Case for an intact Buganda in a future federal Uganda

 Home | News | Discussion | FAQ | Federal Model | Regional Models | Buganda | What's New

Members of FedsNet raised some questions during the course of our dialogue on the federalism we want in Uganda. Some specifically wanted to know why in our suggested 13 States Model, Buganda unlike the other 12 States was not subdivided. It was a result of such concerns that it was deemed necessary to make a case specifically for Buganda as a single entity in a future federal Uganda. The question is: Why should the State of Buganda not be subdivided into several states? Although it was not said outright, I believe some members on FedsNet were wondering whether a united Buganda is a good thing for the federalism we want in a future federal Uganda. Won’t such a united Buganda State have hegemonic aspirations beyond its borders? Won’t such a United Buganda State dwarf the other 12 States in most aspects and thus make meaningful federalism impossible? Won’t other state delegations resist a united Buganda State? What if other state delegations demanded a divided Buganda State before agreeing to federate? In short, could a united Buganda become the stumbling block towards federalism in Uganda? It is with these questions in mind that I make the case for a united Buganda State within a future 13 State Federal Uganda.

To understand where I am coming from, it is important to understand the rationale behind our 13 States model. Prior to colonialization, the model of states based on language and ethnicity was applicable, and several mini states existed then in Uganda as elsewhere in Africa. Accordingly, we have all along argued that political reforms and modernity in Uganda do not have to be attained at the expense of ethnicity. Additionally, we contend that recognising ethnicity has the potential to not only minimise ethnic tensions, but also, to create political harmony within diversity in Uganda. Consequently, we argue that despite the apparent multiplicity of ethnic groups in Uganda, a political component based on ethnicity could bring together, rather than separate, the constituent members of what now form Uganda.

Furthermore, democratic renewal; national unity; ethnic harmony; cohesion; political transformation, but above all peace and tranquillity can be best achieved through the creation of 13 Federal States on the basis of cultural viability and ethnic harmony (visit www.federo.com for details). This is the most pragmatic way to respond to the questions on ethnicity, the notion of the individual, the issue of political legitimacy and the question of representation. Based on these criteria, the majority of States are actually united along ethnic lines. Buganda just like the proposed states of Ankole, Busoga, Acholi, Lango, Bunyoro, Toro, Karamoja, and Kigezi are all United States. It is therefore not true that our 13 States model subdivides the rest while leaving Buganda intact. That is why it is rather puzzling that a case had to be made for a united Buganda!

I believe the question some members wanted to ask and did not, is whether we can have meaningful federalism in Uganda when some proposed states are much larger than the rest. Mr. Narine provided the answer to this question, through his Small Nations model, where irrespective of size or resources all future federal states shall be deemed equal, as is the case in the United States. In fact under our 13 States model, all States shall elect 4 Senators irrespective. That is something a united Buganda State despite its size shall have to live with, since the principle of State equality shall apply. Under this criterion other 12 State delegations or members of FedsNet should not have unnecessary and unfounded fears about the dominance of a united Buganda State.

And that will be true whether we initially have cooperative/collaborative or competitive federalism in Uganda (the later is a necessary though not sufficient condition for the former). It will be in the best interests of all States to treat each other as equals especially in their desire to challenge the wasteful "federal spending power" in their quest to promote governing as a partnership between the centre [federal] and units [states/provinces]. To achieve this, all States shall have to work together if they hope to promote their state/provincial building goals.

Having outlined the main features [equal Senate representation on equality consideration], it starts to emerge that in fact if our 13 State model had been understood, there wouldn’t have been the need to make the case for a united Buganda State because most States are united in the first place. Given the kind of federalism we are proposing, there should be no fears about a United Buganda or any other united state for that matter. I invite members to take another look at our proposed federal states and will perhaps see that, the arrangement we put forward does not allow any of the 13 States to force its hegemonic aspirations beyond its state borders. It is important to note that we are not proposing federalism to settle any boundary differences. The federalism we propose is based on existing borders, borders that are quite settled.

Accordingly, fears about a United Buganda State dwarfing any of the other 12 States in most aspects are unfounded. Within the constitutional framework being argued here, a United Buganda, just like Karamoja or any other state for that matter, shall only have 4 Senators in the second chamber, so how can it dwarf any other state? We have all along argued that federalism will put to rest the unilateral tendencies that have been forced on Uganda by centre-based dictators, under the current unitary system. If the future federal [central] government of Uganda shall not be able to dominate states governments, how can any single state dominate, let alone threaten the other 12 States?

In addition we have argued that the best way to tame the current wasteful “Leviathan” at the centre is to promote the derivation principle in allocating revenue. Under derivation, there is no incentive for unnecessary divisions and thus creation of additional States. Uganda should avoid the Nigerian charade where states are sub-divided at will and a united Buganda like the other United states should be welcome by those Ugandans, who are interested in meaningful federalism. It is thus unlikely; it would be baffling, if other state delegations resist a united Buganda State. Why would they resist a united Buganda when all the 13 states shall have equal Senate representation, along with a derivation principle in determining future revenue allocations? Under such arrangements why should a united Buganda State or any other state for that matter create fear? Let the truth be said, by actually remaining united, Buganda shall be making its ultimate contribution towards federalism meaningful in Uganda. It is hard to see how under the proposed arrangement under our model, the other united federal states benefit from a divided Buganda, when all states shall come to the negotiating table as 13 equal partners.

Most members will perhaps realize that it was not necessary in the first place to make a case for a united Buganda State, because most of our proposed states are in fact united. Moreover, under the proposed Senate representation of 4 Senators for each state, I wonder why the other 12 States would be against such an arrangement, because a divided Buganda means more senate representation? Would such an arrangement be preferable to the equality model? In the interest and recognition of equality as partners in a future federal Uganda, Buganda is ready and prepared to have the same Senate representation like any of the other 12 states. That is the ultimate price Buganda is prepared to pay to stay intact, like its future partner states of Ankole, Busoga, Toro, Bunyoro, Karamoja, Kigezi and Lango. And that should be commended. It is therefore not true that our 13 States model subdivides the rest while leaving Buganda intact. That is why it is rather puzzling that a case had to be made for Buganda!

I hope this helps to clarify and hopefully allay any fears some members may have regarding an intact Buganda State or any other intact state for that matter in a future federal Uganda.