before we start looking at this article more closely, wouldn't it have been a sign of good judgement to tell us who wrote it ? And before we take everything contained therein to be the naked truth, shouldn't the sources have been given ?
Kasangwawo
From: "Mulindwa Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:28:18 -0500
(Netters because Ugandanet can not take this whole document, we have spited it into 4 parts, this is part one and the rest of them are following.)
The question as to what the UPC would do with (to) the Opposition Parties if it ever came to power again, should have an obvious answer(s). Taken at face value the answers could be misleading and confusing. I think the question is good and fundamental in light of the line of the discourse we are trying to develop regarding democracy and good governance in Uganda. Before we could usefully advance probable and reasonable answers, therefore, let us first cast our minds on the background that has shaped the question.
The mode of debate
I hasten to say that Uganda and its people (approx. 30 million) is too great a stake to play with. In discussing it, therefore, we should be rational, broad-minded, sober, intelligent, honest and as factual as possible. The discussion should be devoid of rash emotional reaction arising from our distorted history, prejudices, ignorance, misinformation, or recent tragic events to one or ones person(s). It should also not be a disinterested palaver for its own sake. The mode and style of debates should be informed and not be stagnated at the rudimentary level of only howling abuse at each other. It would serve no useful purpose. Let only good ideas for the future of our country and people compete and let the better ones prevail. Let the politics we intend to pursue be the politics of inclusion rather than of exclusion.
Let us for a moment then put aside the unfortunate deportation policies of the various Uganda communities, which have a bearing on our attitudes and prejudices. These were mainly make-belief and told to us by our colonial master. The true facts about our origins and the past have yet to be answered by our own honest historians, anthropologists and archaeologists. Presently historical evidences are scant. All we have at the moment are sketchy and poor or unsubstantiated statements by foreigners, and the word of mouth, which is only oral literature. Whether or not Buganda Kingdom is six hundred years old, and without stating how old the other kingdoms are, colonial history goes on to assert that the Acoli (Luo/Lwo) are remnants of a defeated or decayed Bito Dynasty which moved south (up the Nile) and replicated itself, albeit on smaller scales, in the Babito rulers of the 'southern' lake kingdoms of Bunyoro Kitara, Tooro, Koki (Koc), Buganda and Bulamogi in Busoga. There is no concrete documentary evidence to support the sweeping claims. Even if these were proved either way, should these past things matter now?
What is critically vital?
What should be critically vital are the now and here, which is our struggle to survive in the face of this cruel world of globalisation, and secure the future of our children and thereby our destiny as a people. We are today faced with a world of the survival of the fittest, almost in the literal Darwinian sense. Against this destiny, we can then line up our modalities, priorities and even our personal idiosyncrasies. We seem to waste too much time on the trivia and local. Some of us look at events in Uganda in total isolation and are incapable of translating the events in terms of other powerful external forces acting on us. Each time we discuss Uganda; therefore, we must first and foremost focus our minds at its one destiny in the context of the new world as a whole
Uganda is vulnerable to disintegration
Firstly, therefore, we should agree that Uganda is extremely vulnerable to complete disintegration. And if this happened, there will be no common destiny. Each breakaway fragment will be weaker than the present ragged Uganda and each may head to extinction separately. Uganda is likely to break apart than not because Uganda is a construct. It is not exactly a nation in the classical sense and meaning as for instance Britain, France and Germany. These nations have already passed through centuries of agonizing and tumultuous experiences to be what they are today. They were largely forged together by the will, wishes and wars of their people. Have we forgotten their history, which they have tried to teach us, which read like a catalogue; 'The Thirty Years War', 'The Hundred Years War'? These nations now think that they were not man-made but were born or even created by their God.
Uganda, on the other hand, is a fledgling fragile construct, a typical colonial state, and a union in its transformation to a nation. The British put it together at the turn of the last century, for their own purposes. Out of several divergent riparian communities, which lived at the source and valley of the Nile, quite independently of each other, the British, like the work of a cobbler, sewed the 'state' of Uganda together. The seams can easily rot away or tear apart. Or, if you like, Uganda is likened to a wall built of bricks and sandy cement mortar, which is easily chipped away. Once the mortar is removed the bricks will crumble to rubbles. We should ever be so conscious of this possibility.
Luckily, across-tribe and inter-ethnic organisations such as the religions and political parties are some of the mortar that has tried to cement Uganda together. Okello and Nsubuga feel a sense of unison and belonging alike when they kneel together before the altar during a holy mass. Olupot and Rugunda feel a strong sense of togetherness when they are dressed in red and blue and are singing and clapping to their popular 'Oh Uganda......!' It is this bonding mortar that Museveni has condemned as sectarian and has tried to chip away. The result is sadly clear today as more and more Ugandans identify themselves with the individual bricks (tribe) rather than with the Uganda wall (the nation).
In this respect, we should acknowledge that the main seam in Uganda is along two distinct areas of political history, the north and the south. The north was surveyed up to river Kafu by a Samuel Baker, 1862, and was colonized from Cairo and incorporated into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. The south was colonised by the British directly from Zanzibar. Buganda which, assisted the British militarily to conquer its neighbours, was the first to be declared a British protectorate in 1894. The rest of Uganda was incorporated in bits and pieces through eleven years. The Greater North was transferred from Anglo-Egyptian Sudan into an existing Uganda Protectorate in 1905. While the South, except for Kigezi, was being ruled 'indirectly' through their local and indigenous kings, indirect rule had failed in the north and was therefore, being ruled 'directly' by colonial District Commissioners who appointed their chiefs and reported to the Governor in Entebbe. All horizontal social and political intercourse between the administrative districts was forbidden. This two-tier or dual-mode rule over Uganda has had profound effect on the peoples' behaviour, political perception and understanding of what is a state or nation. The British ruled us together but separately. It is important to understand this socio-political and historical situation well. Colonialism emphasized our differences rather than the commonalities and the enriching diversity we had. Certain negative stigma was attached to our diverse cultures and languages, for their own exploitation.
The British, in1937, divided us farther in clusters of clans or ethnic groups so that we are more malleable to colonisation. Those living north of Karuma Falls and Lake Kioga were classified by geographical location as Nilotics (people who live by the Nile), and those south of Karuma/Kioga were classified by language root (-ntu) as the Bantu, (which, incidentally officially in Western history and in dictionaries means black people of South Africa). The words 'nilotic' and 'bantu' did not come into currency in Eastern Africa until after the World War 2. Why should a Muganda at Njeru or Galilaya, a Musoga at Bujagali, an Acoli at Paraa, a Sudanese Arab at Omdurman, a black Egyptian on the Nile Delta not all be called Nilotics? Why should a Jaluo in the island of Homa Bay be called a nilotic? The Zande of the Great Kingdom of Avangara who belong to the '-ntu' group of languages, and happen to be in Southern Sudan, DRC and Central African Republic, but north of Northern Uganda, are called Nilotics! You can see that the usage of words coined by our colonizers alone defeats common logics. We must be wary of using and believing some of the words and political expressions that now abound.
Uganda nationalism
There is no doubt that Uganda is a geo-political entity of great complexity of our own diversities and contradictions, and is compounded and confounded by the vulgarity of the teaching and language of colonisation. But is this important what ethnic or language groups we had belonged to? Why do we not deal with what is vitally important and common to us all, here and now, and work towards guaranteeing our continuity through building a safe future for our children? Some of us do strongly believe that a strong, vibrant, viable and sustainable nation and state can be built out of that great complexity. That complexity should be a blessing and an advantage. (Look at the USA, which is trying to artificially build its own complex society by encouraging immigration from all over the world, called ' the Quota system' or 'the Green Card'). Our distorted past should not be allowed to limit the future rather it should enrich and broaden it. What then is Uganda's status?
We Ugandans tend to call Uganda a nation-state. What does this mean? The Nation-State of Uganda is merely an ardent expression of great hope by those who believe in the one destiny for Uganda. It means that sometime in the foreseeable future Uganda will attain the stature and status of a Nation and state. It is that blind belief to build that Nation, that state, which has held Uganda together since the British left. Why not build a nation? After all a nation and the state that encases it, are at first fragile, born of myth and imagination, allegory and ambition of its people. The ideas that were once metaphors solidify into supposed facts. Whenever we discuss Uganda issues, therefore, we must be wary and not lose sight of the transitional aspect of the 'nation' of Uganda. If we share in the great hope, and promise to uphold the aspirations of our people then our measures of Uganda's problems, judgement of the key players, and conceptualisation and visualization of a political party and its opposition must necessarily be distinctly different from that as understood in the West. If we must take necessary precautions and such steps that will foil attempts to renege or abort our long march towards that goal of nationhood, then that step will define and shape our meaning of good governance and constructive democratic opposition.
Both Party in government and Political Opposition should, therefore, take cognisance of the fact of Uganda's fragile transitional circumstance. Since 1962 we have had the great opportunity to foster our own ambitions. Those who have embarked on that dream, that long march to nationhood are called 'nationalists'. Uganda nationalism is that feeling to achieve the Uganda nation. The nationalists would then ask what opposition might be regarded as a legitimate opposition? How far can political opposition go before it can be accused for disrupting or even slowing down the march to nationhood? At what point in the debates would opposition be accused for infringing on Uganda sovereignty?
Part two to continue.........
The Mulindwas communication group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
