National breakdown requires a naionalist, even nationalist military dictatorship in Ugana
In the wake of the Kabaka riots, the Banyoro-Bafuriki controversy, and the perception that our country has been splintered a thousand folds along ethnic crevices since the NRM came to power, I would like to identify and discuss three broad political tendencies and their contributions to the national debate on a post-museveni society. These are the democratic centrist reformers; the federalist right; and the democratic left. Each of these groups draws its membership from across a wide spectrum of organised Ugandan political, civic, professional and religious organisations. They are as ideologically eclectic as their political characteristics, boundaries and strategies are diffused.
Since the Kabaka Riots over Kayunga, their respective leading ideologues have been soul-searching for some magic-glue like national habits, which could be used to firmly sew up and keep fast, the seams on the patchworks of our multi-nationality state. For the democratic reformers, which include opposition parties, their leaders, academics, and media commentators, our national problem is simply that of democratic deficit. Their solution is to get rid of Yoweri Museveni, and Uganda would be a vibrant, democratic society. The problem with such simplified problem statement is that, it overlooks the fact the NRM was a result of such exact thinking.
Then there are the centre right federalists who think the problem lay with the arrogance and lack of respect- by all past and present central governments- for the Kabaka of Buganda. In their opinion, all that is needed is for the central government to cede political, social, and economic spaces to the Kabaka and Buganda Kingdom, and we shall all be happy ever after. This is the notion loosely referred to in Ganda parlance as “Federo.” A corollary to the talk for “Federo”, is the clamour for the return of “Buganda Properties”, including awards by the British Colonial State since 1894, particularly provisions of the 1900 Agreement, which are alleged to have been wrongfully appropriated by the central government in 1967. Central to this is the question of “9000 Square Miles” of the Kabaka’s land, granted by the 1900 Imperial Britain’s undertaking with Buganda.
Again, like the centrist palaver, that if you get rid of the dictatorship we will all be alright, this “federocentricity” ignores the fact that the 1962 constitution provided for “federo”; and that, what they are calling for, is precisely the bifurcated centres of power and authority, the midwife of contradictions over the referendum in 1964, which culminated into the events of 1966/67. What they are going to change or do differently from what we had in the 1962 constitution; or how they will re-order central government and Buganda relationships differently than the 1962 specifications, are not clear.
These voices for “Federo” and that from centrist nationalists calling for democratic reforms, find common causes in their thinking that their goals are achievable once President Museveni and the NRM are defeated. Most, if not all the present and aspiring leaders of Uganda’s major opposition political parties, demonstrate this simplistic, unrealistic, opportunistic, centrist tendency which uncritically believes building an open and democratic society comes as simply as the abdication of a dictator, or naturally results after the collapse of a repressive regime. Thereby, political defeat of the dictatorship, as a common cause, becomes the overriding priority and an end. Like Kabaka Yekka (KY) which saw independence in 1962 as an end, the democratic reformists and the federalists, see the termination of the NRM dictatorship as an end, and therefore, they are incapable of imagining a more democratic and just polity.
Narrowly defining our complex and overarching national dilemmas as such, these categories of opposition exponents gloss over critical, substantive questions of what framework shall come into play to address and resolve the vexing question of historical injustices, marginalisation; and what their perception and interpretations of democratic rights, equality, justice, equity and fairness, they routinely accuse the regime of Gen. Museveni of lacking, mean. When pressed for clarity, they throw up “national conventions” and “national truth and reconciliation commissions”, as some profound, fail-safe exit strategies from the apparent impasse. Yet we can be sure, such processes guarantee neither shared aspirations nor consensus on the issues.
The FDC, DP, UPC, CP and other opposition parties which call for unqualified “Federo for Buganda Now”, have no time to consider the broad parallel implications of their ideas for our nation-statehood. While they are in a hurry to get to state house, they must know the demands for the Kabaka’s 9000 square miles of land allotments, some, if not most of which, lie in the six “Lost Counties” of Bunyoro, await them the day after their victory over Yoweri Museveni. Do they for a moment imagine they are going to do justice by Buganda, but look the other way on Bunyoro’s historical injuries, particularly on the “Lost Counties” and their compounded social, economic and political problems? What justification shall the opposition offer, for righting one historical wrong but not the other? What about the question of handing over county headquarters in Buganda from the central government to the Kabaka? Will the same rights be extended to other nationalities? If not; why?
If one part of the country is going to take back from the national commonwealth any part of its historical contribution to such a common pool for itself; whether it was gained or lost under the colonial authorities or post independence central government; there must be a clear enabling national law that would apply across the board, for other parts of the country to do the same. For instance, what convincing legal, political, and historical arguments will the post-Museveni, pro-federo centrists offer to other nationalities, if instead of county headquarters, they want their local governments to take back all the national parks, wild life reserves and other state assets situated on their lands?
The critical questions these forces have to address is: Which history, constitution, laws and state actions are national, legitimate, successive and binding; and which are imperial, dominating, illegitimate and illegal? How far back in history must we go in hearing claims of historical injustice and undoing legitimate state actions, while at the same time denying our objective national history and cumulative social progress in the search for solutions? From what point do we accept the cumulative and progressive legitimacy of the Ugandan state and its actions; is it 1894? 1900? 1962? 1967? 1995?
Granted, Buganda may be strategically placed; and it may even be the most populous, well skilled, and well-resourced nationality in the Republic, but its political, economic and social pre-eminence must not be the subject of constitutionally contrived generosity that impoverishes the common good, but must result from the ingenuity, excellence, and national industry and leadership of Buganda, under the same rules applicable to all Ugandans, in advancing the common good.
Which is why there is a third and more progressive voice in this debate; the centre-left flank of the national democratic forces. According to this national fraction, the restoration of the monarchies was a wrong-headed, cheap political gesture that has imperilled the country more than the action to abolish them in 1966/67 did. Therefore, what we need is a common and democratic practice of having all our national and local government representative and political leadership positions filled by direct and popular elections based on adult suffrage; one person one vote; and the equality of all before the law.
As democrats, this fraction of the national democratic movement is not afraid of the spectre of secession by any region or kingdom. What is it seeks is entrench a strong, accountable, democratic republican state that upholds the equality, individual and democratic rights, of its citizens. In that respect, the kingdoms will be at liberty to secede from Uganda if they wish, but the rights to self-determination for minorities within such kingdoms not to be subjugated; or to remain within the historical Ugandan state or to break the yokes of feudal domination to be free and governed only by the democratic and progressive laws of the modern Ugandan state, must equally be respected and protected. In other words, the same rights and freedoms those proponents of kingdoms exercise to resist and renounce perceived overbearing and subjective power of the central government over them, must equally come to the aid of a Muruli or a Munyara, to reject and renounce the perceived overbearing, arbitrary power of a monarch over their persons, properties and fundamental rights.
Allowing wide democratic berths to citizens, the centre-left frees nationalities that feel there are certain personalities or cults central to their cultural wellbeing and would like to integrate them into their civic lives, to constitutionally exercise such cultural rights. But such rights shall be enjoyed to the extent that they do not conflict with fundamental, immutable principles of the moral and civic equality of all citizens, fundamental individual rights and democratic freedoms.
In my view, no efforts should be spared to remodel and democratise the post colonial state after the NRM dictatorship ends. The progressive, national democratic forces and their leadership must make redressing historical colonial and imperialist injustices, a priority. For its part, the current conventional, centrist political opposition has discredited and shown itself incapable of leading and sustaining a meaningful, credible national debate in this direction. For instance, instead of confronting the real problems of mass emigration into Bunyoro and finding realistic solutions, they all took a reductionist, indolent, escapist strategy of hiding behind citizen rights and freedom of movement for any Ugandan to settle in any part of the country.
In what must pass as ethnic scholarship per excellence, some commentators went as far as reaching back to obscure history, to show how their particular ethnic group, besides Banyoro, suffered historical injustices. Furthermore, the one-dimensional and monochromatic perceptions of realities by this group, sees Kabaka Mutebi’s controversial intentions to travel to Nakasongola and Kayunga, not as a projection of Ganda cultural, social, and political power, subjection and domination over the Baruli and the Banyara, but as merely the constitutional rights and freedom of a Ugandan citizen to move freely throughout the country.
Yet in all fairness, the Kabaka and the centrist opposition on the one hand, and the Baruli and Banyara and the central government on the other, have valid and legitimate concerns that need further clarification by our constitutional laws. Equally, the question of justice for historical wrongs suffered by Bunyoro, cannot be thought to have been offset by the parallel constitutional protection and exercise of fundamental rights of Ugandan citizens who have emigrated and settled in Bunyoro. What these dilemmas call for, is an objective and impartial national framework drawing on the fundamental philosophical, moral, and democratic basis of our nation-statehood and the teleology of the vision of the future society we have struggled for and capable of imagining.
For the last 23 years, the NRM failed to provide such a national framework. At the same time, the centrist opposition parties look hopelessly incapable of even perceiving and contemplating the enormity of the national challenges beyond Gen. Museveni’s misrule. This leaves the possibilities to a centre-left coalition of nationalist democratic forces. However, the tragedy for Uganda currently is that the left of centre, more progressive voice, lacks a declared, organised, identifiable national leadership. President Museveni and some NRM big wigs have begun to speak along this line. However, Gen. Museveni and his more senior NRM lieutenants lack credibility and would be poor spokespeople for this coalition of progressive forces with factions in UPC, DP, FDC, PPP, NRM, the UPDF, the Police, Prison Services, the student movement, and other civic and professional organisations.
Were a selfless, nationalist leader in the ideological and intellectual mould of a Benedicto Kiwanuka, John Kakonge, Paulo Muwanga, or Milton Obote, to emerge and assume active and effective leadership of this group or one major political party or the other, they should easily constitute and consolidate a majority nationalist, democratic consensus.
Right now there is neither such a leader nor political organisation to provide ideological home for these elements dispersed among the various political parties, academia, the media, civil society organisations, the armed forces, the trade unions and minority nationalities whose human and democratic rights and freedoms are imperilled by the opportunistic politics of restoration, retention or quest for political power within both the ruling NRM and opposition parties and their leaderships. Under the circumstances, it should pose less ideological and political problem if such an idea even congealed inside the junior officers’ mess and a nationalist leader emerged from the ranks of the junior officers of nationalist UPDF faction.
Until such a nationalist civilian or military leader or political organisation emerges, we might have to make do with what one frustrated writer, wondering where all the Ugandan nationalists who should be speaking for Uganda have all gone; while this or that ethnic scholar, ethnic member of parliament, ethnic journalist, ethnic commentator, ethnic king or leader, held centre court.
Writing in the opinion pages of the Daily Monitor, the writer touchingly pointed out and suggested his and his friends’ inter-ethnic marriages as a noble solution for national integration and stability. Well intentioned and practical as this is, unfortunately, you and I know; as well as one too many an abandoned Ugandan wife knows, that when the fate of a country precariously hangs by the frayed G-strings of its women’s folks and their all too human abilities to keep the interests of their attention- deficient male partners long enough for a relationship to last, you know disaster is only an office affair, or a younger woman, or a mini-skirt and high heels, or a tight cocktail party dress and a come-hither smile away from tragic personal and national heartache.
Since the Kabaka Riots over Kayunga, their respective leading ideologues have been soul-searching for some magic-glue like national habits, which could be used to firmly sew up and keep fast, the seams on the patchworks of our multi-nationality state. For the democratic reformers, which include opposition parties, their leaders, academics, and media commentators, our national problem is simply that of democratic deficit. Their solution is to get rid of Yoweri Museveni, and Uganda would be a vibrant, democratic society. The problem with such simplified problem statement is that, it overlooks the fact the NRM was a result of such exact thinking.
Then there are the centre right federalists who think the problem lay with the arrogance and lack of respect- by all past and present central governments- for the Kabaka of Buganda. In their opinion, all that is needed is for the central government to cede political, social, and economic spaces to the Kabaka and Buganda Kingdom, and we shall all be happy ever after. This is the notion loosely referred to in Ganda parlance as “Federo.” A corollary to the talk for “Federo”, is the clamour for the return of “Buganda Properties”, including awards by the British Colonial State since 1894, particularly provisions of the 1900 Agreement, which are alleged to have been wrongfully appropriated by the central government in 1967. Central to this is the question of “9000 Square Miles” of the Kabaka’s land, granted by the 1900 Imperial Britain’s undertaking with Buganda.
Again, like the centrist palaver, that if you get rid of the dictatorship we will all be alright, this “federocentricity” ignores the fact that the 1962 constitution provided for “federo”; and that, what they are calling for, is precisely the bifurcated centres of power and authority, the midwife of contradictions over the referendum in 1964, which culminated into the events of 1966/67. What they are going to change or do differently from what we had in the 1962 constitution; or how they will re-order central government and Buganda relationships differently than the 1962 specifications, are not clear.
These voices for “Federo” and that from centrist nationalists calling for democratic reforms, find common causes in their thinking that their goals are achievable once President Museveni and the NRM are defeated. Most, if not all the present and aspiring leaders of Uganda’s major opposition political parties, demonstrate this simplistic, unrealistic, opportunistic, centrist tendency which uncritically believes building an open and democratic society comes as simply as the abdication of a dictator, or naturally results after the collapse of a repressive regime. Thereby, political defeat of the dictatorship, as a common cause, becomes the overriding priority and an end. Like Kabaka Yekka (KY) which saw independence in 1962 as an end, the democratic reformists and the federalists, see the termination of the NRM dictatorship as an end, and therefore, they are incapable of imagining a more democratic and just polity.
Narrowly defining our complex and overarching national dilemmas as such, these categories of opposition exponents gloss over critical, substantive questions of what framework shall come into play to address and resolve the vexing question of historical injustices, marginalisation; and what their perception and interpretations of democratic rights, equality, justice, equity and fairness, they routinely accuse the regime of Gen. Museveni of lacking, mean. When pressed for clarity, they throw up “national conventions” and “national truth and reconciliation commissions”, as some profound, fail-safe exit strategies from the apparent impasse. Yet we can be sure, such processes guarantee neither shared aspirations nor consensus on the issues.
The FDC, DP, UPC, CP and other opposition parties which call for unqualified “Federo for Buganda Now”, have no time to consider the broad parallel implications of their ideas for our nation-statehood. While they are in a hurry to get to state house, they must know the demands for the Kabaka’s 9000 square miles of land allotments, some, if not most of which, lie in the six “Lost Counties” of Bunyoro, await them the day after their victory over Yoweri Museveni. Do they for a moment imagine they are going to do justice by Buganda, but look the other way on Bunyoro’s historical injuries, particularly on the “Lost Counties” and their compounded social, economic and political problems? What justification shall the opposition offer, for righting one historical wrong but not the other? What about the question of handing over county headquarters in Buganda from the central government to the Kabaka? Will the same rights be extended to other nationalities? If not; why?
If one part of the country is going to take back from the national commonwealth any part of its historical contribution to such a common pool for itself; whether it was gained or lost under the colonial authorities or post independence central government; there must be a clear enabling national law that would apply across the board, for other parts of the country to do the same. For instance, what convincing legal, political, and historical arguments will the post-Museveni, pro-federo centrists offer to other nationalities, if instead of county headquarters, they want their local governments to take back all the national parks, wild life reserves and other state assets situated on their lands?
The critical questions these forces have to address is: Which history, constitution, laws and state actions are national, legitimate, successive and binding; and which are imperial, dominating, illegitimate and illegal? How far back in history must we go in hearing claims of historical injustice and undoing legitimate state actions, while at the same time denying our objective national history and cumulative social progress in the search for solutions? From what point do we accept the cumulative and progressive legitimacy of the Ugandan state and its actions; is it 1894? 1900? 1962? 1967? 1995?
Granted, Buganda may be strategically placed; and it may even be the most populous, well skilled, and well-resourced nationality in the Republic, but its political, economic and social pre-eminence must not be the subject of constitutionally contrived generosity that impoverishes the common good, but must result from the ingenuity, excellence, and national industry and leadership of Buganda, under the same rules applicable to all Ugandans, in advancing the common good.
Which is why there is a third and more progressive voice in this debate; the centre-left flank of the national democratic forces. According to this national fraction, the restoration of the monarchies was a wrong-headed, cheap political gesture that has imperilled the country more than the action to abolish them in 1966/67 did. Therefore, what we need is a common and democratic practice of having all our national and local government representative and political leadership positions filled by direct and popular elections based on adult suffrage; one person one vote; and the equality of all before the law.
As democrats, this fraction of the national democratic movement is not afraid of the spectre of secession by any region or kingdom. What is it seeks is entrench a strong, accountable, democratic republican state that upholds the equality, individual and democratic rights, of its citizens. In that respect, the kingdoms will be at liberty to secede from Uganda if they wish, but the rights to self-determination for minorities within such kingdoms not to be subjugated; or to remain within the historical Ugandan state or to break the yokes of feudal domination to be free and governed only by the democratic and progressive laws of the modern Ugandan state, must equally be respected and protected. In other words, the same rights and freedoms those proponents of kingdoms exercise to resist and renounce perceived overbearing and subjective power of the central government over them, must equally come to the aid of a Muruli or a Munyara, to reject and renounce the perceived overbearing, arbitrary power of a monarch over their persons, properties and fundamental rights.
Allowing wide democratic berths to citizens, the centre-left frees nationalities that feel there are certain personalities or cults central to their cultural wellbeing and would like to integrate them into their civic lives, to constitutionally exercise such cultural rights. But such rights shall be enjoyed to the extent that they do not conflict with fundamental, immutable principles of the moral and civic equality of all citizens, fundamental individual rights and democratic freedoms.
In my view, no efforts should be spared to remodel and democratise the post colonial state after the NRM dictatorship ends. The progressive, national democratic forces and their leadership must make redressing historical colonial and imperialist injustices, a priority. For its part, the current conventional, centrist political opposition has discredited and shown itself incapable of leading and sustaining a meaningful, credible national debate in this direction. For instance, instead of confronting the real problems of mass emigration into Bunyoro and finding realistic solutions, they all took a reductionist, indolent, escapist strategy of hiding behind citizen rights and freedom of movement for any Ugandan to settle in any part of the country.
In what must pass as ethnic scholarship per excellence, some commentators went as far as reaching back to obscure history, to show how their particular ethnic group, besides Banyoro, suffered historical injustices. Furthermore, the one-dimensional and monochromatic perceptions of realities by this group, sees Kabaka Mutebi’s controversial intentions to travel to Nakasongola and Kayunga, not as a projection of Ganda cultural, social, and political power, subjection and domination over the Baruli and the Banyara, but as merely the constitutional rights and freedom of a Ugandan citizen to move freely throughout the country.
Yet in all fairness, the Kabaka and the centrist opposition on the one hand, and the Baruli and Banyara and the central government on the other, have valid and legitimate concerns that need further clarification by our constitutional laws. Equally, the question of justice for historical wrongs suffered by Bunyoro, cannot be thought to have been offset by the parallel constitutional protection and exercise of fundamental rights of Ugandan citizens who have emigrated and settled in Bunyoro. What these dilemmas call for, is an objective and impartial national framework drawing on the fundamental philosophical, moral, and democratic basis of our nation-statehood and the teleology of the vision of the future society we have struggled for and capable of imagining.
For the last 23 years, the NRM failed to provide such a national framework. At the same time, the centrist opposition parties look hopelessly incapable of even perceiving and contemplating the enormity of the national challenges beyond Gen. Museveni’s misrule. This leaves the possibilities to a centre-left coalition of nationalist democratic forces. However, the tragedy for Uganda currently is that the left of centre, more progressive voice, lacks a declared, organised, identifiable national leadership. President Museveni and some NRM big wigs have begun to speak along this line. However, Gen. Museveni and his more senior NRM lieutenants lack credibility and would be poor spokespeople for this coalition of progressive forces with factions in UPC, DP, FDC, PPP, NRM, the UPDF, the Police, Prison Services, the student movement, and other civic and professional organisations.
Were a selfless, nationalist leader in the ideological and intellectual mould of a Benedicto Kiwanuka, John Kakonge, Paulo Muwanga, or Milton Obote, to emerge and assume active and effective leadership of this group or one major political party or the other, they should easily constitute and consolidate a majority nationalist, democratic consensus.
Right now there is neither such a leader nor political organisation to provide ideological home for these elements dispersed among the various political parties, academia, the media, civil society organisations, the armed forces, the trade unions and minority nationalities whose human and democratic rights and freedoms are imperilled by the opportunistic politics of restoration, retention or quest for political power within both the ruling NRM and opposition parties and their leaderships. Under the circumstances, it should pose less ideological and political problem if such an idea even congealed inside the junior officers’ mess and a nationalist leader emerged from the ranks of the junior officers of nationalist UPDF faction.
Until such a nationalist civilian or military leader or political organisation emerges, we might have to make do with what one frustrated writer, wondering where all the Ugandan nationalists who should be speaking for Uganda have all gone; while this or that ethnic scholar, ethnic member of parliament, ethnic journalist, ethnic commentator, ethnic king or leader, held centre court.
Writing in the opinion pages of the Daily Monitor, the writer touchingly pointed out and suggested his and his friends’ inter-ethnic marriages as a noble solution for national integration and stability. Well intentioned and practical as this is, unfortunately, you and I know; as well as one too many an abandoned Ugandan wife knows, that when the fate of a country precariously hangs by the frayed G-strings of its women’s folks and their all too human abilities to keep the interests of their attention- deficient male partners long enough for a relationship to last, you know disaster is only an office affair, or a younger woman, or a mini-skirt and high heels, or a tight cocktail party dress and a come-hither smile away from tragic personal and national heartache.
Comments