every federal system has to adjust to meet the demands of the timesâ€. Both the American and Scottish models are based on three tiers as centres for division of power, responsibilities and functions between national, region/province/state and local governments. Article 178 introduces regional autonomy as applied in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Spain (the Basques), Belgium (the Flemish) and Northern Italy.
The only thing missing in this article is the right to have local constitutions although interestingly regional governments are allowed to play a role in the management of “public†land (mailo akenda in Buganda).
Through intercultural dialogue we may be able to iron out our fears and suspicions and correct any shortcomings in the present constitutional dispensation instead of talking at each other for ever.
The writer is a lawyer
The world has become one big village of cultural and ethnic diversity as a result of immigration and local conflicts. As economic immigration and forced displacement due to wars bring people of different cultures to live together the need has arisen to understand each other’s cultures as never before.
In many cases, cultural conflicts have ensued in what one social commentator has described as a clash of civilizations which testifies to people’s resilience in sticking to what they are on one side and a rejection of “otherness†on the other. With this in mind, the European Union (EU) has been in the forefront in promoting intercultural dialogue not only within its member states but even outside them. The EU has declared this year as “The Year of Intercultural Dialogue†and recently sponsored the first ever “Uganda National Cultural Dialogue†held in Lira on May 5, drawing together 14 representatives of our cultural institutions. At the end of the one-day dialogue, the representatives signed a declaration in which they undertook to work with government in the promotion of peace and development.
Although intercultural dialogue has become a worldwide phenomenon, there is as yet no single definition of the term which has been accepted and applied to the exclusion of the others.
The International Association of Universities has defined the term as an idea that takes its starting point from the recognition of difference and multiplicity of the world in which we live. These differences of opinion, viewpoints and value exist not only within each individual culture but also between cultures.
The association goes on to say that intercultural dialogue approaches these multiple viewpoints with a desire to understand and learn from those that do not see the world in the same way as ourselves with the aim of encouraging the respectful sharing of ideas and an exploration of the different thought processes through which the world is perceived and understood.
This method has been used in Italy as a way of incorporating newly arrived Muslims in the wider Italian community without doing violence to their faith and beliefs while at the same time preserving the core values of the Italian society.
Although the text which was adopted by the EU in declaring “The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue†does not use a specific definition of the term, it nevertheless underlines the role of intercultural dialogue in promoting:
a) respect for cultural diversity in the complex societies we live in today;
b) greater mutual understanding in the development of equal opportunities for all and c) partnerships with other cultures or countries.
Preservation of cultural identity and heritage has often led communities to demand local autonomy within their states. Such desire for local autonomy is normally expressed through demands for federalism whose nuances have often escaped us.
According to one dictionary, “federalism†means “the principles of a federal government†where “federal†itself means
“Of or formed by a compact specifically designating a union of states in which each member agrees to subordinate its powers to that of the central authorityâ€.
This means that in ordinary terms federalism brings together independent or autonomous units which agree under a compact to form a new state under one overarching national government.
In constitutional language, however, emphasis is not on ordinary definitions but on models and formulations. Thus, for example, we have the American federal model which was based on the 11 independent colonies which came together under a compact they called a constitution to form the United States of America under one federal government to which they surrendered segments of their independence.
All states which have followed the American model have been previously autonomous starting with the five Australian colonies which formed the Australian union. Likewise, the provinces of Canada, India and South Africa which formed those countries’ federal statehood had been autonomous.
The original states of Nigeria became self-governing in 1949 before they formed the federal union in 1960 and the Malaysian union was formed by the autonomous British territories of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawaka and Sabah although Singapore left two years later. The same formula was followed in the federal unions of Germany, Switzerland and Brazil, among others.
This means that if we are to introduce the American model of federalism in Uganda, parliament will first have to grant autonomy to the regions which want it before those regions as autonomous units formed a union with Uganda. This is what was done in 1962 when the British government granted independence to Buganda on October 8, 1962, before Buganda as a federal state pursuant to its 1961 agreement with the British formed a union with independent Uganda on October 9, 1962.
Since it is unlikely that the Uganda parliament will grant independence to the regions which cherish local autonomy it is time we started thinking about alternatives to the American model. There are only three systems of political organizations of a modern state.
The first one is the American federal model. The second is the centralized state which came into being in the wake of the first world war in which no local autonomy is allowed.
Our 1967 constitution in which even the miluka chiefs were appointed by the president as chief executive is an example of a centralized state.
The third model is where unitarism denoting a situation where centralism precedes autonomy is balanced with autonomy of geographical areas determined by the people themselves in what has become to be described as the Scottish model which is achieved through devolution or the system of surrendering power and functions by the state to autonomous regions. The rationale behind both the American and Scottish models is the guarantee of local autonomy the only difference being in their formulation.
The federal status Buganda enjoyed in the 1962 constitution was based on the American model which the Lukiiko itself has rejected. At page 72 of the Lukiiko’s submission to the Ssempebwa Constitutional Review Commission it is stated: “Does Buganda want to return to the 1962 federal system? No…….. This is because every federal system has to adjust to meet the demands of the timesâ€. Both the American and Scottish models are based on three tiers as centres for division of power, responsibilities and functions between national, region/province/state and local governments. Article 178 introduces regional autonomy as applied in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Spain (the Basques), Belgium (the Flemish) and Northern Italy.
The only thing missing in this article is the right to have local constitutions although interestingly regional governments are allowed to play a role in the management of “public†land (mailo akenda in Buganda).
Through intercultural dialogue we may be able to iron out our fears and suspicions and correct any shortcomings in the present constitutional dispensation instead of talking at each other for ever.
The writer is a lawyer