..."History never repeats itself; it is only the unenlightened or the
forgetful who repeat the mistakes of history"...
Mr President, whats partisan politics?
TRADITIONAL LEADERS: Dr Oloka Onyango
President Yoweri Musevenis Letter to the Kabaka run in Daily Monitor and
Sunday Vision is the most articulate expression of the problem of bad
governance that results from a continued and excessive stay in power.
The letter not only instructs the Kabaka when to speak; but also what he should
speak about, to whom the Kabaka should address himself when speaking, and when
the Kabaka should shut his mouth. Despite its placid introduction, the
Presidents letter is not an appeal; it is a command!
To fully understand the Presidents problem one needs to take a short step back
into history. The precise history in this case relates to the restoration of
the Buganda Kingdom in 1993 and to the reasons why Museveni supported its
restoration.
It is important to recall that the kingdoms (with the obvious exception of
Ankole, which was not a vote winner) were restored in mid-1993, shortly before
elections for the Constituent Assembly (CA).
Among the few voices who spoke out against the move was that of Solome Bbosa,
President of the Uganda Law Society at the time, and current judge of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Justice Bbosa advised that the matter of traditional leaders should be given a
full and comprehensive examination in the debate that was to take place in the
CA. After all, the Justice Odoki draft of the Constitution contained several
provisions on the restoration of traditional rulers which would be given a full
consideration in the national debate.
For her efforts, Justice Bbosa was condemned as a member of FOBA-Force Obote
Back Again-by such luminaries of the time as the late Dr Samson Babi Mululu
Kisekka (Vice President), Abu Kakyama Mayanja (Attorney General/Minister of
Justice), and Prof. Apolo Robin Nsibambi (then Minister of Constitutional
Affairs in the Buganda government, and current Prime Minister) who were intent
on securing their positions as the main links (bayungirizi) between Buganda and
the NRM government.
On his part and true to character, President Museveni declared that any
attempts to stop the restoration would be met with (military) force as he was
eying the many votes that would come from Buganda as a result of the
restoration. What was the result of all these manouvres?
In the first instance, there was very little debate on the legal character of
the restored kingdoms with the exception of the clause designed to ensure that
they remained non-partisan, a clause that has been opportunistically
(mis)interpreted by the President to mean support for the NRM.
Thus, President Museveni sees no problem with employing members of the Royal
Family in his office as Presidential Advisors or letting them speak at his
electoral campaigns, while he does not hesitate to condemn Royals who declare
their support for the political opposition.
The second problem with the restoration was that there was no indication of who
had the right and the power to determine what actions by traditional leaders
should be regarded as non-partisan. Quite clearly, it should not be the
President, because he has a direct interest in the matter.
Thirdly, the law did not provide for any institution or forum with the mandate
to resolve a dispute between traditional leaders and the central government
over actions that may be regarded as partisan.
In brief the term non-partisan was not subjected to any concise definition.
While it is quite clear to me that traditional leaders should not be partisan,
i.e., they should not offer their support for one political party against
another, it is ridiculous to imagine that they should (and can) be
non-political.
This is because the line between matters political and matters cultural,
economic, social or environmental is a very thin one. Thus, for example,
should a traditional leader be considered to be engaged in partisan politics if
he challenges the central governments expropriation of the forests in a
certain region, or if he speaks out against the governments attempts to outlaw
certain cultural practices held dear to a particular community, or if the
government attempts-as the Buganda Kingdom has argued with respect to the issue
of land-to alter what are regarded as traditional relations between the
subjects of that kingdom?
What is clear today is that the restoration of the traditional rulers was based
on the short-term and opportunistic calculation that simply viewed the matter
as a vote winner for the NRM in the CA elections.
This is why very little attention was paid to detail. The restoration also
worked on the presumption that the Baganda would forever be grateful to the NRM
and Museveni for having restored the kingdom.
The last assumption was that Museveni would be able to control the Kabaka. All
of these assumptions have proved totally wrong. Musevenis threats to the
Kabaka are thus nothing more than an attempted repeat of Milton Obotes
intimidation of Kabaka Mutesa in the 1960s.
History never repeats itself; it is only the unenlightened or the forgetful who
repeat the mistakes of history.
The writer is a professor of law, Makerere University
By Courtesy of:
Michael BWambuga wa Balongo
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now._______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
Ugandanet@kym.net
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
