In defence of federalism
By Dr. Christopher G. Kibuuka
The Baganda have historically been major political players in Uganda. Many Buganda leaders participated in the struggle for independence. Ignatius Musazi from the Uganda National Congress (UNC) 1952, Matayo Mungwanya (Democratic Party) 1956 and Augustine Kamya with the bus boycotts of Uganda National Movement (UNM) are some examples. Prof Yusuf Lule (RIP), Dr. Andrew Kayiira, Dr. Samson Kisekka and Sam Njuba fought fascism side by side with other Ugandans. I enumerate all these to indicate to the people within Buganda and Uganda that Baganda have a great sense of nationalism contrary to what some people believe. And we are not about to give our up our national slot. We have a deep seated respect for property rights and today the presence of all people from different parts of Uganda and the world in nearly every part of Buganda is clear evidence of this ideal. The majority of these people certainly contribute to Buganda�s wealth. It is my assertion that the biting poverty and lack of development in Buganda in previous years was a consequence of bad governance by the central government and this is not limited to Buganda. Federalism is part of the solution. But for the Buganda government in Mengo to demand (as part of their presentation to the Constitutional Review Commission) that Uganda�s capital city, Kampala, to be taken over by Buganda is reckless and ridiculous. It only serves to deepen mistrust among Ugandans, betrays the very �federo� we want and shows how low democracy stakes have gone in Uganda. The memories of Buganda�s parliament, the Lukiiko attempt to expel the central government from Buganda�s soil in 1966, that led to the attack on the Lubiri by the Uganda army are still vivid in our minds. Though former president Dr Apollo M. Obote never won in the long run, neither did Buganda, the consequences are glaring today. Just look at the naming of Uganda and Buganda. Doesn�t one see the intended commitment of the entities to each other? Baganda are the majority tribe and the biggest national investments are in Buganda. Certainly this does place responsibility on Buganda, especially her leaders. Experience has shown that a vibrant Buganda largely translates into a similar situation in the whole of Uganda and a weak, manipulated and apathetic Buganda is bad news for the country. The Europeans put us together, Buganda Kingdom, Bunyoro Kitara, Ankole Kingdom and other nations in the North and East of the country in the Berlin Treaty of 1890. We have lived together since. It follows that we have a stake in each other�s governance. We stand to benefit from the human and natural resources in the boundaries of Uganda. It may be coffee boom in Buganda today, but oil boom in Toro tomorrow. The Baganda should distance themselves from this business of Kampala seceding from Uganda. It�s irresponsible, unwarranted and tarnishes our image. The rest of the country should ignore the demand. Many issues in Uganda of today are about �eating� and I see this as one of them. Kampala is for all Ugandans unlike Jerusalem, which is on fire as the Israelis and Palestinians fight over it. Federalism should not be used to break our country. On the other hand, the undermining of Buganda by the British, which culminated in the banishing of our king in 1953 and later destruction of the kingdom in 1966, is unacceptable. Let President Yoweri Museveni know that Buganda owes her existence to nobody. Our legacy stretches 600 years back. We have had our ups and downs but survived. I�m not one of those who praise Museveni for the return of the Kabaka, Bulange, etc. These were ours. Dispensing small donations to the king while not allowing us to collect even a minimal tax is demeaning. For the outside onlooker here are a few tips about Buganda: A good Muganda is not a dead one as Obote, twice Uganda�s president, and his colleagues in Kikosi Maalum used to think in the �70s. We are kind and accommodating -- a character trait, which tends to expose us to exploitation and abuse. Every Muganda has a totem e.g goat, leopard or buffalo. Mine is a sheep. You are not allowed to marry somebody with the same totem. Each totem is assigned distinct surnames for its members. One must not eat a product from his totem. This may explain why cows, delicious species of fish, matooke, alcohol, etc are not totems. There are 52 totems and members of each form a clan and each clan has a role before the king, who is the head of the 52 clans. One always takes after his father�s clan. I hope the above shades some light on why Baganda are deeply intertwined in the spirit of the Kingdom. This is where Obote and his Uganda People�s Congress went wrong in 1966. They most likely have realised this and are today one of the leading trumpets for federalism. Emergence of a federal state, call it a kingdom in Buganda, places new challenges on the king and his associates. The kingdom must not repeat the mistakes of the past; especially mixing the king in politics, failing to sell federalism to the rest of the country and most important of all a democratic federalism. It must be recognised that Baganda have different political views, which must be protected and promoted. Residents of Buganda are diverse. Democracy must emanate from the grassroots with the majority party forming the government to be presented to the Kabaka and not vise versa. We can borrow from the monarchy in Britain, where Kabaka Ronald Mutebi lived for over two decades. KwaZulu-Natal offers another example of a working kingdom in a provincial set up of South Africa. Adopting the Swaziland style would be recipe for catastrophe. February 09, 2003 11:05:17 http://www.monitor.co.ug/news.php?record_number=2&show=Society
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
