But here's a FedsNetter who has read it and raises very credible points.
Kasangwawo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]From :
Reply-To :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject :
Re: [FedsNet] Re: Democratic Opposition in Uganda
Date :
Sat, 23 Nov 2002 17:31:39 EST
Mr Kibuuka,
I was relieved to learn that the author of the piece you posted was not Jack Alecho, who was merely acting as matalisi (messanger) for one Acuti Lwani, whoever he is. I was simply going to phone up Jack and challenge him on the twisted apology for the misrule that has visited chaos on our country since the dark days of 1966 only to discover at the end of essay that it was not Jack but a Mr Acut Lwami.
You did appeal that we should limit ourselves to the federo issues and leave the other points raised in Acut Lwami's essay for another day. However, I cannot promise that I will not stray. And I opologise in advance for the length of reply.
Nation building
Acut Lwani seems to suggest that UPC/Obote has patented what he describes as nation-building and expects us to fall in line. And the purchase on his every word seems to suggest that we should thank the Lord for UPC/Obote.
Mr Lwani in a fit of confusion goes on to lecture us on what we should focus on "HERE and NOW". We are to talk of the past only when remembering UPC/Obote in good light otherwise the PAST is irrelevant if we want to build a Uganda to accommodate all of us without exception, he argues. My understanding is that the past shapes the future and it is quite obvious that is why we have parents and proud/ashamed of our past.
Another example is that it is a matter of common sense that when we apply for work we are asked about our education, work experience, character and so on to avoid employing a stranger with a past. If the past was not relevant, employers would only be asking what you are capable of NOT what you have done in the past that makes you suitable for the job.
It is obvious that there is an agenda in recommending that we focus on the 'here and now' and I leave it to you to make your conclusions.
Mr Lwani fails to give a convincing explanation what he means by nation, nationhood or nation-state. He refers to Uganda as "fledging fragile construct" which is "extremely vulnerable to complete disintergration". He counsels that: "Uganda is a geo-political of great complexity of our own diversities and contradictions .....[therefore] we should deal with what is vitally important and common to us all, here and now .....The Nation-State of Uganda is merely an ardent expression of great hope .....Why not build a nation? ....[and work] towards that goal of nationhood.."
Mr Lwani does not offer a genesis of what he is talking about perhaps because history of little relevancy in his view in the Uganda scenario. Chambers Dictionary says that a nation is a body of people marked by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition. The state is described as something about order and society or the organisation of the body politic with define territorial borders. And we know that State comes from the word Estate. Roman law is a very good source to evidence what is a State but in the main a State is a system of rules, procedures governing our liabilities, duties and responsibilities towards others and the rights we hold against others.
Those of you who have read Marx and Engels are aware that the communist and socialist outlook demotes nation to nonentity and promotes the state as the higher ideal. The example of eastern Europe is with us: the nations of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, etc were written out of history during communism. They are now finding self expression and we have seen the blood-letting.
My point is this, Mr Lwami, UPC, DP, NRM and all other pretenders seek to argue that the nations that make up Uganda are irrelevant. That any talk of nations in Uganda is a throwback of people wishing to use this as an excuse to dominate others. The federo advocates make the opposite argument that the nations of Uganda are relevant and must be recognised and is the only 'all inclusive' plan that allows every Uganda make a contribution to our future.
In otherwords, Uganda can only be Nation-State meaning that the nations that make up Uganda must consent and contribute towards the making of the State called Uganda. Britain is a nation-state as it is made up of the English, Scots, Welsh and the Irish and this has been recognised by the devolved powers and has brought an end to calls by nationalist demanding the break-up of the United Kingdom. If the Lwanis seek to force a unitary system down our throats they can be sure that posterity may not be as accommodating or intimidated as the present generation and could easily resort to force of arms as has been the case in Yugoslavia.
The best way forward for Uganda is to accept that we are separate parts that make up a whole. Uganda has no identity of its own and decrees from politicall opportunists need to recognise the constituent parts from which Uganda rose with the help of the colonialists. Rationally all nations of Uganda need the Nation-State to negotiate on their behalf. That is the logic of the situation and to argue otherwise is to fail to see the realities and goes for real politic.
The idea of greedy, selfish and incompetent politicians deciding our future is not democracy. Politicians are there to MANAGE not to decide who we are. And choosing to ignore the nations that make up Uganda is an attempt to make us what politicians want us to be in the hope that we shall all become subservient. That is not democracy.
Re-writing the history of Buganda
Mr Lwani says that: "there is no concrete documentary evidence to support the sweeping claims" that Buganda Kingdom is 600 years old, and in any case why "should these past things matter now", he asks. I am yet to be convinced that Mr Lwani is not driven either by a sense of envy or contempt.
A colleague of mine has argued that many explanations of Buganda's prominence are extremely flawed because they often fail to address the colonialists justification for locating their headquarters in Buganda. If we accept that colonialism was part of the expansion of international capitalism, it becomes obvious why the colonialist chose Buganda. When IBM, Kalamazoo, etc make a decision to relocate they try to take advantage of cheaper opportunities in the developing world. They prefer India to Uganda because India has structures and skills to meet their needs. I have it on good authority that the colonialist chose Buganda to take advantage of the civic structures and the small scale capitalism that was a feature of Buganda. I am happy discuss the details with anyone.
The other point (fact) on Buganda is that she was not a State but a Nation. The people of Buganda have never sought to turn Buganda into a State and therefore the Lwani talk of Buganda wishing to turn into a State and break away is cheap blackmail of a sort. Let me explain.
The pre-eminance given to the State in the modern world contrasts sharply with the feudal outlook. In the feudal world the primary concept was not the state but law - a law not made by politicians but part of a universal and eternal order to be discovered by a study of customs and precedents. Kings, councils and judges found and formulated it but could not make it; for to create new laws would be to impose a new obligation by an act of will, and only the gods could do that. Law was thought of as the eternal and objectively valid normative system within which all associations were contained, and from which all roles drew appropriate rights and duties.
Mr Lwani, UPC/Obote need to reflect on that view of the world if they want to understand Buganda's demands. Buganda is NOT opposed to the State of Uganda. There is more to kabakaship than what many ignorant people make it out to be. Merely observing individual Baganda (or getting married to one) does not explain the system that shaped their beliefs and aspirations. There is evidence to show that among Ugandans the Baganda have been most hospitable. So, to allege as Lwani does that Buganda has "a fear of foreigners" is another piece of cheap blackmail politicking to distort the debate on the future of Uganda.
In an attempt to whitewash Dr Obote, Lwani creates a scenario where the Baganda are painted as rebels whom Dr Obote had to tame and for which we have to thank him concluding that: "We have since, happily, moved a long way from ...brinkmanship between Uganda Government and a section that wants to secede. I have not since heard any Muganda or even Mengo mention the question of secession again. Not even Yosefu Kony of LRA has laid a bid for secession..." Mr Lwani this is libelling a people in pursuit of political fortunes and it does not help the debate neither is it helpful to put Kony and the Baganda in the same bracket.
We need to be honest and we do not have to lie to rally others to our cause rather let us trust them by telling them what we have done in the past and what we are capable of in the future without painting sections of our society as evil or as responsible for frustrating the emergence of a Nation-State.
Conveniently, Mr Lwani accuses Ibingira of wanting to overthrow Obote and for that moment he says the Kabaka was sold lies and the Baganda are temporarily absolved of being rebellious towards the centre. He then speaks of many others who wanted to overthrow Dr Obote but he does not address the central question that if so many people wanted to overthrow Dr Obote what was it that they found intolorable about him?
Federo
Lwani argues that
"Is the nascent but elusive 'federo' again alluding to secession? Federo has yet the need to define itself more precisely. It can be said, at the moment that federo is not tangible, it is nothing. It is an illusion (or delusion?) It is a mirror reflection of some of Uganda's problems. It could be a deliberate attempt by some fertile minds to see Buganda in a Uganda mirror. Without the mirror the reflection disappears. I challenge that if at all federo was any thing concrete, Paul Ssemogerere, with all the popular support he had received from outside Buganda, would have been elected president of Uganda in the1996 presidential elections."
I find Mr Lwani words here almost contemptible. Perhaps he could tell us how he measures what is tangible? What does he mean by Buganda since the constitution of Uganda from 1967 has tried to write Buganda out of the map and language of Uganda? And why does he link Ssemogerere to the aspirations of Buganda? And could he possibly define federo to compare with my meaning of the term? Because by federo I am concerned with rights of pre-independence communities without exception to semi-autonomous rule to run their local affairs with the least interference from the centre. If some of these communities do not have the structures these can be phased in an orderly manner. That is why we have rules in a Nation-State.
Federo shall create local enties to check the powers at the centre to the upholding of our human rights. My idea of federo also seeks to devolve powers to create employment at local level without meddling from the centre.
Mr Lwami is sometimes outrageous, for example, he suggests that because Ssemogerere is Muganda thus support for him in Buganda is automatic. Yet earlier on he says that Ben Kiwanuka was rejected in preference to Dr Obote by the Kabaka and Mengo establishment. Do we then take it that Dr Obote was a Muganda on that occasion?
Without any shame I am of the view that the Baganda, by and large, are very discerning when it comes to Uganda politics. As with regards to matters strictly to do with Buganda, the majority stick tightly to the LAWS of our customs and precedents. These two positions are always confusing to non-Baganda.
By the way, those Baganda who join in the looting and misruling of Uganda are despised as much as the other non-Baganda thieves and sychophants.
lssebweze
<<
From: "Mulindwa Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:09:11 -0500
Kasangwawo
Were the facts right or wrong?
Em
The Mulindwas communication group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
----- Original Message -----
From: "jonah kasangwawo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
> Mulindwa,
>
> I was not under the illusion that you were forcing me to discuss anything,
> but you are not being truthful yet again ! This is certainly not the norm
on
> the net. When netters post something, they usually indicate where it is
> from. If, for example, Omar or Gook or anyone else posts something, they
> normally tell us it is from New Vision, Monitor or other sources. You
> yourself have normally done this.
>
> This time, you posted something containing opinions, judgements and
> interpretations of Uganda history, but refrained from giving us neither
the
> identity of the author nor the sources of his/her purported facts !
>
> So I ask , even though you did not think it right 'to hide matters
> concerning our nation', why did you find it important to hide this other
> information ?
>
> Kasangwawo
>
>
> >From: "Mulindwa Edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
> >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:18:46 -0500
> >
> >Kasangwawo
> >Neither you nor any other Ugandan is going to be forced to discuss any
> >thing
> >posted in any forum. So do not fear. I happened to see that writing and
it
> >gave a thinking in my head, so I thought some body out there might like
> >reading it as well, for who ever wrote it, wrote matters concerning
Uganda
> >our nation and I did not think that I would be right to hide matters
> >concerning our nation under the shadow of darkness as Federalists do.
> >If the name of the writer is more important to you than the matters
posted,
> >please by all means delete it. You see I forgot that Ugandans fear
> >discussing, that is why we do not write and we do not leave books, we
> >fight,
> >we support fighters and we promote that. Let us continue with our style,
An
> >old dog will never be taught a new trick, who told you we can change the
> >norm on the net.
> >Be well
> >Em
> > The Mulindwas communication group
> >"With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy"
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "jonah kasangwawo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 9:14 AM
> >Subject: Re: ugnet_: WHAT WILL UPC DO TO THE OPPOSITION?
> >
> >
> > > Mulindwa,
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
