German’s Bismarck Vs Buganda’s J.B.Walusimbi
25 Mar 2012 Leave a Comment
in Bunyoro and lost counties, federalism in Uganda
Folks,
While I appreciate the positives that have been done by the Katikiro of Buganda,J.B Walusimbi, to the extent that the speaker of Bunyoro Kingdom, Henry Ford Mirima, compared him to Germany’s Bismarck, i feel some things need pointing out.
Nonetheless, the only reason I see why Mr.Mirima compared J.B to Bismarck was because Bismarck didn’t want colonies yet Mr.Mirima and some Banyoro see Buganda as an agent of colonialism. But like I keep saying, Bunyoro is hiding some hidden agenda by hiding behind the unrealistic decolonization of Uganda. Then again, I cannot see how J.B Walusimbi will ever end up like Bismarck under the current circumstances.
Otto Von Bismark said that it was reprehensible for a great power to get involved in any kind of a conflict in which its own interests were not involved. On the other hand, the Banyoro supporters of J.B (including the speaker of Bunyoro kingdom) just keep interfering in the interests of Buganda kingdom. They were at one time working with president Museveni to weaken the Buganda kingdom till he disappointed them over oil agreements/ shares. Now Mr.Mirima is accusing president Museveni of ‘eating’ over £700m that was allegedly given to them by the queen of England as compensation for colonial errors, something which General Salim Saleh has called a lie on Ugandan At Heart(UAH) Forum. General Saleh also mentioned that the 50- year- Bahima- master- plan meeting never took place as it has been said by some people and he acknowledged that NRM has committed some mistakes in the 26 years they have so far been in power.
Bismarck made superficial concessions to pacify republicans in order to unify the Germans and consolidate the power of the monarchy in that time. On the other hand, J.B Walusimbi has done less to unify the Baganda and consolidate the Buganda monarchy within Uganda.Baganda are more divided now than they were under former Katikiros: Abebitibwa Ssemogerere and Muliika.
Under Bismarck, people were poor. Then Bismarck introduced the minimum wage laws (accompanied by social security in 1889) and Germany turned rich. On the other hand, J.B. Walusimbi has introduced some programmes on a paper such as: the establishment of a Buganda commercial Bank, building public libraries in all Buganda cities, e.t.c, but without any means to fund them. J.B should be fighting for federalism using almost all the resources at his exposure as this is the definite way he will fund all the economic programs he has put on paper. Most Baganda in the rural areas are very poor and are only eying the central government for rescue. Even programs like BUCADEF are not helping a lot of people and are doomed to fail.
Bismarck recognized that Germany was inherently insecure because it was too big to be satisfied, but too small to dominate.On the other hand, J.B did not recognize that taking Kampala away from Buganda will make it too weak.The Kampala Bill that led to the creation of the post of the Executive Director and a ceremonial mayor were basically targeting both the Democratic Party(DP) and Buganda kingdom. A small Buganda kingdom whose borders are being redrawn everyday will end up being ‘nothing’ as in nothing but Mirima’s future ‘Bismarck’ has not probably seen this yet. He is not talking about it so much but instead wants us to cooperate with the people creating more ”kingdoms” within Buganda.
Bismark was very careful about avoiding things like two-front wars or getting involved in the Balkans. Bismark was shrewd and cynical, but also had an excellent understanding of what was achievable and what wasn’t. On the other hand, Mirima’s ”Bismarck”,J.B, is neither fighting the central government to get what he wants or arch enemies like Bunyoro who keep poking their noses where they are not needed. J.B would make a great leader of some old party in Uganda whose leaders were always afraid of open ‘wars’.
I must say that Bunyoro should try as much as possible to work with Buganda to achieve certain things within Uganda instead of supporting certain ‘Bismarcks’ for reasons best known to themselves.Bunyoro should stop encouraging the Baluli and Banyara to break away from Buganda kingdom. Bunyoro should be working with everybody who is fighting for federalism and democracy in Uganda. There is no need for Bunyoro to keep fighting Buganda yet we are originally the same people. Buganda was once part of Bunyoro Kitala kingdom. Kabalega was a great leader but his successors seem not be as competent as he was yet they like talking about Bismarck whose successors (people like Caprivi and Holstein) were competent.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
United Kingdom
You are a ‘Ugandan’ not ‘Bugandan’ or ‘Busogan’ or ‘Bunyoran’ by Nationality
24 Feb 2012 3 Comments
in Bahima and Banyarwanda, Buganda, Bunyoro and lost counties, culture, cultures, federalism in Uganda
Folks,
Yes, Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole used to be nations but not anymore. All the kingdoms are now part of a country called Uganda. So, one cannot officially be a Muganda or Musoga or Mutoro or Munyori by nationality. I think some of you need to join FDC soon because you may find their motto of ‘One people One Uganda’ very useful.
I love my Kabaka and everything called Buganda but there are things we have got to draw a line under if we are to find a way forward. Some of my Baganda friends may misinterpret this standing as anti-Kabaka but they are absolutely wrong. I have got no reason to appease any non-Muganda against Buganda. Kabaka Mutebi is my Kabaka and I wish he is given what he wants to help his people.
Yes, I understand why some people are finding it difficult to accept that president Museveni has done a number on Baganda . He has systematically weakened the Kingdom to the extent that our only option now is to fight for a federal system of governance despite the fact that he hates it too. Buganda kingdom has got all the mechanisms in place to embrace federalism unlike other parts of the country. If you remember, I one time wrote an article here showing that ‘Buganda is already a quasi state within a state‘
The kingdom has got all the structures in place to govern itself and I think that scares some people in the government, but this does not make Buganda a ‘state’ or ‘nation’ as some people are saying. The nations in the world are known because there are composed of permanent states. With one exception, the Vatican, the rest of the nations are formed by trans-generational communities. So, Buganda was once a nation with various tribes in it but this ceased in 1900 if my history serves me right. In 1960s, we fully became a nation called Uganda and I can’t foresee that arrangement being put in the bin soon.
Under the new world order, each person inherently belongs to a specific nation, and no-one can validly claim not to belong to any nation. So, most of the members of UAH belong to a nation called Uganda not Buganda. Our nationality is Ugandan, and that is what we fill in on our passport application forms.
Under the new world order, nations are usually not abolished, singly or collectively. No process which terminates the existence of any nation is legitimate. Nobody can abolish a nation called Uganda but people with power in Uganda can abolish any centres of power in the country, and this includes kingdoms (as Obote did in 1966).The world order of nation states shall never be terminated.
Yes, another nation may develop from an existing nation as it happened in Sudan( south and Northern Sudan) or Ethiopia and Eritrea, but there are less chances of this happening in Uganda at the moment because the Buganda kingdom has been ‘de-bugandalised’ with constant inflow and settlement of other tribes from other parts of the country. The present government has been one of the engines of this process and I cannot see this being reversed in anyway by any other government.
Conversely, all nation states claim that other groups do not possess that specific right to the territory in question. For instance, Irish nationalists believe that the ‘Irish people’ have a superior right to the island of Ireland, and that the Paraguayan people do not possess this right. They believe that individual Irishmen and Irish women are the bearers of this collective right, and that these individuals cannot be denied the right to reside in Ireland. But the difference with Buganda/Uganda is that Ireland has no indigenous ethnic minorities. So the definition of the nation is relatively simple.
Yes, historically Buganda was such a great kingdom and I think some people are still holding on that dream. For instance, Michael Twaddle, for instance, once described the Baganda as the ‘Chinese of Africa’ because of their historical modern ways of living in a non-western world. Winston Churchill also called the Buganda kingdom ‘a fairy-tale’ because ‘the people are different from anything elsewhere to be seen in the whole of Africa’. He later called Uganda ‘the pearl of Africa’ for reasons which are not far away from Buganda kingdom. Political parties were born in Buganda out of political movements. It is widely believed that Katikilo Nsibirwa was assassinated by the Buganda political movements because he was looked at as a stooge for the colonialists. Buganda had a party which united both the tenants and landlords which was called the Bataka party. This party was founded by Baganda intellectuals and it was the first to oppose the East Africa federation. Probably, I would not have been a member because I support both the Federalism in Uganda and the East Africa Federation though the former needs to be sorted out first. The Baganda old men had manners and they never abused people in public.
Anyway,there are several problems with the interpretation of nationality by some people in Uganda, not the least of which is that Baganda , Banyoro, Basoga,……….. are not tribes, but nations.
In all my time I never really thought about my nationality till now and I don’t think many of us did, because I’ve always taken myself to be a Ugandan( not Bugandan). This does not mean that I don’t treasure our kingdom but it’s amazing how one can just assume that everyone treats certain aspects in the same way.
Now that some people are talking in terms of ‘old stone age’, I have been forced to look at the stratigraphies of the Old Stone Age to see how this is related to their argument, which usually look as follows: modern man (homo sapiens); Neanderthal man (homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and Homo erectus (invents fire and is considered the first intelligent Man). My question to them: how old is the earth? How old is Uganda? Uganda is a result of the evolution of all the kingdoms (which they prefer to call nations) and there is no going back. Evolution is a fact just as old age is a fact. Yes, England came to be called England because of a combination of several nations, and that is evolution. Uganda evolved differently and I think we have got to move on instead of blaming colonialists.
By the way, even the democracy we are following is ‘colonial’. Are we going to drop it and move back into ‘stone age’ political ideologies? When are we going to stop this victim blaming?
We already have ‘stone age’ economies; ‘stone age’ leaders in suites with a thin glaze coating of just enough cell phones(MTN, Walid,. e.t.c) in Sub-Saharan Africa, and now some of you want us to look at our nationalities in a ‘stone age’ format. Let’s be proud of being Ugandans, at least, despite the fact that our leaders try so much to make us feel otherwise. This does not make us love our kingdoms and kings any less but it shows we have got ‘Uganda at heart’. We should put our energies in fighting for federalism for all regions in Uganda. Buganda and other kingdoms can still be great if the sons and daughters of the respective kingdoms are committed to revive them.
In Britain, the north is kind of marginalized but the Yorkshire people are so proud of their region such that the rich men there have done everything possible to close the gap between them and the south. For instance, the two guys that own ‘MORRISON’ supermarket are Yorkshires and until recently, most of their supermarkets were based in the north. London wasn’t an attraction to them till when they bought ‘Safeways’ supermarket a few years ago. There is Yorkshire tea, Yorkshire water (one can drink it from the tap without boiling it), e.t.c. Similarly, we should find a concrete plan to help kingdoms and draw a line under certain things we cannot change. May be one day, we shall be having: Buganda Tea, Buganda water, Buganda Soda, …………. if the ‘stone age ‘thinking is wiped off from our minds.
Overall, I think we need to find a way of keeping our great kingdoms within Uganda without necessarily denouncing our nationality and the best I can think of right now is fighting for federalism.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Banyoro 2 sue Queen in UK Courts but Museveni Will Play Bunyoro like ‘Pepper pig’
29 Jul 2011 1 Comment
in Buganda, Bunyoro and lost counties, international
Friends,
I don’t know whether you have already heard but according to Bunyoro Kingdom spokesperson, Henry Mirima, ‘’ Banyoro have finalized plans to sue the Queen of England, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in UK Courts of Law for the atrocities her colonial British forces committed in the 1893-99 war against Banyoro in which Anglo-Ganda forces killed over two million Banyoro, apart from the pillage, theft of Banyoro wealth and the donation of the Seven lost counties donated to Buganda Kingdom.’’
Bunyoro is also planning to sue Buganda kingdom over so many things but most importantly: ‘’ The Banyoro have also already initiated legal action against the Uganda Attorney-General, the Buganda Kingdom, and the nearly 4000 Baganda absentee landlords who are clinging on land titles of land donated to them by the colonial Government in the 1900 Anglo-Ganda Agreement.’’ According to Mirima, ‘’ The case has been referred to the Uganda Constitutional Court for interpretation. In both cases the Banyoro are asking Court to nullfy the 1900 Anglo-Ganda Agreement which legalised the annexation of the Seven Lost Counties.’’
Bunyoro have raised these important issues at such a wrong time. At the moment, all kingdoms need each other to survive under these challenging times than digging into historical grievances that are going to allow their enemies to ultimately ban them from the constitution.
I told Mr.Mirima this a couple of years but he never listened but I’m sure president Museveni is keenly following all these developments and he is gonna play both Bunyoro and Buganda like a kid’s game called ‘pepper pig’ on TV. ‘Pepper pig’ is the most favorite kids program here in the UK and I can see president Museveni play kingdoms against each other in the same way. Bunyoro is going to be used more to weaken Buganda kingdom then the guns will turn against Bunyoro afterwards despite the oil wells discovered in their region.
Actually, Bunyoro should concentrate on fighting for its share of the oil sales/profits and leave other battles alone, at least for now. Uganda is not under federalism and we are miles away from that. I don’t know where all this excitement from Bunyoro is coming from. Is it the oil?
Up to now, I don’t know why Bunyoro keeps fighting Buganda yet historically one is a product of the other. There is a theory that Kabaka Kintu came to the Lake Nalubaale (Victoria) area with some clans, and met other clans there; and after Kintu disappeared in a forest, the Buganda kingdom was saved through the arrival of his grandson Kimera from Bunyoro.
So if Buganda and Bunyoro are the same, is Bunyoro fighting Buganda because they became more successful ‘rebels’ than their forefathers (especially between 1700 and 1880)? Bunyoro is not fighting other ‘rebels’ such as Toro that directly broke off from it yet Kabalega was reportedly obsessed with Toro. Mirima is living Kabalega’s dream of recapturing lost areas but I think it’s not going happen because times have changed. Kabarega re-conquered Toro at some stage but he later lost it.
Buganda’s expansion policy saw them taking over areas that used to belong to Bunyoro. For instance, during the eighteenth century Kabaka Mawanda extended Buganda’s boundaries to the north in Bulemezi and to the west in Singo. He had also strengthened Buganda’s authority in Kyaggwe, while his exploits in the east marked the beginning of the end of Bunyoro’s influence in Busoga and the resultant loss of whatever tribute Bunyoro may have received from there. We nicked Buddu off Bunyoro during the reign of Kabaka Junju. Kooki Seceded from bunyoro and joined Buganda.
The point I’m trying to make is that we don’t need more Bunyoro Vs Buganda or Bunyoro Vs Britain wars in newspapers. Let bygones be bygones.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
We all contributed to the Reopening of CBS fm
25 Oct 2010 2 Comments
in 2010-2011 elections, Buganda, Bunyoro and lost counties, FDC, IPC, media in Uganda, Politics
Dear people,
I think there is no need for Suubi/IPC to revisit the CBS issue in their memorandum of understanding. It should just be ticked as one of the issues already achieved earlier than expected and then fight for others. CBS has been a yearly struggle of all of us, and by us, I mean members of Ugandans at heart (UAH) forum. We have been running a yearly campaign to keep the CBS issue burning in the ears of our leaders and the media. We have been using UAH as a medium of communication for Buganda issues, something which probably would have been done by CBS if it was on air. So the credit goes to everyone who has been helping out in one way or the other.
I read in the Observer of 25/10/10 and it seemed to have given more credit to Mrs.Ameria Kyambadde in this struggle than anybody else. But they were wrong because Suubi, IPC, Besigye, Ugandans at heart forum, media organizations nationally and internationally, online radios and other pressure groups, have all been fighting for CBS fm, and they should be recognized.
Nevertheless, whatever the tales, Museveni’s relationship with Buganda will never be the same. Baganda will never trust him! Reopening CBS is more like a man who organizes a holiday to Spain to salvage his marriage but when all the signs on the wall show that the marriage is finished. So let’s enjoy the ‘’CBS holiday’’ but I think the divorce papers are still on their way, and somebody will have to sign them. The marriage is FINITO
As for DP and their wars with Suubi, I think it’s a bit unfortunate because they (DP) have got bigger problems than just Ssubi. Beti Kamya’s UFA has almost got the same aspirations in Buganda as Ssubi and they are seriously eating into DP support in Buganda and elsewhere in the country. For instance, some of the DP supporters who were previously loyal to Kampala Mayor, Nasser Sebagala, have now crossed to either UFA or Suubi/IPC according to newspapers. Lukyamuzi’s CP should also be in position to finish DP off in Buganda if they expand their horizon other than keeping themselves in cities.
In the north, DP may make some gains because of the little profile of their leader in Gulu but then again we expect UPC and FDC to remain the tigers of this region. NRM is also making inroads slowly with the help of their ‘brown envelopes’ policy.
So basically, the 2011 elections may determine if DP should be admitted in intensive care unit or not. May personal feeling is that unless they get the help of the ‘remote control’, they will come out of this election a bit weaker than even last time in 2006. Mao is not the kind of leader who is ready to roll up his sleeves and put his hands in the dusty part of politics on streets. He prefers to remain in a coat, tie and shirt despite the hot weather in Kampala, and then just preferably appear on rallies and conferences. I have not see him leading any demonstration of anything though I must admit his ‘’magishu’’ dances on YouTube have been outstanding so far.
Finally, I was amazed to see a photo of Besigye’s house in Rukungili in both the Newvision and Bukedde newspapers. So I wondered whether this election is about people’s houses rather than issues. Just for the sake of argument, Besigye has never stolen anybody’s money and if he had anything wrong while in government, the Museveni government would have been the first to expose it and he would probably be in prison. Actually, Besigye has made more of his money after leaving the government. He is simply a hardworking man. He said this himself in his memoirs with the Monitor newspaper ages ago that he intended to be an Accountant/ business man rather than a doctor or politician. And as you know, there is no better way of making money than being self employed.By the way, why do people always want poor people to lead them? How much have we benefitted from getting poor leaders into state house?
We should accept that Besigye is not in politics to ‘eat’ or benefit himself. He can survive without leading FDC or IPC or opposing Museveni. Actually, he probably would have benefited more if he had chosen to remain in NRM instead of being in opposition. He is an average rich man belonging to the middle class of Kampala. In other words, what he has achieved wealthy wise can easily be achieved by any hard working man or woman in Uganda at his age. Those who exaggerate his wealth have got other intentions which we already know. So shame on Newvision and Bukedde for running headlines intended to portray a certain image of the best opposition candidate Uganda has ever had. Let their cameras got to the north and take pictures of Otunu and Mao’s houses too if they want to turn this campaign into ‘who has got the best house’.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Note:The song below is dedicated to president Museveni’s new friends, possibly the Banyoro, after falling out with Buganda:
MUSEVENI IS WRONG ON TRADITION SYSTEMS
17 Apr 2010 Leave a Comment
in Buganda, Bunyoro and lost counties, culture, kingdoms
obote and Sir Edward mutesa 11
I beg to disagree with president Museveni when he said that traditional leaders have no place in modern politics today. What is happening in Uganda is no different from what is happening in other parts of Africa as some recent years have seen the restoration of different traditional institutions across the continent. Uganda just like Ghana constitutionally restored traditional leaders in the 1990s.In South Africa of today; about 40% of the population are now ruled in part by 800 traditional chiefs. Traditional chiefs have also been integrated in the political systems in both Mozambique and Benin. Our neighbours in Tanzania have also seen traditional sungusungu grass-roots associations taking over police and justice roles. In Rwanda, a Rwandan `army of the King’ used guerrilla actions to support the return of exiled King Kigeli V, while in Cameroon’s Northern Province; the Sultan of Rey Bouba manages militias and prisons. Our neighbours in the west, the Congolese, have also seen ‘Bami’ chiefs set up a political organisation in the South Kivu region of Congo. In Somalia, clans have replaced the state as instruments of collective action. In Nigeria, ethnic organisations have been restored in the wake of structural adjustment and just like Buganda, chiefs are now demanding for constitutionally sanctioned powers instead of ‘ebyoya byansa’. In Botswana, democracy is steeped in tradition as local chiefs listen to residents’ complaints, then clerks take notes and action follows. Most villages and towns are still ruled by chiefs, incorporated into the country’s administration. Though unelected, they can lose their position if their subjects are unhappy with them and their decisions can be appealed in court. The experiment in Botswana has made them one of the success stories in Africa and it has also been applied in other countries like Lesotho and Swaziland.
The president’s opposition to demands made by Buganda kingdom is for selfish reasons of losing direct control of regions more than for a better Uganda. He also afraid that his decentralisation system will be weakened with the revival of ‘mixed politics’ or ‘dual political authority’ in Uganda. What he forgets is that this kind of political set up may be what Africa and Uganda needs to stabilise at a time of global changes and institutional weakness. Other people have argued that the incorporation of traditional structures in contemporary systems could improve the governance of African states by building upon the legitimacy of pre-colonial institutions. This arrangement may also be ideal for the decentralisation system as power and authority is delegated to the traditional leaders.
In general, the political case for the integration of traditional structures into contemporary ones has highlighted the democratic nature of recognising institutions with which many Africans still overwhelmingly identify, even though these institutions may not themselves be formally democratic. Economists too have welcomed this new trend. In view of theories that transaction costs can be reduced as a function of the perceived legitimacy of institutions, and that collective action is fostered by the homogeneity of group members. some authors have suggested that African customary institutions may reduce opportunistic behaviour and display a greater potential for developmental mobilisation than the post-colonial state.
So probably this is our chance to reconcile the traditional system with the modern system brought about by the colonisation of Africans. Giving Buganda kingdom some political powers in form of federalism may be a good start for the structural arrangement of the country before 2011 elections or the East African federation. The democracy we have called democracy which is based on elections has not done us that good since independence. There is more corruption in public institutions more than before. Probably formal incorporation of the traditional systems into the modern ones is what Uganda has been waiting for since 1986.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
United Kingdom
Semei Kakungulu was not a traitor
20 Mar 2010 1 Comment
in Buganda, Bunyoro and lost counties, Semei Kakungulu
Dear people,
Traitor or heroes are like identical twin brothers or sisters. However,’ Traitor’ is not a word to be bandied about lightly. Traitor is an ugly word and should be used sparingly. If we describe someone as a traitor, we should first be confident that he or she has violated specific laws dealing with treason. How would we have defined treason during the Semei Kakungulu times when there was no country called Uganda? Someone who sells classified information about the country’s weapons development program to a foreign nation may well be convicted of treason and appropriately described as a traitor. But we cannot and should not use the same word to describe a person used by the British to lead a successful Baganda army against the neighbouring kingdom of Bunyoro in 1894-5. Kakungulu was a military man used to extend both Buganda and British interests outside Buganda kingdom in the north and northeast. This suited both the British and Buganda very well at the time. There was no country called Uganda at the time. So what does one base on to call Kakungulu a traitor?
Semei Kakungulu
Up to now, I’m finding it difficult to identify a Uganda hero apart from the Ignatius Musazi and group. Yes,Kakungulu killed a lot of people while pursuing his ambitions or kingdom or British objectives, but does this make him a traitor by any standards? It is remarkable that one who obviously considers himself to be an offended patriot can call Obote a hero when he killed several Ugandans he was supposed to protect but when we cannot accord the same hero status to Kakungulu who was making use of his common sense. If all leaders who kill are bad to some people, then we should just put them in the same category. Bush is considered by one section of Americans to be a traitor and a terrorist war criminal because of the lives lost around the world under his watch. What about murderous Mugabe in Zimbabwe who has killed his own people within his territory instead of protecting them? Is he worse or better than Kakungulu? Another example is when a nationwide cross section of adults in USA was asked to name people they thought of as heroes, without reviewing a list or having any names suggested to them, the person mentioned most often was Jesus Christ. He’s followed by Martin Luther King, Colin Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresa in that order. If we are to do this in Uganda today, which names can we come up with? What do we really base on to determine African or Ugandan heroes?
So let us agree that traitors or heroes come from all walks of life and therefore Kakungulu was just a Kakungulu. Traitors can also be heroes depending on the circumstances. People who are so partisan and against good military deals or wars cannot even recognize a true hero in our midst. The Baganda and Kakungulu realised that there’s no point of fighting Mike Tyson in a ring when one was weighing just 50 kg. So they opted to work with Mike Tyson(British) to destroy their enemies at the time. This is the diplomacy Mr.Muwanga was talking about in his message.
Now that Uganda is trying to build a national and semi-professional army, we don’t need patriots in it. The military doesn’t need a Kakungulu or undiplomatic Kabalega. There isn’t a shortage of guys who want to be just professional soldiers.
As for Bunyoro brothers and sisters, they need to put their differences with Buganda aside and work together if they are to survive in the next 30 years.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
The idea of a Buganda think tank is good
19 Mar 2010 Leave a Comment
in 2010-2011 elections, Buganda, Bunyoro and lost counties
I do back your idea of a Buganda ‘think tank’ porposed by Omutaka Kavuma in one of the Uganda leading newspapers but my gut feeling tells me that it won’t be implemented or it is difficult to be implemented considering the political climate in Uganda. It is amazing that Buganda which was the birth of political civilisation in the country has not managed to produce a president to lead that country for longer and to change that country for the better.
Political parties were born in Buganda out of political movements. It is widely believed that Katikilo Nsibirwa was assassinated by the Buganda political movements because he was looked at as a stooge for the colonialists. Buganda had a party which united both the tenants and landlords which was called the Bataka party. This party was founded by Baganda intellectuals and it was the first to oppose the East Africa federation. Probably, I would not have been a member because I support both the Federalism in Uganda and the East Africa Federation though the former needs to be sorted out first.
At the moment, I wonder who really officially advises the Kabaka of Buganda on important issues. It is also very interesting to note that most of the Baganda youths join politics just to ‘eat’ but not to help their kingdom in the true sense of the word. Why can’t some body form an organisation depicting the achievements of a man like I.K.Musazi. Nkoza Zambogo is not enough to push for the kingdom interests. Buganda needs an organisation that opens branches in different parts of the country including the North and East Uganda. Musazi is the prime example of how he turned his movements into a strong nationwide political party. In 1946,Musazi formed the Uganda Africa Farmers’ Union- which championed the interests of farmers. This organisation later changed its name to Federation of partnerships of Uganda African Farmers which also changed in 1952 to Uganda National Congress. It was the ‘kalimagezi’ of Musazi and a few Baganda that gave birth to Uganda’s 1st political party. Why can’t the youths in Buganda emulate the achievements of their ‘bajaja’ to form organisations that are useful to Buganda and Uganda as well?
Yes, there are people from other regions that naturally don’t like Baganda and Buganda but this is all out of jealousy and it is historical. The jealousy of other regions over Buganda is well documented and it is exemplified by a letter wrote to the British Governor on 10/07/1956 by the leaders of other kingdoms. So this jealousy should not stop Baganda from fighting for their interests and those of other Ugandans as a way forward. Try to get the ‘friendly’ non-baganda on board if Buganda is to see any fruits in its fights with the central government. Baganda can no longer fight political wars alone.
Under the present circumstances, I would be surprised if all kingdoms don’t join to fight the intentions of Museveni because whatever he is planning for Buganda will catch up with other kingdoms as well if Buganda fails. Kingdoms united during the time they looked at the introduction of political parties as a threat to their existence in Uganda. I don’t see why Bunyoro should take president Museveni seriously when he throws ‘enkonyogo’ to Buganda in most of his recent public speeches. It’s more like a man who divorces his wife because he snores a lot and then starts a relationship with another woman. This man then promise to marry this new woman before he has spent a night with her to be sure that she doesn’t snore like the ex-wife. It would be a mistake to enter into a marriage with this man because if he finds that the new lady is snoring, he will go ahead and marry her for selfish reasons or if he finds that she doesn’t snore, he will marry her and divorce her at some stage for another reason (probably because she is not clean enough). So if I were Bunyoro, I will be careful with Museveni’s new friendship.
The idea of a think tank is very good.
Abbey
Semei Kakungulu was a nationalist
19 Mar 2010 9 Comments
in Buganda, Bunyoro and lost counties, Semei Kakungulu
Dear people,
Increasingly, I have heard of people calling Semei Kakungulu a traitor, hero or a nationalist but I want to take my discussion to mostly the ‘nationalist’ part, whatever that might be. At the same time, I see confusion in people who have thought of themselves being allied with one political or ideological outlook or another to base on this to call some one a nationalist or not.
Assuming we all agree with the definition of a nationalist as one who places the nation above the individual, can we call Bunyoro’s Kabalega a nationalist and leave Kakungulu out? I don’t think so. Kabalega was defending the existence of Bunyoro Kingdom and Kakungulu was participating in the creation of a nation called Uganda by fighting with the British and Baganda. So which one of the two is a nationalist by that definition? I think Kakungulu qualifies to be used as a as fodder for national purposes compared to Kabalega.
What about the nationalists or internationalists in the present day situation in Uganda. How would you categorise the following groups of people:
- Those presidents of Uganda or leaders who give more leverage to foreign investors compared to local investors. They treat foreign investors like ‘brides’ compared to local ones.
- Those who think that a government should be selected by its own citizens in fair and free elections but they turn around and rig the elections. When you think of rigging elections in Uganda, the following years come into our minds: 1980, 2001, 2006 and 2008 ‘Kyadondo’ elections.
- Those who think that a government should be granted unlimited powers by its own citizens. For instance, I have heard some people on radios in Uganda questioning the powers of judges who did not fight in Luwero bushes.
- Those who don’t believe that rights are inherent to being alive and not privileges to be dispensed by government.
- Those who think that it is right for one country to overthrow the lawfully-elected governments of other countries and replace them with dictatorships or Generals from their own army.
- Those who believe that it is okay for Uganda to break apart into separate countries, each with its own ethnic background, as did the former Soviet Union.
Kabalega and America’s George Washington may both be called nationalists because they both risked certain execution as traitors against Britain. But then again, they both just didn’t like British tyranny. Many people both in USA and Uganda didn’t like it, that didn’t mean they were nationalists. Indeed many of them would have fought against the “nation” having the amount of power over the individual states or regions or kingdoms that it now has.
The Serbian called Nikola Kavaja, who hijacked a U.S. passenger jet in 1979 with the intention of crashing it into Yugoslav Communist Party headquarters, was called a nationalist by some sections of people in Serbia. Many nationalist Serbs considered Kavaja a hero and a patriot, while others thought of him as a ruthless terrorist. Can we also say that people call Kakungulu or Kabalega a nationalist or traitor or hero depending on what they belief in.
In 1905, President Grover Cleveland pardoned Gavrilo Princip, the Polish nationalist who assassinated Austrian Empress Maria-Theresa in Stockholm in 1889, which set off World War I. Gavrilo Princip is considered a nationalist in Poland yet his actions led to the start of World War 1. What justifications do we have as Ugandans to start calling Kakungulu bad names or tittles when his actions just led to the creation of the nation called Uganda?
Therefore, the definition of “nationalism” in a political context is much more complex. But I guess anything beyond “We good, Them bad” is a little too deep for anyone to categorically state that Kakungulu or Kabalega was a nationalist. Can we really call Obote or Museveni nationalists if we are to put the whole definition of nationalism in context? My answer is a big ‘No’.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Blocking Kabaka from visiting Nakasongola was wrong
17 Feb 2010 2 Comments
in Bunyoro and lost counties, history, kingdoms
Kabaka of Buganda,muwenda Mutebi
Dear Ugandans,
I was so much disturbed when the government refused Kabaka Mutebi to cerebrate Buganda’s independence from Nakasongola till when I read a detailed email from Mr. Henry Ford Mirima, spokes person for Bunyoro kingdom, that I fully understood what this was all about.
What disturbed most people in all this is Bunyoro’s new found friendship with NRMO and president Museveni and that’s why many of us suspected the government’s hand in this blockage of the Kabaka to proceed to Nakasongola as earlier planned. It should be stressed that since the restoration of kingdoms in 1993, Bunyoro has been quite and relatively poor compared to Buganda and Tooro but this situation changed after the discovery of oil in Bunyoro. Now it is not surprising that Bunyoro has found its way into newspapers recently than before. Last time I read about Bunyoro was in 2003 in the UK newspaper called The Guardian when their king was planning to sue the governments of Britain, Uganda and Buganda for £3billion in compensation for alleged war crimes and illegal land transfers committed during Britain’s war of conquest in the 1890s.I thought it was a joke as they remained quite after this story. Then oil was discovered and all their intentions to get on top of their dreams were resurrected.
I somehow agree with some Baganda intellectuals who have described Bunyoro’s fixation with the past particularly the issue of ‘lost counties’ as a symptom of backwardness. Henry Ford Mirima’s emails and articles in the newspapers in Uganda base Bunyoro’s case on a record or account of the ancestry and descent of Bunyoro kings. Miriima also goes ahead to portray Bunyoro as the champions of indirect rule, anti-slavery and self-determination. It is obvious that Bunyoro is presenting its case by lobbying the media, legal counsels,anti-buganda voices from other tribes and politicians and that’s why the Kabaka was eventually blocked on his way to Nakasongola.
It is also obvious that Bunyoro and the supporters of their cause are still getting to the terms of accepting that Buganda has been bigger and wealthier than Bunyoro since the 1890s. The Banyoro put all this blame on the British and they feel that they can still become bigger than Buganda by reducing the size of its territory. They believe that this will give them a better say in National politics than Buganda particularly with oil in their region at the background of their minds.
The Banyoro historians have re-written their history in which there are now claiming that the ruling Babito clan were the blood heirs to the historical Bacwezi, who were the rulers of the Kitala kingdom. We all know that the Kitala kingdom was the biggest in the great lakes region and it goes as far as Tanzania. The reason why Bunyoro is not claiming the return of the whole Kitala kingdom is because their interest lies only in weakening the territorial strength of only Buganda kingdom.
History tells us that the Bacwezi abandoned Bunyoro because of the disobedience of the Banyoro subjects. Since then Bunyoro and Bacwez went separate ways but someone is rewriting history because they want some ‘lost counties’ in Buganda.
Other historians have also questioned the accuracy and reliability of Bunyoro’s stories on dynasty particularly David Henige’s research which showed how the published list of Bunyoro kings rapidly lengthened between 1875 and 1935 from five to twenty-three monarchs. Inconsistencies and contradictions were found as the list grew. It also became clear that Bunyoro historians came up with these lists as a way of competing with their arch-rivals, the Buganda kingdom. Buganda’s king lists had been published first; they were remarkably consistent in the number and order of the rulers, and they were longer than Bunyoro’s. It seemed self-evident that Buganda’s lists were more reliable, and logically therefore that Buganda was an older kingdom than Bunyoro. Therefore, Henige was right to observe that the first European explorers in Bunyoro could only obtain the names of a handful of recent kings.
Bunyoro has always competed with Buganda such that at one time in 1876 kings of both kingdoms claimed themselves to be the only true descendants of the princes of Kitara. They both wanted to be connected to the Bachwezi though it looks like Buganda eventually dropped that line. Actually, Bunyoro’s Omukama Kamurasi told John Speke that he was the ‘king of Kitala’ meaning ‘the father of all kings’.
Buganda cleverly played the British against Bunyoro and that’s how Buganda deservedly came to posses the southern half of Bunyoro in 1894 which includes the counties Mr.Miriima and anti-Buganda voices are fighting for. It is neither Buganda’s fault nor the British. It was a military gift to Buganda which was very usual during those days. There is no need to change it now because most of the Banyori,baluli or banyala and Baganda in those lost counties treat each other as brothers and sisters. This is really silly because are we also going to charge the dead Britain’s commissioner in Buganda, Henry Colvile too, who officially made the transfer.
Buyaga and Bugangaizi were returned to Bunyoro during Obote 1 and Baganda have painfully accepted this since the two counties contained Bunyoro’s royal graves and ritual sites. So why don’t we just move on for peace and development’s sake? Bugerere,Bulemezi and other parts in Bunyoro’s minds are constitionally part of Buganda.Buganda and Bunyoro just need to unite at the moment to fight for federalism and other regional development causes.
Bunyoro’s ‘lost counties’ issue is burying the federo cause
17 Feb 2010 2 Comments
in Bunyoro and lost counties, federalism in Uganda
I agree with people who say that Abakooki including Semei Kakungulu and the Nakasongola people are all Baganda .Period. We should not allow Mr. Henry Miriima,Bunyoro and Company to divide us because they are pursuing something for purposes best known to themselves. I may sound like I’m burying my head in the sand but it is the best way forward. I can’t see Bunyoro getting the ‘lost counties’ as Mr. Serumaga Kalundi once explained. It is also obvious that the so called Sabaluli and Sabanyala joined the Bunyoro Cultural trust as a bargaining chip to break away from Buganda. It is more difficult for them (baluli and banyala) to break away from Buganda than breaking away from Bunyoro at the time of their own choice. But then again, why would they want to break away from Buganda in the first place? We have been part of each other for ages and we have a good understanding of each other’s cultures.
Bunyoro is one of the kingdoms in Uganda that welcomed every tribe in their territory because they believed other kingdoms were once part of bunyoro-kitala. That’s why there are a lot of other tribes in Bunyoro regions. Similarly Banyoro have migrated to other parts of Uganda and integrated very well with other cultures. The Banyoro in Nakasongola, Bugerere and others in the ‘lost counties’ have become more gandalised more than anything else. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement and any body who loves Uganda would not even attempt to rearrange it in any way by digging up maps that are going to confuse our people.
Bunyoro based their first claims to the ‘lost counties’ on the evidence of the genealogy of their ruling dynasty. They emphasised that Bunyoro was the oldest and the largest of the Great Lakes region.
When bunyoro realised that this strategy of concentrating on ancient history was not working properly,as it meant that parts like Rwanda, Toro,Bwera(bamooli)………… which were once part of Bunyoro will never come back, they then came up with a different strategy called imperial ideology. They tactically used this imperial ideology by accusing both the British and baganda of indirect rule, slavery, and colonialism. They used this strategy by employing petitions based on archives or valuable records, lobbying of nationalist politicians, British Queen’s Counsels, and finally low-level terrorism in an increasingly modern and sophisticated campaign. Bunyoro even threatened to sue Buganda, Uganda and Britain for £3b over the issue of lost counties as reported in the Guardian Newspaper here in the UK in 2003. Actually, they have gone ahead and sued the British government as reported in the newspaper this year(2010) because they wanna tap into British money and exposure of this issue.The case is still in court as I write now.
Bunyoro have come up with a third tactic to pursue their ‘lost’ cause: combination of the ruling dynasty’s genealogical claim for regional pre-eminence, imperial ideology and ‘take advantage of the political environment’. This ‘take advantage of the political environment’ is mainly based on the fact that Buganda and president Museveni are not on the same page at the moment and Museveni needs oil from Bunyoro region to serve his own political agendas. So Bunyoro is willing to be used in playing the part of the cancer that can weaken the strength of Buganda. The question we should all ask ourselves is that: will this combination of tactics finally give Bunyoro what it wants.
So far,it looks like Museveni has indirectly or temporarily damped them after realsiing that they are costing him votes in Bukiiga or Bufuluki land(after the president’s sectarian letter in their support last year) and Buganda. Museveni publicly announced ,while on a rally in Kayunga, that Bugerere is part of Buganda after obviously realising that the Banyala are very few in numbers in Kayunga and it will cost him votes.Personally, I feel that we have been successful diverted by both Bunyoro and the central government from the real issue at hand here, which is the quest for federalism in Uganda.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
