Address diversity to prevent ethnicity â€" APRM report
Oct 01, 2009
THE recent sporadic riots that broke out in Kampala when the Kabaka was advised not to visit Kayunga did not occur out of a vacuum. <br>
By Cyprian Musoke
THE recent sporadic riots that broke out in Kampala when the Kabaka was advised not to visit Kayunga did not occur out of a vacuum.
They are consequent upon historical factors that came into play during the state’s formation that created sub-ethnicities within others, causing agitation for self-determination.
This otherwise open secret was succinctly captured in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) report on Uganda
The writer is a journalist
(http://www.nepaduganda.or.ug/documents/CountryReviewReport-Uganda.zip), released earlier this year, when it observed thus:
“By the nature of their formation and being, African states have had serious problems with the management of diversity. First, their constituent groups were forcibly and arbitrarily incorporated by colonisation.â€
“A major consequence of forced integration accentuated by state-authored systems of discrimination and inequality has been the long history of agitation over the right to self-determination by dominated, oppressed and marginalised groups, of which minorities constitute a special category.â€
It is, therefore, not hard to figure out why we have ethnic tension.
The report argues that tribalism, regionalism and religious intolerance have had disastrous consequences for the consolidation of Uganda as a nation state.
Also cited is intense rivalry, competition and conflict among the groups over access to and benefits from scarce resources and public goods and services.
Buganda question?
Not surprisingly, religious differences, administrative restructuring (especially the creation of semi-autonomous regions), discriminatory colonial policies such as army and police recruitment, and the inequitable allocation of resources have exacerbated inter-group conflicts.
“This is the nature of diversity that is problematic in African states and triggers state-challenging (self-determination) conflicts between groups that suffer, or perceive themselves to be suffering, from exclusion, domination, marginalisation and unjust and inequitable power configurations,†the report adds. It might as well have been referring to the contemporary Buganda question and other potential hotspots.
What makes the issue particularly acute for Africa is that beyond politics, it touches economics and organisational capacity.
The result is political strife, civil wars, ethnic tensions and tribalism.
Uganda, like most post-colonial African states, faces an enormous challenge in managing diversity. Since independence in 1962, politics have been marked by continued tribal and regional divisions, most poignantly the north-south divide.
The land question
The land question is integral in all this. For most poor people land is their livelihood, a family or communal property, and a source of cultural identity and citizenship. To this end, the APRM report recommends that the current controversy over the Land Amendment Bill points at the need for land reforms. There is need for interested parties to leave narrow political or ethnic interests and focus on the legal aspects of the Bill.
Reform should be accompanied by progressive tenure reforms to counter the general tenure insecurities and land grabbing processes in the absence of a national policy.
Institutional reforms, it notes, will need to be included to defend the poor against land seizures and accommodate those minorities currently excluded from increasingly scarce arable land. The reforms should prevent and resolve conflicts over competing claims to land rights, and ensure fair administration of rights and land regulations.
Negative political developments
Underpinning Uganda’s volatile politics is the broader problem of political instability fuelled by sectarianism. This has assumed various forms, including ethnicity (the quest for the restoration of traditional kingdoms, notably Buganda, Bunyoro and Toro), religious divisions, and parochial politicians’ ambitions.
It is against the backdrop of Uganda’s unstable politics and failed democracy that the NRM came to power. As noted severally in the report, while the NRM has restored political stability to a large extent, a genuine culture of democracy still eludes Uganda.
Whenever conflicts are not addressed quickly and peacefully, they can escalate into violence, tearing societies along ethnicity, race, religion, region, and gender. Failure to prevent conflicts and build foundations for sustainable peace also affects socioeconomic development. This is Uganda’s major challenge.
Too many districts?
The proliferation of districts has not helped the situation. In all the regions that the Country Review Mission visited, some stakeholders complained about the fast pace of creating districts. Marginalisation of minority tribes was also raised.
Ethnic minority grievances are potential conflict areas. While there is a need to disaggregate the demands of the various ethnic minorities, participatory methods enhancing their sense of belonging without politicising ethnicity are needed.
Whatever the form, likely consequences of a decentralised government are political legitimacy, democratisation, economic efficiency, a lean government, and poverty reduction.
Decentralisation has its downside — it can foster regional identity and encourage secessionism, and the system can revive conflict within multi-ethnic societies.
By its nature, decentralisation is inevitably a political process, because it concerns the redistribution of power and resources, and thus alters the balance of power, the report notes.
At the heart of the problem is the right to access, and benefit from, national resources.
Solutions
At present, most African states are addressing diversity including racial and ethnic identity issues through a pacifying system of distribution and allocation - adhoc pragmatic management rather than a strategic approach.
Careful skilled social and political engineering is required to put into practice the constitutional provisions on managing diversity. All key stakeholders with different interests drawn from different ethnic groups and parts of the country should be brought on board.
THE recent sporadic riots that broke out in Kampala when the Kabaka was advised not to visit Kayunga did not occur out of a vacuum.
They are consequent upon historical factors that came into play during the state’s formation that created sub-ethnicities within others, causing agitation for self-determination.
This otherwise open secret was succinctly captured in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) report on Uganda
The writer is a journalist
(http://www.nepaduganda.or.ug/documents/CountryReviewReport-Uganda.zip), released earlier this year, when it observed thus:
“By the nature of their formation and being, African states have had serious problems with the management of diversity. First, their constituent groups were forcibly and arbitrarily incorporated by colonisation.â€
“A major consequence of forced integration accentuated by state-authored systems of discrimination and inequality has been the long history of agitation over the right to self-determination by dominated, oppressed and marginalised groups, of which minorities constitute a special category.â€
It is, therefore, not hard to figure out why we have ethnic tension.
The report argues that tribalism, regionalism and religious intolerance have had disastrous consequences for the consolidation of Uganda as a nation state.
Also cited is intense rivalry, competition and conflict among the groups over access to and benefits from scarce resources and public goods and services.
Buganda question?
Not surprisingly, religious differences, administrative restructuring (especially the creation of semi-autonomous regions), discriminatory colonial policies such as army and police recruitment, and the inequitable allocation of resources have exacerbated inter-group conflicts.
“This is the nature of diversity that is problematic in African states and triggers state-challenging (self-determination) conflicts between groups that suffer, or perceive themselves to be suffering, from exclusion, domination, marginalisation and unjust and inequitable power configurations,†the report adds. It might as well have been referring to the contemporary Buganda question and other potential hotspots.
What makes the issue particularly acute for Africa is that beyond politics, it touches economics and organisational capacity.
The result is political strife, civil wars, ethnic tensions and tribalism.
Uganda, like most post-colonial African states, faces an enormous challenge in managing diversity. Since independence in 1962, politics have been marked by continued tribal and regional divisions, most poignantly the north-south divide.
The land question
The land question is integral in all this. For most poor people land is their livelihood, a family or communal property, and a source of cultural identity and citizenship. To this end, the APRM report recommends that the current controversy over the Land Amendment Bill points at the need for land reforms. There is need for interested parties to leave narrow political or ethnic interests and focus on the legal aspects of the Bill.
Reform should be accompanied by progressive tenure reforms to counter the general tenure insecurities and land grabbing processes in the absence of a national policy.
Institutional reforms, it notes, will need to be included to defend the poor against land seizures and accommodate those minorities currently excluded from increasingly scarce arable land. The reforms should prevent and resolve conflicts over competing claims to land rights, and ensure fair administration of rights and land regulations.
Negative political developments
Underpinning Uganda’s volatile politics is the broader problem of political instability fuelled by sectarianism. This has assumed various forms, including ethnicity (the quest for the restoration of traditional kingdoms, notably Buganda, Bunyoro and Toro), religious divisions, and parochial politicians’ ambitions.
It is against the backdrop of Uganda’s unstable politics and failed democracy that the NRM came to power. As noted severally in the report, while the NRM has restored political stability to a large extent, a genuine culture of democracy still eludes Uganda.
Whenever conflicts are not addressed quickly and peacefully, they can escalate into violence, tearing societies along ethnicity, race, religion, region, and gender. Failure to prevent conflicts and build foundations for sustainable peace also affects socioeconomic development. This is Uganda’s major challenge.
Too many districts?
The proliferation of districts has not helped the situation. In all the regions that the Country Review Mission visited, some stakeholders complained about the fast pace of creating districts. Marginalisation of minority tribes was also raised.
Ethnic minority grievances are potential conflict areas. While there is a need to disaggregate the demands of the various ethnic minorities, participatory methods enhancing their sense of belonging without politicising ethnicity are needed.
Whatever the form, likely consequences of a decentralised government are political legitimacy, democratisation, economic efficiency, a lean government, and poverty reduction.
Decentralisation has its downside — it can foster regional identity and encourage secessionism, and the system can revive conflict within multi-ethnic societies.
By its nature, decentralisation is inevitably a political process, because it concerns the redistribution of power and resources, and thus alters the balance of power, the report notes.
At the heart of the problem is the right to access, and benefit from, national resources.
Solutions
At present, most African states are addressing diversity including racial and ethnic identity issues through a pacifying system of distribution and allocation - adhoc pragmatic management rather than a strategic approach.
Careful skilled social and political engineering is required to put into practice the constitutional provisions on managing diversity. All key stakeholders with different interests drawn from different ethnic groups and parts of the country should be brought on board.