Federalism or not, national interest should prevail
Jan 24, 2010
THE December 17, 2009 Buganda Conference provided a good opportunity for the nation to reflect on a pertinent issue: Unity in diversity. Prior to this, the Government had tabled the local government’s Bill to Parliament. The key issue in the Bill is the regional tier system, which intends to make
By Swaib K. Nsereko
THE December 17, 2009 Buganda Conference provided a good opportunity for the nation to reflect on a pertinent issue: Unity in diversity. Prior to this, the Government had tabled the local government’s Bill to Parliament. The key issue in the Bill is the regional tier system, which intends to make the centre cede some powers to the local authorities. It is also called devolution of power. The Government considers this feasible, not federalism. Yet advocates for the latter see it in reverse.
The problem is that we never see things in a national interest perspective, rather it is sentiments and prejudice at the fore.
Demographically, in 15 years’ time, we shall be 50 million Ugandans! If by then we have not forged a minimum code of common values and norms; say a common language and attire, hence formulating deliberate national interests and strategies or policies to achieve our goals, we shall remain in the vicious cycle of confusion.
There would be nothing to base our decisions upon because we will not be informed of what the country needs and, therefore, determine who offers the best policy option. For instance, what is our national interest in regard to a big or small population? Do we need homosexuality; does it promote our national interest? What is our national interest in regard to oil exploration? Do we need to export crude or finished processed oil products? Which of these makes us industrialised and, therefore, modernised in the long run?
A country without its own interests, known by all, old and young, will always find it hard to determine its destiny. This is Uganda. For Europeans and Americans to be mad with anyone anti-gay does not mean they are crazy about the practice, but that position represents their interests, best known to themselves.
Governance issues like federalism and regional tier can only be logically decided on informed positions with consideration of national interests and international dynamics. There is certainly a good and bad side to each.
A regional tier government would be good for accountability with elected leaders and its universality appeal. However, it presents no fundamental shift from the concentration of control of resources at the centre. The most distinctive difference between the two alternatives; federo and the regional tier, is the autonomy over resources; not who controls administrative powers. If, for example, President Museveni wished to remain in good books with the foreign friends and at the same time promote Uganda’s interests, especially of industrialisation and modernisation, he would be the foremost promoter of a federal kind of arrangement.
Thus, it would be hard for development partners to corner him alone into sometimes unfair compromises. If he is pressed to export oil in crude form, he would have a justifiable excuse, saying ‘but the people of Bunyoro local government or province want it processed.’ If partners would force him to abandon the Homo Bill at the centre, some local governments would outlaw it in their by-laws.
In the federal republic of Nigeria, much as the West loathes Sharia jurisdictions, some Nigerian states enforce it and the west largely remains friends with Abuja.
It has been argued that Uganda is too small for a federal arrangement. But the republic of Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean Islands is the smallest sovereign member of the United Nations. It is only 126 square kilometres.
However, federalism as advocated by Buganda, may not be the best, given that by merely curving regions; north, east, central and western is not enough. In fact it smacks of colonial practice that forced and divided Africans simply to simplify their administrative exploitations.
You cannot imagine a Langi bowing before the Acholi chief, Rwot, on the basis that they are all in the northern region. In the east, there is a multiplicity of tribes, more than any other area in the country — some munching rats. Who would be the supreme regional leader? And under what circumstances would he be chosen?
The Forum for Democratic Change was suggesting formulating federalism based on the original communities that participated in the making of the independence constitution at Lancaster, UK. But these were many, with no natural resources at all, apart from a few people. Moreover, there are other communities that have since been accepted as truly Ugandan by the 1995 Constitution as amended in 2005. What would be their fate?
Hence the relevant parliamentary committee currently gathering views on the local governments’ Bill should honestly think about national interests as a guiding principle. In accommodative spirit, it could simply extend the mandate of the proposed regional tier from mere power sharing to a degree of resource autonomy.
The writer is a resident of Busiro North
THE December 17, 2009 Buganda Conference provided a good opportunity for the nation to reflect on a pertinent issue: Unity in diversity. Prior to this, the Government had tabled the local government’s Bill to Parliament. The key issue in the Bill is the regional tier system, which intends to make the centre cede some powers to the local authorities. It is also called devolution of power. The Government considers this feasible, not federalism. Yet advocates for the latter see it in reverse.
The problem is that we never see things in a national interest perspective, rather it is sentiments and prejudice at the fore.
Demographically, in 15 years’ time, we shall be 50 million Ugandans! If by then we have not forged a minimum code of common values and norms; say a common language and attire, hence formulating deliberate national interests and strategies or policies to achieve our goals, we shall remain in the vicious cycle of confusion.
There would be nothing to base our decisions upon because we will not be informed of what the country needs and, therefore, determine who offers the best policy option. For instance, what is our national interest in regard to a big or small population? Do we need homosexuality; does it promote our national interest? What is our national interest in regard to oil exploration? Do we need to export crude or finished processed oil products? Which of these makes us industrialised and, therefore, modernised in the long run?
A country without its own interests, known by all, old and young, will always find it hard to determine its destiny. This is Uganda. For Europeans and Americans to be mad with anyone anti-gay does not mean they are crazy about the practice, but that position represents their interests, best known to themselves.
Governance issues like federalism and regional tier can only be logically decided on informed positions with consideration of national interests and international dynamics. There is certainly a good and bad side to each.
A regional tier government would be good for accountability with elected leaders and its universality appeal. However, it presents no fundamental shift from the concentration of control of resources at the centre. The most distinctive difference between the two alternatives; federo and the regional tier, is the autonomy over resources; not who controls administrative powers. If, for example, President Museveni wished to remain in good books with the foreign friends and at the same time promote Uganda’s interests, especially of industrialisation and modernisation, he would be the foremost promoter of a federal kind of arrangement.
Thus, it would be hard for development partners to corner him alone into sometimes unfair compromises. If he is pressed to export oil in crude form, he would have a justifiable excuse, saying ‘but the people of Bunyoro local government or province want it processed.’ If partners would force him to abandon the Homo Bill at the centre, some local governments would outlaw it in their by-laws.
In the federal republic of Nigeria, much as the West loathes Sharia jurisdictions, some Nigerian states enforce it and the west largely remains friends with Abuja.
It has been argued that Uganda is too small for a federal arrangement. But the republic of Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean Islands is the smallest sovereign member of the United Nations. It is only 126 square kilometres.
However, federalism as advocated by Buganda, may not be the best, given that by merely curving regions; north, east, central and western is not enough. In fact it smacks of colonial practice that forced and divided Africans simply to simplify their administrative exploitations.
You cannot imagine a Langi bowing before the Acholi chief, Rwot, on the basis that they are all in the northern region. In the east, there is a multiplicity of tribes, more than any other area in the country — some munching rats. Who would be the supreme regional leader? And under what circumstances would he be chosen?
The Forum for Democratic Change was suggesting formulating federalism based on the original communities that participated in the making of the independence constitution at Lancaster, UK. But these were many, with no natural resources at all, apart from a few people. Moreover, there are other communities that have since been accepted as truly Ugandan by the 1995 Constitution as amended in 2005. What would be their fate?
Hence the relevant parliamentary committee currently gathering views on the local governments’ Bill should honestly think about national interests as a guiding principle. In accommodative spirit, it could simply extend the mandate of the proposed regional tier from mere power sharing to a degree of resource autonomy.
The writer is a resident of Busiro North