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
Federalism is not ‘crap’ but Subjecting it to a referendum in Uganda is crap
12 Dec 2011 44 Comments
Dear folks,
I would like to thank the president of Uganda Federal Alliance (UFA), Beti Kamya, for her fight for federalism in Uganda but I still don’t trust her intentions for reasons I have already stated publicly. Nevertheless, my interest has been drawn to an article she wrote recently and was posted on Ekitibwa Kya Buganda (EKB) blog under the headline: ’Kamya’s Appeal to Ugandans’. She wrote:’…………. UFA has formally declared that we shall evoke Article 74 of the constitution of Uganda to cause a referendum come 2015 for the purpose of changing Uganda’s political system to federalism..…’
While I agree with Kamya that federalism is the way forward, I never imagined that there’s still any sensible opposition leader out there who still believes that systems can be changed in Uganda through elections under the present leadership of president Museveni. Elections of national importance are useless in Uganda because president Museveni can use them to get whatever he wants.He only allows the opposition to win mainly byelections because they are somehow difficult to rig.
Without going into the presidential rigging that is often rightly cited by the opposition, Let me give you an example of the two referendums to either stay with the Movement or Multiparty that were conducted between 2000 and 2005, and the vice versa. The first one was held in June 2000 and the second was held in July 2005. Those who voted ‘‘Yes’’ to Movement system were 4,471,681 that represented a 90.7% according to the Electoral Commission. Those who ticked or voted ‘‘No’’ to Multiparty system were 442,843 which represented 09.3% of the total votes.
The second referendum was held after less than 4 years but the results again came out as President Museveni wanted them to be. Those who said ‘‘Yes’’ to Multiparty system were 3,736,367 which represented a good 92.4% of the total votes cast. Those who ticked ‘‘No’’ to Movement system were 297,865 representing 07.6% of the total votes.
So basically a referendum or elections in Uganda cannot change a system to anything which has not been endorsed by president Museveni. He gets whatever he wants, and if Kamya wants us to have a referendum on federalism, she better finds ways of convincing president Museveni, and leave Ugandans out of it for now.
That said, Ugandans should not allow anybody to scare them off federalism. There are people who use Late Oyito Ojok’s scare tactics of 1980s: telling the rest of Ugandans that any changes in status-quo means the return of slavery by Baganda. He used the same tactics during the 1980 elections scaring other Ugandans against voting for DP’s Paul Ssemogerere. Oyite Ojok while speaking in Luo urged the Acholi and Langi to unite and elect Obote who would cater for their interests.
But I would like Ugandans to look at federalism as a potential stabilizing force for the country if it is adopted by any incoming government. Stability in most federal states is measured on the basis of three yardsticks: the constitutions, fiscal arrangements and party systems. Switzerland, which is considered as highly federal on all the three counts, is stable (that is, free of secessionism and violence).
Uganda has got noises about secession from some Baganda but the government can easily put an end to this by granting full federalism to Buganda or the rest of the country. The reason why secessionist voices won’t go away is because there isn’t even a small bone to cling to at the moment, and as a result, the secessionists are more powerful than us.
The central government in most cases accords autonomy to the region in the first place if it is assured that secession is unlikely. If a right to secede is justified as remedy for oppressive and discriminatory practices towards a region, then the same objective can be achieved using other means such as: federalisms, checks and balances, entrenchments of civil rights and liberties, and judicial review.
I don’t support secessionism but Let me also remind anti-federalists that Buganda, just like Quebec, are asking to secede because they just want to run their own things. May be one of the reasons why some Baganda aren’t happy can be found in the fact that some people in the present government are doing everything possible to weaken Buganda’s culture and economic foundations such that some people see secession as the only way to protect them. By the way secession is a normal thing as it has happened in some other parts of the world. For instance, Norway and Sweden in 1905, UK and Ireland in 1922, Iceland and Denmark in 1918.However, I can’t see a Buganda and Uganda going separate ways because there is still a chance that everything will be sorted out in the post-Museveni era.
Canada, which is believed to have an ambiguous constitution, quasi-federal fiscal relations and a federal party system, is partially stable since it faces a peaceful secessionist movement in Quebec. The Quebec secession movements have gone quite because the Canada government gave Quebec federalism. Nevertheless, Canada is a federal society despite its constitution which is only quasi-federal.
Quasi federal means the federal government is the dominant partner. Canada was quasi federal between 1867 and 1896 under Macdonald’s leadership. Most of the decisions were made by Otawa not provinces. Then Canada became a classical federalism between 1896 and 1914 –meaning the power became equal between Otawa and provinces. Then it became an emergency federalism between 1914 and 1960-meaning the balance of power swung back towards the federal government. Then it became a cooperative federalism between 1960 to present –meaning the provinces now have much power to raise revenues and exercise power over their respective jurisdictions. It also means that the two levels must constantly bargain and coordinate their actions. So this cooperative federalism is run on a quasi federal constitution which makes it a bit tricky for analysts to call Canada a full federal like USA.
India is also believed to be quasi-federal in all three respects (the constitutions, fiscal arrangements and party systems) and is therefore facing violent secessionist movements and thus is unstable. Uganda is still lucky that the secession movements are not violent and it’s in government’s interests to grant Buganda and other parts that want it- federo to keep them that way. The longer they delay it, the more ‘’chilli’’ these guys will put in their sauce at some point.
All in all, Federalism is not bad at all. I even don’t know why some people call it ‘crap’ as if it is one of those MacDonald burgers and chips or Chelsea’s Torres on a bad day. But subjecting federalism to a referendum right now is crap.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Massive Industrialisation in all East African countries will reduce the dominance of Kenya
23 Jul 2010 1 Comment
in East Africa, Economics, federalism in Uganda, history, international, Presidency
Dear people,
The remake of the East African common market or community (EAC) is the utopian dream of all good globalists / global socialists like me. “Community” is sometimes called “space” for everybody to enjoy but the EAC goal is clear: a common economic space for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely. Therefore, the EAC’s “integrated” strategy calls for a more open border for the movement of goods and people.
However, it is absurd to believe that suddenly we can create a global free trading area, a common market with, for example, Kenya, without massive changes leading to consequences that we cannot anticipate. For example, in common market countries college education is free but where is the room for this in our EAC recently reborn.
The East African Common market was started in 1917 at a pre-industrialisation stage in the region. It was also started to serve the British business interests and those of settlers in Kenya. Therefore, it came as no surprise that when joint services were established in 1945, Kenya benefited more than Uganda and Tanganyika.
Kenya benefitted in terms of :value added to their Gross Domestic Product(GDP); more employment benefits and revenue. For instance, according to the Common market & Economic Affairs Secretariat, in 1971, the East Africa Railways employed: 55% Kenyans, 33% Tanzanians and 12% Ugandans.Kenya also had a higher manufacturing base than either Uganda or Tanzania, a situation that has not changed up to day. Our system is second rate at best, we are far behind Kenya and Tanzania.
As a way of correcting this inequitable situation the British had created in the first place before independence, the colonial government established the Raisman Commission in 1960. According to Professor Brown, who was a member of the Raisman Commission, Kenya gained most from the common market, Uganda gained marginally and Tanzania broken even. Therefore, fiscal compensation to Tangayika and Uganda through the distribution tool was recommended, as one of the solutions to this inequity. Nevertheless, the fiscal compensation failed to solve this problem because the sums involved were far short of what would be needed to lead to developments of industries in the two marginalised countries(Uganda and Tanganyika), and the sums that would be considered adequate would be too great for Kenya to accept. I’m now wondering what exactly was negotiated recently by the architects of the East African community to solve this problem.
In addition, the experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so it will be in order for us to have an East African court as soon as possible where cases of higher magnitude will be settled.
But just as in Europe, where such a Common Market led to a European political union, a hemispheric EAC will mean an eventual end of Uganda’s separate identity and national sovereignty. Much as this is good, how do we integrate ideas such as: Buganda federalism or Uganda federalism instead of dreaming that they will just go away with the East African federation? This is something the architects of the E.A.C need to think about now instead of constantly brushing it under the carpet.
We also need a thought through East Africa Constitution that can, for instance, help with guiding the election process and rigging among member countries.Elections have been rigged in Uganda in 1980,2001 and 2006 and Uganda courts admitted this but nothing really changed.We probably need an East African court that can help such things. For instance, In USA, there was “free trade” or common market between the states from 1787 through 1865, and It was the whole point of the new Constitution.
Overall, the main way the East African common market will economically benefit all the member countries is if they all undertake large scale industrialisation projects, because with appropriate distribution, this can reduce substantially the inequality that mainly led to fall of the community in 1977.If we don’t address all this economic imbalances, Kenya will continue to benefit more than others and the EAC Common market will dissolve in future and every country will return to its everyone against everyone else mentality.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
United Kingdom
IPC Should not Boycourt Elections but Increase Parliamentary Numbers
22 May 2010 8 Comments
in 2010-2011 elections, FDC, federalism in Uganda, parliament, Politics, Presidency, Uncategorized, UPC current politics
Dear readers,
I will never support anybody who boycotts elections in Africa because our African dictators don’t care whether the opposition is involved or not. As the Baganda say: ‘OMUZIZI AZIMBYA TWE NGA TWELILA‘. President Museveni will be so happy if the opposition boy courts the 2011 elections and I’m one of those who hate the kind of opposition that keeps a smile on his face. It’s actually one of the painful reasons why I have got a problem with Bwana Mao Norbert at the moment because his entrance into the presidential race has kept president Museveni smiling all the time. I’m totally sure that president Museveni has been smiling ever since Mao was elected as president of one the DP factions.
Mao knows that he cannot singlehandedly win the 2011 elections but I assume he is looking at 2016 where he assumes that he will have more political capital compared to his opponents. But I want to remind Ugandans that whatever will be happening in 2011 presidential elections will be the same story in 2016 when Major General Muhoozi(1st son) gets endorsed to become the NRM flag bearer. The only difference in 2016 will be that gates will be opened to all ambitious young men and women who wish to drive Uganda forward as most of the oldies will retire. For instance, FDC’s Anne Mugisha has already declared herself available for the FDC Presidential post , but I expect Major Mugisha Muntu to be around the scene again after losing out twice to Dr.Besigye. I also expect Winnie Byanyima to enter the race to succeed her husband as FDC president. So 2016 will be a very interesting year for many of us inishallah.
Nevertheless, Mao is being naive to think that he will be the only youths, if being youth means being in late 50s, who will be shinning in 2016. I know for sure that within DP itself, Erias Lukwago, has got presidential ambitions, and I’m still wondering why he did not stand for DP president in the recently concluded delegates conference. I guess it was because he takes the Mbale conference to have been organized illegally since it was not called by NEC. Among NRM, like I have already said, Major General Muhoozi, will be on the scene whether Ugandans like it or not. In UPC, we expect James Akena(Obote’s son) to bounce back though I don’t see him ever becoming the boss of that party in my life time, because UPC is rebranding itself away from Oboteists. So I will throw my coin on more youthful faces, like Robert Kanusu and others abroad.
As for 2011, as long as Norbert Mao is still playing in the hands of Museveni, the IPC should concentrate instead on increasing their numbers in parliament rather than wasting time on an already rigged presidential election. I think everybody can see it now that Mao has already helped Museveni win the 2011 elections. Those who are dreaming of a rerun should forget it. What Ugandans need to do is to punish bwana Mao in future when he starts knocking on their doors asking for votes.
For the meantime, I request all the IPC leaders who are still interested in politics to find a constituency to stand for parliament, with the exception of whoever will be chosen as the IPC flag bearer for 2011. This will help them increase their numbers in parliament after the 2011 elections. Personally, I would like Dr.Besigye to be the IPC flag bearer such that we say good bye to him for the last time, and we also expect him to use his popularity to help the IPC candidates in all local elections to be held. Therefore, Let Olara Otunnu(UPC), Kibirige Mayanja(JEEMA), Ken Lukyamuzi(CP) and Michael Mabikke(SDP) all go and stand for parliament somewhere. Actually, they should be already on the road campaigning in their respective constituencies because there is no time.
Meanwhile, i wish the Mengo administration finds a way to work with the IPC to sort out the candidates needed to stand in Buganda. Mengo should not do a Mao on IPC to work alone- because that will turn out to be constly for them. These things need a lot of money and a strong network for any candidate to succeed and that’s why Mengo needs to combine forces with the IPC. Mengo should secretly contact the IPC leaders to sort this out as soon as possible.They should all work together like they have done in Mukono north elections where Nambooze was endorsed by both the IPC and Mengo. Obviously, there are going to be some stumbling blocks like Beti Kamya who has got some personal wars to settle with some leaders of the IPC, but this can be sorted out amicably. Somebody needs to whsiper in Kamya’s ear not to ‘rock the boat’ for selfish reasons. We have seen enough of selfish politicians in the kast couple of years.
Byebyo banange
Abbey
WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE MENGO ADMINISTRATION?
05 Apr 2010 18 Comments
in 2010-2011 elections, Buganda, Economics, federalism in Uganda, kingdoms
Oh Ugandans,
It’s a pity that Buganda’s ‘EDDOBOOZI‘ newspaper is only written in Luganda because the paper writes extremely good stuff which deserves the attention of all Ugandans, not only Baganda. The story about MTN and Kabaka exposes the fear in the central government that an economically viable Buganda kingdom is not an option for those in the state house. Can you imagine how far Mengo would be now if it had been allowed to have shares in such a big company like the MTN, hadn’t been the interference of some people in the central government!
There was also a similar story in the Observer on 24th February this year that the ‘Museveni, Kabaka fell out over NSSF’ .Both deals expose one thing- that the central government does not want Mengo to be financially independent. It wants Mengo to look like a useless administration that cannot add any value to the pockets of an ordinary Buganda because of the limited material benefits it provides to them. The observer explicitly reported:‘President Museveni’s fear of a financially powerful Buganda monarch was responsible for the failed bid by a company in which Kabaka Ronald Mutebi II has interest to build 1,000 housing units near Kampala”.
This leads me to a debate I had with some Ugandans yesterday over a birthday party of one of our friend’s kid. Some Ugandans (Baganda) were saying that Mengo has become useless since it cannot even turn the Lubiri into something worth to look at. They were arguing that ever since the kingdom was restored, the Mengo administration has been farming Matooke in the Lubiri instead of calling on investors to develop it. As a response, I argued that that Mengo has got those plans on a paper as already published widely in the newspapers a couple of years ago but the problem is that the central government always want to have control of what is going on at Mengo. They will never allow a big investor to put money in Lubiri or Bulange unless they have got some sort of control over that investor. And i think i have been exonerated by the two stories in the Eddoboozi and Observer newspapers.
Another gentleman at the birthday party, who happened to come from the same place in Kampala as myself, also mentioned something interesting regarding the Kasubi tombs. He said that Mengo was to blame partly for what happened at Kasubi because some people at Mengo have failed to reason like modernists. He said that when he was still working as a doctor in Uganda, he asked for permission to build rental apartments around the Kasubi tombs which would have helped to build a high security fence around the tombs. The administration was to share the profit margins with him but some guys at Mengo made the whole thing impossible and he had to give up.
I did not respond to this because I did not know what to say, which brings me to another point I want to make. If Mengo has failed to secure international investors (partly due to interference from the central government), to develop some of the land owned by the kingdom, they should not fear the local investors. Some of these people have got Buganda at heart and it pains them to see that their kingdom is mainly surviving on donations and certificates.
It should also be mentioned that the torching of Kasubi tombs has produced a lot of positive things which have left anybody who hates Buganda amazed. It has brought more Baganda together than before when one analyses the masses that flocked Kasubi for prayers last month. It has given religious leaders stamina to interfere in the tension between the central government and Buganda government because they have reaslied that this is nolonger an issue for the two alone. It has energised the opposition in Uganda such that if there was a free and fair election today in Uganda, President Museveni would be history. Most importantly, it has removed the fear among the Baganda Rich businessmen who had earlier on feared being seen publicly donating large amounts of money to the Buganda kingdom. This fear started with the closure of Greenland Bank, whose main shareholder used to be both a personal friend of the Kabaka and one of the biggest contributors to Mengo. The fear was reinforced with the closure of CBS last year such that we all thought that it will take a bull’s eye to see anybody associating themselves with mengo again in public.
Buganda royalists are well aware that a state does not exist which cannot provide for itself by extracting income from the territory and populations it wishes to control. The 1995 constitution prohibits traditional chiefs from taxing or otherwise forcing contributions from their subjects. That is why Mengo has asked for rental arrears from the central government instead of donations to the reconstruction of the Kasubi tombs. Mengo realises that they need to come up with some other viable alternatives to beat the central government in this game.
The closure of CBS fm has put the kingdom two steps back due to the shortage of funds to do anything. The central government knew that Mengo will feel the radio closure and I’m sure they are still surprised that Mengo has not gone down on its knees to apologise- to allow the radio to be reopened. They have tested them by sending guys like Tamare Mirundi to demand for an unconditional apology before the CBS is opened but the response remains the same.
Therefore,If I was president of Uganda, which I’m not, then I should be worried, because it means Mengo have got something up their sleeves which the president does not know about, such that they have come to accept CBS as yesterday’s business and ready to move on. The problem is that nobody in the central government knows how Mengo plans to move on. Mengo has decided to keep the government guessing and that is very dangerous.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
United kingdom
Buganda is already a quasi state within a state
10 Mar 2010 Leave a Comment
in 2010-2011 elections, Buganda, culture, federalism in Uganda, kingdoms
friends,
I would like to tell you and all other peace loving Ugandans that Buganda is already a state on its own. All it lacks is an army and direct political power. Buganda kingdom has developed institutions, financing mechanisms and policy tools since its restoration in 1993. What we don’t know is how the Buganda kingdom is going to transform this momentum into something the young generation like me can cling on to. When Obote abolished the Kingdom in 1967, Buganda’s 52 clans were the only thing that survived Obote’s anger and moment of madness.
However, when Mutebi was made king, he restored the 3 branches of administration with him: executive, legislature and other administrative structures. He appointed a parliament (lukiiko), cabinet, district representatives, clan elders, and other Buganda representatives in various parts of the kingdom. He also appointed a prime minister (katikilo) as head of the wider cabinet. The notable positions in his cabinet were the positions of attorney general and 14 ministers of state. Yes, most Mengo ministers are volunteers and use their money to carry out their duties but it goes on to show how much people are willing to keep Buganda breathing for a long time. A man like Semogerere, for instance, was the MD of Sembule Investment Bank and chairman of the Nile hotel but he sacrificed that to become a katikilo of Buganda kingdom with no political powers yet.
Buganda has also got physical structures in Bulange and other buildings. Buganda kingdom has also expanded beyond Kampala by the appointment of 18 local administrative units (abamasaza), sub county chiefs (abamagombolola) and parish chiefs (abemiluka). In doing this, the king of Buganda has got a structure in place that almost overlaps even Museveni’s LC system although the kingdom’s positions remain largely honorary and devoid of substantial institutional powers. He was clever though to pick people of influence in all these positions and it is working out for him. For example, Fredrick Mulindwa, the saza chief of Buddu County is a lawyer by profession and sits on the Masaka District Land Board.
Buganda has also expanded beyond Uganda and this was evidenced in May 1997 when the king appointed ‘ambasadors’ to UK, Sweden and Kenya. I guess the number of ambassadors has now increased since then. Both the Kabaka and Katikilo are treated and behave as the way the president of Uganda and ministers do when abroad though they live within a limited budget compared to the government ministers. The baganda in diaspora are even thinking of building a ‘Buganda house’ in the UK to rival the Uganda House at Trafalgar square in London. They have also been organising federal conferences and ‘Tabimuluka’ almost every year.
Buganda has also got anthems, pledges of allegiance, inaugurations, coronations, parades and any thing that makes a kingdom look like a state. The 1993 coronation was an impressive theatrical display of recovered statehood. The 1999 royal wedding with its abundant pageantry further contributed to the idea of the kingdom that is united and strong. A man just needs to buy a copy of the kabaka’s wedding and preparations to know what this thing means to Baganda and non-baganda. All categories of people contributed to this wedding including non-baganda. Actually, the kingdom can make a lot of money by selling the tapes and DVDs of this wedding on open market.
Kasubi royal tombs represent the national monument of the kingdom and there were renovated with a grant of £100000 from UNESCO. Buganda has got national holidays like the anniversary of the storming of Mengo by Obote’s troops. Finally, the kingdom has an ideology.
The main challenge for Buganda is to influence the young generation like us who still look at opportunities in the central government as something better on a plate than what is Mengo offering. The old baganda will die soon but how do they keep this momentum going in absence of a royal and committed young generation. How I wish brother, Ahmed Katerega and sister Aisha Kabanda can live as examples to the young ones in future.
Nze simanyi binadilila banange but the Buganda kingdom is already a state without super political power.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Why Ugandans should not vote for Mao in 2011
26 Feb 2010 44 Comments
in 2010-2011 elections, Bahima and Banyarwanda, federalism in Uganda, kingdoms, Obote and UPC, Politics
Dear friends,
I was watching a film titled ‘Schindlers’s List’ with my wife last week and she ended up crying at the end of it. The movie is about the horrors of living in a Nazi or Hitler dictatorship and the way the Jews were humiliated and killed. It portrays a kindness of the human condition that many people, today, are not that happy with. It is indeed a depressing film though I would recommend it to anyone. After watching this film, my mind just switched straight to the president of one of the DP factions, Norbert Mao, and what the people of northern Uganda have endured for the last 20 years since Museveni took over in 1986. Mao is quoted to have said in the Sunday Monitor newspaper on 21st February this year:’……… We are either full citizens, equal to all others, or non-citizens. The idea of the Nile State is actually a challenge to the Uganda government that we did not choose to be Ugandans ……….’, in response to a question he was asked regarding his known agenda about secession of northern Uganda from Uganda.
Yes, the people of northern Uganda have gone through an ordeal and the rest of the country feels for them but at the same time, we want them to remain Ugandans. The Jews suffered under Hitler more than any race I have known in history after the abolition of slave trade, and probably they had a reason to ask for a ‘special home’ of their own after world war 11, but the people in the north already have a home in Uganda.
If Mao’S DP faction win Election 2011, the Uganda, which our forefathers fought to make one, is in very serious trouble. Mao is in the danger of favouring his region against others as we have come to witness in president Museveni’s regime recently. Mao’s secession propaganda has been known for a while and therefore it would be very wrong to make such a person a president of the whole country at a time when we are already more divided than before. We should support presidential candidates that support federalism in Uganda and not those who support both federalism and secession.
Comparing Mao to Obama?
It is also very wrong for some Ugandans to keep comparing Mao to president Obama since the later has never been a secessionist. Probably, it would be fair if Mao is compared to the current Republican favourite, Sarah Pallin. They are both young and supporters of secession projects. Sarah Pallin used to be a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), a fringe political party that advocates the secession of Alaska from the USA. Just months before Palin was announced as McCain’s vice-presidential nominee, she delivered a videotaped address to the AIP’s annual convention.
DP needs to be careful with Mao’s agenda because their party might have been penetrated by Mao’s secessionist groups. Rumour has it that Sarah Pallin may have been planted in the Republican Party by the AIP despite the initial denials by the McCain’s camp when she was introduced to the national stage in 2008. There was a national convention in 2007 of secessionist groups where Vice president of AIP said that his party would seek to “infiltrate” the Democratic and Republican parties with candidates sympathetic to its secessionist agenda. Similarly, any sane Ugandan needs to question the motives of Mao in DP because he may be using the party to push his own personal agendas.
Do we ever learn from history?
I’m still surprised that leaders never learn anything from history. When Obote came back from his exile in Tanzania in the 1980s, he asked the opposition where their Generals were. He also promised to apply the ‘law of Moses’ to the Baganda and Banyarwanda whom he hated so much. The northerners were dominant in Obote’s army(Obote 1) and UNLA(Obote 2). Then Museveni convinced the Baganda that we need to get rid of Obote to sort out what went wrong in both Obote 1 and Obote 2. However, I’m surprised today to see that the same mistakes Obote made are the same ones president Museveni is committing . He has geared his politics towards weakening the kingdom of Buganda. He has encouraged the formation of various chiefdoms in a country that had not more than four recognised kingdoms at independence in 1962.We are basically more divided as Ugandans than before such that we don’t need another president who will make this situation worse.
I’m also surprised that Israel is subjecting almost the same ‘slave’ treatment to Palestines which is almost similar to what they went through under the Nazi dictatorship. Isreal has been supporting secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy.
Is Mao a threat to Museveni?
I think the opposition in Uganda are more confused than I thought. I can assure you right now that so many people in the rural areas don’t even know Mao. At least, I know for sure that my grandfather and grandmother don’t know this guy. With Mao at the helm of Opposition in 2011, we may as well switch our attention to 2016 because Museveni will win that one hands down, without any necessary rigging.
The opposition already have a brand in Dr.Besigye and they are wasting it just because they have seen a new kid on the block. This is not the time for novices (to borrow from Gordon Brown’s description of David Cameroon last year). Mao cannot give M7 any sleepless nights. To be honest, if I was NRM, I would do anything to get either Mao or Mugisha Muntu as M7′s opponent in 2011 because they cannot keep the ‘big man’ on his toes.
Because Mao has been elected DP president by one faction of DP, he is gonna affect the fortunes of the IPC candidate in the north since some people in the north believe in him. With this, Museveni does not need to win the north to remain the president of Uganda come 2011 since Mao has already done the job for him.If DP-Mao fields candidates in Buganda in 2011, then the Buganda opposition vote will be divided between the IPC candidates. It will the same everywhere if Mao goes ahead to think in terms of ‘ONLY DP’.
However, If Mao is elected the IPC candidate I will go easy on him but I won’t have any hope in the 2011 elections either. I don’t know whether it’s just excitement or what but Uganda politics right now cannot be sorted out by the likes of Mao.
We should all strive to keep the’ one country, one people project’ in Uganda despite the challenges in the country at the moment. Buganda and north have made it clear that they want federalism and I see no reason why some politicians want to twist people’s minds toward secession. It would serve Mao best if he comes out now and denies secession claims before 2011 as Sarah Pallin did when she shot to the national stage in 2008.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
UNITED KINGDOM
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
Brushing teeth in Canada or USA has the same impact as in Uganda.So is Federalism
22 Nov 2009 Leave a Comment
Ugandans,
Federalism in Uganda is not bad or crap as some people have called it. It is one of the political principles in which so many nations have been organised and governed .The worlds super power; United States is among the federal nations of the world and it has been under that system for over 180 years. If probably Africa becomes one nation, it will also be governed based on the same principle of federalism as the united states of America, since the USA name reflects the various states united together to create a nation. In Uganda’s case, it will be about various regions united together to form a United Uganda.
When regions like Buganda,Toro,Bunyoro,Ankole and North become united in federalism, they will give some important powers to the central government and they will also keep some. In other words, this division of powers is what is called a federal arrangement. People will stop looking at Kampala for solutions to their problems under federalism. The power of the central government in Kampala will be reduced and this will probably reduce on presidents who use languages like: ‘when they see us quite, they think we are not military men’’. Most of the power is restored to the regions or federal states and cities other than just Kampala. The federal states will become laboratories of new ideas if Uganda becomes a federal. These new ideas will include: housing issues, education reform, helping the poor, way to sort out sewage and roads, improving on regional health, e.t.c
The federal system as Mr.Semujju pointed out in his latest article in the Observer, it brings the states closer to the people compared to the central or unitary system. The federal governments are also more responsive to the people. Federalism recognises the fact that what is good for one section of the nation, after all, may not be good for all sections. What is good for Buganda may not be good for Bunyoro or Ankole. It avoids a mixture of ‘katogo’ interests. By having a multitude of different districts, it allows regional laws to be kept in tune with regional mores and preferences.
The same arrangement also allows more small-scale administrative and policy experimentation, and over time the policies that are successful locally can become more widespread. A multitude of districts also offers more opportunities for participation and access (though, at the same time, it adds complexity). For instance, if rice growing in Kiboga or Kakiiri becomes a successful experiment or project, it can be spread to other federal states or districts with the help of the central government or regional or federal cooperation. If cattle rearing or livestock production has been a proved profitable business in federal Ankole, it can also be adopted by other areas with the help of the central government provided other factors like climate remain constant.
Federalism can also be one way of reducing on the current election fraud in the country. This is one of the reasons why I support both Uganda federalism and East African federation (EAF). With an EAF, we can have an EAC Electoral Commission to supervise elections throughout the member states. With Uganda federalism, several advantages are noticed. These are:
- Voter fraud investigations are labour intensive. So labour can easily be organised locally to get people to supervise or gather any evidence of rigging. The locals are going to be more interested in whoever is going to be their governor or prime minister and this motivates them to watch everything keenly.
- Voter fraud matters are always politically sensitive and very high profile endeavours at the local level. People will find it hard and embarrassing to forge documents because they are known locally by the voters.
- The successful prosecution of voter fraud cases demands that critical witnesses (including voters whose voting acts have been co-opted) be examined under oath before criminal charges based on their testimony are filed. Many states lack the broad grand jury process which exists in the federal system.
- The defendants in voter fraud cases are apt to be politicians – or agents of politicians – and it is often impossible for either the government or the defendant to obtain a fair trial in a case that is about politics and is tried to a locally-drawn jury. The federal court system provides for juries to be
drawn from broader geographic base, thus often avoiding this problem.
Let us support federalism in Uganda. It may be the best thing for the country. The Unitary has not worked.Why does some one think that brushing teeth in canada cannot serve the same purpose as in Uganda.If federalism has been succeful in Canada or USA, why can’t it be succeful in Uganda?
Abbey
STABILITY OF ‘FEDERO’ IN UGANDA
22 Nov 2009 11 Comments
in federalism in Uganda, international, Politics
Buganda parliament building
What I want to inform anti federalists in Uganda is that they should not be scared about the stability of Uganda and federalism in the country. Stability in most federal states is measured on the basis of three yardsticks: the constitutions, fiscal arrangements and party systems. Switzerland, which is considered as highly federal on all the three counts, is stable (that is, free of secessionism and violence).Uganda has got noises about secession from some Baganda but the government can easily put an end to this by granting full federalism to Buganda or the rest of the country. The reason why secessionist voices won’t go away is because there isn’t even a small bone to cling to at the moment. So let the Museveni government give Buganda ‘egumba’ or ‘bone’ to chew. Then, it will be the responsibility of the rest of Baganda to silence the secessionists. At the moment, the secessionists are more powerful than us and that’s how it gonna be till when the government gives throws us a bone.
Canada, which is believed to have an ambiguous constitution, quasi-federal fiscal relations and a federal party system, is partially stable since it faces a peaceful secessionist movement in Quebec. The Quebec secession movements have gone quite because the Canada government gave Quebec federalism. So what is Museveni government waiting for? Nevertheless, Canada is a federal society despite its constitution which is only quasi-federal.
India is also believed to be quasi-federal in all three respects (the constitutions, fiscal arrangements and party systems) and is therefore facing violent secessionist movements and thus is unstable. Uganda is still lucky that the secession movements are not violent and it’s in government’s interests to grant Buganda federo to keep them that way. The longer they delay it, the more chilli these guys will put in their sauce.
Let me also remind the antifederalists in Canada that Buganda, just like Quebec, are asking to secede because they just want to run their own things. It’s not out of economic neglect and backwardness, cultural discrimination or excessive centralization of power and lack of provincial autonomy. The Quebeckers may be one of the most culturally protected and virile, economically advanced and politically assertive minorities in the world. May be one of the reasons why some baganda aren’t happy can be found in the fact that some forces are trying hard to destroy Buganda culture and economic foundations and that’s why some people see secession as the only way to protect them. Can’t you see how coffee and Banana or matooke production has shifted from Buganda to other regions? Some people aren’t happy about these things and rightly blame the NRMO government.
All in all, Federalism is not bad at all. I even don’t know why some people even call it ‘crap’ as if it is a MacDonald burger and chips.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
United Kingdom
Enjoy this video about federo
Federalism in Canada compared to Uganda
30 Oct 2009 5 Comments
I can’t understand how some Ugandans can develop and enjoy themselves in a federal arrangement like Canada but they could not support it at home. Uganda is a country with different ethnicity and welcoming federalism will provide a viable framework for people who can live together even as they maintain their diversity. The need to reconcile diversity (ethnic, religious, linguistic or others), while maintaining national unity has prompted a growing number of states to adopt or take a serious look at a federal political system. Switzerland, Canada and India are all run on federalism. Spain adopted it in 1978 while Belgium welcomed it with open hands in 1993(when Museveni had been in power for almost 6 years).The EU is also moving towards some form of federalism. So is our East African Community. Zanzibar is already a ‘special status federal arrangement’ within East Africa Federation or Tanzania.
The idea of federalism involves two different trends and aims: a concentration of power at a level above that of the state in order to tackle big issues like competition, monetary equilibrium and international relations; and a greater autonomy at local levels (state, regions), enabling them to choose what suits them best in matters close to their communities’ lives. It also involves mechanisms of cooperation among the different levels, so that concentration at the higher level helps to empower the levels below.
Yes, the federalism in Uganda may not be at Canada or USA level but there but it is undeniable that federalism and evaluation have been good friends. For instance, the founding Fathers of USA federalism, the Federalists, created unity out of a multiplicity of small states. They recognised the importance of the sovereignty of their states, but they knew that they needed a ‘national’ government to preserve their liberty and democracy. Is this possible in Uganda? Yes. Do we need to support it as Ugandans? Yes
All these noises some Baganda are making about secession or Buganda getting a ‘special- status- arrangement- federo’ as it was in the 1962 constitution are all symptoms of a country yearning for federalism. It has happened in Canada where some Ugandans are living and that’s how Quebec came about. Asymmetrical federalism or ‘special status arrangement’ is one of the strategies adopted by federal systems to satisfy the demand of national groups for political and cultural autonomy. Canada was perhaps the first modern federation to take recourse to ‘special –status-arrangement-federo’ way back in 1867 before most of us were even born. This was intended to accommodate the aspirations of the French speaking majority in Quebec province. Is this possible in Uganda for the central government to give Buganda ‘special status’ federalism? Yes
There were a lot of Kyanjos, Beti Kamyas and Nambozes in Quebec in the 1960s who were asking for secession from Canada as some Baganda are now asking for Buganda secession. Two attempts by the Canada Government to meet these demands, through the Meech Lake Accord in 1987 and Charlottetown Accord in 1992, failed because of strong opposition from the English speaking majority in the rest of Canada. This was the background of the Quebec referendum of October 1995 on the question of separation from Canada. Like the earlier referendum of 1980, this was also defeated but by a margin of only 1 per cent. Since then, the issue of Quebec nationalism appears to have been put on hold.
Now, most of the Baganda are only asking for federalism or ‘special status’ arrangement federalism not secession. Why can’t the Uganda or Museveni government subject this to a referendum (if they are democratic as they claim) or just grant it to Buganda if the rest of the regions aren’t interested. As far as I know, the north,Busoga and Toro welcome federalism apart from Bunyoro which has embraced just regional tier arrangement as Mirima Ford enlightened recently. Both Uganda and Canada are from the common colonial past.
What happened in Canada can happen in Uganda. Both these countries are diverse and plural societies faced with demands from constituent parts for greater autonomy or self-determination. The only differences I see between Uganda and Canada but they are negligible are: Canada is a parliamentary and federal democracy while Uganda is not but that can be sorted out. Canada has got institutionalized judicial reviews on constitutional matters while Uganda’s judicial reviews are put in place when it is necessary. That’s why we keep calling the constitutional reviews commissions as sempebwa and Odoki.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Both federalism in Uganda and East Africa federation are good
26 Oct 2009 1 Comment
in federalism in Uganda, Politics
Dear people,
The government needs to do more to prepare us for the East African federation. One of the things they need to do is to sort out the acceptable system of governance in their own respective countries. Uganda should become a federal state before it even thinks of establishing itself as a power in the East Africa federation. I wrote about this issue some time two years ago in the Monitor newspaper and on UAH about why the EAC collapsed and how we can make the current East African federation work afterall Uganda,Kenya, Tanganyika and Zanzibar had developed common services and institutions since the 1920s.Matters such as posts and telecommunications, harbours, railways and currency were run jointly.
Nyerere was one of those that tried very hard to push this idea of East Africa federation without doing enough research on the subject and encouraging countries to sort out their houses first.He was even prepared to delay his country´s independence if the four countries of East Africa could come to independence at the same time and form a federation. But the whole thing failed lateron after independence during Amin’s reign because the leaders concerned never gave it a goood foundation.Mr..Kategeya should have people like Dan Nabudele on his team since the later already has enormous experience about this project. As a lawyer by profession,Nabudere was brought in by Nyerere to advise Zanzibar’s Karume on the draft submitted by Tanganyika.
Abbey
Mengo is more of a political than cultural institution
26 Oct 2009 Leave a Comment
in culture, federalism in Uganda, history, Politics
Dear readers,
Africa is all about culture and traditions. Politics in Africa are embedded in the cultural institutions. When religion was introduced on the scene in Africa, it also joined the equation of things. Therefore, anybody knocking on your door and starts telling you that you can separate culture and religion from politics, just send them away because they will be pulling a blanket over your eyes.
When UPC and Obote wanted to defeat DP and Kiwanuka in the 1960s, it is alleged that Obote organized several meetings with the representatives of the Kabaka. These representatives of the Kabaka clandestinely called themselves the KAKAMEGA CLUB OF BUGANDA and are the ones that had started up the KY party. S.K.Masembe Kabali who was the main founder of the KY party was himself not a member of the Kakamega club but he again had to consult with Mengo before he launched his party.
All political leaders in Uganda have made it where they are with Mengo’s approval and this is a historical fact:
- Besigye or Mao will never be a president of Uganda without Buganda’s support.For instance, when Mao Knelt for Kabaka Mutebi while the king was touring Masaka, he scored more political points than somebody who held several rallies in Buganda villages in Masaka
- Obote would never have become a prime minister in 1962 and later a president of Uganda without Buganda’s support.The KY-UPC alliance set the presidential foundation for him.
- KY would not have been a force in Uganda politics in 1961 without Mengo support. When in May 1961, Masembe, a retired prison officer and wealthy land landowner, was planning to launch his KY party, he had to visit mengo for approval and the Kabaka advised him to consult the friends in Kakamega club.
- DP’s Ben Kiwanuka would never have won the elections in March 1961 if it had not captured 20 of the 21 seats within the Buganda kingdom. Again Kiwanuka did not last long because he had no Mengo/Kabaka blessings.
- Museveni would never have become a president of Uganda without Buganda’s support. Actually, if Buganda pulls a full plug on him in 2011, then he will just have to lead us by force. That is the truths.All NRM cadres know this and are monitoring the situation very critically. The recent Museveni press briefings published in the Bukedde Newspaper about some updates on his dialogue with Kabaka was some form of a boost for NRM cadres. He threw them a life line to spread NRM evangilism in Buganda/
Buganda is not just a cultural kingdom despite those clauses in the 1995 constitution. Nobody should deceive you on this. Mengo remains a pure political center aleast for now. People don’t go there to learn how to speak Luganda; dance traditional dances such as NANKASA or AMAGUNJU; or whatever one thinks is cultural in one’s mind. When Kabaka makes Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba one of his ministers today, it means I’m going to Mengo to play Buganda politics because Mengo has always been political.
Similarly, FDC’s Dr. Besigye is tapping into mengo politics by sending his delegation there before he starts his Buganda tour. Besigye needs Mengo’s blessing by all means.If the people of Buganda give him their full blessings all the way till 2011, then he will be a few inches away from state house provided other factors remain constant.
Byebyo banange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Radios didn’t cause the genocide in Rwanda(part 1)
30 Sep 2009 Leave a Comment
in Entertainment, federalism in Uganda, international, Riots and genocide
Dear good people,
What happened to our brothers and sisters in Rwanda is regrettable and hope it never happens in Uganda but so many factors led to the genocide in Rwanda, and therefore it cannot be compared to CBS and the recent riots.It cannot be entirely the propaganda spread by the radio RTLM alone that caused the genocide in Rwanda.
That said, there is some evidence of conditional media effects and that Radio RTLM catalyzed a small number of individuals and incidents of violence, framed public choice, and reinforced messages that many individuals received during face-to-face mobilization.
On the other hand, i have received information that on the day of the riots in Uganda, CBS radio broadcasts were not racist or tribalist in nature or openly inflammatory as was the case during the Rwanda genocide. But if there is any presenter or moderator of CBS or Suubi FM who was calling Baganda/Ugandans to slaughter Banyankole, then he or she deserves punishment.
The problem with policy makers in Africa is generalizing debates on genocide.In policy circles, debates on how to contain the genocide often focus on jamming the radio which is not right. Genocides are caused mainly by long term problems in the country which leaders tend to ignore for a long time. Just closing a radio station does not remove these problems. Without sounding seditious, i think you all know why some Ugandans feel aggrieved by the Banyankole in Uganda right now. The leaders need to address the root causes of this and probably radio stations will have no reason to talk or discuss about it anymore.Closing a station just burries the issue in people’s minds and hearts.
Again, in comparison to Rwanda,Radio-Télévision Libredes Milles Collines (RTLM), which began broadcasting in July 1993, was owned and controlled by Hutu hard-liners within the ruling regime who ultimately organized the genocidal violence . Before the genocide,RTLM broadcast a steady digest of belligerent, nationalist, antirebel, and often openly inflammatory statements. During the genocide, RTLM announcers encouraged listeners to fight, and in some cases, the announcers broadcast names of individuals and places, which were subsequently attacked by citizen bands.
CBS on the other hand is a radio which is privately owned and nobody in the ruling party(NRMO) has got a stake in it. It is easy to control and close if the government wants to.It only encouraged people to go and attend the Kayunga function in big numbers and i see nothing wrong with this. This was all politics, my friend.
During and before the genocide in Rwanda,Rwandans could listen to the more state-owned station, Radio Rwanda. The government of Rwanda was mainly responsible for the genocide as they promoted the killing of the Tutsis. If the govt had no stake in it, then this genocide would not have taken place. So how can a genocide take place in Uganda if the state does not want it to take place.They have got all the mechanism to stop it from happening. So CBS should be the least problem for anybody in Uganda. It’s just CBS gets more audience than the state owned radio, Radio Uganda, and probably the government does not like it.
Let us also not forget that the Tutsi-led rebels, who were fighting the government in a war that began in 1990, operated a station called Radio Muhabur.I’m yet to find out whether their radio also promoted genocide but all indications are that a genocide is mainly caused by the government in power as was the case in Rwanda. Radio stations have got a responsibility to report what’s happening during a genocide or riots and probably this is what CBS, was doing on ,9th,10th and 11th September 2009.
Nze bwendaba
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
FEDERALISM AND NRMO FASCISM
28 Sep 2009 1 Comment
in federalism in Uganda, kingdoms, Politics
Dear Ugandans,
I don’t know whether Besigye is right that Kabaka can have political power or not. I’m still thinking about it. All I know is that president Museveni has now got unbridled political power in Uganda such that nobody can stop him from doing anything he wants and that is why we need to all struggle to get federalism in the country. I feel let down by our some of our brothers in Bunyoro who claim that they want the regional tier, a system or a deal which was negotiated between former Katikilo of Buganda, Mulyanyamuri Semogerere, and the central government, without Bunyoro’s input. The people who negotiated this thing don’t want it and that would have been enough for Bunyoro to back off.
What is federalism?
Federalism is a mode of political organization that unites independent states within a larger political framework while still allowing each state to maintain its own political integrity (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1994, vol. 4, p. 712). While the distribution of power between states and the federal authority will vary from system to system, all federal systems preserve the ability of state governments to decide matters of local importance without interference from the federal superstructure.
In the American system, for example, the states are considered to be the source of political power; it is the states that call the federal government into existence, and it is the states that have the right to legislate on matters of local concern. I think this is what Besigye meant when he said that Buganda will determine its own constitutional rule under a federal arrangement.
So, If we are to have federo in Uganda as supported by Besigye and asked by Mengo, the federal government headed by Museveni or any president will enjoy delegated power, i.e., power that the states hand over to the federal government for the purpose of dealing with issues of national scope. This can only be a good thing because it will stop any president from standing in a national parliament and make announcements like ‘any civilian found attacking another civilian or security operative will be short’’ or ‘ I don’t kneel for fellow human beings’.
Media in Uganda
The media is all living in fear because they fear running anything against NRM or the president, and I have no doubt they would shut any radio or newspaper down in a heartbeat in the pretext of protecting “national security” – the age old catchall bullshit excuse for doing whatever they damn please.
Fascism in NRMO
As history frighteningly and repeatedly demonstrates, unchecked government power invariably leads to fascism and totalitarianism – a fact realized by millions of Germans, Russians, and Chinese in the 20th century. In Uganda, we had fascist parties like UPC but we never learnt from it because all signs are that NRMO has overnight turned into a UPC plus.
One of the common characteristics of fascist movements is totalitarian ambitions and this is where NRMO has headed very fast without any breakers on the paddle. For instance, although Hitler had not revealed the full extent of his totalitarian aims before he came to power, as Führer (“Leader”) of the Third Reich, he attempted not only to control all political power but also to dominate many institutions. Similarly, we have been telling Ugandans that president Museveni is dominating institutions in the country and something needs to be done. Now look where we are at the moment. The signs were there for everybody to see but we ignored them.
Again, before they came to power, Hitler and Mussolini, despite their dislike of democracy, were willing to engage in electoral politics and give the appearance of submitting to democratic procedures. When Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933, he abandoned his military uniform for a civilian suit and bowed profusely to President Paul von Hindenburg in public ceremonies. In 1923 Mussolini proposed an electoral reform, known as the Acerbo Law, which gave two-thirds of the seats in Parliament to the party that received the largest number of votes. Although Mussolini insisted that he wanted to save Parliament rather than undermine it, the Acerbo Law enabled the Fascists to take control of Parliament the following year and impose a dictatorship.
This is no different from the time when Museveni came to power and we all welcomed him with open hands. He started the LC system in Uganda and he also started as a democrat, at least on the face of things. Probably, this is how most of us were duped into singing this movement fallacy. Baganda supported and loved Museveni because they believed that he was gonna restore our ‘ebyafe’. Instead, he has played games with them for 23 years. Yet the longer he takes to resolve this political problem, the more his ratings will slip — diminishing his power to achieve anything.
Now we are in state where by to criticize Museveni’s pernicious power is the most egregious societal taboo in Uganda. Actually, I have turned this statement into my email signature for a while. One risks being beaten up, tortured, imprisoned or even probably killed just to be anti-Museveni and I don’t think this is right.
Byebyo banange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
FDC policies are different from NRMO
04 Sep 2009 4 Comments
in FDC, federalism in Uganda, kingdoms, Politics
Besigye shaking hands with Joyce sebugwawo in 2006
Ugandans,
I’m happy that some of you have put in the bin the myth that FDC is the same as NRM based on membership. So let’s move on to the next level some people have raised which is about ‘same policies’ between them. I wish to say that this is also a very wrong assumption and I hinted on it in my last paragraph in the link : http://semuwemba.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/fdc-is-different-from-nrm/.
The fact still remains that FDC policies are different from NRM. For instance, the FDC election manifesto 2006 was talking about “Delivering Social Security for All” and they promised “strategies to ensure sustainable incomes for senior citizens …who have no pension cover…..They will have a monthly stipend provided by the state”. This wasn’t in the NRMO manifesto but instead they(NRMO) promised ‘prosperity for all’ or ‘ Bonna Baggagawale’ which Dr. Besigye was criticising recently while in Busoga.
I must also mention that NRM has been copying FDC and Besigye’s policies since 2001 when Besigye stood as an independent. They copied the ‘delivering the social security for all’ (FDC, 2006) and ‘getting rid of graduation tax’ (Besigye, 2001) policies. If NRMO manifesto or policies was an essay, they could easily have been accused of plagiarism because they don’t reference the sources where they get their policies from.
Mr. Augustine Ruzindana also recently wrote something interesting which got pro-federalists like me smiling. I think he was responding to some UAH members who asked for FDC’s proposed draft on federalism. In his article on September 4, 2009, he wrote:’….. Finally, in my last article the allusion to the FDC position on federalism has resulted in demands for documentation. After explaining that in a federal system each state/region/province would have a constitution providing for qualifications for leadership I concluded as follows: “The FDC has worked out an arrangement the various regions would have such constitutions”. This was already stated in the 2006 FDC election manifesto, page 9, thus: “The FDC will uphold the aspirations of Uganda in respect of a Federal System of governance as contained in the Justice Odoki and Prof Sempebwa Constitutional Reports. We…”.
“Within the first year of the FDC Government, we will institute a genuine dialogue for the establishment of a Federal System of Governance”. Anyway, I still think Mr. Ruzindana should avail us with a detailed document about federalism to put our minds at rest.
The NRM manifesto of 2006 was talking about issues such as: professionalising the army and police force, women emancipation, UPE and USE, industrialisation of Uganda……. and more ‘paper lies’. UPE and USE are functional but not effective. They still need more planning and improvement provided donors don’t pull out of the deal.
Having said this, I don’t see any thing wrong with parties having some similarity in policies. For instance, I would love FDC to come up with a better planned UPE or USE program than that of NRMO. Policies are designed using empirical data and opinions among the Uganda population. Then after a policy has been implemented by the party in power, the people responsible look at the results to determine whether the policies were efficacious. It is not easy to tell whether the results were CAUSED by the policy, but there is a STRONG correlation that a bad policy will always produce bad results. With UPE, I think the policy itself is ok, its just that it was either not well planned or wrongly implemented. Another problem is that most of Museveni’s policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results.
Nze bwendaba
Abbey
Note:
Besigye on Ngoma Radio on14/02/2010:
1.Besigye clarified that he never voted against the restoration of the Buganda kingdom while in parliament. He challenged Mrs.Njuba who made those allegations to produce evidence from the Hansard archives. He said that he supported this sissue when the Army High Command met to debate the restoration of kingdoms.
2. Dr.Besigywe also clarified that the 9000 square miles( mailo Akenda) rightly belongs to Buganda and it should be restored where it belongs
3.He also clarified that Dr.Ssemogerere never handed him the Kayiira report after the death of Kayiira. There was nothing concealed between him and Dr.Ssemogerere after the death of Kayiira
Museveni Bunyoro proposals are comparable to Jim Crow Laws in USA
05 Aug 2009 1 Comment
in federalism in Uganda, Politics
Readers,
I beg to differ from President Museveni on the issue of Banyoro-Bafuluki. What Museveni has proposed in Bunyoro will open a can of worms he will not be able to put back in the tins. Ethnic federalism don’t accomplish the goal of unity in diversity anywhere in the world. It only empowers tribalists to disseminate messages of hate to others and this is unacceptable in a semi-democracy like Uganda. I would much rather prefer to have equal rights for all Ugandans regardless of ethnicity.
What president Museveni has proposed in his letter is unconstitutional, unequal and unjust to discriminate an individual in politics based on the ethnicity. Let everybody be given a chance and the majority will sort out the end product.
President Museveni assumes, by going with his proposals, that all folks who share the same ethnicity should agree on everything. That comes from a mindset in which all of the Banyoro people he knows think alike, which is a scary prospect, to say the least. Such fallacy is that all races and ethnicities are at the same level.People who relate every question to ethnicity just assume that their unreconstructed obsessions are Uganda’s and that the country would find them riveting. Instead the country is yawning.They are playing dangerous politics and they should be stopped.
The point I’m trying to make here is that ethnicity -based law will be used to destroy what the titular citizenry of the Uganda is trying to build here. Such a law,if approved, will hold back individuals of talent for too long. If the Banyoro in Bunyoro have got talent, they’ve nothing to fear of other tribes in their regions. Let them copy the accommodative ways of the Buganda region where all tribes are living side by side with Baganda peacefully.
What Museveni proposed in his letter is comparable to the Jim Crow laws in the old USA which were segregating the blacks, where instead of the racist claiming that some races were lesser races and could thus have their rights reduced, they now claim that because other races worked hard to get ahead, they now should be discriminated against because their ancestors worked to get ahead. Banyoro should know that discrimination is discrimination no matter how one justifies it !
The one thing we can always count on is that young people like myself will rebel against any establishment that brings such draconian laws. And in a 30 years time in Uganda liberalism and multiculturalism will be firmly established as the establishment.
Most of Museveni’s proposals can easily sail through parliament and become law because we have got a weak opposition at the moment.This country needs some form of a two-party system in a multi party environment if possible. We don’t want one party dominating politics to any great degree as is the case today in the country. We need a formidable opposition. Right now, the NRM Party is itself letting the tribalists and Museveni’s ethnic ideas drag it into oblivion as some members of the opposition are cheering and agreeing with the president as I have read somewhere.
It is indeed my hope that in the next 50 years we will not have to give preferential treatment to anyone based on ethnicity or religion.Federalism can be achieved regardless of ethicity, if all Ugandans can see the beauty of it.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Secrets Should be Protected at any level
05 Feb 2009 Leave a Comment
in FDC, federalism in Uganda, kingdoms, Politics
Taken the day Besigye came back from exile in S.Africa
Dear Ugandans,
As i watched sky sports news some time after work, my mind straightway went to the current saga going on between Beti Kamya and his party,FDC when I saw the news that Gallas William, has lost his Arsenal captaincy and. As a Chelsea supporter, I was so disturbed when Gallas crossed to Arsenal from Chelsea but I had heard of certain aspects of his bad behaviour with the boys in the dressing room that made me accept this loss. What William Gallas did two day ago: revealing secrets of the dressing room- can be compared to what Beti Kamya is doing to FDC at the moment. What I don’t understand is why FDC cannot strip Kamya of his position in FDC just like Arsernal Manager, Wenger, has stripped Gallas of the captaincy of the team. FDC need to send a message out loud and clear that those who reveal party secrets will not be awarded as “patriotic” whistleblowers as it seems to be the case with Beti Kamya at the moment. In fact, a person who has threatened to put the party secrets in the open may be more dangerous than the one who has revealed them and as such Beti should be divorced from FDC as soon as possible. What Wenger has done is to show Gallas and others that no player is bigger than the club.
As they say the person most likely to sell party secrets to the enemy is living in the ‘inner’ House of the party. I think FDC or any party should nail anyone who sell them out, regardless of what they have done for the party in the past.This sets a good displinary foundation for the party in the long term.People must train themselves to keep secrets at any level whether personal, militarily, national, political party or anything else. For instance, when the USA was planning the invasion of France in 1944, their only hope of making it work was hiding the details of the operation. It was going to be a bloody operation at best. The Americans kept details of the technology used in the Apollo program secret because they wanted to make sure they had better rockets than the Soviet Union. Secrecy played a major role during this operation and that’s how it should be at any level.
What FDC is doing by handling Beti Kamya with Kids gloves is very dangerous. There are only doing it with a hope of maintaining future good relations with Beti Kamya but it always backfires. An example is when an investigation of nuclear secrets stolen by China from a U.S. laboratory was repeatedly slowed and played down by the federal government in favour of keeping good relations between the countries. Some of the newspapers in USA were quoted as saying that China’s espionage at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in the mid-1980s helped it develop the technology to miniaturize nuclear bombs, a key step toward fielding a modern nuclear arsenal. Let us also remember that the Chinese got nuclear secrets in the 1980s when Clinton was governor and Reagan was President, an issue that brought questions to be raised during Reagan and Clinton’s presidency. I would expect FDC leaders to move swiftly to bring this issue to an end because it is damaging the party and Dr.Besigye more than necessary. The FDC needs to tell all the members of the ‘inner circle’ that party secrets will never be invoked to the public in case of any fallout with any party.
We must teach Ugandans the value of keeping secrets at any level. Diplomats or civil servants have to walk into their offices with this in their minds. We don’t want to end up like that case in 2004 when it was confirmed that a senior Israeli diplomat in Washington met several times with a Pentagon analyst being investigated by the FBI on suspicion he passed classified information on Iran to Israel. Yes, countries share secrets among themselves but it should be sanctioned by a bigger authority not every tom and dick. That’s why this Pentagon analyst was being investigated in the first place despite the cooperation between Israel and USA.
Much as I would love more Buganda representation in FDC because I’m a Muganda, I would request Honourable Beti Kamya to stop slandering or libelling the party like she is doing now. As the Baganda say:’akiivamu yakiiyita ekyato’’ meaning when ‘people call boats ugly after using them’ which is not right. Beti should at least use words like:’ I think FDC did this and that’, if she just wants to play politics, because of course, when you say “I think” something is true, it’s not slander OR libel. We can all fight for Buganda interests using better methods than slandering or libelling a political organisation that is as young as FDC. It’s not fair.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
UK
BETI IS A POLITICIAN FIGHTING FOR HERSELF NOT BUGANDA
05 Feb 2009 Leave a Comment
in FDC, federalism in Uganda, Politics
I would like to make one thing clear: I have got nothing personal against Beti Kamya. If I’m to look into my heart and not brain, I think I admire Beti’s passion and a bit of honesty when she is writing or saying things. I used to spend hours every day with my grandfather listening to political programmes on FM stations from 8pm onwards, and I can confirm that Honourable Beti is one of those people I enjoyed listening to.
Having said the above, my brain tells me that what Kamya is doing now is good and bad. Good in the sense that it generates debate in the whole country about tribalism. This can be good if it can makes leaders look into their hearts and dispose off tribalism in the state administration but the fact is that it serves no purpose other than to stir up tribalism in the country. It is bad because tribalism tends to promote instability. It makes democracy very unstable. In all honesty, the bad outweighs the good side of it.
Besigye addressing a crowd in 2006
I don’t look at Kamya as some one genuinely fighting for Buganda’s interests. I look at Beti as a politician who can switch sides depending on her personal political benefits. History has shown that Fighting for the clan (family) has always been a path to power. Some politicians use it when they are on the ropes to make a point in political circles. It makes some one to stop doing the right thing and only do what is necessary for their political survival.
I agree that Uganda is not like Japan where there is a monoculture society. So tribalism is a reality in the country. There is a lot of tension between Banyankole and other tribes basically because president Museveni has treated his tribes mate with soft gloves most of the time. There is a lot of unfair tension between Baganda and other tribes because of the history of Uganda.
If one looks closely, I think one will find that history offers nationalism as the only consistently effective alternative to tribalism. We can all overcome tribalism as a country in the long run but the problem is that all our leaders are not ready for the experiment of nationalism. Obote was not ready for it as evidenced by the way he stuffed the Uganda Army in the 1960s with his tribes mate, but you will find people calling Obote a Ugandan nationalist. Museveni is not yet ready to be a leader of a national country and that’s why people are rightly pointing out at tribal flaws in his administration. While I was in Kampala you could hear statements like: ‘ebisajja bitubye sente nezibitwala eli ewabwe’ meaning ‘these men have stolen all the money and taken it to their regions’ or ‘bwoba toyina nyindo mpanvu tofuna mulimu Uganda’ meaning ‘if you don’t have a long nose, you don’t get a job in Uganda’. So what is the truth in all these statements?
The truth is that tribalistic instincts inform all too much of human behaviour throughout the ages, and an effective nationalism can seek to transcend those instincts, bringing people together, as it has traditionally done in the United States. With the current unfashionable nationalism of the Obotes and Musevenis, there is no way one is going to stop tribalism in Uganda. Some wise politicians like Beti Kamya have realised or foresighted this situation and therefore have hijacked it to further their own interests. How can one say that there are publicly fighting for Buganda but want to be national chairperson of FDC? Does it make sense to any body? The FDC national chairman in supposed to represent all tribes in Uganda. If you want to fight for Buganda’s interests at political party level or national level, you need to go about it in a wiser way than opening your mouth carelessly. Can any body see Beti achieving anything for Buganda at national level if she keeps opening her mouth like that? We have got to be honest about situations if we are to achieve even an inch of what we claim to fight for.
We were all lumped together by Europeans inside artificial national borders and we have got to find a way to make it work like some people have done. Indonesia has got 13,700 scattered islands comprising more than 360 distinct tribes and ethnic groups and a mix of languages and religions but they are more developed than Uganda with just 52 tribes. The following could be good starting points:
- Due to continuing regional differences, let us make Uganda a federal nation. Mengo and the north are yawning for federalism and I see no reason why they can’t have it. Bunyoro and Mirima are happy to refuse federalism and settle with regional tier because of their morbid jealousy for Buganda.
- Luganda can become our national language because of the various reasons given by several people.
- English can be strengthened as our official language to help with communication between federal states of Uganda and East Africa. You can get anything in East Africa and the world when you know how to speak English. We should not allow the shadow of Swahilli to hang over us.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
United Kingdom
Africa, Buganda and East African federalism is all good
05 Feb 2009 2 Comments
in federalism in Uganda, Politics
We should support any form of federalism on the continent. We should support the federalism within Uganda ( Buganda, bunyoro, busoga and northern federalism). We should also support the East African federalism and the General Africa federalism that will eventually bring about the United States of Africa.
Let us all agree that African borders that separate different countries are very artificial and we have suffered from the process of partition for a long time. Buganda federalism will unite a lot of people within Buganda. Federalism will be the catalyst that will ultimately unite us as Africans. Federalism will be the catalyst that will ultimately reduce the powers of different African leaders within their respective states and Africa in General. Most importantly, federalism will help to reduce on the tensions brought about by the artificial borders created by colonialists. The artificial boundaries in Africa have magnified the like hood of international and domestic conflicts which has weakened the stability of various governments on the continent.
With African federalism, the Chewa and Nagoni will be able to connect freely with their brothers and sisters in Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi without any ‘real’ border restrictions. The Kakwa in Northern Uganda and south Sudan will also have a similar feeling.
African federalism can also be a good thing economically for the 15 African land locked countries including our Uganda. Trade will take place across the continent without a lot of restictions involved. People can move about with one passport across borders and that can only be a good thing.
It will also reduce on shouts for secession among respective states if those demanding for federalism are given their federo. Buganda wants federalism and I see not good reason yet why it cannot have it. The more the government hold out a stubborn position, the more the secessionist will keep making the noise. Secession in Africa is not news and it is one of the ways people take when seeking self determination. For instance, the Somali of Ethiopia’s Oragen region want to secede. The Eritrians have already seceded from Ethipia. The Ewe of Ghana also want to secede just like the non-Arabs in South Sudan.
I don’t trust brother Gadaffi because he is a dubious politician and I don’t know his personal intentions of pushing for a United States of Africa, but I do support the idea in principle. Actually, I do support any kind of federalism on the cointinent because that is the future of Africa.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Museveni is wrong on traditional leaders
28 Dec 2008 Leave a Comment
in Buganda, East Africa, federalism in Uganda, history, kingdoms
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 though Kagame has not allowed it up to now, 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. Political leaders in Somalia are agents of foreign forces. In Nigeria, ethnic organisations were 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 as he does not want to lose direct control of regions. He is 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. With the current economic crisis in the country, the president may find federalism handy as people will stop looking at the central government as the source of bread and butter.
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 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 is waiting for .
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Stability of federalism in Uganda
28 Dec 2008 Leave a Comment
in federalism in Uganda, kingdoms
What I want to inform Ugandans is that they should not be scared about the stability of Uganda and federalism in the country. Stability in most federal states is measured on the basis of three yardsticks: the constitutions, fiscal arrangements and party systems. Switzerland, which is considered as highly federal on all the three counts, is stable (that is, free of secessionism and violence).Uganda has got noises about secession from some Baganda but the government can easily put an end to this by granting full federalism to Buganda or the rest of the country. The reason why secessionist voices won’t go away is because there isn’t even a small bone to cling to at the moment. So let the Museveni government give Buganda ‘egumba’ or ‘bone’ to chew. Then, it will be the responsibility of the rest of Baganda to silence the secessionists. At the moment, the secessionists are more powerful than us and that’s how it gonna be till when the government gives us a bone.
Canada, which is believed to have an ambiguous constitution, quasi-federal fiscal relations and a federal party system, is partially stable since it faces a peaceful secessionist movement in Quebec. The Quebec secession movements have gone quite because the Canada government gave Quebec federalism. So what is Museveni government waiting for? Nevertheless, Canada is a federal society despite its constitution which is only quasi-federal.
India is also believed to be quasi-federal in all three respects (the constitutions, fiscal arrangements and party systems) and is therefore facing violent secessionist movements and thus is unstable. Uganda is still lucky that the secession movements are not violent and it’s in government’s interests to grant Buganda federo to keep them that way. The longer they delay it, the more chilli these guys will put in their sauce.
Let me also remind anti-federalists that Buganda just like Quebec are asking to secede because they just want to run their own things. It’s not out of economic neglect and backwardness, cultural discrimination or excessive centralization of power and lack of provincial autonomy. The Quebeckers may be one of the most culturally protected and virile, economically advanced and politically assertive minorities in the world. May be one of the reasons why some baganda aren’t happy can be found in the fact that some forces are trying hard to destroy Buganda culture and economic foundations and that’s why some people see secession as the only way to protect them.
All in all, Federalism is not bad at all. I even don’t know why some people call it ‘crap’ as if it is a MacDonald burger and chips.
How Canada is a Quasi federal government?
28 Dec 2008 Leave a Comment
in federalism in Uganda, kingdoms
1. Quebec is not a poor region as some people think. It has the second largest GDP of the Canadian provinces. Its aerospace industry is ranked sixth in the world for its production value. Although it is not a country, the province of Québec has an economy whose scope compares with that of Portugal. Québec’s economy therefore ranks 43rd in the world according to their website.
2. Buganda as a quasi government has never asked to secede officially and I never indicated anywhere in my message that it’s the case. What I indicated was that there are voices in Buganda asking for secession as it was the case in Quebec in the 1960s.By the way secession is a normal thing and there are good reasons why people go for it. It has happened in some other parts of the world. For instance,Norway and Sweden in 1905,UK and Ireland in 1922,Iceland and Denmark in 1918.However, I cant see a Buganda and Uganda going separate ways in 2008-2011.
3. The central government in most cases accords autonomy to the region in the first place if it is assured that secession is unlikely. If a right to secede is justified as remedy for oppressive and discriminatory practices towards a region, then the same objective can be achieved using other means such as: federalisms, checks and balances, entrenchments of civil rights and liberties, and judicial review. Therefore, giving federalism to a region like Quebec kind of calms down the voices calling for secession. The same thing can happen if Buganda is granted federalism. This is what I meant with Quebec secession movements going quite because Quebec was granted federalism.
4. Canada is not a full federation if you try to internalise it.Yes, you are right to say that Canada is a full federal but only in practice but it has a Quasi-federal constitution. Quasi federal means the federal government is the dominant partner. Canada was quasi federal between 1867 and 1896 under Macdonald’s leadership. Most of the decisions were made by Otawa not provinces. Then Canada became a classical federalism between 1896 and 1914 –meaning the power became equal between Otawa and provinces. Then it became an emergency federalism between 1914 and 1960-meaning the balance of power swung back towards the federal government. Then it became a cooperative federalism between 1960 to present –meaning the provinces now have much power to raise revenues and exercise power over their respective jurisdictions. It also means that the two levels must constantly bargain and coordinate their actions. So this cooperative federalism is run on a quasi federal constitution which makes it a bit tricky for analysts to call Canada a full federal like USA.
In the Canada Constitution there are distinct deviations from Federal principles:
(a) In the division of powers, the residuary powers are vested in the Centre and not in the Units as in USA or in Australia.
(b) The Centre can legislate over the State subjects in an emergency.
(c) In Canada, the Dominion Parliament can veto provincial legislation.
(d) Provincial Governors and Judges are appointed by the Dominion Government. These features are distinct departures from Federal principles.
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
