By Prof. Dani W. Nabudere
July 6, 2004
|
The current manoeuvres between the central government and the Kabaka's government are not new. They have always been about how power between the centre and the regions should be shared. The manoeuvres that led to the formation of the Uganda People's Congress (UPC)-Kabaka-Yekka (KY) alliance was exactly about that.
That alliance was for the purpose of keeping the Democratic Party (DP) out of power. The present one is about how Mengo and the National Resistance Movement-Organisation (NRM-O) can share power and keep out the parties. Mengo is showing reluctance to negotiate under these conditions and hence they are trying to separate the issue of federalism from the 'kisanja' campaign. This is because they have seen that a 'kisanja' will inevitably undermine Buganda's claim to sovereignty. The limits to the central government strategy are revealed by the contradictory demands from both sides, which are self-cancelling. With the self-cancellation, Mengo still remains viable since they are on the ground. The UPC-KY alliance was about keeping the DP out of power, which succeeded at great cost to the country. In the present case, the incumbent wants to use the 'federo talks' to keep democracy entirely at the centre by enshrining a one-man, dynastic rule. But the demand for a political Kabaka and enhanced federo claims, makes a pursuance of absolute power by the president self-cancelling. It must be one or the other. In the earlier alliance, Mutesa wanted to get the political power, which he had lost in the 1962 Lancaster House arrangement, by doing a deal with Dr Milton Obote to share political power at the centre by becoming president and remaining Kabaka at the same time. Both Mutesa and Dr Obote had different understandings of the real purpose of the alliance. According to Mutesa in the Desecration of My Kingdom, the alliance meant that: "Obote would stand down as Prime Minister and I would appoint anyone I wanted to be Prime Minister." But Obote thought differently and must have signed such alliance with his fist over his mouth, saying: "You are joking!" In his Letter to a London Friend he put his own version of what he understood by the alliance when he wrote: "When I saw Mutesa taking up the Bible to swear allegiance to Uganda, I knew I had finished him." It is precisely these kinds of conspiratorial manoeuvres that characterise Museveni's kisanja campaigns, which are tempered with promises of federo for Buganda. When Museveni says "I did not promise anything to Buganda" when in fact he did, he is trying to do an Obote on Ronnie Mutebi. Mutebi must have been studying his father's book very carefully, because he seems to be saying he would not play this game again. I said the politics surrounding the federo manoeuvres has now changed. This time Mutebi wants political power directly and not through the manoeuvres his father made with Obote. I remember talking to Mutebi when he was still a very young man at Trafalgar Square in a coffee house opposite the South African House in London in the mid-1980s and warned him about the dilemma his father had faced in the alliance and why he must avoid repeating the same mistake. It seems he has decided to sue for direct power, which can ensure that Buganda becomes a strong kingdom built on the ancient heritage of Buganda. This demand goes beyond constitution making and is a complete departure from the old politics, which many politicians and political commentators have completely missed. Firstly, there is a misconception that Mengo is involved in "narrow politics" which detracts the country from "unity and development." But Mengo is saying, unlike in the past, that they are asking for federo for the whole country. On this score though, Mengo is adopting a two-track strategy. They seem to be taking a longer-term view of the situation, because they see their campaign as one aimed at restoring Buganda's sovereignty over the longer term. They are also saying that the demand for federo will enable Buganda to tackle poverty afflicting the kingdom as the Kabaka said in his Mengo speech recently. In short, they see their campaign as developmental and not a narrow-focussed campaign and this is an indirect critique of central government development strategies. Secondly, and related to the above, the argument that Mengo is 'not clear' about the link between federalism and monarchism is also false. Mengo is very clear about the link and those who accuse them of confusion are themselves getting confused. When the Kabaka demands that he needs political power in order to exercise his functions of Kabakaship properly and when Museveni offers to talk about it with him, both the president and Mutebi are clear what this means. It is about Buganda having a federal system in which the Kabaka is the political authority. But Mengo also knows that this has to be tempered by recognition of other new forms of 'powers' that are wielded by other actors in modern Uganda, which they have to deal with. Buganda's demands therefore go to the root of the existing system of governance. On the one hand, the demands are a direct challenge to the legitimacy of this post-colonial power wielded by the central government. On this ground, they are strengthened by the fact that Uganda as a state is legitimate so long as it is governed democratically. If it is democratically governed, Mengo's demand for federalism would not be a problem, because it would be a devolution of power, which is consistent with democracy. On this account, Buganda is entitled to ask for a renegotiation of their role in such a state. They are entitled to ask for the reinstatement of their original constitution, which the British abolished and handed it to the present post-colonial state in Uganda. This has the implication that the present manoeuvres of the present government to continue the oppressive system they initiated 18 years ago can no longer produce a legitimate political or constitutional order. This is because the 'kisanja' strategy underway is about the permanent imposition of one-man rule on the country. This means, the president would become a kind of self-imposed monarch without any democratic challenge since apart from removing term limit, the kisanja would also enhance his powers over the Legislature and Judiciary. He would dissolve Parliament at will and dismiss judges who do not give favourable judgements. Moreover, this would be on a permanent basis. This is the logic of Museveni trying to prepare his son, Maj. Muhozi Kainerugaba to take over from him. The question now is: who has more legitimacy to ask for monarchical power -- is it Museveni or Mutebi. The answer is obvious. Prof. Nabudere is a veteran politician and heads the Afrika Study Centre in Mbale. |
© 2004 The Monitor Publications
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
