Ugandans-At-Heart

Besigye,Museveni and Kagame are all the same

October 28, 2009 at 12:15 am (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism, KINGDOMS, Kayiira Death, POLITICS)
Tags: lusoke willy

Ugandans at heart,

Please go slow on FDC and Federalism together with Kabaka AND Buganda issues. With all due respect, I have never gotten any impression that Besigye and Kagame are different from M7,at least from an ideological perspective.

Why?

From my experience with the three men during “the struggle” – I call it so because it was indeed a struggle for survival of the fittest – none of these men ever advocated for ‘Kabaka’ and Buganda in general. They only used to make fun of Kabaka that “he enjoys Banyarwandakazi”!!!! And that Baganda are ‘just empty tins and eternally scared by nothing” None of these guys has respect for Kabaka. It is true that for political reasons Kagame and Besigye threw some weight to Mengo and Kabaka i.e Kagame helped to send the ‘Prince’ to the military academy, etc and Besigye has been ‘an advocate’ for Kabaka of recent. I believe this is just to look for temporary allies!!! Those of you who were in Luweero and other areas during the struggle, you know the stories we used to hear and run about the Kabaka. By the way, the long run intention for sending the Prince to the academy is not positive for Buganda and Kabaka. It was planned. I do not want to go into this!!!!!!!!!!!

Guys, if Besigye had been different from M7 and he indeed supports the Baganda, why doesn’t he tell Baganda what befell their men like ‘Afande’ Kayira etc… is it because he (Besigye or Kagame) does/do not know the real story? Why doesn’t Besiigye tell Baganda what they did to Baganda during the Luweero war? Why doesn’t he tell Baganda what they did to Baganda in Masaka and Mpigi who were ‘UPC’ – remember the ‘kabazi’ which they told you it was Nkwanga doing it. Pure lies. It was not Nkwanga men. It was M7!!! Didn’t Besigye join the ‘camp’ in Kikoma to foresee the ‘Kabazi’ project in Masaka!!!!! How many Baganda perished? Was there any Munyarwanda save for the other guy of Villa – Maria called Muwonge who was hit from his own sitting room with an ax he had fixed the very evening!!! Has Besigye ever told you his position over Kabaka in the Gulu meeting which he attended?Anyway, fool yourselves!!! You will again be disappointed!!!

Concerns about FRONASA are valid but Ugandans may not get a lot about it for the time being until somewhere in May 2010 or even after when all that stuff will be out in form of a book.Be sure, the world will have lots of information from this work.But again, we posted a lot of it on “radio Katwe”. You might have to consult this source for some pieces.

Banange, mundeke. Naye, do not take things for granted. We took things for granted with our Kagame and now some of us regret!!! ‘It is not gold’!!!OK.

LUSOKE WILLY

UAH forumist and former Luwero bush fighter residing in USA

Instead of a regional tier lets try a new ethnically balanced senatorial structure to bring about a balance of power

October 23, 2009 at 7:33 am (2009 -2011 elections, CULTURE, Federalism)
Tags: Tendo Kaluma

Fellow Ugandans,

Buganda took a long view of the regional tier and decided that it was dead on arrival. Fellows who have Buganda at heart like Katikiro Dan Mulika, view it as yet another gimmick that would eventually provide an additional power edge to the majority party.

Due to the sheer numbers and an unfair advantage of NRM officers in government ,any proposal to bring about a balance in the decision making machinery will require a genuine shift in paradigm, designed on pure proportionality of ethnic numbers(numerics) to be viewed as meaningful by all players in the huddle.

A long view on Ugandan issues of power these days is generally centered around a single cow kyozi which has gulped up all the fields as the saying goes. The problem of checks and balances both in terms of political numbers for legislation and other organs of the state vital to decisions making is currently a magical funnel with the NRM party at the obvious end that holds most of the volume.

The tipped balance as is currently evidenced has brought in un sustainable levels of bias in the system, completely ignoring inherent loops designed for feed back and stability. What we have built is a completely unstable system which has shown signs of fatigue and chaotic behaviour due to lopsidedness.

How do we solve the chaos that surrounds us in an unbiased manner?

The answer lays in looking at other alternative structures of governance with a capability of instituting the missing balance. The regional tier though good for inter regional commerce is not among them, it is too simplistic to provide a lasting solution to a range of complex structural issues of not only service delivery, but graft and trust by the majority of Ugandans to provide lasting change.

The arguments forwarded for the regional tier were not convincing enough for it not to be viewed as yet another round robin structure designed to feed to an already overwhelmed hub of the NRM party. We need devolution in a more realistic sense and the answer lays in ethnicity thus the idea below.

A few weeks ago upon hearing about the revival of the regional tier, I hinted on a system of ridding the state of ministers who have been ineffective on delivery in their respective ministries, in lieu of a more ethnically proportionate balanced senatorial body filled by ethnic senators from the 15 original tribes of Uganda. This elite body will assume the administrative tasks now run rather inefficiently by the permanent secretaries of each ministry.

This proposed group of senators will form the necessary committees to run the affairs of the state efficiently with veto power to compliment the current parliamentary body and a similar ethnically balanced judiciary.

I further proposed a similar proportionately balanced ethnic structure for our supreme court, and any regulatory body that has to make decisions that impact the majority of the people.

It is my hope that Majority tribes like the Baganda, Iteso and others will need to come up with the necessary formula that reflects their size to represent the will of their people. I hope any Buganda negotiations with the central government will be geared towards an improved structure of governance for all the people of Uganda and not just those with powerful cultural leaders.

I hope all interested Ugandans can start to look at this very simple but necessary adjustment in the structures of governance as steps that we can implement to arrest not only corruption that has become rampant, but as a way of returning our central government back from the malaise of a single ruling ethnic group of the time.

I’m not sure where we lost this senatorial structure, perhaps during 1967, when the president then was more interested in controlling the administrative structures. After the abrogation of the constitution and removal of all kingdoms; he deliberately chose not to enhanced the existing system with a senate (or house of the Lords) thus causing the systemic failure as observed.

When one looks at the current adopted system this missing structure sticks out like a sore thumb, and it’s absence is witnessed in many of the constitutional gaffs of our time.

Parliament will remain as it is, where folks of all walks of life from dominant and non dominant political parties can convene and deliberate about our issues of the day, however qualification to the senate will require a more elite cadre. The choice of who is sent to the senate will remain purely in the hands of these 15 original ethnic groups.

Tendo kaluma

Ugandan in Boston

The Regional Tier versus Federalism

October 23, 2009 at 5:42 am (Diaspora, Federalism)

By Joseph Senyonjo

New York, New York

The Regional Tier versus Federalism

The New Vision reported on July 3^rd, 2004 that the Uganda Cabinet had proposed a regional tier system for regions that desire it. The districts of Buganda would be deemed to have formed a regional tier. The central government would give some powers to the regional tier and to the districts. Districts would form a regional council.

The proposed regional tier system may at first glance seem to give way to de facto federalism. Indeed, while announcing the proposal, the government statement conceded one of federalism advocates’ major points: it pointed out that some districts are too small, and that the regional tier would enable them to pool resources.

Wherein lies the difference between Federalism and the proposed Regional tier? The fundamental difference lies in the conception and the spirit, as well as, the structural and constitutional underpinnings of the proposed system.

Structural and Constitutional Issues

There are two structural and constitutional issues that distinguish the proposed regional tier from genuine federalism.

First, the regional tier and the districts would essentially be mere agents of the central government. In genuine federal Systems such as those of the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada and Australia, among others, jurisdiction is constitutionally demarcated among the three levels of government: Federal (central), State (regional) and local (districts, counties, cities) in such a way that none of the levels derives its fundamental powers from any of the others. None of the levels can arbitrarily infringe on the other’s jurisdiction. In the proposed regional tier these powers and privileges would be contingent on the central government’s goodwill. Worse still, the proposed regional tier would be dependent on the ability of the districts to work cooperatively with it while they, simultaneously, report to the central government. Federal systems have no room for the central government agents in local politics, at either regional or local levels, yet all Uganda’s districts have Presidential appointees, the Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), charged with overseeing the districts.

Second, federal systems are designed to ensure national stability through regional checks on powers of potentially autocratic central governments. Consequently, federal regions are indivisible, that is, they cannot be broken apart. Their boundaries are inviolable. The Uganda cabinet’s proposed regional tier system, on other hand, stipulates that districts could withdraw from the regional tier by votes of two-thirds of the district councils. Such an arrangement would be a recipe for instability and disaster due to the inevitable acrimony among the different levels of government. The system would render the regional tier hostage to the districts since districts could threaten to withdraw from the system. In effect, the regions and the districts would be powerless to check on the excesses of the central government, since they would ultimately be consumed in petty power plays among themselves.

The Conception and the Spirit of the proposed regional tier

The proposed regional tier further falls short of federalism in that it was clearly conceived as a stopgap measure designed to contain Buganda’s federalism demands. The abiding spirit within the cabinet was clearly that of the unitary status quo rather than genuine empowerment of all Uganda’s people through powerful regions that would work in concert with the central government to address Uganda’s chronic under-development. If it were otherwise, the cabinet would not have ignored submissions to the Constitutional Review Commission from Acholi, Bunyoro, Busoga, and West Nile that also requested implementation of a federal system of government for Uganda.

The Example of the American Founding Fathers

When the U.S. ‘founding fathers’ started their campaign for federalism, they set out to educate the people on the benefits of federalism despite the fact that not all American regions at the time understood, nor appreciated the need for federalism. Some political elites from the various regions preferred a confederacy that essentially left most of the powers to the states with the central government having very little power; others preferred a unitary system. The founding fathers were far-sighted enough to ensure that the new constitution would be grounded on a system that would ensure its stability. They choose federalism– over a both a confederation and a unitary system– based on the fact that it ensured that all regions could advance many of their economic and political interests without interference, or veto of the central government, while simultaneously ensuring that the central government was powerful enough to guarantee the unity and harmony of the country. Federalism ensured that all of America’s regions had a stake in the integrity of the constitution since it empowered them to protect their interests.

Major components of a genuine Federal constitution

First, there would be a national federal constitution that gives equal powers and privileges to all regions while allowing for regional differences in administration within the bounds of the national constitution.

Second, there would be states / regions with capitals and regional constitutions.

Third, there would be elected regional legislatures in which all the districts, or counties, in each region would be represented. Kingdom regional legislatures could have upper chambers specially representing cultural interests such as clans, and ethnic minorities.

Fourth, the governors of the regions, including the Katikiro in Buganda, would be elected officials. In kingdom regions, the candidates for election as governor, or Katikiro, in Buganda, would go through a nomination process with the involvement of traditional rulers. The traditional rulers would be the constitutional heads of areas where they are wanted, but would not be involved in partisan politics.

Fifth, the national legislature would have two chambers: the lower house, representing constituencies, and the upper house, similar to the senate in the United States, representing each of the regions. While in the lower house more populous regions would have more seats, in the Upper House all regions would have an equal number of representatives to guarantee that all regions small or big have an equal chance to protect, or advance their interests.

Sixth, the federal equalization concept would constitutionally ensure that funds are redistributed — via pre-established formulas — to less privileged regions to help them achieve and maintain standards of living which are, at the very least, comparable to the national average. The federal government would help ensure that social services such as roads, schools and hospitals in less privileged regions are built up to a desirable national standard.

In conclusion, unlike the proposed regional tier, or the 1962 constitution, a genuine federal system for Uganda would encompass all of Uganda’s regions. The architects of the system would have to transcend a 1962-like semi-federal arrangement, which many Ugandans mistakenly believe is representative of true federalism in a Ugandan context. The 1962 arrangement was not a genuine federal arrangement for Uganda. Under the arrangement, one region was heavily favored, because it was sophisticated and organized enough to strongly negotiate for a certain level of self-determination, while most other regions were content to cede much of their power to the central government. The system was so imbalanced that it exposed Buganda, the only true federal region at the time, to envious talk of being a state within a state.

In Federal Uganda all the regions would have equivalent constitutional powers to raise and mobilize resources locally, nationally and internationally, without undue interference from the central government. There would be elected regional assemblies and governors, along with special accommodation for the role of cultural leaders. Once empowered, by the federal constitution, all Ugandans regions would jealously guard it against encroachment. The Ugandan nation-state would for the first time in its history gain legitimacy in the minds of all Uganda’s people — leading to lasting stability and prosperity.

Long Live Federalism!

Visit www.federo.com, and check out the report that Ugandans in the Diaspora presented to Constitutional Review Commission regarding federalism.

Joseph Senyonjo

UAH forumist residing in USA

If Ugandans are fed up with Unitarism, let them have federo

October 6, 2009 at 3:20 pm (Federalism, KINGDOMS, POLITICS)
Tags: John Nsubuga

Fellow Ugandans,

Do not allow your self to be split into half between then and now, by some of these illusionists. Uganda’s problems did not start yesterday, and they were not going to be solved by president Museveni alone coming to power…NO! Therefore, when faced with a situation where people demand to opt out of the unitary model of governance, you should start with addressing the causes, and not the symptoms. At that stage, it is late. When some one forces you to expound on why you prefer model A to B, with out first asking you why you arrived to that decision in the first place, then that person is taking un necessary short cuts. Had model B not been disfunctional, there wouldn’t have been a need to demand for model A.

For instance, when people profoundly report to you that there is a gross public funds mismanagement, but you choose to respond with turn off statements like ” those thieves are historicals” then you’re the problem.

But if you must debate the merits and demerits of federalism therefore, you can not omit the causes that have brought about the thirst to quench the rampant marginalisation we’re seeing in Uganda today. If somebody has a better option to sort out these problems once and for all, then why don’t they table them for scrutiny, instead of the half backed regional tier offer? When the war of liberation was being waged, it was very popular, even with all the losses that were being inflicted on the people that supported the NRA. Like wise, had the unitary model of governance been popular, those agitating for federalism would have found it very difficult to put their message across. Their actions would have been resisted by the the majority of Ugandans, as opposed to a few handful generals and some other opportunists making sporadic noises.

The constitution of Uganda clearly states that, “Power belongs to the people“. There is only one way for those who can, to deal with that segment of the constitution of Uganda. To either flout it, or respect it, but you can not have it both ways. When Ugandans demand that they want a certain system of governess, because what is being imposed on them has not yielded much since 1962, then they are simply referring you to article number (1) as enshrined in that precious document of ours. Is there anything wrong with that? If you disagree with that part, then you can opt for the lesser strainful panya road. You give five million to some people in Parliament, and they will purge that line and change it to read “Power belongs to me alone“

John Nsubuga

UAH forumist

Listen members, good ideas are not adopted automatically, but driven into practice with courageous patience and determination. Now, get moving!!

Let us replace ministers in Uganda with ethnic senators

October 5, 2009 at 6:16 pm (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism, KINGDOMS)

When I take a long view of the problems we are currently faced with, I can’t help but think that a modified American style of administrative and political federalism would work just fine for us.

I would like to get rid of the ministerial positions in favour of elected senators elected on the account of ethnicity and population numerics.

That is to say, if the Acholi have a huge population in the country then they might have more congressmen in the house, but for really large tribes two senators would suffice.We could decide on the “number of millions” of people required to warrant both congressional and senate seats.

Some ethnic groups too small to warrant a senate seat,would settle for two minority senate seats created to cater to them-folks would have to appeal to these minority tribes to form coalitions.A two tier body: house of commons(congress-parliament), and a house of the lords(Senate) flanked an elected president with an elected ethnically balanced executive chosen by numerics and their ability to work with the president (party affiliation) and of course the judiciary a body that would really represent each district or identified ethnic group.

I’m not too sure why we complicate this matter,with sijui secessionists and foreign policy makers, we can work out all the kinks as long as on the onset all looks fair among tribal eyes.A balanced force(army) truly representative of the numbers in tribes would be required along with a state(district) police augmenting the local town police force.

I think we have enough civility as Ugandans to make such a balanced fair system work for us. I fear the new territorial federation that is being curved out right now may not be as effective, WE DO NOT NEED MORE TRIBALIZATION!!.

In looking at all Otto patrick’s points below against federalism, the one I think would be a show stopper is this one Major Otto,

It leads to trouble, expenses, and delay due to complexity of a double system of legislation and administration.

I think we already bear this expense with the way our system is.

This is off the cuff, but we could have a debate on it, rather than say it is impossible.

Tendo Kaluma

Ugandan in Boston

2 Comments

Major sabiti Mutengesa’s position on the standoff between Entebbe and Mmengo

October 1, 2009 at 10:52 pm (2009 -2011 elections, CULTURE, Federalism, KINGDOMS, conflicts)
Tags: L/Cpl (rtd) Otto Patrick

I googled the Major sabiti Mutengesa’s name and I landed on a paper on the website for the Havard University link to the Social Sciences Research Council (SSRC) in which the affande makes remarks that are pertinent to what we are witnessing now as the standoff between Entebbe and Mmengo. He wrote the paper in 2006 and its title is:

“From Pearl to Pariah: The Origin, Unfolding and Termination of State-Inspired Genocidal Persecution in Uganda, 1980-85″ (http://howgenocidesend.ssrc.org/Mutengesa/).

He makes the following remark that I have found interesting against the background of ongoing events:

What ought to be sounded as a caution, though, is however much the loci of collective violence shall shift within Uganda, the enduring problem in the national politics of Uganda shall remain the stalemate in the relationship between Uganda’s national authorities and Buganda’s traditional elite with respect to the status of the Kingdom of Buganda. It is this stalemate that set the stage, however remotely in history, for the events discussed in much of this paper. The selective restoration of traditional political institutions in the 1990s may have helped to ease the longstanding bitterness of sections of Buganda over the abolition of their monarchy but it may be too early to hope that pro-monarchist groups have outgrown their revanchist proclivities. If not, then any future divergence of visions between Buganda insular nationalism and pan-Ugandan designs of nationalist elites at the centre will undoubtedly generate animosities that may precipitate conditions that will lead to scenes the world witnessed in Luwero in the 1980s.

Does Kabaka Mutebi is any softer on Buganda’s demands than his father was?

October 1, 2009 at 10:29 pm (CULTURE, Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: philip Oluni

Dear all

One UAH forumist asked me two things; firstly whether I was “justified to apply lessons learnt and not learnt by EW Mutesa with what will bounce off RM Mutebi’s head, and secondly “what does Mmengo want”?

Regarding the first question, what I had in mind when I stated that HH Kabaka Mutebi has shown that he has carefully studied the options that faced his late father is that it appears to me that the present Kabaka Mutebi is handling similar (but not exactly the same)conflicts better than his late father Sir Edward Mutesa. How do I justify this? I will give you two examples to illustrate my point.

In March 1961 following the DP victory in the self government election, Ben Kiwanuka the DP leader said from Entebbe, and I quote: ” My first step is to work towards an agreement on Buganda. I shall try to meet the Kabaka, if possible, and see what we can do in the ending of the present impasse.. The Kabaka is known to me personally, and if he agrees to have personal talks we might come to understanding”. Kabaka Mutesa, or rather his government reacted by issuing a statement saying that it would not be possible for Mr. Kiwanuka to see the Kabaka “in the manner and the spirit in which he made the statement”. Thus personal ego prevented Kabaka Mutesa from meeting with Ben Kiwanuka, and an opportunity was missed when Buganda might have made a settlement early and not waited until when it was too late and then tried to make a deal with the UPC. The outcome of a Kiwanuka v Mutesa meeting might have impacted differently than a meeting of Obote v Mutesa. We will never know the answer because Mutesa ignored the first option. Faced with a similar call by the head of state for a personal meeting last week Kabaka Mutebi accepted and met with President Museveni even if the invitation was made publicly and in somewhat bad mood. Thus Kabaka Mutebi showed that on this occasion he was interested in substance and not personal ego. Mutebi has thus averted a bad situation from becoming worst, at least for the time being.

The second example is from the Buganda crisis of 1953 which led to the deportation of Sir Edward Mutesa to England by Governor Sir Andrew Cohen. The conflict started over the issue of the East African Federation when on 30 June, 1953 the Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttleton made a statement during a speech saying, and I quote: “Nor should we exclude from our minds the evolution, as time goes on, of still larger measure of unification, and possibly of still larger measures of federation of the whole of the East African territories”. Buganda Kingdom had always been very sensitive and opposed to the East African Federation because it was viewed that an EA federation would greatly diminish Buganda Kingdom. On this occasion Buganda was alarmed and Kabaka Mutesa through his ministers wrote a protest letter and sought clarification from the Governor. The following day before the Governor had even replied the Mengo letter on EA federation Mengo sent another letter to the Governor asking for Buganda independence, “within a specific stated time”. A few days later still, the Lukiiko refused to nominate Buganda representatives into the Uganda Legislative Council. When the governor asked Sir Edward Mutesa to advice the Lukiiko to drop their demand for independece Mutesa refused, and went further to state that in fact he would publicly demand for independence before the Lukiiko, and that he would discourage the Lukiiko from changing its mind on the Uganda Legislative Assembly. Thus what started as a small misunderstanding quickly snowballed into a full blown crisis. On 30Th November 1953, the Governor Cohen finally asked the Kabaka to give 100% assurance that he would cooperate with the Colonial Government as per 1900 Agreement. Mutesa refused and he was deported. On the other hand we saw during the recent stand off over Kayunga things quickly got out of control with rioting etc. How did Kabaka mutebi respond? By abiding with government prohibition on his trip to Kayunga, by appearing in Masaka a few days later and calming the situation and by meeting with President Museveni yet a few days later. These were two different conflicts but it appears to me that Kabaka Mutebi this time handled his conflict with President Museveni better than his father did his with Governor Cohen.

Does it mean that Kabaka Mutebi is any softer on Buganda’s demands than his father was? My answer would be absolutely NO, as far as the substance of the demands are today.

This brings me to your next question of what does Mengo want? It would appear at first glance that Mengo’s demands are obviously in the public domain. I have myself posted here what I have seen from public documents published by Mengo as a list of their demands which include, firstly, restoration to the Kingdom of Buaganda the 9000sq mile of land currently held by the Uganda Land Commission, which in turn has decentralized authority over to various districts in which the lands are found, secondly, the City of Kampala to become part of Buganda Kingdom area, thirdly, Uganda should become a federal state with proposed 13 states, forthly, recognition of special status of HH the Kabaka, to include immunity from prosecution, immunity from personal taxation, to rank third in national protocol in national activities happening within Buganda, and lastly, the Land Act 2005 to be reviewed to give greater protection to land lords . These are the five major demands that Buganda has stated publicly. However, with Mengo experience has shown that nothing is straightforward or should be taken for granted. So, for instance under the demands for the Kabaka immunities and protocol ranking, Mengo could still smuggle in at a later date a notion that by ranking third in protocol after the president and vice president respectively during ceremonies held in Buganda, the Kabaka was therefore regarded as “the figurehead of Buganda”. This would completely changethe dynamics of the notion of a cultural figure, as the kabaka is at present.

So, if you asked me to state entirly all that Mengo wants, I could not with certainty say what they are. I much less can say categorically that I know all that Mengo wants, because with Mengo you just never know for certain. Mengo is full of surprises.

Best regards

Pilipo Oruni

Only dictators order for the close of a radio station

September 30, 2009 at 5:19 pm (Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: Andrew Katamba

Sseruganda Kituuka;

That was a well thought out response to Guma. It’s people like these who have bought our country to its knees. People like these are bad for the entire nation because, they believe in dictatorships. There is no constitutional order as far as Uganda is concerned. Power lies in one individual and everybody looks up to him for influence. If the president doesn’t have your ear, you’re of no use. Guma is looking for influence from the dictator and whatever he says, is what the president is thinking.

We have so many solvable problems but, because power lies under one individual, nothing is done. If someone tries to do something without the state house blessing, then it won’t be done. There’s no way, President Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan or for that matter, in Europe, could order for the closure of a radio station. The amount of money in compensation for the economic loss, would compel anybody to think twice before making that move. That’s why it’s a dictatorship 100%. Abaganda Bagamba nti Ekivumo Tekimenya Ggumba. With exception of Obama, the rest are no longer there and still one president is ruling!!!! What a pity!

There is no way we could have so many unnecessary cabinet members if we had a Federal system of Government. Imagine having 70 ministers!! For what reason?????? The amount of money spent on each cabinet member, would be enough to maintain a Medical Dispensary in a rural area. For those of you who live in the west, the sticker price for a Fully Loaded Toyota Land cruiser is over $75,000 dollars. Imagine a poor country like Uganda purchasing 200 of them, how much would it be? In Uganda, gasoline for that truck for a full tank would be close to $100 dollars per day. Just try to figure out with a calculator how much it would cost to maintain that vehicle per month, that’s if it doesn’t brake down due to the poor road conditions. The vehicle has to be driven every day, 7 days a week, 365 days. It takes the children to school, takes the wife to Owino, Nakasero, markets, takes matooke to grandmother’s house, goes back to pick up the children from school and then picks up the boss. Then it will stop by little London for a beer and that’s the whole day. Imagine that kind of driving the entire week, month, year!

This is why you see these protests but the people in power don’t see it that way. Government is the only source of employment in Uganda and that’s why you have to create more, and more, districts. This is insanity and now the Janat Mukwayas’ and Bukenyas’, talk about abolishing kabakas’ as a solution. We always thought that, people who’re somehow, educated, could be helpful to the presidency but, Not when the government is the only source of employment.

Whoever helps to table that bill in parliament for rubber stamping, because, our parliament is meant for that, will have put the last nail in the coffin of NRM’o. Please STOP playing with peoples’ lives.

Byebyange.

Ssabasajja Kabaka Awangaale

Muzzukulu wa Nduga e Katende

A former classmate writes to Captain Guma on Federo in Uganda

September 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism)

Willy Kituuka

P. O. Box 2678,

Kampala.

30^th September 2009

Captain Guma Gumisiriza David

MP Ibanda County North

Dear Guma,

RE: A statement made by yourself on Federo in Uganda

I wish to take this opportunity to write to you on a serious matter regarding the future of our country. I am not new to you having been classmates through at Makerere University and not only sharing the same Hall of residence Mitchell; but also meeting for Economic classes. It is true if I remember very well, after academics at Makerere; you joined those who were in the bush to help in the effort to get sanity to this country. While you are fortunate that among the many graduates who left for the bush many are dead and some did not even reap the fruits of the war; the reasons you went there should still be ringing in your mind. It is absurd to hear you among others spearheading the NO FEDERO talk! Why should you? Are there no models of success where federo arrangements are plactised?

I am one of the pioneer staff of Nile bank, and you are aware that I met my problems in my banking career not because of my own making. It was then when Hon. Richard Kaijuka was Minister of Energy in the NRM Government that a Uganda Electricity Account was opened there. You can be sure that because of corruption in Uganda since 1991 justice has never been done. I was sacrificed by among others a cabinet Minister in the NRM Government. And you ought to be aware what it means losing a job in the bank, it is hard to get another job against that background. You are well aware of the hard ships we went through at Makerere just to get qualifications. In this role, I cannot excuse the NRM Government. If some players in the NRM Government were responsible for my problems, why do you want to suffocate the possible alternatives?

You ought to be aware that Buganda Government is taking on a number of educative programmes; meanwhile off loading some of the responsibilities the central government would. What is bad with that? All these efforts are to help the people of Uganda out of poverty, but then you come and say no President can grant us FEDERO. Sincerely, Guma, you should not be corrupted. As an academic you should have the right view of things. Assuming you were part of the Buganda establishment and you found that the Government is intentionally sitting on rents due to you, would you be happy? Guma, I wish to tell you that some of us are not happy with Government. I have communicated to people in Government about my innovation of Good Governance School Clubs (GOGOC), which I believe was hi-jacked and ‘sold’ to Government and is now Patriotism School Clubs, but my pleas that Government pays for my role has not received any response yet no body has come up to say that the originality of the idea was x, y and z.

So, my Brother Guma, power corrupts, but be objective. Uganda has highly learned people and many are aware of the possibility of a peaceful co-existence of federo states with the central government. The truth is that no body can eat all the monies made say in Uganda. As a leader, one needs to have his share and also leave others to have their share. To throw some little light on the recent riots taken as a Baganda issue this is just erroneous. The people are concerned with the sharing of the national cake; and as NRM Government fails to listen to the wishes of the people, the more we are in trouble as wrong diagnosis of problems is thought.

You may be aware that Kabaka Mutebi is soon going to visit his county – that is Buwekula; but when you learn from Hon. Bwerere Kasole and how he has prepared for the visit, it is the right approach for a Uganda where we can all co-exist. For the visit; all tribes have something to offer and if a similar strategy had been used in Kayunga there would have been no riots at all. So, my brother, my advice is that you should not be party to the forces that may be ready to get our country miles back. As a Member of Parliament the issue is that the suggestion being made for federo and not by only Baganda is workable and can lead to a more peaceful country.

Best of Luck

Willy Kituuka

(Former classmate at Makerere University 1980 – 1983)

Mitchell Hall

CC All Members of Parliament.

Buganda can only get ‘ebyafe’ when Uganda is a federal state

September 29, 2009 at 3:34 pm (2009 -2011 elections, CULTURE, Federalism)
Tags: L/Cpl (rtd) Otto Patrick

1/2 I made a very specific claim, namely that, the shallow/narrow/hollow-mindedness of the Mengo establishment is a cancer that will take Uganda to her grave; and that in the event of Uganda going to the grave, it will not be fun for Buganda. That is a very specific claim. Just to take you back to the context from which I quoted myself, we were debating the question of the wonderful ”Akenda”, or 9,000 Sq Miles that Mengo claims is the property of Buganda.

2/2 It was being stated in that message that:

a. Nine thousand square miles has never existed and infact there is a very serious problem with any individual or group that lays claim to 9,000 sq miles and I outlined all the facts to support my claim.

b. What actually exists as public land in Buganda is 4,227 and not 9,000 Sq Miles, as many of you continue to argue, and to excite the public in Uganda. I indicated that, to lie to the public about the existence of 9,000 sq miles when such land has never existed makes the Mengo clique a burden for the Buganda public, including Baganda.

c. That public land is Buganda land only to the extent that it is in Buganda; but it actually belongs to the authority that is charged with the political management of Uganda and Buganda, and in the present circumstances, the owner is the Government of Uganda.

d. The land was at one time called “Crown land” because Buganda and Uganda were territories of Britain and the head of government in Britain was the Queen. It was “Kabaka’s land” from 1962-1966 because the Kabaka was the embodiment of political authority in Buganda under the 1962 pseudo-federal constitution. Once unitarism became the system of government, that land reverted to the central government.

e. That land belongs to the Central government, and that can only cease to be the case if Buganda secedes or if Uganda is becomes a federal state. We have argued here on the forum that, instead of Mengo wasting time whipping up the emotions of mobs, it should launch a sobber and well thought campaign either to secede or to have Uganda run as federal state. It is then and only then that “Ebyaffe” talk can cease to be the nonsense that it is now.

But Federalism is hovyo because:

It creates a deficient authority over component states and individual citizens especially in new states of the 3rd world where the process of nation building and state making is in its early stages.

It creates liability to dissolution by the seccession or rebellion of states especially when the core of the federation is an entity that enjoyed independent and hegemonic existence prior to the federation.

It creates liability to division into groups and factions by the formation of separate combinations of component states

It causes absence of the power of legislation on certain subjects where uniform legislation for the whole state is needed

It makes want of uniformity among the states in legislation and administration

It leads to trouble, expenses, and delay due to complexity of a double system of legislation and administration.

It weakens foreign policy

Otto Patrick

UAH forumist

Can NRM MPs table plan to abolish kingdoms

September 29, 2009 at 12:03 pm (2009 -2011 elections, CULTURE, Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: christopher Muwanga

Summary: Some politicians, when lacking in “gymnastics of the Mind”, forget what took them to parliament and start thinking that, with sufficient gun/power, they can out do the English King Canute, who once ordered the sea-tide to ’stop’. Some, like the so called workers’ MP. Pajobo, instead of trying to save the NSSF and the Workers house, is busy calling for the abolition of Kingdoms, as though they were created by Acts of Parliament, in the first place. Did the “sugar cane cutters” of Kakira send “Comrade” Pajobo to Parliament to abolish Kingdoms or to fight for a minimum living wage, a feat he has failed to accomplish!!??

The following post tries to show that, while it is true that kingdoms may be “raped”, denied resources, freedom space and time, they cannot be abolished from the peoples’ minds and daily life. Such a fuile affront would only be a waste of the taxpayers’ money. Nice reading

1/4. On abolition of Kingdoms as advocated by the NRM MP’s: How can you abolish something you never created? Can a Kingdom 500 years or so old, be abolished by the stroke of a pen? I think “No” for the following reasons:

1. One would need to rub all the history of that kingdom from historical record and from people’s minds, an impossible task.

2. One would need to kill all the Royalty [Royal families and clans, etc] and then the whole population [All Banyoro or Baganda, for example]. [Tamale Mirundi thinks the 1917 Russian revolution destroyed ALL the Romanovs – a lie since even today there are many scions of the Romanov dynasty in Germany, England, etc. For example, during the re-burial of Emperor Nicholas recently, the Royal family of Russia turned up in numbers. {Comment: It is not clear as to why Mirundi likes exaggerations and lies, even on subjects beyond his grasp}], etc, etc.

2/4. So, if it is impossible, what do the politicians mean then, when they say they want to abolish Kingdoms? The answer is mainly based on ignorance but the following are among the reasons:

a) Many think that, by robbing Kings of their physical resources, they will have abolished them.

b) Others think that, since they are not armed, when you surround their palaces at night and illegally put hem under ”house arrest”, you are capable of “abolishing them”. Just by enacting a law that the “Kingdoms do not exist from to-day”, they will indeed disappear.

c) Others think that, by demeaning them and imagining that they do not exist, and by reducing their prestige, they will disappear from the minds of the followers.

d) Still, others think that by DENYING THEM SPACE AND TIME, and by denying them their fundamental freedoms, they will have “managed” them.

e) Many still think that, by denying them mention at public gatherings [in protocol] and by occupying their palaces, by denying them income, they will have “abolished the Kingdoms”.

3/4. However, all such actions, taken singly or severally, do not remove the kingdoms since these kingdoms are in the peoples’ “blood and mind”. It constitutes fun when even people that have no Kingdoms in their cultures start talking about the need or no need for Kingdoms. Funny indeed.

4/4. Request: let the MP’s devote their time and other resources to serving their electors, and not question god-ordained order in society.

Christopher Muwanga,

Nakasero,

Kampala.

1964 replicated

September 29, 2009 at 12:30 am (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism, KINGDOMS)

It is 45 years on.

The year is 1964:

The issues then were:

1. Un-armed civilians were shot at Nakulabye suburb, at the beginning of Hoima road. All future politicians, including M7, talked about this “Crime against humanity” for decades.

2. The other two issues were:

- One, which portrait should hang above the which: That of the Executive Prime minister [Obote] or that of the C-i-C and head of Sate {Sir Edward}?
- Two and now replaying itself in Uganda today: Why does Mutesa, with his Nabagereka [His Queen] draw bigger crowds in Buganda [and sometimes outside Uganda] than the “elected leader” of Uganda {Obote}?

3. What followed soon after, in ’66, is not history yet. Today, we hear complaints: “he has refused to take my calls [of all accusations] for TWO years!!!! Brrrrrrrr. He must come and meet me at my house. So, people who sweep the streets and prostrate before H.H the Kabaka, Chairman Mao [not Tse Tung] style you are pocking the “Lion” in the eye.

4. 24 have been executed without trial by military and Kiboko [whip squads]. About 1, 000 in are lnguishing in concentration camps but, unlike back in ‘66, the state of emergency , now in force for three weeks, has not been declared. This is not a country but someone’s own farm, where the populace are animals to be treated by the owner, as he may wish.

Who said history does not repeat itself???

Christopher Muwanga,

Nakasero,

Kampala.

Disrict, Regional tier, State-tier.

September 27, 2009 at 8:40 pm (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism)

Summary: The way things are, the current, hot ‘district-mania’ will last only as long as it is a ‘vote catcher’. Soon, more sychophts will still need more jobs and the disrict, even if it comes to each family/clan becomeing one, will not longer be sufficient. Later, a “Regional Tier” will become handy but after twenty or so regions, this will become un-fashionable and we shall see, those who will be still alive, see the “State -tier”, so longer as those on top of the states will promise to vote wisely. the first “State-let” will be “Bunyoro-Kirata-II” that will use Oil to black-mail the rump-Ugandan state into recognition, so song as Buaganda has been “handled”, ”Bunyala State”, after her oil is exploited, will become the next, etc, etc.. Nice reading.

1/3. After district-mania withers away, there shall be Regional-tier-mania. From four-five regions, there will be ten, then twenty…till the regional-tier, as Vote-winning gimmick is exhauseted too and entities like Buganda are no moe.

2/3. What next: there will be : State-tier for “Bamoori“, for example, ten for “Banyala”, an d for a “trimmed Mmengo with a “Bukenya” or a “Mirundi” in charge as elected Katikiro, etc and by then of course, Project Uganda ( and therefore Buganda) will be no more, so long as there is an “East African Federation“, starting from Eastern Congo/Burundi to Southern Sudan, with one Emperor or, His Emperial Majesty Kaguta ” in charge.

3/3. A “Field Marshal Keine” will be in charge of ensuring “secure borders” of the Federal States of the Great Lakes region or whatever it will be called then, not more than 10 years from today.

Hoping this remains a bad dream,

I remain,

C.Muwanga,

Nakasero,

Kampala.

Regional Tier should come with a Regional EC & suggestions on media

September 23, 2009 at 11:50 am (Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: Hakimu Semuwemba

The President has once again brought back to the fore the matter of the regional tier government. Am a firm believer in federalism for Buganda and all Uganda. There are various NRM functionaries who keep presenting that Baganda professing federalism are actually professing feudalism. This offcourse is not true. The push for federo is not a push for Buganda to return to the pre-1983 set feudal up!. Federalism is about creating a shock-absorber to shield the common man from direct impact of internationally sponsored neo-colonial political-economic programs; its about furthering democracy without removing our true indigenous identities; its about cutting down the cycle of military rule; its about allowing people based accountable institutions to thrive; Re-distributing Uganda’s wealth away from the incurable corrupt center, and creating provincial units that would later be governed by a government of the Federal Republic of East Africa.

There has been elected leaders and democracy in Buganda even before the NRM. The NRM many times has to be propped up by the army and other coercive groups. Mengo and the Buganda Kingdom has always been kept alive by the people. Even when the NRM chooses to close down all media propagating the Buganda kingdom, the kingdom peoples are always available to support and keep their kingdom going. The NRM military will have to keep deploying against kingdom peoples showing support for their king. They will deploy against his kingdom tours, against electing any politician supporting the kingdom views, against business empires supporting the kingdom and yet the NRM always struggles to posture as the kingdom’s best friend.

Any media and individual who question this “friendship” are viewed anti NRM and solely for this reason- the economics and social-cultural freedoms and rights of radio stations must be shut down! The NRM should tell the world that media houses and businesses can only operate in this country if they coalesce the population in support of the NRM or spend all the airtime creating musical super stars local and international.

It is true that the Government of Uganda is the boss of the Buganda Kingdom government but the assumption in HE. M7’s tone of speech is that NRM –the political organisation/movement is a boss of the Buganda Kingdom. This is part of the problem. The kingdom structures must be re-aligned to reflect modern connectivity with the Uganda government and in time with the government of East Africa. Attempts to arm-twist and forcefully create and define the relationship can not produce anything long lasting.

About the regional tier, some of us are ready to welcome it as a middle ground only if the NRM stops presenting it as a tool to undermine the original rulers of the communities for which it is intended. This regional tier government must take further step to protect the authority of the original rulers of the Ugandan communities. The authority of these original rulers of the Ugandan communities is not forced upon their communities. Their authority is people based and propagated and government is for the people, by the people and of the people. Any thing that wishes to undermine the wishes of the people is tantamount to dictatorship and this world will today, tomorrow and forever struggle against any and all forms of dictatorship.

As HE. Museveni and his NRM prepare to bring back the regional tier arrangement, please make it more acceptable for the intended consumers and present it so as to achieve a meeting ground between the two opposing minds. In this regard, the government should include a provision for regionalization of the electoral commission.

The law should provide that the original ruling structures of the communities to form a regional government should have the power to appoint the Regional Electoral Commissions. These original ruling structures are what the NRM has chosen to refer to as Cultural leadership institutions. They are not just “cultural” and the struggle to keep them merely cultural is likely to keep fuelling tensions in this country. In Buganda, the kabakaship with Bataka should be the appointing authority for managers of democratic elections and voting processes. This would not stop NRM to compete with DP, PPP, UPC or FDC for the various elective positions including representatives to the national assembly, regional tier assembly, district/county assembly, sub-county, etc. ; National presidency, regional semi-presidency, district/county semi –presidency, etc . This would be the key to the true realization of democracy in Uganda, a major step towards resolving the long standing question of fully without force integrating Buganda and other indigenous communities into Uganda.

Such regional electoral commission would dilute the fear of electing regional mini-presidents- a Katikiro in Buganda’s case. In the case of Buganda kingdom, a Katikiro elected through an election system supervised by a Kabaka appointed regional EC would maintain the idea of Kabaka appointing the chiefs while at the same time moving the Kingdom towards full democracy. The regional tier government would slowly be allowed semi-autonomy over the region thus allowing federalists some peace in the country. The government should for instance consider removing the office of RDC and instead depend on Professional Non-Partisan National Intelligence Gathering Bodies.

Government should at the same time move away from the thinking that whenever a media house does things that those in government do not like or things which are considered to endanger the public peace, etc- the offending media house should be shut down. This hurts the economy, the politics and society in general. Am of the view that government should view the various items regularly published or broadcast just like the many vehicles regularly using our road network. Whenever a vehicle breaks acceptable road contact, it is put off the road temporarily to pay a pre-determined penalty charges or for the proprietor and driver to face the full course of the law.

Similarly, offending programs or articles may be temporarily discontinued for the offending presenter or proprietor to remit a pre-determined penalty charge/fine or for them to be taken to court and go through the full legal process. The Broadcasting Council is almost like a police force which goes on the road to confiscate the property of wrong doers. I do not think it is right for the Broadcasting council to issue an operating license covering the period of just one year. The economic life of the business is too long. The license supplier is not in any event the owner of the business. The job of the Broadcasting Council should be establishing the availability of a TV or radio frequency and then issuing a license renewable atleast after five years so as to reflect recoverability of investment and profits.

Also, why having two bodies sometimes competing with each other as they do almost the same job. The Uganda Communications Commission has got true electronic experts and regarding word and voice sms based companies- both the UCC and UCC do monitoring and require huge fees to be remitted. Probably they compete similarly regarding internet and telecom companies. As Ugandans chat out a way forward in the aftermath of Mengo Vs NRM riots, it should be considered that the Uganda Broadcasting Council should completely be dissolved into Uganda Communication Commission who has more expertise, have a whole building in town, more experience, are politically non-partisan and have lots more facilities.

HAKIMU. N. SEMUWEMBA

–
EA Samurai

Kingdom of Buganda has been advocating for peace and unity in diversity

September 22, 2009 at 11:14 am (Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: Phillip Oruni

It is the Kingdom of Buganda that has been advocating for peace and unity in diversity in our nation of Uganda, especially since 1955 when the then kabaka Sir Edward Mutesa became a constitutional monarch..

Most politicans have acted with dishonour. It is not a question of “the central government surrendering power to the regions” as G. Bukenya puts it.

Power comes from the people and belongs to the people; vested in their soverign kingdoms and “tribes”. And since it is inevitable that we need a central government, let the people DECIDE the amount of power to give that central government. It is a question of the kingdoms and the “tribes” surrendering some of their powers to the central government and not the other way around.

As an Acholi, I thank and support the Kingdom of Buganda and Ssabassajja Kabaka Mutebi in their quest of trying to negotiate what powers should be surrendered to the central government of Uganda. The problem is that politicians of the day are too greedy and power hungry and they want more power than they deserve or can handle.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by John Lema. People who want to run Uganda like the North Korea of Kim IL Sung should forget it. We need more common sense now.

Regards

Pilipo Oruni Oloya

M7 needs to address Buganda’s problems

September 18, 2009 at 11:17 pm (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: oruni Oloya

President Museveni himself said that the riots were not about His Highness the Kabaka going to Kayunga, but rather it was “whether or not we should have political Kings”. The President went on to accuse the Kabaka of interfering in politics. He said the Kabaka should keep out of politics because he is not an elected official.

So, a lot has been brewing underground which is not obvious to the ordinary person, you and me. But President Museveni knows that he has a conflict or strong disagreement with the Kingdom of Buganda. That, the President himself has said so. Kayunga was just the spark that ignited the crisis, otherwise it could easily have been anything else.

For this conflict to have reached this extent that almost anything could ignite it into a crisis what does that tell you about government? To me I see that the government is confused, desperate and does not really know what to do? I think the government has been using the Ssabanyala as a stalking horse really, to test Mengo’s resolve but also to try and undermine the Kingdom of Buganda generally and His Highness the Kabaka personally.

Instead of addressing Mengo’s legitimate demands the government has resorted to meddling in the Kingdom of Buganda in the hope that the Kingdom generally and His Highness the Kabaka personally will be disgraced and discredited. But the strategy has backfired.

Here is another example of NRM government meddling in the affairs of the Kingdom of Buganda. In his statement to Parliament on the crisis on 15Th September 2009, President Museveni said, and I quote: “In order to stop the Kabaka and the Kingdom officials from meddling in politics, there should be a meeting of all the political leaders in Buganda, the religious leaders, the clan leaders to give their contributions on the way forward. This meeting could be called “Tabamiluka”.

Now, I am not a Muganda and I don’t know what the word “tabamiluka” means, perhaps a Muganda will explain what this concept really means in due course. However, it seems to me that this is yet another attempt by President Museveni to divide the Baganda. I stand to be corrected, but this “tabamiluka” is an alien thing, invented by President Museveni and it has certainly no role in the formal cultural or political organisation of the Kingdom of Buganda. Once again, Prseident Museveni has come out with a concept from thin air and he is now trying to imply that this is a Ganda cultural process. It is wrong. President Museveni is inventing things that do not exist in the Kingdom of Buganda. THE PRESIDENT IS MAKING A VERY SUBTLE ATTEMPT TO START A NEW NARRATIVE ON BUGANDA CULTURE AND HISTORY. That is how he pulled the Ssabanyala completely out of thin air. The President is trying anything except a proper constitutional attempt to address the federal demands of Mengo. And Mengo has almost written him off.

Regards

Pilipo Oruni Oloya

What is NOT Wrong with Traditional Tribal Leadership

September 17, 2009 at 11:14 pm (CULTURE, Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: Odiya wilobotek

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Imagine that the first foreign contacts with Afrika were gradual, peaceful and respectful. Afrika would now have a bigger population. The social fabric would have evolved rather than disrupted. Foreign religions would have blended with Afrikan’s, providing more meaning. Instead, the contacts were violent and traumatic, stripping her of her dignity, with repercussions that reverberate to this day.

In Afrika today, there is a small percentage of the filthy rich, few of whom have achieved wealth by dint of skills in industry and commerce. Many have looted the coffers of the state, leaving poor infrastructures and poor service deliveries for the rest of the taxpaying population.

What kind of people are these looters? They are the people who went to missionary or other related schools. Many of them profess to be Christians. Some who are serious about Christianity have but a perfunctory knowledge beyond claiming to be “saved.” Generally then Christianity is not a way of living but a social occasion on Sunday. A few of the “educated” class have read western classics, and may be aware of the genesis of how and why they think the way they do. Many, however, excelled in the utilitarian school subjects in order to earn a living in the new Afrika. This latter lot may not be cognizant of from whence their thought process originates.

All this is operating in a milieu in which traditional cultural wisdom no longer has leadership. The young person now looks to Europe and America as the source of what is good.. Armed only with the natural ego-centric self, the desires of acquisition and the destruction of those perceived to stand in the way becomes the mode of operation. There in lies what ails Afrika. But it should not be that way.

If traditional African wisdom, through traditional leadership, were revived and practiced it could provide the umbilical cord to extend to the new way. We have many such models in Afrika—for examples Ghana and South Africa—and other parts of the world, such as Japan.

Now, let us take the case of Uganda in which Mr. Museveni is reputed to have fought for the revival of traditional tribal leadership. It is evident that his motivations were only self-serving, to gain favors originally from mainly the Baganda population. Now the exercise has been extended to others for strategic political expediency. The next person who comes to power (the sooner, the better) should take the case of traditional tribal leadership as a matter of top priority. Genuine and honest debates should be devoid of political horse-trading. Let us put this dog to rest and attend to other business of living.
Odiya
UAH forumist

Buganda has the right to demand for federalism

September 17, 2009 at 10:48 pm (Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: Phillip Oruni

“I told them from day one that don’t request for federalism, because when you demand for federalism you are asking for political authority and political authority must be held by elected people, of course now Museven is right to force an elected Katikiro-(Edward Mulindwa, UAH, 16/09/09).

I do not agree with the assertion cited above, that the Kingdom of Buganda/Mengo is wrong to demand for federalism. Yes, the Kingdom of Buganda has every right to demand for the sharing of authority/power with the central government of Uganda under a federal system. I keep referring to the 1900 Agreement, because that was the basis by which Buganda became part of modern Uganda. Under article 6 of the agreement the Kabaka was clearly recognised as “the native ruler of the province of (B)uganda”. Under article 10, the Kabaka’s power of state were devolved to the three state ministers; ie, the Katikiro (prime minister), Omulamuzi (chief justice) and Omuwanika (chief treasurer/finance minister). Both Kabaka Daudi Chua and Kabaka Mutesa II ruled the Kingdom of Buganda more or less as a constitutional monarchy under this agreement.

At independence Buganda enjoyed full federal status within a largely unitary structure of central government until 1966 when the Kabaka was deposed. The following year the constitution was changed to a fully unitary one.

In 1960 the then Kabaka Sir Edward Mutesa reorganised the Kingdom government, adding more ministerial portfolios of education, health, information, youth and sports, and works.

Kabaka Ronald Mutebi has made further modernisation in the informal ministerial portfolios of Mengo cabinet making it more in tune with the 21st century. New portfolios include gender, information and IT, culture and antiquities, and the environment. Kabaka Mutebi has also appointed some of the most able professionals to head ministries of Mengo cabinet. All that is left is formal recognition of the government at Mengo through the granting of a federal system.

The current problem is not caused by Mengo or His Highness the Kabaka but is the result of a fallacy of the 1995 Constitution which in effect abolished constitutional monarchy in Uganda. Although the Odoki Constitution Commission returned that 68% of Ugandans and 97% of the people of Buganda favoured federalism, the NRM government ignored those wishes and proceeded to impose a unitary constitution on Uganda. This is largely what is causing the current Buganda crisis.

President Museveni himself has realised that the current system of unitary government is neither fully effective nor responsive, thus the President has proposed and had a law enacted for the creation of a regional tier “version” of federalism. Mengo is vehemently opposed to the regional tier system mainly because it does not address its demand for federalism. However, President Museveni has now vowed to implement the system next year, Mengo’s opposition regardless.

There are two main problems with the regional tier system, which in the end makes it too doomed to fail. Firstly, the regional tier system would merely serve as an additional layer of central government bureaucracy. Whoever will be at the head of that bureaucracy will perform a role akin to that of a “Regional RDC”.

The second and more serious problem is that the regional tier system lacks the two most important factors necessary for effective and responsive functioning of a regional government, namely points of focus of identity and loyalty. In Buganda a Katikiro elected under the regional tier system would sit awkwardly along side the Katikiro of the Kingdom of Buganda. He will presumably be referred to as the “government Katikiro”. Needless to say, the “government Katikiro” will neither enjoy the loyalty or focus of identity of the people of Buganda, and will merely serve as an additional point of friction between Mengo and the NRM government.

Outside Buganda, for example in Acholi, Lango, Teso, Busoga, Bunyoro-Kitara, Tooro, etc, the position of a “Regional Chairman/Katikiro” may attract politicians clamoring to contest it in election. However, this will mainly be because of the financial rewards accruing to the job, while eliciting less support from the people.

Thus the regional tier system would neither answer the demands of Mango for constitutional monarchy, or the increasing demands for regional autonomy in most parts of Uganda . What it will do, however, is bring to an end any remaining semblance of relationship between Mengo and the NRM government. The regional tier system may yet become the proverbial “last straw that broke the camels back”.

Regards,

Pilipo Oruni Oloya

Buganda has been DISPROPORTIONATELY TOLERANT

September 15, 2009 at 11:09 am (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: oluni philip

Dear all,

I do not condone secterianism, but I think it is fair to say that as a region Buganda has been DISPROPORTIONATELY TOLERANT. Buganda has generally welcomed all Ugandans to work, study, settle and prosper in Buganda. To my mind Buganda has elected people from other “tribes”/communities to represent them in Parliament, these included Daudi Ochieng (Acholi), Ojok Mulozi (Acholi), Dr. B.N Kununka (Munyoro), one Asian and One white. Today, there are many business men and women from other parts of Uganda who own bussinesses, land and estates deep in the heartlands of Buganda who have never been segregated against, and have only recieved coopreation and support from Baganda. It is fair to say that the same would be very difficult to comeby in other parts of Uganda.

The problem has to be with the failure of our constitution and political process which have consistently failed to bring about longlasting stable and peaceful Uganda. Instead Buganda and the Baganda have borne the brunt of political and social instability leading to deaths and untold suffering.(As an Acholi I am tempted to refere to our own sufferings here, and so would Ugandans from everywhere). To the Baganda these visitations are foreign.

And the setiments are bourne by the facts. The latter KAR of the 1940s and 50s that were used by the colonial governement to brutally suppress the 1945 and 1949 rebellions in Buganda dispropotionately consisted of men from the northern and eastern Uganda.

After Independence, the army and men who stormed the Lubiri in 1966, deposed the Kabaka, and assisted in the abrogation of the Great Lukiiko and Saza Councils disproportionately came from other parts of Uganda.

The Military coup of Iddi Amin in 1971 and the subsequent brutal regime visited upon Ugandans including the Buganda ofcourse, was staged by men who disproportionately came from outside Buganda.

The military coup of 1985 and the subsequent deaths and sufferings it caused in Buganda and other parts of Uganda was staged by men who predominatly came from outside Buganda.

The Luwero NRA war and the subsequesnt untold genocide it visited on Buganda was orchesterated by men and women who predominatly came from outside Buganda. The fact the Baganda were later sucked in and participated on the side of Yoweri Museveni was the reaction of victims trying to survive a brutal war.

The events of the last few days which led to many deaths of the people of Buganda was the result of the brutish suppression by an army which is disproportionately staffed by men and officers from outside Buganda.

I therfore fully understand the sentimants which was allegedly expressed by Bosco Musisi. There is indeed a need to get rid of the “cocroaches” out of Buganda and Uganda too.

A NEW BEGINNING

The events of the past few days have set all our minds focused on the way forward for our country. I personally would prefer to see the following happen.

1. The government to kickstart a genunie debate on the future form of governance which Uganda should have, in particular the constitutional issues of federalism with a view of finding a lasting solution.

2. The government should persue these debates in the national interest through muli partisan approach, so as to take on board the views of the opposition parties.

3.The oposition parties should come out clearly and contribute constructively to the constitutional debate about federalism or otherwise.One welcomes Mr. Ochieno’s stated approach of new politics of “not sitting on the fence”. Therefore, the opposition themselves should state their comprehensive policy positions on the difficult issues of federalism. The opposition have opportunity to state their policies on these issues during the forthcoming party delegates conferences, and national elections compaigns and on forums such as UAH. Stating merely that ”we shall give federalism to Buganda” is no longer enough.

4. Parliament should in due course come forward with the neccessary law authorising a new Constitution that addresses all the particularisms of the different “tribes” and regions of Uganda. The Odoki Constitution Commission found that 68% of Ugandans were in favour of a federal constitution. The time to implement these wishes is now.

Pilipo Oruni Oloya

How can we not thank m7 for the joy ride?

September 12, 2009 at 7:16 am (2009 -2011 elections, Federalism, KINGDOMS)
Tags: mayiko Makula

And how can we not thank m7 for the joy ride?

M7 now graduated from 27 guns to using swams of tanks, mambas and battalions of both militarized police and army combined in all regions in Buganda to solve simple issues like one barring one single Cultural leader of the freedom to travel from one place to another. Mark you the person is traveling in only one direction from Kampala to Kayunga and fro. It may happen to anyone as long as you are in the opposition or if you are not known to be an nrm sympathizer, Wait when Lt Musisi former UNAA president visits Uganda, a sledge hummer will be used to crack a nut, (okukozesa embazi okwasa ekinazi).

To me those are acts of cawardness not bravity as we are meant to believe without queries. It sounds like an animal farm story by George Orwell. m7 & his short sighted government continues blundering on issues as put down for you as below; because doing so though, makes him unpopular among the masses he can now embark on a hundred percent on rigging elections come 2011 as he has always done clandestinely this time around it will be done in the open.

The key issues are:

1. The Buganda issue of Federo, confiscated property and Land in the hands of govt.

2. Lynching of Land lords in Buganda which resulted in formulating the killer wanainchi squads as in bibanja holders

3. The takeover of Kampala by the central government

4. The divisions among the Muslim community (Pro-government Mubajje) verses (Pro-Kayongo faction)

5. Militarization of the Police

6. Safe houses & extra judicial security groups like K.A.P of Kakooza mutale

7. The unending government deals (AGOA, Diary cooperation and the kichupulistic sale of Entebbe International Airport)

8. The sale of government parastatal bodies and the money is fully un accounted for

9. Famine especially in Teso,

10. Government excessive expenditure and International Relations.

The m7 govt. is faced with a lot of dilemmas too from different regions rendering him unfit to stand for 2011 elections.

11. The issue of what the people in the north commonly call genocide, the camps, Kony war, the promises that Kony will be no more and yet he is still around and alive.

The following are some of the problematic regions:

a. The Buganda issue. Because there is no known solutions available, the m7 man came out to tell Buganda that it won’t discuss any more federo, because Buganda was offered a regional tier that even does not make sense to m7 himself, this agitated Mengo and caused unrest to the central government. The government has put its foot down and told Mengo to go and hang, thus the recent clashes between the militarized police, the army and the people in Buganda region for refusing the Kabaka to travel wherever he chooses.

b. The recent discovery of Oil in Bunyoro, On the whole it is good news for the country, and the people of Bunyoro where the oil has been discovered. Bunyoro Kingdom believes it should have a stake in the Oil business and the government has been playing hide and seek, by not being too open about the discoveries, the prospects and its plans for the oil revenue and when to take off, it seems like high profiled nrm stalwarts have a big stake in the oil and have land in the oil rich region before the indigenous people of Bunyoro even got wind of it..

c. The issue of “Bafuruki” immigrants and the unti-intellectual advice given by m7 has set bad blood brewing between the indigenous Banyoro aand the Bakiga (Bafuruki). The Bakiga have amassed chunks of land slowly but surely in (Bihanga, Kamwenge, Kasese, Mubende and now in the Bunyoro areas of Kibale). This is a highly contentious issue and needs a sober and realistic approach by the m7 government. M7 has to play safe and also solicit for allies in this “Bafuruki” Saga. It has to bank on its allies in leadership who hail from Bunyoro region.

The Issue of government taking sides, has set the Bakiga, to put up offence and are not ready to let go without a fight. The Bakiga are highly placed in several Ugandan positions, in government, civil service and government bureaucracy as you can tell.

Those who are closer to the Mafioso govt. say, a cross-section of Bakiga in Kampala, Entebbe, Jinja and Kabale were not over-joyous when Dr. Ndugu Rugunda was forced out to represent Uganda at UN headquarters in New York because they view it as no less than a naked demotion.

It is highly believed that the NRM government enjoys a majority vote of the Bakiga women while the opposition FDC has a good number of votes among men and those who repelled the blackboard.

d. The Politics of Teso has also been so dear and sends chills to the NRM leadership. Political observers believe that in order to rejuvenate the Teso region back into the fold, a new strategy is has to be devised so that the Iteso and arrow groups get a fat position, Mike Mukula could be the man to talk to since he rose above the corruption allegations or in simple algebra was let off the hook, it does no good to castrate our signature values as in corruption, since also one of our corrupt man by the fine names of Amama mbabazi was left with his loot intact.

e. The issue of the return of Olara Otunu to the Political arena in Uganda is another puzzling factor that is keeping the inept corrupt regime on its toes. Otunu has served as a leader at University (NUSU Makerere University), Uganda’s permanent representative to the UN as an Undersecretary for children affairs and Minister of Foreign Affairs under his Uncle the late General Tito Okello Lutwa. He is from the Acholi tribe which is dominant in Northern Uganda. The Acholi cover the current Gulu, Kitgum, Pader and Amuru districts. His entry onto the Political scene is likely to set other forces in motion like the strong links with the Catholic Church in the Acholi region and rejuvenation of the old UPC party network at the rural and urban north level.

f. It is also believed that Otunu is a close associate of HH the Kabaka of Buganda.The FDC’s strong working relations with Mengo will be boosted by Olara Otunu’s entry and Mushega has been tasked to win the entire Ankole and Rukiga sectors of southwestern Uganda. Political strategists say, the Political ground is now pregnant with high expectations and the drawing board has predictions that: “When the going gets tough, the tough get going!” after the regime seems to have failed to win back Nuwe Amanya mushega to the rails of corruption, bribery and Mafia style of group of companies as in nrm/o.

g. Many observers believe m7 is poised to pull a quick one and surprise Ugandans with a reshuffle in the cabinet and the army hierarchy in order to build a winning team. Talk is ripe that there is going to be a combination of forces to prepare for 2011.

h. The issue of disgruntled NRM historical, DP, FDC, UPC and all other playing forces like the Federo, the Pro-Kayongo Muslim force will all aim at bringing down the NRM rotting regime. Keen observers believe that we shall have a unity government come 2011 with many opposition forces in the new government of National unity.

i. The issue corruption & bribery; the issue of highly corrupted nrm cadres and bribery has also discredited the m7 govt, wastage of tax payers money like ferrying voters from Kampala to the recent UNAA elections has seen nrm extending its testicles sorry tentacles to USA, and waiting for dual citizenship, so much rigging is being planned.

j. The issue of Land; and who should own which property or business and where is a silly take over of private entrepreneurs way of conducting business. M7 has meddled with independent people’s business, m7 in his own understanding believes people should be made poor in order to respond to his politics of backwardness and thus if you open up to his inept ideologies then you should be rewarded in terms of cars, a govt post or chairmanship Bitature style, get business and pay allegiance to him as a mafia style kind of business or govt. in Uganda’s case.

m7 has belittled himself as a commoner that he is and has gone too far below in using his common sense and the way he hundles very common issues and blows them out of proportion has for example seen people like Ken Lukyamuzi become MP’s. that they wouldn’t have been in the first place to Ken Lukyamuzi’s daughter now as MP uptill to campaigning for Sematimba as a mere LC5.

The man is like he expects no more Heaven after death and has decided to build his own heaven on earth and everyone is expected to worship or else risk loosing your freedom of movement a name that we now know means a lot to him so as to be included in his own party nrmovement.
Mayiko Makula

Kampala__________________

Kabaka’s plan for ‘federo’ should be supported

August 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm (Federalism)
Tags: Hakimu Semuwemba

The Observer Monday 16^th August 2009 outlined Mengo’s political agenda. This is a timely agenda. Achieving a National Conference of delegates representing all the indigenous communities of Uganda can be the avenue by which a peaceful revolution takes place in Uganda.

The UN Resolution No.61/295 allows indigenous communities to choose the manner of governance they wish over their own territory and requires governments to fully cooperate in the implementation of resolutions from such conferences. The communities that put up Uganda in Lancaster 1962 are the true owners of Uganda. Governments are put in place by these owners and should operate for their benefit.

However in 1966, Dr.Obote chose to forcefully allocate the ownership of Uganda to government and militarily put aside the 1962 rules of association that were agreed between the indigenous communities of Uganda. Since that day, Ugandans have never truly had a government of the people, by the people and for the people. They have been held together by military force.

Even in 1994, the CA was put in place by a fake election process and the result was a 1995 constitution which completely disregarded the views of the people that were submitted to the Odoki Commission. The constitution concentrated power in the hands of the President leaving the judiciary and legislature to eat from his palms. Decentralization also came out as a tool for the President to extend patronage tentacles. The result was the creation of a M7 military regime capable of using patronage and corruption to subjugate all the other institutions of government and any form of opposition. They hold regular selections as opposed to regular elections using the electoral body.

Mengo’s plan to organize a national conference presents an opportunity by which Ugandans can re-assert their ownership rights; formulate a new people based constitution; appoint an interim administration; reorganize the Ugandan army to serve the people rather than a group; reorganize the police, judiciary and revenue authority; set a level playing field for political competition between parties, appoint a new electoral commission independent of all political parties; and generally revolutionalise Uganda back to the true ideals of the people even if this meant agreeing to break up and each community goes back to her original territory. The frontline participation of the Kabaka may not appear progressive though it would be necessary as proposed at this time. The plan should completely disregard the so called 2011 elections. People based political parties should instead concentrate their effort alongside proponents for the National conference and ensure effective mobilization of the indigenous communities to participate sooner rather than later. Any political leader that today continues to mobilize the masses towards strongly participating in the 2011 polls is definitely a self seeker.

The non-self seekers should quickly congregate and organize around people like Dan Muliika, Wadada Nabudere, Obonyo, etc to quickly achieve the national conference hence a new political atmosphere, a new leadership, system revisions, etc. Delegates from communities should be chosen or elected basing on the traditions and systems agreeable to each individual community. Religious leaders should be present at the conference to give guidance to the delegates and bless deliberations though they should not participate in deciding on any matters. President Museveni may be invited to open the conference for indeed this now represents the only peaceful and constitutional alternative path to change. Elections are in actual sense selections and Ugandans wish to achieve non-violent change.

Hakimu Semuwemba

Uganda

Banyoro hard line stances started the problems 120 yrs ago

August 14, 2009 at 11:39 pm (CULTURE, Federalism, History, Land matters)
Tags: Dr Adyeri Muchori

Whilst we sympathize with the problems that the banyoro are having, we should be clear on the following self inflicted problems. essentially the banyoro need to take their lesson from history and focus on cultural development (learning how to work hard), and on social emancipation (they started it all).

1. Ankole, rukiga, busoga, toro, etc are all fundamentally part of bunyoro. however, these regions sought to become independent due to the bad practices at the core of the kingdom. for instance, at the burial of every king, 100 bashambo (a clan that cuts accross ankole, rukiga, and rwanda) would have to be killed / buried with the king. the bakiga have every right to be anywhere in bunyoro. this derailed potential future sympathy for its causes.

2. Due to excessive ruthlessness in handling POWs by bunyoro, the growing buganda kingdom was forced into an align with whites … just to find a lasting solution to that everpresent looming danger of bunyoro. of course, victory resulted in “annexation” of bunyoro land and genocide, which was largely a revenge killings. note that the rest of the region sat and watched as this campaigm against bunyoro was orchestrated. No body really “felt sorry for them”

3. It is true that in principle kabalega is correctly a hero in fighting colonialisn. and this is confirmed by the fact that his earlier foe, king mwanga, joined him. although the motives were more survival than nationalist. with hindsight we see this, but we also do not say that this war was bound to fail because the leader kabalega did not have moral authority. u see, people compared british / bugand rule to the omukama’s rule .. with the bunyoro leader doing badly in that mental “elections”. the rest is history.

4. That hard line stance by banyoro is the same one showing its ugly head. It goes against all lessons of history. one that obama had to take himself. learn the + and – of your history and resolve to adopt the pluses only and replace the minuses with a better value from other cultures. for instance, in this day and age, in a republic, why do u call fellow citizens abafuruki? Remember that with the advent of colonization, the laws of Uganda gave everyone the right to settle anywhere. this was crowned by the 1974 land decree. these revelotionary land laws are just as binding as other state decisions during these times. for instance courts of law have instructed current governments to pay benefits to soldiers of uganda army recruited during amins times. similarly, the resulting decisions to collapse cultural land boundaries are just as binding.

5.This particular aspect of moving forward also affects buganda and the stance taken by mengo. it also affects the acholi region and “their land”. It is the same reason why the other east African states wisely do not recognize cultural governments. We actually feel Uganda needs to abolish them to become a positive member of the east African community.

6. Do you expect a lazy bum to bring development? The president may have good intentions, but; Jesus; it is not leadership per see, but what you can do with it. based on the accusations we see in the media about laziness, will the banyoro rise to the mark do disprove that they are lazy. it appears from the meida that the bakiga of Uganda are the most hardworking group, and on the contrary shoudl be allocated chunks of land in the idle north.

food for thought.

Thank you very much

Dr Adyeri Muchori
Kisumu – KENYA

UAH Forumist

4 Comments

Are Bakiga being targeted in Bunyoro?

August 12, 2009 at 3:56 pm (Federalism, Genocides, POLITICS)
Tags: Billie Kadameri

Dear UAH,

I notice that other people who settled in Bunyoro have been elected to leadership positions there. Although The Monitor says Kibanda county MP Amooti Otada is Munyoro, he is actually a Paluo (derogatorily referred to at times as Chope).

His father Opio Owor is a big businessman in both Lira and Karuma areas. Some people there have Kinyoro names when they are Luo, such as former Obote II Prisons Commissioner Barnabas Byabazaire (Langi) or special forces chief Ahmed Ogeny (Paluo).

In Kibanda county there is a big settlement of Luos from Acholi (who fled Kony and other Langi, just having fun). That was why Amooti Otada went through unopposed.

My question is: why is the impression being created that only Bakiga are being targeted? Is it not right to discuss President Museveni’s proposals with open minds, bringing on board all those issues?

I think the Bakiga have a right to stand for office anywhere though I doubt any of the people talking about this will allow Bakiga settler citizens to stand in Acholi, Lango, or Teso if they moved there.

Bakiga leaders Adolf Mwesige and Dora Byamukama (East African Parliament have been elected before in Kabarole and it is causing no problem there. Let us discuss why it is that the Banyoro are complaining. Bunyoro is a kind of melting pot for Uganda, much like Kampala and Jinja (Dr Ojok Mulozi, Freddie Ruhindi and Odaka and Harry Kasigwa come to mind).

I recently gave a call to a Lugbara friend of mine and he told me ‘I am at home in the village’. I asked him ‘how is Arua?’ He said ’no, no, my village is in Isimba, Masindi dsitrict!’.

A real melting pot indeed!

Just as the Igbo elder would say, ‘ahem’ to you. I have a village in my home district and I have another urban in in the Wakiso urban area bordering Kampala. I do not think our villagers in Wakiso will take on each other. I have seen them rise up and take on night robbers and thugs. That is their and our common challenge.

Billie Kademeri

Ugandan journalist based in France

Federalism in Uganda is a Stone Age issue

August 5, 2009 at 3:28 pm (Federalism, Land matters, POLITICS)
Tags: Kayondo Edward

Fellow netters, it’s the DNA of ethnicity that makes federalism in Uganda a Stone Age issue. We are currently not able to survive in the caves of our forefathers or hem in our brains like coconuts, the world is way wide open, opportunities are every where and the level of interdependence needed to survive these days is more than palpable, and so constricting.

For starters, those who have there eyes to the future (all true leaders should be visionaries), the definition of an ethnic group on which federalism is centered should be clearly explained. For a generation like ours, one for example will ask who is a true Muganda? My kids can marry or get married to any one they choose and excuse me but tribe will not be on my wish list for a suitable partner. Pluralism is a norm for many Ugandans scattered in and outside our borders. Diversities within many individuals are conflicts many don’t even want to address. Many can identify with Tiger Woods answer on the question of him being Black or African American.

So the question then is who is deceiving who? Who is going to benefit from this federalism movement? In the central area, baganda will benefit you would say, but then who is a muganda. The litmus test is before our eyes, who is benefiting from the few assets that those who want more currently own. Don’t forget that it’s the same people who administrate Bulange and its controversies that are holding the steering wheel for federalism.

For federalism to work we should have some other galvanizing force in the stipulated regions other than ethnic groups. On record I don’t think the failures in Uganda can be fixed with federalism. We are better of installing a couple bulbs in the heads of our current leaders , drill holes in some coconut skulls or scavenge for a few brighter minds.

For God and My Country.

Dr. Kayondo Eddie, MD