Colonisation, truth and Buganda’s political culture
The truth is painful. When the truth is a fact, it is not correct to argue with it but to accept it.
By Kajabago-ka-Rusoke
The truth is painful. When the truth is a fact, it is not correct to argue with it but to accept it.
It is a fact that there exists a country called Uganda. It became a British colony in 1890 when a number of tribes were amalgamated under this name Uganda by a British business organisation known as Imperial British East Africa Company headed by Captain Lugard.
Here arises a question: What is colonisation? Colonisation is a military as well as political art and craft whereby either, a country or, a group of countries, is bound together by military and political ties.
Time came when peoples in various colonies began feeling that they should be independent of being ruled and administered under a colonial socio-economic formation. They, therefore, struggled for independence in order to turn those colonies into sovereign states to be ruled and administered by indigenous populations of those colonies.
As the demand for independence emerged, these colonies had to struggle for national sovereignty on a common basis. This description exposes Uganda in the same way. So on October 9 1962, Uganda had an executive prime minister heading a government which became independent of British rule. Although the head of state in Uganda remained the same head of state for Britain, Uganda changed from being a British colony to a British dominion.
However, in 1963, Uganda appointed a president as head of state, replacing the head of state of Britain. Then Uganda became a republic and ceased being a Queendom under the queen.
During all this period in the history of Uganda, every tribe in Uganda lost its sovereignty because they were under British authority. When Britain was leaving, there emerged a national government to which every tribe had to continue paying allegiance. It is very incorrect for any tribe to consider itself either independent or as an equal to the rest of Uganda. It is worse for any tribe to consider the rest of Uganda under it.
It is only necessary that every tribe becomes conscious that its sovereignty was lost since 1890 and that by all means, such a tribe should conform to the central Government.
Buganda in the context of truth
- Buganda was an independent kingdom.
- Britain conquered it and put the King of Buganda under the King of Britain.
- When Britain left Uganda, it left Buganda under Uganda.
- So Buganda lost its sovereignty indefinitely.
- To now declare Buganda a sovereign state again is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
- A statement that President Museveni is a subject of the Kabaka of Buganda is not correct.
- That Buganda is not asking for a federal structure of government from President Museveni, but that the President should just support it, is also incorrect.
- That Kampala should not be extended because it will tamper with the two territories of Buganda, is also incorrect, because all parts of Buganda are parts of Uganda.
Conclusion
The following should be lessons for all Ugandans to learn from: Simplicity and humility are necessary for enabling us to be gentle as correct figures and personalities within a national context.
The sovereignty of Uganda should not be tampered with and contaminated. Ugandans should learn from the following unpleasant incidents affecting our political make-up:
In 1953 the Kabaka of Buganda, Sir Edward Muteesa, disagreed with the British Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen, whom he told to remove the British Government seat from Buganda soil. Cohen arrested and exiled him in Britain up to 1955.
In 1961, Benedicto Kiwanuka, head of the Democratic Party, was elected chief minister of Uganda, but under the British governor. The chief minister invited the Kabaka of Buganda for consultations. The Kabaka was disappointed because he was being called to go and meet a “commonerâ€.
In 1966, Sir Edward Muteesa was holding two political positions in the country: Kabaka of Buganda and head of state of Uganda.
Under him was an executive prime minister. Sir Edward Muteesa was disappointed about the results of referendums which were carried out in Buyaga and Bagangaizi counties which had been given to Buganda by Britain when Britain conquered Bunyoro. These counties belonged historically to Bunyoro Kingdom.
However, during negotiations for Uganda’s independence in London in 1962, the Omukama of Bunyoro had demanded that the four counties of Mubende, Buruuli, Bugangaizi and Buyaga, given to Buganda at the time of the British conquest of Bunyoro Kingdom, be returned to Bunyoro. It was then agreed that only two, Buyaga and Bugangaizi, be put to test for that purpose. The results favoured Bunyoro. Sir Edward’s degree of disappointment forced him to ignore his national political and sovereign position as the President of Uganda. He went to a part of Bunyoro called Ndaiga, shot and killed four people at a roadblock and killed another three in a market as Banyoro whom he considered insubordinate to Buganda.
Sir Edward the President, became a victim of bitter contradictions within the state and state apparatus to the extent that his own prime minister organised for him to be arrested.
- Later, there emerged an era of violence, which was ended through a people’s protracted war. On the basis of the results of this war, the country has been better stabilised than ever before.
- The current national leadership in the country has put in place the descendants of former kings as cultural leaders. These should be made to understand clearly that they are not political figures in the country.
- There should not be hatred for descendants of these ancient cultural institutions. If they have any type of hysteria, it is incumbent upon all cadres to liberate them from that outdated, parochial and inward-looking character which undermines patriotism.
The writer is a lecturer at the National Political Institute, Kyankwanzi
The truth is painful. When the truth is a fact, it is not correct to argue with it but to accept it.
It is a fact that there exists a country called Uganda. It became a British colony in 1890 when a number of tribes were amalgamated under this name Uganda by a British business organisation known as Imperial British East Africa Company headed by Captain Lugard.
Here arises a question: What is colonisation? Colonisation is a military as well as political art and craft whereby either, a country or, a group of countries, is bound together by military and political ties.
Time came when peoples in various colonies began feeling that they should be independent of being ruled and administered under a colonial socio-economic formation. They, therefore, struggled for independence in order to turn those colonies into sovereign states to be ruled and administered by indigenous populations of those colonies.
As the demand for independence emerged, these colonies had to struggle for national sovereignty on a common basis. This description exposes Uganda in the same way. So on October 9 1962, Uganda had an executive prime minister heading a government which became independent of British rule. Although the head of state in Uganda remained the same head of state for Britain, Uganda changed from being a British colony to a British dominion.
However, in 1963, Uganda appointed a president as head of state, replacing the head of state of Britain. Then Uganda became a republic and ceased being a Queendom under the queen.
During all this period in the history of Uganda, every tribe in Uganda lost its sovereignty because they were under British authority. When Britain was leaving, there emerged a national government to which every tribe had to continue paying allegiance. It is very incorrect for any tribe to consider itself either independent or as an equal to the rest of Uganda. It is worse for any tribe to consider the rest of Uganda under it.
It is only necessary that every tribe becomes conscious that its sovereignty was lost since 1890 and that by all means, such a tribe should conform to the central Government.
Buganda in the context of truth
- Buganda was an independent kingdom.
- Britain conquered it and put the King of Buganda under the King of Britain.
- When Britain left Uganda, it left Buganda under Uganda.
- So Buganda lost its sovereignty indefinitely.
- To now declare Buganda a sovereign state again is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
- A statement that President Museveni is a subject of the Kabaka of Buganda is not correct.
- That Buganda is not asking for a federal structure of government from President Museveni, but that the President should just support it, is also incorrect.
- That Kampala should not be extended because it will tamper with the two territories of Buganda, is also incorrect, because all parts of Buganda are parts of Uganda.
Conclusion
The following should be lessons for all Ugandans to learn from: Simplicity and humility are necessary for enabling us to be gentle as correct figures and personalities within a national context.
The sovereignty of Uganda should not be tampered with and contaminated. Ugandans should learn from the following unpleasant incidents affecting our political make-up:
In 1953 the Kabaka of Buganda, Sir Edward Muteesa, disagreed with the British Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen, whom he told to remove the British Government seat from Buganda soil. Cohen arrested and exiled him in Britain up to 1955.
In 1961, Benedicto Kiwanuka, head of the Democratic Party, was elected chief minister of Uganda, but under the British governor. The chief minister invited the Kabaka of Buganda for consultations. The Kabaka was disappointed because he was being called to go and meet a “commonerâ€.
In 1966, Sir Edward Muteesa was holding two political positions in the country: Kabaka of Buganda and head of state of Uganda.
Under him was an executive prime minister. Sir Edward Muteesa was disappointed about the results of referendums which were carried out in Buyaga and Bagangaizi counties which had been given to Buganda by Britain when Britain conquered Bunyoro. These counties belonged historically to Bunyoro Kingdom.
However, during negotiations for Uganda’s independence in London in 1962, the Omukama of Bunyoro had demanded that the four counties of Mubende, Buruuli, Bugangaizi and Buyaga, given to Buganda at the time of the British conquest of Bunyoro Kingdom, be returned to Bunyoro. It was then agreed that only two, Buyaga and Bugangaizi, be put to test for that purpose. The results favoured Bunyoro. Sir Edward’s degree of disappointment forced him to ignore his national political and sovereign position as the President of Uganda. He went to a part of Bunyoro called Ndaiga, shot and killed four people at a roadblock and killed another three in a market as Banyoro whom he considered insubordinate to Buganda.
Sir Edward the President, became a victim of bitter contradictions within the state and state apparatus to the extent that his own prime minister organised for him to be arrested.
- Later, there emerged an era of violence, which was ended through a people’s protracted war. On the basis of the results of this war, the country has been better stabilised than ever before.
- The current national leadership in the country has put in place the descendants of former kings as cultural leaders. These should be made to understand clearly that they are not political figures in the country.
- There should not be hatred for descendants of these ancient cultural institutions. If they have any type of hysteria, it is incumbent upon all cadres to liberate them from that outdated, parochial and inward-looking character which undermines patriotism.
The writer is a lecturer at the National Political Institute, Kyankwanzi