The East African (Nairobi)
OPINION
February 3, 2003
Posted to the web February 4, 2003
Wairagala Wakabi
Nairobi
The Buganda kingdom's renewed demands for federal status, manifested in a demonstration in the capital Kampala last week, stirred old fears among Ugandans familiar with the country's history.
The kingdom's much-publicised presentation to the Constitutional Review Commission demanded not only federal status, but also that Kampala be given back to Buganda, and that the privileges and immunities of traditional leaders be reinstated.
Kampala is currently designated by the constitution as a district of Uganda while the other districts that constitute Buganda are categorised primarily as districts of Buganda. The constitution groups some districts under regions. for instance, it names Gulu and Kitgum as "districts of Acholi". and Bushenyi, Mbarara and Ntungamo as districts of Ankole. It lists eight districts that are "of Buganda." Kampala and 15 other districts do not belong to any region. The Baganda now want Kampala to be listed as "Kampala district of Buganda."
Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemogerere, the Buganda Prime Minister, grumbled that the makers of the 1995 constitution ignored had Buganda's views, implying that if these views had been included, it would now be a federal entity.
To many Ugandans, last week's events brought back memories of May 1966, when the Buganda Lukiiko (parliament) gave President Milton Obote an ultimatum to remove the central government from Buganda soil.
On May 24, 1966, six days before the expiry of the Lukiiko's ultimatum, Obote ordered troops to storm the Buganda palace, forcing the Kabaka to flee into exile. Since that fatal moment, at which the federal and central government tensions could apparently not be contained anymore, Uganda has known little peace.
Subsequently, the Obote regime promulgated a new constitution that abolished the federal status of the kingdoms of Buganda, Toro, Ankole and Bunyoro, and the territory of Busoga. Traditional leaders and their privileges were scrapped, kingdoms lost powers to levy taxes, and Uganda became a unitary state.
Current members of the Lukiiko and others that purport to speak for Buganda must recall that Obote's move was occasioned by Buganda's actions, which Obote thought would lead to a disintegration of Uganda.
Indeed, the Buganda king had written to some foreign missions proposing the overthrow of Obote (he admits this in his 1967 book Desecration of My Kingdom) and he refused to acknowledge the results of a 1964 referendum on The Lost Counties, which were not favourable to his kingdom.
Obote reasoned that the Kabaka, who was also president of Uganda, was putting his parochial interests above those of Uganda. Hence, when he overthrew him, Obote sought to build Uganda on the basis of the so-called One Country, One People, One Leader philosophy.
Why some Ugandans today are uncomfortable about Buganda's renewed quest for federalism is because it is beginning to resemble so starkly the 1996 clamour, seen by many as a primary cause of the turmoil Uganda has seen ever since. Ironically, the proponents of federalism in Uganda argue that it is instead the remedy for the country's chronic instability.
But analysts argue that Buganda has failed to articulate a valid case for federalism, besides referring to its favoured position in the pre-1966 dispensation -- which it mainly owed to the fact that it was the first region to embrace the British colonialists and helped extend colonial rule across the rest of the country.
Mishandling of Buganda's quest for "federo" is fraught with potential problems, but introducing federalism without determining how it fits into the current administrative structure, especially the role of the monarchs in a national democratic regime, are just some of the headaches that will require innovation to work.
The broad understanding is that a reversion to the federal system would automatically make the Kabaka the political head of Buganda. But being a monarch, the Kabaka cannot be elected, meaning that the Baganda will lose some of their democratic rights to a cultural regime.
John Katende, the Lukiiko's legal affairs chief, says Buganda wants federalism because, ever since Uganda went unitary, the country has seen anarchy and destruction.
The report on the Lancaster Independence Conference of 1961, which that formed the basis of the 1962 constitution, said that Uganda's most difficult constitutional problem had been to work out a satisfactory relationship between the central government and the constituent parts of the country. Most problematic were the kingdom areas, and it was agreed that they be given federal status.
It is instructive to note though, that Buganda and other kingdom areas had a favoured status in that conference. Buganda had five representatives in Lancaster, Busoga, Toro, Bunyoro and Ankole two each; while the 10 districts had one delegate each.
In such an assembly, where royals and their representatives were debating the future of traditional institutions, feudal interests obviously would be protected. The times have changed since then and now the voices of "commoners" matter too.
The trick is that the Lukiiko is speaking on behalf of all Buganda, even though this institution, by the fact that it is not elected, cannot be said to truly be in touch with and representative of the aspirations of all Baganda. Lukiiko members are either handpicked by the Kabaka, or are clan heads whose election is in no way democratic. Some are not at all schooled in matters of statehood, which makes their judgement suspect.
In Desecration of My Kingdom, Kabaka Mutesa II talks of the "Lukiiko's rock-like obstinacy" in negotiations regarding Buganda's interests. If the current Lukiiko opts for a similar rock-like stance instead of seeking to compromise and co-exist, Uganda could yet again see bad days.
Wairagala Wakabi is a Kampala-based staff writer with The EastAfrican
