New Paradigm for Sustainable Peace in Uganda

By Grace Kibuuka*

Peace is widely understood as a state of harmony and tranquility experienced at micro and macro levels. Peace has eluded Uganda for a handful of centuries. Before the years of foreign influence, most spectacular of conflicts ever experienced in Uganda were migration-based. Underlying precipitant of them were diseases, climate and population-related causes and, later, the desire of national prestige. It was first, the Bachwezi influence and rule, and soon after its collapse, there came the Luo-Babito.

The coming of foreigners to Uganda between 1840s and 1870s only led to the shaping of conflict to suit their interests. They achieved that using existing powers like Buganda, but also because of its strategic location. Religious factor was first to come into play and to arouse conflict. Renowned kingdoms at the time were Ankole, Tooro, Bunyoro and the influential Buganda.

Different religions not only came into antagonism with existing traditional beliefs –about the concept of God, but also competed between themselves for supremacy and influence. That caused leadership and cultural paralysis before most dominant religion took the day.

The kings were first to be tamed –especially those of Buganda. For strategic reasons, it was important that they colonize Buganda first. Kings –especially in Buganda made temporary attempts to switch from one religion to another –depending on which missionaries or agents provided most pleasing gifts and military support against their enemies.

Their subjects were most antagonized by the new religions –as they were not at all ready for them, but rather, very happy and entrenched in their indigenous belief systems. Through the years there were religious battles –in which the supremacy of protestant missionaries was defined. Their influence also shaped future leadership of Uganda –so much that leaders that followed within and outside Buganda were significantly Anglicans.

While new religions were spreading like burning bush in Uganda, foreign politics was too taking root in the country. That was made real when Uganda was made a British protectorate in 1884-5. Uganda, then received a British representatives charged with exploitation of the natural resources and to strengthen their rule. That, though, came with impressive developments like the construction of the Uganda railway.

It did not only help them gain firm use of the countries resources but also to ease administration that stretched far into the Mediterranean Sea. Uganda was thus pivotal in securing British interests along the Nile to Egypt. Such arrangement was later inherited by future Egyptian governments –who until today relentless struggle to protect their bloody relationship with River Nile.

Because the British had formed the administrative base in Buganda, it is little wonder today that much of the developments, if not all, exist there. Within the security forces, though, it was northern religion that has been earmarked for the elite role –an influence that carried the day until now. The difference only lies in the question of who controls the security forces.

Existing administrative structures were subdued and made to serve the British such that orders from the British government easily trickled into the different kingdoms and chiefdoms around the country. Buganda was important sergeant in the course of subduing other kingdoms and chiefdoms like Bunyoro. And because of its impressive work, it was rewards with more land to it. Such are the famous areas of Bugangaizi, Buyaga, Kiryandongo, Buwekula, Buruli, and Bugerere.

The 1900 agreement made matters bad for British’s most trusted servant –Buganda by taking off with 9000 square miles of land (mailo land). The mailo land was in later years inherited by modern post-independence government. Interestingly, while Buganda is demanding for its mailo land, Bunyoro, on the other hand, seems to say, ‘look here, you have my land as well.’ Restoration of traditional rulers and the return of their properties meant both the return of the Kings’ original influence and power over his area of jurisdiction and land that originally belonged to them. Even the granting of a federal system of rule in 1962 in response to the Buganda question (of total autonomy) could not heal the tumor in Obote’s government.

Today, such demands mean something different to different tribes and cultural leaders, just because even original stature of them also varies very much. For example, while Buganda was most endowed, strategically located, and most powerful kingdom –both economically, politically, and militarily, the rest only came second, third, fourth and last.

It is understandable that even the demand for greater autonomy towards the management of resources is led by Buganda –with less or no sympathy from the rest of other tribes. The mere return of kings as chiefs as traditional symbols did not please all –especially Buganda –whose previous stature was far above it only being symbolic.

The new position was out rightly accepted only as part of the process of acquiring all that belonged to it –including its former prestige and glory. The old Buganda within Uganda was a state within a state –which modern day political observers find ridiculous.

All post-independent governments have gone through this test and failed, which government then will ever succeed as future conflict continues to be centered on that? To such, not even previous constitution reviews famously set up in Museveni era have satisfactorily sorted out a new political arrangement between the central government and the traditional institution. Instead, they were filled with worse provocations to mainly, as expected, Buganda.

The first post-independent governments preferred to ignore such demands and assumed full control of all the countries affairs. But that was only a time bomb that exploded later in 1966 and the effects went on through the 1970s and 1980s –until the Buganda questions were attempted.

Instead of the famous federal system of governance demanded, the government in the best reasoning it did opted for regional tier system. The new resolution, as would be expected, did not do down the throats of most Baganda well. Simply, it was a concoction that was marketed to give the impression feral system gave, but practice was far from it.

It still did not give Buganda its rightful powers to run their own affairs that, probably, other kingdoms and chiefdoms would find interesting. The introduction of region tier had something in common with the 1967 constitution –in their justifications by the architects. They were all very carefully drawn to as much as possible control the powers of Buganda monarch.

Many political observers assert the federalism entrenches tribalism and associated tension in a given country –temptation which any keen leader will want to avoid as much as possible. Indeed federalism in the pre-colonial years was limited to tribes.

Now, with numerous tribes –big and small –joining hands to become a nation, federal as perceived change also has to take a different turn. The new federal is one that integrates all tribes to cooperate on matters of common interest.

In the post-colonial era tribalism still streamed through the social, political and economic life of Ugandans. Different presidents that came to power were in their best comfort compelled to hire aides and allocate important jobs and other privileges to their tribesmen –be it President Milton Obote, President Amin Dada, or President Museveni.

The reasons are best found in the roots of political party or armed rebellion were trusted men –mainly tribesmen join first to take up superior positions. The ill-effect in that kind of affairs is that different tribes will struggle by all means to get national power one after another –an element which renders a national violent prone –more so as each tribe waits to revenge for the ill-treatment of another that has just left power.

What model is best for sustainable peace in Uganda?
Once divided into the major sections Northern, Central and Southern Uganda, members of parliament (MPs) are voted from eight (11) geographical sub regions rather than on the basis of tribe. The number of MPs for each region (i.e. westnile, northern, north eastern, western, south eastern, central, west central, east central, eastern, south eastern, southern) is determined by the size and population. It is then the MPs –who vote into being the cabinet ministers –ensuring that eight (8) of them come from each of the three (3) main sub divisions. The cabinet ministers are there after tasked with electing the president among themselves, select resident district commissioners (RDCs), and determine new military chiefs, chief justices, judges, ambassadors, and permanent secretaries.

The engineering of elections is done by the chief justice –aided by a committee of judges. Candidates meet their nomination fees (20 million) –without political party support. The aim of non-partisan basis campaign is to omit the emphasis on representing party interests rather than those of the people.

The new system leaves behind the local government structures (i.e. local council one to local council five) to continue with their role of enabling the flow of public goods and services to the grassroots people.

The new arrangement has impressive outcomes: 1) reduce the number of MPs –whose number rose from 327 in 2010 to 375 in 2011 at the cost of 18m gross salary per month each notwithstanding the pending appeals to increase it further; 2) kill most chaos-ridden partisan politics in the country 3) reduce the number of districts and associated expenditures that are currently incurred; 4) enhance balanced regional development as each MPs potently represents people from his area of origin; 5) introduce leadership based on merit; introduce professionalism in the running the sensitive national elections; 6) introduce professionalism and neutrality of the armed forces; 7) introduce a pro-people yet sensitive national president and RDCs; 8) introduce term limits for both MPs and president; reduce the number of ministers and costs associated to them (from 76 to 24); and 9) eliminate uncertainties over succession.

The challenge is that the new system still bases itself on geographical regions that also are tribal. A lot of crossfire is expected at parliamentary level. That, though, is interestingly checked at cabinet and presidential levels.

The new system can offer a groundbreaking era of peaceful yet democratic change of government, effective delivery of public goods and services, positively restructure the political, social and cultural structural causes of violence, and reduce uncertainties over the bad economy as well as promote real nationalism.

*Grace Kibuuka is Senior Associate Researcher and CEO at Gold Guard International Group