And here is Dr. Okuonzi's rebuttal of Achemah's article: ttp://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/Pursuit-of-Lugbara-chiefdom-is-justifiable/-/689364/1898936/-/114vwh8/-/index.html
================ Harold Acemah’s piece in the Sunday Monitor of June 23, “Quest for Lugbara chiefdom is nothing but a selfish venture” is, with due respect, dismissive, inaccurate, polemical and not in the best interest of the Lugbara. It plays into the hands of those who regard Lugbara as unorganised, and without a history of control and cohesiveness. Acemah’s thesis is that the Lugbara did not have chiefdoms and believed that “men were created equal, clan heads were chosen on merit, and were On 7/20/13, samuel andema <andemanot hereditary… and the Lugbara were egalitarian and republican”. Actually, the Lugbara nation, though highly decentralised, was cohesive and unified. Central authority was exercised only in times of national crises, especially in wars, famine and epidemics. The smallest political unit was the chieflet, with complete institutions for governing politics, economy, trade, religion, law, army and foreign relationship; all the components of a state. Depending on the nature and extent of an issue, chieflets got together under a paramount chief. John Middleton has indeed written widely about the Lugbara, but dwells on Lugbara anthropology not her political organisation and statehood. These latter topics have been written elsewhere and especially vividly by historian O.J.E Shiroya in a chapter “Lugbara States in 18th and 19th centuries” in the book State Formation in Eastern Africa. The Lugbara state formation occurred between 1500 and 1700. Before 1500 there was no Lugbara. Lugbara was a created through the cultural and blood mixing through intermarriages between four different ethnic groups: Madi, Bari, Luo and Kebu/Ndu. The Madi group was dominant both in number and language. So Madi language and culture as a whole was modified through cultural transformation, giving rise to a new culture, nation and language group called Lugbara. The Lugbara consisting of formerly different ethnic groups became a distinct entity “with common ideas, in politics, and in social philosophies”. At the turn of 18th century, secondary migrations begun from the cradle land southwards and westwards into what is now DR Congo. Some Lugbara clans moved into Logiri and DR Congo. They settled among and intermarried with the Kebu and Ndu, and assimilated these tribes into the Lugbara culture. Lugbaraization Historians call the period 1770 - 1850 “the Lugbaraization period”, the period of expansion of Lugbara culture, language and influence. Outlying clans such as Aupi, Yiba and Otumbari became Lugbaraized. The Lugbara culture penetrated Bari communities without the Lugbara actually moving there, for example the Ludara of Koboko. Formerly Bari speaking clans such as Lormujo, Leiko, Leba, Riaba, Kerikula, Reli and Ingili all became Lugbaraized. The basic political unit in the Lugbara nation was a chieflet led by a chief or Opi or Atalao. A chief was advised by Ojoo on war, famine and epidemics. Ojoo was also a high priest, physician, foreteller and diviner. In parts of Lugbara, paramount chiefs existed, and ruled over several chieflets who submitted to him. In Maraca the paramount chief was called Opi Ozooni, because he was also a rain-maker. In Aringa all chiefs were rain-makers. Opi’s were hereditary and for life. Opi was succeeded by the first son of the first wife. Where this was not possible, elders selected one son to be the chief. There was no standing army in the Lugbara nation, even at the chieflet level. But an army was always mobilised in times of need. The army was led by a military commander or war captain called Keigo or Ambo. This was not an appointive position but came automatically to a warrior who distinguished himself. Chiefdoms cooperated and held “mock wars” to keep soldiers fit. War was controlled by a paramount chief, who also settled disputes among chieflets. The Lugbara’s Kari or Chiefdom, renamed during the colonial period was an expansion and modification of the basic Lugbara social and political organisation. It was not a new creation. While Lugbara ancestors organised chiefs and paramount chiefs to solve specific problems as such as famines, today the Lugbara are faced with new but perpetual challenges of disunity, lack of cohesion and loss of cultural heritage, and of adjusting our culture to science and technology. For this reason, to restore the Lugbara Kari is justified so as to bring about unity, to foster ethnic identity, to protect our cultural heritage and to develop and codify Lugbara language for advanced education, science and technology. These cannot be achieved by the central or local governments. While the way the current cultural leaders have been chosen in their respective positions has not been transparent, in principle, it is the right way to go. To give credibility to the whole process, Lugbara elders from the entire Lugbara land, including from DR Congo, must get together to select persons who have distinguished themselves in the service of the Lugbara people and have the capacity to achieve the goals outlined above. I call upon all Lugbara to join hands to restore our cultural organisation. Mr Okuonzi is the Member of Parliament for Vurra County, Arua District s...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Dear Caleb, > > Thank you for inviting us to respond to this very important subject > regarding the institution of Agofe among the Lugbara. Unfortunately, I seem > not to have read the articles by my elder brothers Mr. Acema and > Hon. Dr. Okuonzi or if I did, I never paid much attention to them to be able > to respond to the specific arguments they have made. I will therefore limit > my response to their two claims that you have alluded to, namely: 1) that > those seeking Agofe are self seekers, 2) that the Lugbara were egalitarian > and believed in equality. > > In the first place the claim that those seeking Agofe are self seekers > without providing sufficient evidence is disrespectful to people like Mzee > Jason Avutia (Chairman, Lugbara Elders' Association) who played crucial role > in averting a potentially serious armed conflict between National Resistance > Army (NRA) and the soldiers who had retreated to West Nile and regrouped to > resist the NRA under the leadership of Brigadier Go Wilson Toko. The > soldiers were itching to fight but when Toko convened a meeting with > the elders from Arua District to seek their approval and blessing a war > against the advancing NRA, they insisted that war was not the best option. > Instead the elders offered to go to the front line with white flags > to negotiate a peaceful entry of NRA into West Nile. As a result NRA entered > West Nile without a single bullet which saved us from bloodshed and > destruction of property. Had the elders not intervened and had Toko not > listened > to their wise counsel, our situation would have been worst than the > suffering that the people of Gulu have endured for decades. > > It was against such a background that the need for a more structured > cultural institution among Lugbara elders arose to facilitate coordination > and mobilization to respond to common challenges and threats. It is > important to appreciate the historical context in which Agofe evolved to > constructively discuss its merits and demerits. This is not to say that > there can be no self seekers in such an organization. Definitely like any > organization there will always be some individuals who would want to take > advantage of such an institution to advance their selfish interests at the > expense of a common good. With time such self seekers and their selfish > schemes will be exposed. In my view, the question should be how we as young > people can build on what the elders have done but not to tear it down for > equally selfish reasons. We should be discussing how we can make the Agofe > more democratic, transparent, and all inclusive. The constitution of Uganda > recognizes cultural institutions as legitimate institutions to play > complementary roles in promoting unity and service delivery. The Agofe can > play an important role in resolving conflicts and fostering unity, > preserving our institution memory through artifacts, promoting our cultural > identity, promoting tourism, developing language etc. > > While I agree with Acema and Okuonzi that the Lugbara were generally viewed > as an egalitarian society by the dawn of colonialism, I do not subscribe to > the notion that social formation among the Lugbara communities was static > and the institutions of leadership would not have grown beyond clans. In > fact to the contrary, colonialism came in as a disruption to state > formation among communities of West Nile as Ahluwalia (1995) and Leopold > (2005) accurately describe in their books entitled "Plantation and the > Politics of Sugar in Uganda" and "Inside West Nile" respectively which I > encourage those interested in the history of our people to read. Copies of > these books can be found in Aristock Bookshop in Kampala. Our challenge is > that we have a poor reading culture which limits our ability to objectively > examine documentary evidence to make plausible arguments. > > I would like to conclude by suggesting that the executive of this forum > should consider organizing an event in form of a workshop or a conference in > which people with strong views about the notion of Agofe can be invited to > present alternative views based on research evidence. I would be willing to > offer my own perspective to the discussions. > > Thanks. > > Sam > > > > Subject: [WestNileNet] Do the Lugbara need a traditional Chief > > > Some time ago, Ambassador Achema Harold, opined in one of the dailies that > those seeking Agofe are self seekers, that the Lugbara were egalitarian and > believed in equality. Hon Dr. Okuonzi MP Vura rebutted the same, and > supported the idea, it is not the most pressing issue we have, Sam Andema > and father Ruffino and others what is your take on this matter. > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > WestNileNet mailing list > WestNileNet@kym.net > http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet > > WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including > attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ WestNileNet mailing list WestNileNet@kym.net http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. _______________________________________________
