STRAGGLE FOR LEARSHIP POWER IN UGANDA Why Did People Create Competitive Politics? From time immemorial leadership powers were in the hands of cultural leaders who ruled their nations according to behaviours and attitudes that are based on being loyal to their tribes whereby, power succession and tribal expansion depend on lineage and such behaviors constitute citizens’ culture. Therefore, tribal members are descendants. During colonialism, when Uganda was a protectorate such nations were nationalities that were comprised of different tribes which settled very long time ago or are indigenous because the kingdoms or chiefdoms expanded and hence they are citizens in the nationalities. When leadership power was still in Mengo, clan leaders constituted the top national executive and they are all descendants. Though none-descendant citizens would be appointed to different posts, they would be serving their government where behaviours and attitudes that are based on being loyal to the tribe of the leader was the constitution. The dictionary defines tribalism as behaviours and attitudes that are based on being loyal to a tribe. “In Luganda okukulembeza ennono oba abantu ab’ennono ezobuzaliranwa”, since such behaviours and attitudes based on being loyal to a tribe constitute citizen’s culture, then cultural leaders ruled their nations by culture of their own tribes and because of heredity, and with absolute powers their governments are undemocratic. “obuyinza bukulembeza ennono oba abakulembeze abennono oba abantu ab’ennono ezobuzaliranwa”. People decided to take leadership powers from one lineage and give it to any capable citizens through competition and also have powers over their leaders. Competitive politics was created to take leadership powers from cultural leaders to their citizens who as voters retain it and give it to the leaders they elect. Voters are urged to stop tribalism in competitive politics “obutakulembeza nnono oba abakulembeze abennono oba abantu eb’ennono ezobuzaliranwa mubyobufuzi”, but elect leaders on merit and practicing of culture continues. Competitive politics provides democracy which gives people their human rights most of which are against African cultures because they are tribal. So like religions, people practice culture at their own will because culture is no longer a constitution. Thus, if descendants do not practice culture or none descendants practice their own culture, they are not violating the constitution. Therefore, cultural leadership and political leadership powers are independent, so people move from one to another but not have both in the same unit at the same time. The prime minister (Kabaka ow’ebweru) becomes the elected leader of the kingdom and the king or queen becomes a constitutional monarch. Though the government is considered as the king’s or queen’s government, the blame on the government goes to the elected leader. Such is the legitimate head of a kingdom where citizens moved to political leadership power and can demand power sharing (Federalism) if the citizens have a central government. The act of electing prime minister and making governing laws by the citizens creates democracy in the government of the kingdom and takes leadership powers back to the king or queen as a constitutional monarch though more less ceremonial, yet they continue to unite their people in the whole kingdom. Failure to do that,(which is caused by descendants) monarchism which holds all the citizens together is dropped and the king or queen becomes the cultural leader responsible for promoting culture of their tribe and this splits the kingdom into tribes as in Uganda today. If such a cultural leader appoints a government, it is so tribal that it induces other indigenous tribes to create their own separate cultural institutions and governments. When the central government recognizes the new institutions, the descendants of the tribe of the old cultural institution put the blame to the head of the central government for creating other institutions in the kingdom which is wrong. Though there are many tribes in Uganda, politically Uganda is made of kingdoms and communities which are also democratic but not tribes. The grandparents of most Baganda in Ankole settled there as far back as 1900. Some of them served in Omugabe’s government. They are now citizens who qualify to serve any political post in Ankole government though they do not accept to be assimilated. The Banyankole who are still interested in lineage may not welcome that. In Buganda, Baganda tend to assimilate citizens who are not descendants, but will later drop the idea and ask them to prove their lineage as Baganda, “Osobola okutambula ng’omuganda?” This is in Uganda and Africa at large. Thus Africans are still interested in living as tribes. After organizing democratic governance at home which was not cheap as well, whereby some cultural leaders’ offices were closed down and others left open, the colonizing nations set off to colonise and their aim was to build nations under democratic governance. To gain support, that was kept a secret until they were going back home. In Uganda monarchies made agreements with colonialists who were foreigners though their administration was considered as central government. In principle, nations belong to the citizens and that is why the monarchies signed the agreements as trustees or on behalf of the citizens. It is the leadership power that gives monarchies absolute powers whereby whatever is in the kingdom belongs to the king. If citizens want such leadership powers, they should not join politics. Thus the Baganda did not fore-see the objectives of the colonialists before helping them to defeat other strong kingdoms who were resisting colonialism in order to maintain their traditional sovereignty, which Buganda is fighting for now, when the kingdom is already part of a democratic nation. Baganda are now campaigning for their language to become Uganda national language which is democratically improper. Thus, whatever affects Mengo comes from the sweat of the Baganda themselves. They are behaviours and attitudes based on being loyal to the tribe of the king that whoever is in a kingdom is under the king and since cultural leadership power was still in practice, agreements were made on that basis. This lead Uganda to being a protectorate whereby in Buganda there was indirect rule, in other kingdoms, their bahaviours and attitudes were reduced to semi indirect rule. Like anywhere else since cultural leaders in chiefdoms don’t hold leadership power that rules or enforces behaviours and attitudes based on being loyal to their tribes to non descendants, there was direct rule. That means that whatever colonialists wanted to do for Baganda, they got permission from Mengo and so they were under the Kabaka. Also Baganda were free to take their culture outside their kingdom. Unfortunately, some Ugandans think that was the perfect federal rule (Federo eyekimemmette). In politics, it is direct rule and the leader gets permission from the ruled. Thus, during colonialism, apart from Buganda, other nationalities and communities were getting used to accommodating democratic tendencies and Baganda were left to change themselves by the future change of the leadership power. Because Uganda was a protectorate, it did not mean that we would separate to different independent nations which the colonialists found here but to unite into a nation when they were going back. When nationalities and communities unite and form a nation, they become parts of that nation and their central government becomes the top national leadership power institution of the whole nation. Since the leader of this nation is elected, the citizens register as voters and leadership power is transferred from cultural leaders to the voters which they use to elect leaders and political leadership starts in the whole nation. You cannot have democracy in the nation while there is no democracy in the constituents that constitute the nation. So it is a mistake for people to refer their own political government to the agreement they made with the foreigners when the leadership power was still cultural power. If voters who are descendants in the kingdoms do not stop their behaviours and attitudes that are based on being loyal to their tribes in competitive politics, then they are denying none descendants the right to their human rights. Again, they are restricting themselves from the top national leadership power office since they are not supposed to hold a leadership power office which is above that of their cultural leader. This is the major problem to democracy in Uganda and is concentrated in Buganda. It is not common in other African nations because during colonialism, they were colonies and not protectorates like Uganda. But democracy is the same whether it was a colony, a protectorate or the colonizing nation. Tribalism is said to be a problem to politics in Africa, because due to competitive politics in practice, when people were finalizing laws and principles governing the institutions, politics and tribalism were conceptualized and contextualized to voters and the leaders they elect, who are leadership power holders and culture was conceptualized and contextualized to kings or queens who were leadership power holders before the creation of democratic institution. If leadership power holders in a democratic institution practice tribalism, then they are segregating those who are not of their tribes, “ababeera n’obuyiinza obweby’obufuzi bwebakulembeza ennono oba abakulembeze bennono oba abantu ab’ennono ezobuzaliranwa, baba basosola abatari bannono zaabwe”. For example, if voters elect a leader not on merit but because they are of the same tribe and if the elected leader favours people of his tribe that is tribalism which is a problem to politics. Because Africans are still interested in living as tribes, when they united into nations, and it was when they joined politics, voters and the elected leaders tend to consider people of their own tribes in politics and hence the above mentioned example is the common known tribalism. And in Uganda where indirect rule was considered as federal rule, voters maintain that the behaviours and attitudes based on being loyal to their tribe should continue to serve as a constitution and their cultural leaders to continue holding leadership powers under cover of federal rule. Such activities activate tribalism. “okulembeza ennono oba omukulembeze w’ennono mubyobufuzi” For instance, like other voters, Baganda descendants are power holders, democracy gives them the right to take their cultural identity outside Buganda, but if they insist that whoever is in Buganda becomes a Muganda and Kabaka’s people and so must practice Ganda culture, that is tribalism. While campaigning, the candidate asked the voters (of his tribe) about the totem of his opponent who was not of their tribe “Oyo yedira ki?” that was tribalism in politics. In order to gain support, another candidate promised the voters that when their cultural leader orders then no one answers “Kabaka bwaboggola, teri adamu” that was tribalism in politics, “Okukulembeza omukulembeze w’enono mubyobufuzi” which is a problem to politics. The election of the first leader of Uganda was very fair. He never practiced tribalism, he never over stayed in power and his government was not corrupt But when his leadership power office proved to be above that of the cultural leaders (though he never denounced his cultural respect to his cultural leader) he quickly lost support where voters never stopped tribalism in politics. Ever since they elect leaders not on merit but consider candidates who promise to be obedient to their monarch. Usually the promising candidates have not been of their tribe and they think they are not practicing tribalism in politics. Politics urges political candidates never promise what they will not deliver and so trustworthy candidates will never be their choice. Due to high population and location of such voters this problem is influencing politics in Uganda. It was not Ben Kiwanuka who invited the Kabaka but democratically the office of the leader of Uganda can invite the office of the leader of Buganda or vice versa and the culture of “not inviting the Kabaka” is maintained. Let Britain be our example in politics. Before politics, the monarch used to appoint their own prime ministers. Because they joined politics, prime ministers are elected by voters on merit. Supposing that Europe unites into a nation under federal rule, the government of Europe would be central government and would share power with the office of British prime minister and not the monarch and Britain would be part of a nation. So even if Buganda joined politics while she was an independent separate nation, the prime minister would be elected by voters (descendants and none descendants). With the mandate of the citizens, the elected prime minister would organize the activities of the Kabaka in the whole kingdom as a united nation. Fighting tribalism includes, encouraging inter-tribal marriages and banning of tribal associations in institutions like Universities which are against the will of a Ugandan monarchist. If leadership power is taken back to cultural leaders as federalists in Uganda demand, the kingdoms will be separate nations under undemocratic governments which cannot be part of a democratic nation. If British suggested federal for Buganda, they were finalizing their aim. People do not demand what they want in any form they want it as if the leadership power has no governing principles. Democracy is the same all over the world; leadership power is in the hands of the ruled. How it happened: when the colonialists came, they found Buganda was better and strongly organized under undemocratic government which they came to fight. They befriended Mengo so that Buganda could help them defeat other nationalities that were resisting colonialism in order to maintain their traditional sovereignty and in process Buganda was also defeated. The agreements signed by Mengo confirmed Buganda as part of the protectorate and hence part of the future bigger Nation. Later, the British started pulling out their true colours and they stated, “when the British gives up its protection to Buganda, it will hand Buganda over to some other government with whom Buganda has no agreement relationship” meaning Buganda would be ruled according to the governing principles of the new leadership power. Kabaka protested this and was exiled. Then, it was noticed “once Muteesa was no longer useful in advancing British interests, his friends and advisers in the establishment abandoned him. Buganda learnt the hard way that the British colonialism was neither about friendship nor protection of Africans but domination and exploitation of colonized people. The last, Namirembe agreement, never changed anything and leadership power was, unnoticed transferred from cultural leaders to the citizens when the latter registered as political voters. To be the political leader of the voters, one has to get their mandate and is through elections. The democratic move by Ben Kiwanuka is misinterpreted in Buganda as a fight against Mengo injustices on Catholics. It was a mistake cultural institution to represent voters while making a national constitution of Uganda. In the end, the British suggested that what was remaining would be finished when they are back home. When Obote was asked why he was accepting a political constitution where a national political leader would rule while under undemocratic governments, he promised to rectify the mistake when they came back home. Back home, nothing was done until the cultural leader applied his cultural powers which included instructing the national political leader, “because whoever is in a kingdom is under the king” and the national political leader abolished cultural institutions in the whole nation which was not the solution. Obote was given political support not on merit but because he promised to be obedient to the monarch. After abolishing the institutions, he stated his true mind, “I wanted the top most political power office in the nation and Baganda were political ladders. They were supposed to elect a political prime minister”. Such was the federal Mengo negotiated at independence which they want to resume. We moved from cultural leadership to political leadership power and since we did not elect political governments of our kingdoms and communities, then the central government became the only trustee. The mistake was that the then political leader created a confusing political atmosphere with voters who never stopped tribalism in politics. At Buganda independence, the Duke crowned it all as he stated “the relationship (in power holding) that existed between the Kabaka, the chiefs and the entire people of Buganda is officially coming to an end”. At mid night he handed the instruments of leadership power to a leader elected by Baganda, when the nationalities and communities in the protectorate united into a democratic nation. We should maintain the few steps we have achieved in democracy building, for democracy is the same all over the world, leadership power is in the hands of the ruled. Joseph Kamwenza is a cultural/political analyst jkamwenza@gmail
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:56:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015