[Ugnet] Fwd: [FedsNet] Federo deserves thorough debate: The Counterpoint

Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:09:31 -0800



Note: forwarded message attached.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Begin Message ---
Compatriots,
 
Ugandans should have access to alternative viewpoints from those who live in federal countries---but the press is not publishing many of the clarifications.   The New Vision did not publish the following response to Dr. Oloya�s article, �Federo deserves thorough debate� that I posted yesterday.
 
By Joseph Senyonjo
New York City, U.S.A.
 
To the Editor, New Vision:
 
Dr. Opiyo Oloya in his piece entitled ' Federo deserves thorough debate' that was published in his New Vision column of 18 August 2004, made a few mistaken statements, assumptions, and deductions. He incorrectly stated that the Fedsnet Federal model is largely based on the writings of James Madison, one of the U.S.A's 'founding fathers'; and implied that the United States federal model unduly shaped our model. (Fedsnet is an internet forum of federalists, mostly in the Diaspora, that has debated the appropriate federal model for Uganda since 2000).
 
Dr. Oloya wrongly attributed our model to the influence of Madison due to the fact that we sent him a copy of a summary our model federal constitution that was delivered in a workshop during the Uganda North American Association's Convention in Boston, in September 2003. In that speech, I quoted Madison to illustrate certain points regarding issues such as two chamber legislatures in federal countries; the relations between the states and the federal government; and the role of state militias.
 
While the U.S. constitution, the world�s oldest and most copied federal constitution, undoubtedly influenced us, our model constitution was a result of careful study of federal constitutions of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland and the United States. The resulting document [sent to the Constitutional Review Commission (C.R.C)] synthesized the best elements of all these constitutions and modified them, where necessary, to take into account Uganda's unique realities.
 
Contrary to Dr. Oloya's insinuations, the House of Representatives and the Senate legislative model that we recommend for a federal Uganda is not unique to the U.S. federal system. Australia also calls its two federal legislative chambers-- the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Canada, where Dr. Oloya is resident, the two chambers are called the House of Commons and the Senate. In Belgium they are called the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate. In Germany, they are called the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. What is common in all these federal countries, along with others not mentioned, is that one of the chambers represents the people through their local constituencies, while the other represents each of the state's (region�s) interests through elected representatives speaking for entire states (regions).
 
Dr. Oloya writes that in the Fedsnet model 'the bottom line is that less power will emanate from the central authority and more from individual distinct states.' This statement is wrong, if by it he means that under our model the regions will be more powerful than the central government. He adds that the situation [that necessitated federalism] in the U.S.A and Canada at the time they federated was entirely different from Uganda's current status quo. This is true. Indeed, before opting for federalism, both the United States and Canada were confederations whereby the states [regions] were largely independent, with almost no power for the central government. Later both countries adopted federal systems that granted more power to the central [federal] government, while retaining significant autonomy for the states.
 
The Ugandan federalists are not calling for a weak central government beholden to the states. Rather they are calling for a re-alignment of jurisdictions that empowers the regions to address issues that affect them locally while retaining a central government capable of enforcing national policy, promoting nationwide development and defending all states from external and internal enemies. Prior to independence, and, particularly before 1900, Uganda, like the American colonies before they federated, was closer to a confederation in that the regions were more or less separate, with little or no central authority; the federalists are not advocating for a confederation.
 
Dr. Oloya�s citation of the contrasting U.S. and Canadian experiences strengthens rather than weakens the case for federalism in Uganda. Before federating, each of the European colonies in North America largely decided its own local affairs much like Uganda's pre-colonial regions. On winning their independence from Great Britain, the 13 original states in the U.S.A. chose to form a new loose government uniting them but not at the expense of regional ability to address local peculiarities and needs. Unlike Uganda's regions at independence [and now], the American states initially wanted to retain almost total autonomy for themselves with almost no role for a central government. This arrangement was enacted in the articles of Confederation that came into force in 1781.
 
Key features of U.S. articles of confederation [which distinguish a confederation from federalism].
 
First, there was neither a national President nor an executive body; instead the states [regions] regulated themselves through congress (the legislature) the members of which were selected (not elected) by the states. 
 
Second, the articles of confederation denied the central government the powers of taxation; the central government could only obtain funds by asking states for contributions. 
 
Third, each state had its own currency and assigned its own value.
 
The confederation accorded the central government little respect, and even less power. To rectify this situation, the American states adopted a federal system that was enshrined in the present United States Constitution in 1788. Under the federal constitution, the states retained significant autonomy in regional matters but the central government was now empowered to enforce national policy, conduct foreign policy, print currency and to collect taxes, along with the states and local governments. Perhaps, most significant, there was now a national executive, the President and his cabinet, charged with managing national affairs.
 
The lessons of the U.S experience to Uganda.
 
After independence from Britain, America's regions grappled with the task of creating a form of government that would unite them while retaining each region's capacity to address issues peculiar to its people without undue dependence on the central government. They experimented with a confederation, which preserved their individual autonomies, but was not well suited for a cohesive sense of nationhood since the central government was powerless. In the end, they settled for a federal system that united them, with a relatively powerful central government, while respecting each region�s desire to have the capacity to shape its own destiny.
 
From that perspective, the current demand for federalism in Uganda is best viewed as a cry for a form of government best suited to uniting the country's disparate regions, while allowing them some autonomy to shape their local destinies without fully relying on the goodwill of authorities in the centre. This has been a recurring struggle for over 40 years. It is clear, therefore, that until genuine federalism for all of Uganda's regions is granted, the country will remain politically unstable, and its leaders, perilously insecure.
 
At independence, some regions, particularly Buganda, negotiated for, and got a semi-federal solution that granted them some ability to manage many of their local affairs while subordinate to central authorities of the new nation. Unfortunately, since not all regions shared the semi-federal arrangement's benefits, there was no national goodwill to ensure its success. Thus, when the government abolished it, few, outside the beneficiary regions, mourned its passing. Worse still, since semi-federalism was granted only to kingdom areas, many otherwise intelligent individuals in Uganda even today think that federalism is synonymous with kingdoms, or monarchies. The federalists� goal is to correct such misconceptions, and to persuade our legislators to put Uganda on a solid path to democracy, prosperity and stability rooted on a firm foundation of dynamic federal regions capable of implementing development projects and social programs for their people, in partnership with the c entral government.
 
Fedsnet�s federal model for Uganda proposes 13 regions or states, these are: Acholi, Ankole, Buganda, [Bugishu/Sebei], Bukedi, Bunyoro-Kitara, Busoga, Karamoja, Kigezi, Lango, Teso, Tooro, and [West Nile / Madi]. Dr. Oloya criticized this model. He said that our regions, which are defined along ethnic/cultural lines, 'will lead to serious ethnic rivalries as states fight over allocation of meager resources and seek to expand outwards.' This is not true. 
 
First, none of the regions shall be able to expand because the existing boundaries of each region would be enshrined in Uganda's federal constitution. Further, the central government would continue to control the army in order to defend the interests of the nation as a whole. Second, the unitary system is largely responsible for the sustained ethnic antagonisms, and for the lack of a strong Ugandan nationalism. This state of affairs is due to the fact that Uganda's regions continue to suffer deprivation because they lack constitutional authority to mobilize resources to effect local development via a share of revenues from natural resources, agricultural and industrial products generated from their areas through limited, formula-based taxation. Contrary to common opinion, all of Uganda's regions can produce substantial revenues through agricultural exports or produce such as coffee, vanilla, fish, meat, bananas, tobacco, milk, leather, vegetables, tea, maize, cotton etc; tourism resources such as national parks, lakes, mountains, cultural sites, resorts etc.; and minerals including oil, gold, limestone, cobalt, oil, tin. 
 
Federalism in Uganda would legally enable the regions to retain some percentage of tax revenues for the development of regional roads, schools, hospitals, electricity et cetera. The central government would continue to get a larger percentage of the revenues from each region's resources. Regions with less revenue or economic capacity would get equalization funds from the central government to help them attain desired national standards.
 
Currently, due to over-centralization of power, notwithstanding decentralization to the districts [which shall continue under federalism] we have a pathetic situation whereby every region scrambles for power and resources at the centre. An example of this state of affairs is the repeated call for cabinet positions based on ethnic quotas, and incessant complaints by the regions that their development needs are being neglected by the central government.
 
Two articles [in August 2004] in both the New Vision and the Monitor further confirmed the fact that the people of Uganda still appeal to government in terms of their collective regional identities, even after almost 40 years of unitary government. The first article in the Monitor titled "Busoga to blame for its woes" quoted Mr. Mohammed Kezaala saying that the people of Busoga should hold themselves responsible for the lack of development in the region. He then blamed the central government stating that: "at every election we (Busoga) contribute 10 percent of the movement's vote, but what have we got in return? Are our industries working? What happened when we provided more than 130 acres for the development of an industrial complex? Didn't they opt to go to Namanve?"
 
The second article in the New Vision (20 August 2004) titled, 'Bunyoro is a sleeping giant' said that Bunyoro has the capacity to be Uganda's breadbasket; it blamed the Banyoro for failure to realize their potential.
 
It is not fair to blame Busoga, Bunyoro or any other region for failure to achieve prosperity when none of them is empowered to help effect its own development. Under a federal system, both the Busoga and the Bunyoro regions would have the administrative capacity and the authority to provide incentives that attract industries and investments without wholly relying on central government officials whose ideas may not be favorable to either region's priorities. The same would be true for Teso, Kigezi, Bukedi, Ankole, or any other region. Such regional capacity is what makes the United States of America, where I reside, such a dynamic, powerful economy because each state, big or small, does all it can to create and attract economic opportunities for its people. The combination of each of the states� individual efforts makes an extremely powerful, collective whole. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Americans are some of the most nationalistic people anywhere in the wo rld, despite the fact that many also identify very strongly with their regions. 
 
Dr. Oloya concludes that our 'plan based on ethnic groupings secluded from the rest of the country will only fan latent nationalism into hot fire'. It is evident from this statement that Dr. Oloya and some others misunderstand federalism to mean that each region will be on its own, and would cater only to its own indigenous people, to the exclusion of people from other ethnic regions. This is far from the truth. They forget that most of Uganda's regions, including Buganda, are multi-ethnic, and that under Uganda's federal constitution, people would still be able to move, live and get employment in any region they choose. This principle is enshrined in all federal constitutions that we have studied. Federalism is an organizational mechanism designed to manage and accommodate geo-cultural and regional development needs through genuine empowerment of the regions, thereby releasing undue pressure from the centre. In artificially created countries such as Uganda, federalism legitimizes central government authority by recognizing the rights of the regions to care of issues for which they are better suited than central authorities who may lack deep appreciation or understanding of local priorities, needs and culture. This recognition of diversity in preferences buys the central government universal respect and adherence. 
 
Uganda would not be the first country whose federal regions reflect ethnicity or cultural cleavages. Switzerland, Belgium, South Africa, Ethiopia, India, and Nigeria are some of the countries whose regions are based on ethnic or cultural lines. All these countries adopted federalism to keep their countries together via harmonious co-existence of ethnic groups. Instead of 'fanning latent nationalism into hot fire', the ethnic or cultural regions in federal countries actually contain the fire. However, in order for federalism to work well in the long run, it has to genuinely and fairly devolve power and resources [unlike Nigeria], while constitutionally guaranteeing relative autonomy for the regions vis-�-vis the central government. On this count, none of the current African federations are good models for Uganda because, in conception they were all top down affairs dictating the powers and rights of the regions, leading to rather centralized federal systems not far remove d from unitary systems.
 
Finally, the fact that a number of Uganda's regions are multi-ethnic would not necessarily cause the problems that anti-federalists imagine. In multi-ethnic regions, special districts could be created for areas where particular minority ethnic groups dominate. These ethnic groups would elect their leaders to their local district councils. Moreover, since all districts will continue to have decentralized powers, the needs of such groups as the Baruli in Nakasongola and the Bakonjo/Bamba in Tooro could be accommodated via such arrangements.
 
In these special districts [embedded within the larger regions], the minority ethnic groups could even have their own cultural leaders such as the Rwenzururu King or the Sabaruli, if they so choose. In addition, the leaders of these special districts could have special accommodation in the regional assemblies. In the United States, for example, American Indians have special semi-autonomous territories within certain states.
 
Joseph Senyonjo
 
 
Posted by FN  Lugemwa, Fedsnet.  www.federo.com
 
 
 

Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

____________________________________________________________________________________


Yahoo! Groups Links

--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

Reply via email to