- This topic has 2 voices and 1 reply.
October 5, 2010 at 11:30 am #17937MusajjalumbwaParticipant
Omuganda atannazukuuka nakukwaata kifo kye ekitegeere nti abalina emigabo mu Buganda bonna bamaze okukwaata ebifo byaabwe. Tetusobola nga Abaganda kugenda mu maaso kukkiriza kuttibwa nakufugibwa mu bujoozi mu ngeri efaanana bweeti buno obusajja obutalina magezi. Abaganda abatatwegattako bali wamu n’omulabe. Twabagamba dda abanyamilenge nabaluulu bazimbe ebibuga byaabwe nebagaana, netubagamba federo nebagaana, Kati ye ssaawa eyokwepima. Abaganda munyweere. Akaseera konna tugenda kutandika kukola kyetwalina okukola okuva mu ntandikwa akwejja ku binoso bino.
Uganda and Buganda must learn to co-exist
By Michael Madill
Monitor Tuesday, October 5 2010
You can hear ominous rumblings of discontent among some supporters of federalism these days. There are the usual calls for constitutional change and invective against this or that political figure, but there is also a more radical idea which is gaining popularity. Buganda, some say, should simply secede from Uganda if it cannot get a political settlement to its satisfaction.
That’s a sure way to initiate changes in the structure of government. It’s also the easiest, best way to kill federalism, impoverish Buganda and suck the rest of the country into a downward spiral of un-development and conflict. People who advocate the ‘Buganda alone’ strategy may think they’re bolstering the influence of Mengo, so it’s worth considering the pressures which might result if they’re successful.
is landlocked, for all practical purposes. Apart from fishing its people don’t do significant international or intra-regional trade on its waterways. It doesn’t have any oil or other significant money makers.
Its wealth comes mostly from land, what is built or grows on it, profits from overland trade and remittances from abroad. Its political power arises from this wealth, from its pre-colonial status and from its proximity to the seat of national government and the country’s largest city.
A breakup of Uganda precipitated by Buganda would short-circuit all of these advantages. For starters, very few other districts or kingdoms would follow since most of them are either dependent on the centre or wary of Baganda domination or both. This probably means there would be some centre-led conflict with Buganda aimed at preserving the existing constitutional order.
That, in turn, would cause trade between Kampala and other parts of the country decrease sharply. Problems with Rift Valley Railways and the improvement of rail and road links between Dar es Salaam and Rwanda and between Tororo, Gulu and Juba already affect the movement of goods and money through Buganda. If a shooting war starts what trade is left will suffer.
The chances of reaching any agreement on federalism would also suffer, since the only realistic way to force constitutional change is through a Buganda-led coalition of districts and kingdoms pressuring the centre. Without Buganda, none of the other districts are strong enough to significantly influence government.
A rebel Buganda – this is how it would be presented – would also probably inspire resentment against the kingdom. It would be held responsible for the suffering of the rump Uganda if it seceded because the country depends on Buganda’s economy.
It also has no internationally marketable grievance, the desire for greater self-determination and the running conflict with the centre notwithstanding.
There are no gross violations of international human rights perpetrated only in Buganda, no systematic political repression only of Baganda and no economic sanctions directed at the kingdom which could be used to draw international support for its cause. It does have legitimate arguments against the central government, but to the rest of Uganda and the world secession will simply look like a power grab.
What seals the case against unilateral action, though, is that Buganda can’t survive without Uganda. It is the most economically viable of the kingdoms and districts, but it would wither on its own. Its trade and air, rail and information links to the outside world depend on the central government. It doesn’t make everything it needs, so trade is critical to survival. Without Kampala, which would remain under central control even with a bitter fight, Buganda would be reduced to subsistence farming and small-scale internal trade.
Uganda needs Buganda, and this gives the kingdom some leverage to negotiate a better deal. But Buganda needs Uganda, too, and this means that negotiation is the only way for it to get what Baganda federo supporters say they want – a chance to govern themselves with less reliance on or interference from the centre.
Mr Madill is adjunct professor of history, Oakton Community College, USA
firstname.lastname@example.orgOctober 8, 2010 at 11:51 am #27139MachatiParticipant
Let them have the buildings, all we want is our land, and ofcourse our people they’ve murdered over the half a century of their occupation of our country Buganda.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.