Mengo wants status, not genuine federalism

Dec 15, 2009

On December 17, Buganda Kingdom will hold a conference to “explain the basics of federalism and marketing it to other stakeholders”. But what credentials and legitimacy does the kingdom have to champion and teach others about federalism?

By Dr Sam Okuonzi

On December 17, Buganda Kingdom will hold a conference to “explain the basics of federalism and marketing it to other stakeholders”. But what credentials and legitimacy does the kingdom have to champion and teach others about federalism?

Federalism is not an aspect of Ganda culture. What miracle will the kingdom use to disguise its well articulated sectarian interests to pursue a special status (commonly called Federo) as federalism? According to Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi, the people clamouring for Federo are “some politicians and religious leaders who wish to restore the historical special status of Buganda.

These people have learnt nothing from Uganda’s history (The New Vision September 27, 2009). I urge the people of West Nile not to be hoodwinked by this old deception and to reject any such fake proposed federalism.

The people who peddle Federo or special status for Buganda want the rest of Uganda to believe that their pursuit of federalism is genuine and is not associated with the kingdom, the Kabaka or with a special status.

But their actions and utterances show us the contrary. These people always refer to the 1962 Constitution as the gold standard for federalism. Yet, this was a highly unequal and unfair arrangement where Buganda (as one ethnic group) was made to federate with the rest of Uganda consisting over 50 ethnic groups. By virtue of this arrangement a traditional leader of this one ethnic group became the president of the whole country, something many believe was preposterous. Buganda controlled its resources for itself and got additional grants from the central government (ie from the rest of Uganda) to develop itself.

By this historical and economic distortion, much of the national economic wealth of the country has been concentrated in Buganda. Resources were channelled to Buganda to build “national” institutions, which are dominated and largely benefit Baganda. Before we split into federal states, how does the kingdom propose to share out the national wealth concentrated in Buganda?

West Nile has made a significant contribution to Buganda’s development in form of contributing to the building of national institutions and infrastructure located in Buganda. It was a major producer of cotton when cotton was a key cash crop.

West Nile has continued to produce tobacco, which fetches the highest amount of revenue to the Government.

If in the very unlikely event that Buganda is seeking genuine federalism, how will West Nile and other communities be compensated? The Pandora box of sharing the national wealth concentrated in Buganda must be first be opened before we embark on actual federalism talks.

But the recent riots of September 2009, the third Buganda crisis (after 1953 and 1967 crises), where rioters made highly provocative utterances left no doubt that the pursuit of

Federo is strongly linked to a powerful and political Kabaka, contrary to the Constitution of Uganda.

Their rejection of the proposed uniform regional government system is another indication that they want the Kabaka and special status to be in the federal equation.

Recent rumours have been that in fact the king would shade off Kabakaship (obviously temporarily) and contest for president of Uganda, indicating how a political Kabaka with the attendant special status for Buganda would eventually materialise. And the fact that this conference is being organised by Buganda Kingdom is very telling indeed. Again, according to Nsibambi “… some ministers in Kabaka’s government have threatened those who do not support federo will be de-campaigned in Buganda”.

However, the pursuit of a special status is grossly misguided by those who have misread the historical circumstances that propelled Buganda into prominence between 1900 and 1967, which circumstances do not exist today and cannot exist again. Granted, Buganda was an organised society when the British arrived.

The British took advantage of this organisation to pursue their own metropolitan goals. According to Gardner Thompson in Governing Uganda the British had three options to exercise authority in Uganda.

One was through coercion (for example, the war with Bunyoro Kingdom); two, through collaboration, where there was acquiescence by consent (partnership with Buganda); and three by foreign power mystique, culture and technology, which mesmerised local leaders and people.

The British defeated Buganda in 1890s and created it as the heart of their colony through the famous 1900 Buganda Agreement. Then the British used Buganda as their base and Baganda as agents to defeat other areas and to expand to what has now become Uganda.

In the process, Buganda as an entity also expanded. Seven counties of the defeated Bunyoro Kingdom were donated to Buganda as a reward for assisting the British in the war with the mighty Bunyoro Kingdom. These were: Bugerere (Kayunga), Bulemezi (Luwero), Buheekura (Mubende), Singo (Mityana), Buyaga (Kibale), Bugangaizi (Kibale) and Rugonjo (Kiboga). Therefore, Buganda’s pre-eminence from 1900 -1967 was hugely facilitated by the British. Before the era of the British, Buganda was in the shadows of the mighty Bunyoro Kingdom. It had only managed to independently defeat Buddu (Masaka),Buvuma, Bwiru, Kooki and Ssese.

Buganda’s history is well documented. After the fall of the Chwezi dynasty, four princes fathered by a Chwezi prince, Kyomya, with a woman from Madi were brought to Bunyoro to start the Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom. Prince Isingoma became the King of Bunyoro, his twin brother, Kato-Kimera, became the county chief of Muhwahwa (the Nyoro name for the original Buganda consisting Busiro, Kyadondo and Mawokota), the other brother, Nyarwa, became the county chief of Mwenge (Tooro) and Kiiza, the chief of Busoga, all under Bunyoro-Kitara. Each of these “counties” eventually broke off to form separate kingdoms. But none attained the greatness of Bunyoro-Kitara. That is until Buganda’s artificial greatness was facilitated and created by the British.

Some people want us to believe that Buganda’s leaders invited the British as an ally and as a military strategy to defeat its enemies and neighbours. The reality is that the British did not care less about Buganda or any other community but came uninvited “to achieve their own metropolitan goals”.

The other reality for Ugandans to know is that the British defeated all of us — all ethnic communities and forced us into a new entity called Uganda, which we have accepted and agreed to live with. The continued assumption of superiority and special status for Buganda is perplexing, to say the least. In history, people who attain and are accorded superiority have demonstrated advanced civilisations, technology and capacity to defeat and administer vast areas. Examples include the Greek, Roman, Ottoman, Mongolian, Chinese, and British empires. But Buganda’s “civilisation, technology and capacity” were no different from those of its neighbours.

The history of Uganda and our diversity were at the fore of the minds of those, who debated and made the Constitution of Uganda.

The deliberations are recorded in the Odoki Report for posterity. Federo enthusiasts have misled the public to believe that the majority of Ugandans wanted federalism. But this is not true.

Let me quote Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki from his book The search for a national consensus, views were analysed to ascertain which form of government was suited for Uganda, whether federal, unitary or other.

The majority… who were in favour of federalism were from the central region. The majority in the other three regions preferred a unitary system”.

The majority rejected the restoration of traditional rulers, but this was overwhelmingly supported in Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and Busoga. But the national consensus was that communities that wanted traditional rulers should decide on their restoration, not the whole country.

The rulers would be maintained by voluntary means and not by the Government. And that the traditional rulers would have no political or active role in the Government. Federalism was associated with Buganda’s aspiration for a special status. But most Ugandans wanted the country to be under a uniform form of governance for the sake of peace and stability and to reconcile with historical injustices such as the lost counties and the imposition of one culture on others.

The proposed federal states tended to force people into states they did not want or aspire to be part of. For example, who did the proposers of West Nile Federal State consult? How did they arrive at the conclusion that such a state was desired by the local people?

The delegates of the constitution assembly pronounced themselves emphatically on the unitary form of governance as a way of promoting national unity, forging a common identity, getting common values, attaining social and political stability and for the development of the country as a whole.

The consensus was that peace and harmony could only be attained on the basis of unity in diversity, where factors that bound us together and united us would be emphasised, but “factors that divided us on sectarian and unprincipled grounds would be eliminated”.

National building would focus on building national, not sectarian institutions; on reconciliation; on balanced development; and equitable distribution of resources. Federo was viewed as likely to aggravate tribalism, regionalism, sectarianism and parochialism.

The writer is a doctor and hails from Vurra, Arua district

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});