Size is irrelevant. Federalism is feasible in small and large countries. Switzerland, Belgium and Bosnia Herzegovina are small but functioning federations. In Africa, Nigeria and South Africa are large federations.

No, we are advocating for a loose federation, where states will have more power to act independently with respect to expenditure and taxing patterns. A tight federation on the other hand is not very different from a unitary system.

Yes, countries such as multilingual Switzerland, Canada and India, are composed of entities that were distinct at the foundation of the country and have largely remained distinct.

These models only serve as guiding principles. We realize that every country is unique and different. We are aware that institutions from a specific setting cannot be planted in the alien soil of another country and expect to obtain the same results. What is feasible and desirable in Uganda depends very much upon our setting and history. We hope to have "tailor-made" adjustments to suit Uganda's need and circumstances.

No, federalism is not a panacea, it cannot and will not solve all problems. Indeed, it may sometimes create new ones or at least make them more obvious. Federalism however, has many virtues, not least letting people take more control over their own lives, better satisfying local preferences. Moreover, state governments can always utilize previously unused entrepreneurial and managerial resources and hence strengthen rather than weaken the overall level of administration and governance. "Small" may not always be beautiful, but it is more likely to reflect and yield what the local people really want.

Decentralization that is being implemented in Uganda is basically delegation from the centre to the local governments. It has been more marked in the spending rather than in the tax fields, thus creating a situation of perpetual fiscal imbalance, which in turn has resorted to diverse conditional grants from the centre. Delegation which is taking place in Uganda has created a lesser degree of financial autonomy, forcing districts to be accountable to the centre and not to local taxpayers or residents. Districts are really acting as agents of the central government, executing certain functions on its behalf.

Under formal federalism, the implementation and authority to decide what is done is in the hands of state/local governments. Leaders are accountable to local taxpayers and residents. Federalism involves collective decision making, which is not the case under decentralization {delegation}. Federalism grants states/local governments some fi...
More on this topic >
back to top

Of course not, the majority of the Banyankole get to choose what kind of institutions their Federal State would have. And indeed, all regions not just Buganda would have executive powers. Indeed some of the politicians spokespeople are embarrassing in their ignorance, or perhaps in some cases, willful misrepresentation! Mr. Byaruhanga for example, confuses Federalism with monarchism.

Yes indeed, there are districts which wanted to be organised in the federal states, and what federal states these should be. Among others:

a) Gulu, Kitgum of Acholi
b) Bushenyi, Mbarara, Ntungamo of Ankole
c) Hoima, Masindi of Bunyoro
d) Jinja, Iganga, Kamuli of Busoga
e) Apach, Lira of Lango
f) Kabarole of Tooro

The truth is, there are many federal countries that are republics. The United States of America is a federal republic, Germany is a federal republic, South Africa and Nigeria in Africa are federal republics, notwithstanding, the Zulu Kingdom.

Africa has no shortage of brilliant plans for development, food sustainability etc. The point is that without a conducive political environment that is accommodative of differences whether of political philosophies (political parties) or regional (federalism) no amount of economic planning will have an effect because instability or political agitation will make all of it moot. In the ensuing vacuum, or chaos, politicians will continue to rob the country's treasuries without abandon. There is no accountability and it's hard to enforce it because the system itself lacks accountability, and has no legitimacy. It is not rooted in people's minds, not even the elites. One can write about the most beautiful plans until Christ comes back, but without a political system that is deemed fair and legitimate by key segments of society, they will all come to naught. Before the colonialists came, all the communities in Uganda took care of their own affairs as will be the...
More on this topic >
back to top

Under Federalism, the government of Uganda will have to transfer a good chunk of its resources to Acholi for a long time. The Acholi themselves will decide how to go about restoring their great culture, economy, institutions and people. They will need technical and moral support from all Ugandans, even as they take charge of their destiny.

The proponents of Federalism in Uganda do not have a neatly wrapped package to answer your question "what kind of Federalism do you want?". We are sharing opinions to try to decide what is workable. You see, all our previous governments have been a "neat package" promulgated by one man without consultation.

According to The American Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of The English Language a Federal system is defined as follows: 

1.      Of, pertaining to, or designating a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.

2.      Of, constituting, or characterized by a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units etc.

This is also our definition o...
More on this topic >
back to top

Uganda has so far failed to find a formula whereby its citizens can live together in civic peace and build up some prosperity. It is not that representative democracy has failed, it is that we have failed to establish a playing field upon which democracy can be successfully executed. All of our governments since 1966 have been based upon an ethnic minority's domination of the army.

Federalism is not the only solution being considered, some ardently believe that we have actually got it right with our existing one-party state, others believe that the multiparty formula that existed in 1966-69 and 1980-85 is an already proven solution. If you have some knowledge of Ugandan history you will recognize that these arguments have one big hole, they pretend that ethnic friction does not exist and did not exist as a major problem in Ugandan politics.

No. Uganda is a beautiful country, but lacks a sense of national unity. We don't constitute a single people. Accordingly, rather than increasing tribalism, federalism is actually a recognition that some Ugandans feel discriminated against under the existing unitary system; that discrimination is mostly based on one's ethnic background. Moreover, some groups feel that resources within the geographical region they inhabit are not being used for their benefit. But above all, some groups just want to retain their own identity. In that regard, federalism is the solution, not the problem. That is, there shall be less, not more disagreements between groups of people who live in different geographic regions. And that shall mean less tribalism in Uganda.

No. Federalism grants subunits definitive rights against the central [federal] government. It allows the units to maintain different norms, or policies, from those of the central [federal] government without breaking up the country. Given the differences in Uganda over basic disagreements, and long-standing civil conflicts, federalism is the more practical solution under these circumstances in that it may help the country to manage civil conflicts better. Therefore, rather than break up the country, federalism will actually help Ugandans to confront and contain the major sources of our political conflicts. And that should strengthen Uganda.

The simple answer is yes, a qualified Acholi economist or statistician should have no trouble working for the future State Ministry of Finance in Buganda, and vice versa; a qualified Muganda, Adhola, Munyankole should have no trouble working for the State Ministry of Finance in Gulu or in other States within Uganda. If a White, Ghanaian, Kenyan can work in Uganda, likewise, highly specialized Ugandans irrespective of State of origin or abode, should be able to find positions elsewhere within Uganda. Of course there are many Acholi, Banyankole, Adhola, Samia and others who are legally residents of Buganda. Many were born there so even if the very restrictive criteria of certain jobs going to people from within state, such Ugandans shall be able to find employment within the State system. The same will apply to Baganda, Basoga, and others who were born in Mbale, and they too should have no trouble finding positions in Eastern State's civil service. It is also true t...
More on this topic >
back to top

What determines the size of government, that is, expenditures as a percentage of GDP is not the system of governance, but rather the stage of a nation's economic development. US, Canada, Britain, Germany and other developed nations spend less on activities like infrastructures such as bridges, highways, schools, hospitals than China, Brazil, South Africa or Uganda.

Why? Because over the years the former have spent substantial sums of money on these productive infrastructures, which are now already in place. The costs incurred in repairing them are not as high as the costs involved in constructing new ones from scratch. You are therefore likely to find that South Africa, Brazil, Russia, China spend far more than the US, Canada, France or Britain, irrespective of the system of government. There are unitary governments in developed countries that spend less than emerging or developing federal governments. On the other hand are developed fe...
More on this topic >
back to top

The federalism implementation process should be managed by all stakeholders - National and State/Provincial government representatives; Civil Society; members of the Constitutional Review Commission and political party representatives among others, to operationalize what would have been agreed on during the negotiations phase. Each interested party shall nominate its representatives to the transitional Commission - a commission with the power to implement whatever decisions shall have been agreed on, and deal with any contentious issues that may arise.

It is when both the federal and state/provincial governments share responsibilities in certain areas/services to ensure national programs throughout the country. It renders the "water tight compartments" model of federalism obsolete. Examples include: health, education, and others through the sharing of costs between the central and state/provincial governments. Proponents of this model argue that many roles cut across jurisdictional lines, hence interdependence; overlapping, and sharing of responsibilities should become the hallmark of [modern] federalism.

Promotes governing as a partnership between the center [federal] and units [states/provinces]. It involves strong pressures decentralization of powers; expansion of levels of government into new policy fields in the form of "competitive expansion". It involves state/provincial building versus nation building. It allows levels of government to mobilize their populations around competing images of federalism and how it should work. USA is the leading example where competitive federalism is widely practiced.

Yes, federalism will definitely lead to more jobs in Uganda. Empirically, Federal governments have had higher economic growth rates than the rest give or take, so a higher gross domestic product GDP should translate into a better job creation record in Uganda. Moreover, given the competitive nature of federalism, states compete in a healthy way to draft better policies to attract investment, which should be a boon to economic growth and thus more jobs.

Today the unemployment situation is very bad because the national government is indifferent to the plight of the unemployed youth. Federalism will make it harder for state governments to neglect sound economic growth; that by itself is a good thing for job creation in Uganda.

Through constitutional federalism - where the nation centered view is reflected in the National Constitution; to be enforced by the national institution - The Uganda Supreme Court. The Province/State-Centered view shall be reflected in the amending formula, to ensure a strong province/state role in ensuring a workable partnership in the future. Constitutional federalism shall guarantee the character of Uganda as a political community - the role of national and provincial governments, and the ability of the federation to accommodate the emergence of new identities and interests. In practice, the dual dynamics of competition and cooperation are more in evidence, as federalism is being advanced more in terms of its implication for public policy and democratic values, than in terms of competing visions of federalism. This has led to convergence towards collaborative federalism in most federal jurisdictions, and could as well be the case in Uganda.

The answer to the question is YES. Federalism calls for a more radical examination of governance in Uganda. We seek to re-assure those that federalism in Uganda will and should not mean the disappearance of Uganda as a nation. To borrow from finance, all we are saying is that benefits from parts [states] will be greater than benefits of the whole [unitary]. Mr. Lungabo got it wrong when he claimed that federalism is tantamount to the disintegration of Uganda. Division of powers among states should not be seen as destroying Uganda. Uganda as a country is going nowhere, just the way Ugandans will be governed is what federalism seeks to change. Our role here as federalists is to allay the fears of those diehard unitarists that about change. Changes are not easy but Ugandans should be ready to embrace a combination of the traditional with the modern. Mr. Lungabo cites the EU, where different countries [some federal, other unitary] are coming together to form a union. In a...
More on this topic >
back to top

"Would the it be of legitimate interests for Nebbi Province to re-unite its Alur people living in Nakaseke with the Alurs living in Nebbi Province knowing that Nebbi does not adjoin Buganda? How would Buganda and Nebbi negotiate over its peoples? Should this issue be addressed by the provinces as regards their people not living in their native provinces? Would it divide the country more? Would it create a loyalty problem? Would it end up messing the country more than what the federo vision hope to repair?"

I believe this is an important and serious constitutional question.  It raises the classic debate on citizenship between "the right of blood," by which citizenship or nationality derives from descent, and "the right of land," by which citizenship or nationality derives from birth within a territory.  This distinction was referred to, in Roman law, as jus sanquinis and jus soli, respe...
More on this topic >
back to top

By all indications decentralization seems to be working just fine; what is the need for federalism? What differentiates decentralization from federalism? 

The difference is the ownership of powers. Under decentralization in a unitary state, all powers are owned by the central government and can be repossessed at will by their owner - the central government in Kampala. In the struggles that competition begets when the owners of power lose, they repossess some or all of those powers.  In federal systems, some powers are owned by the center and some by the provinces, states, laender, and cantons (shared powers) that make up the federation. Therefore, unilateral repossession of powers is not possible.

Given the competitive nature of intergovernmental relations, a central government in Kampala would find it diffic...
More on this topic >
back to top

To paraphrase Shakespeare. Some countries may be "born" federations in the sense that a federal structure from the beginning played a real role in the political and fiscal structure of a country. A good example of this is India. Under a second category, some countries may "become" federations in order to reconcile regional differences and preserve the nation, as was the case in South Africa. This may also apply to Uganda. There is a third category, some countries may have federalism "thrust upon them" in a desperate attempt to keep them alive by weakening the centre, as was the case with Bosnia Herzegovina. This too may apply to Uganda.