Yes, I agree that federo is central and that we must strive for it. All I am saying is that we had better have a game plan ready for thereafter. Otherwise, we will wind up with "byoya bya nswa" (hot air) after we attain federo.
For example, one of the strategies favored by the Movement has been plain old 'Divide and Rule', practiced much like imperialist Capt. Lugard in the 1900s. The Movement simply gave it a less offensive name. Under the guise of 'decentralization', they cut up Uganda into a myriad of "districts". Many of these so called districts do not have even a prayer to sustain themselves, e.g. Kalangala which was formerly a part of Masaka District, has less than 30,000 people. In 1991 Kalanglala had only about 17,000 people, if not less.
Obviously, there is an urgent need to de-couple administrative districts from political ("parliamentary") districts, with a view to making administrative districts more or less permanent, while political districts can be re-drawn from titme to time to ensure equal political representation.
The list goes on. It is in this respect that I lamented the need to move the political debate beyond federo. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that federo should be an end in itself. Rather, I take it to be the foundation on which institutions can safely be based.
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
