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

THERE ARE people in Uganda who are genuinely opposed to the idea of federalism (federo) and there are those whose love for federo is unbound. The reasons for supporting or being against federo are not necessary principled rather they are sometimes fuelled by self-interest as opposed to the greater. For example, some people in Buganda understand federo to mean a government at Mengo under the Kabaka with unfettered jurisdiction over Buganda. Some non-Baganda understand federo to mean the right of Buganda to secede and discriminate against them in employment and enjoyment of their rights living in Buganda. Political opportunists have grasped what opposing or supporting federo can do for them and they have done their utmost to their appointed end.

It has been proposed in some quarters that advocates of federo should make it their mission to educate other Ugandans on how Uganda would benefit if federalism were to replace the current unitary system. The people, who mainly take this line, are the opponents of federalism in Uganda. The question is whether the proposal is made in good faith since it is almost common knowledge that opponents of federo have contempt for the advocates of federo. It is like a case of a person who believes that he has been wrongly arrested asking a police officer to explain the law to him. As if……

Interestingly, it is common ground that federo could have a role for making Uganda a better place for us all yet Government is unwilling to commit funds to facilitate a public awareness campaign instead Government advises that the role of public awareness should be left to private citizens. There lies evidence of bad faith in my view.

We contend that not every Muganda understands federo as a political system, however, we believe that most non-Baganda who support federo are, normally, genuine and have an idea of what a federo political system is about. On the other hand, the non-Muganda who rejects federo is, normally, a victim of an old Ugandan tradition that rejects everything that Buganda supports because historically Baganda were seen as oppressors who worked with the colonialists. We also contend that a Muganda who rejects federo is, normally, someone who doesn't accept Kabaka's domination of Buganda affairs - some timid Muganda republican, if you will. One is pushing ones luck here but these things have to be said.

We contend further that politicians in the Uganda government and those aspiring to replace them are generally anti-federo because they perceive the system as a threat to their domination of the political destiny of Uganda. If we were to be uncharitable, one could argue that their rejection of federo is informed by greed in the sense that creation of semi-autonomous regional governments are perceived as a check on politicians at the centre stopping them from invading the national treasury. For those reasons, Ugandan politicians, almost as a rule, would prefer a unitary political system, which extends to them a free hand to intervene and patronise local affairs of which they, usually, know nothing.

So, it is desirable to look at both the reasons for and against federo to understand the mess we are in. Of course, we could get on top of some deliberate misunderstandings if the central government could take responsibility by organising to educate the citizens on the benefits of federo and facilitating a national debate since the matter is fundamental to the constitution of Uganda.

Since central government will not take charge of the debate, it doesn't matter here whether the reasons the opposing sides offer for or against federo are sustainable rather the point is that they are firmly held by either sides. It is therefore a case of men and women of goodwill to articulate the good and the bad arising out of those firmly held views, which are often based on misinformation and black propaganda. We, therefore, need to know what the opposing reasons are and whether people could be persuaded to review their positions. It is not enough to simply say that one has won the argument as is wont of federo advocates because one must carry the people with him to gain legitimacy for ones ideas.

The more worrying group of people are the hypocrites who change sides as the weather takes them. For example, they pretend to support federo when it suits their agenda of finding a stepping stone for their grand designs on Uganda. There is also the spineless politicians who know the value of a federo system to Uganda but oppose it because supporting the federo system could cost them their influence and steady earning.

We are reminded that Uganda government is the largest employer and is patron to nearly all large commercial contracts in the country. To be on the good side of the leaders of Government has in many ways been a biding duty for opportunists in Uganda. Not least, in Uganda, Government also monopolises the means of coercion and on many occasions guns have been turned on ordinary people and opposition leaders without fear of being held to account. It is, for example, possibly the case that all successful businessmen in Uganda support the incumbent Government. In Uganda, it takes great courage to oppose Government policy because it could easily turn into a 'life or death' or intimidation or persecution.

So, we must understand that people take opportunistic positions for a number of reasons and without dwelling on the obvious this has frustrated debate on federalism and many other issues facing the country. The changes we see today in Uganda have been forced by the times we live in rather than as a gift of generosity from our leaders.

If the politicians at the centre remain hostile to federalism, the chances of its realisation will stay distant. Its time will come one day, of that, there is no doubt but when? That is another question we will attempt to answer here. Firstly, we need to remind ourselves of the reason for and against.

The anti-federo group argues that:
(a) Buganda wants to use federo to secede and discriminate against non-Baganda;
(b) Federo will bring disunity in Uganda and fuel tribalism;
(c) The rest of Uganda doesn't need federo because it will change nothing for them;
(d) Buganda wants to use federo to chase non-Baganda out of Buganda yet they have all contributed to Buganda's development;
(e) Development in Uganda will become uneven with Buganda running away from other regions since it has the cream of industrial development in Uganda and houses all the international organisation; etc, etc;
(f) Uganda will have a weak Government thus creating a leader who will not be able to control the army;
(g) Buganda will fight over Kampala and Entebbe.

The advocates of federo tell us, among other things, that federo:
(a) Will consolidate a sense of belonging, pride and trust, which are pre-requisites for development and productivity;
(b) Will promote democracy, probity and accountability;
(c) Will limit abuse of power at the centre;
(d) Will create jobs at regional levels and limit the negative influence of politicians at the centre;
(e) Will unite the country, nurture confidence and trust  to devolve a stable country;
(f) Will take services to the people;
(g) Will remove or minimise causes for internal strife.

It is not in doubt that many of the benefits realisable from federo are common knowledge. For example, the anti-federo group within central government introduced a system of decentralisation arguing that Uganda can retain the unitary state while doing all things that federalism would bring to the people. And the point of this being…….?

It seems that the reason for introducing decentralisation instead of federo was to ensure that powers are delegated to the local authorities, whose viability is often debatable, rather than devolve powers to the regions as federo demands. If federo were to be instituted in Uganda it is likely that looting the national treasury could become by far more difficult. Times when opportunists trampled over the taxpayer could become less frequent. Above all, federo could usher in a rule of law based on genuine trust.

Within the federo camp all is not what it seems. A study of the federo camp reveals that there are differences, doubts and suspicions, which seem to stem from the time-tabling or how urgently each of camp wants federo to happen? The question for us is to investigate whether the reasons offered are genuine and help the cause for federo. If not, what are the benefits, if any, regarding internal differences to something yet to be introduced? Would it not be the right thing to do for advocates of federo to iron out their differences before selling their package to the country? Well…..

Within the federo camp some have argued that Uganda is at the brink of war and that Uganda's immediate problem is how to avoid that inevitable war. The point being that the present regime is susceptible to war and it is very unlikely that the regime will ever enter genuine negotiations to allow fair play in Uganda. It is therefore a waste of energy trying to persuade the present regime of the benefits of federo. It is thus argued that the priority should be to overthrow the present regime, followed by building democratic institutions and then campaign for a federo state.

On the other hand, another group within the federo camp argues that our immediate problems stem from structural inadequacies and that we need to replace the unitary system with federalism in order to tame the dictatorial tendencies embedded in the unitary system. The point of that thesis is that it is not that President Museveni or his predecessor are inert dictators rather it is the unitary system in Uganda that gives rise to dictatorship. And if the unitary system remains in place the temptation for the next "liberator" becoming a dictator are immense. This group further argues that to avoid more wars and sufferings, we should start our campaign for a federo state right now making clear to the regime that there are others in the wings campaigning for its violent overthrow and, for the good of the country, the regime should accede to demands for federo and democracy for stability and continuity.

As we see it, we need to navigate the internal differences among federo advocates regarding the issue over what comes first - democracy or federalism? If they remain at log heads as to which comes first, President Museveni will continue to profit and opportunists will be besides themselves with happiness.

Our view would be that we must demand that federalism must be packaged with democracy in the very first instance. That is to say we must have both at the same time. We should not negotiate with the dictator if he insists on allowing one and not the other. Notwithstanding that federo is the structural system and democracy the operating system both must go hand in hand if we are to realise our dream of a federo Uganda.

Part of the present tensions comes from the argument that federalism as a structure can facilitate both pluralism and one-party systems and, without prior installation of democracy, the dictator could use federo to further consolidate his rule. Some political party activists go so far as to claim that pluralism (read multi-parties) is not central to federo (or so-called Buganda's priorities). And interestingly enough the example of Malaysia is cited as a thriving federation under a de facto one-party system.

Buganda is portrayed as wanting federo at any price and to check this urge on part of Buganda, the democracy-first camp insist that the country must embrace full democracy as an insurance before federo is negotiated. They argue that historically, Buganda establishment has had little time for pluralism and if Buganda got her federo she could easily go against calls for pluralism, which would leave the country under dictatorship with active support from Buganda.

Under the movement regime the right to vote coupled with regular elections and the perception of a freedom in the media (whatever that means) Uganda is therefore a democracy. Many people's definition or description of democracy is subjective but our own description of democracy is that it refers to the upholding of our human rights in the main. While there is an arguable case at focusing on the worst case scenario when looking for solutions, one has doubts whether insisting on waiting till the installation of a government of our choice is in power before we persuade our fellow Ugandans of the value of federalism is the right approach to our campaign.

Since the political conditions in the country are not determined, there is a case to be made that if President Museveni's regime were agreeable to facilitate the platform for a federo debate, we should grasp it with both hands instead of demanding the removal of Museveni as a pre-condition. There is some merit in the approach of firstly replacing the facilitating structure that has short-changed us since Uganda became a republic. Promises from Dr. Ssemogerere, Dr. Obote, Dr. Besigye and all aspiring Ugandan leaders that their leaderships will uphold our human rights are neither here nor there because there is nothing to stop them from patronising us the same way President Museveni has done. Like him they will expect us to be grateful for "liberating" us from a dictator and the new leader will want to decide which rights we can enjoy under his or her leadership. Why not have regional rights to self-rule in principle before we fight over who is to rule the federation.

The point is that we need a system in place that will check the powers of a President. The contention that we have to wait for some benevolent Ugandan to take office before we negotiate the phasing in of federalism is to assume that we will be able to control the new leader or that the new leader will have our interests at heart. That is a dream too far. In fact any political structure capable of limiting and/or balancing powers at the centre with those in the regions is by definition an accountable system capable of nurturing democratic institutions. It would seem rather pedantic for anyone to insist that we should not negotiate the installation of federalism before the removal of President Museveni.

It does seem that some of the people plotting the overthrow of Museveni wish to justify their cause by promising to prioritise the question of federalism when they come to power. They argue that Museveni shows all the signs of an insecure dictator whose understanding of negotiations is by imposing his will on others. To that end they warn against entering negotiations with Museveni regarding a fundamental change such as the introduction of federalism in Uganda. That we should wait until they have installed democratic institutions before we sell the federo idea to Ugandans. But how do we begin to trust people in the shadows? What guarantees do we have that they will keep their word? And how do we know how long it will take to overthrow Museveni? Are they in fact asking us to help them overthrow Museveni because, in their view, it is to our advantage to see Museveni overthrown?

If those plotting the overthrow of Museveni wish to be taken seriously, they need to come out of the shadows and put their vision for the future and how it will be phased in on the table for our consideration. We may then be able to give them the benefit of doubt. Before then reality dictates that we should be willing to accept an offer from Museveni - if it comes - to facilitate the federo debate. Since we know what we want, there are certain positions on which we cannot move and which will determine whether Museveni is genuine or not. In any case it is not for President Museveni to give federo rather his role is to facilitate. We should also realise that Ugandans are coming into their own. For example, wasn't it courageous of the Constitutional Review Commission to reject part of a submission from the Museveni's cabinet?

And least we forget the argument should be made that the implementation of federalism will be subject to each State in the Federal Union of Uganda having written constitutions that clearly spell out the rights of the people. It follows that federalism, as advocated here, champions constitutionalism and democracy and it does not matter whether its installation is under Museveni's regime or under a new regime. Providing the basics of upholding the rights and freedoms of the people and protection of property underwrite a move to a federo system, it does not matter who happens to be in power to oversee its phasing in.

I suppose the question will be put that if Museveni refuses to give way to federalism then what? The short answer is that we bide our time. According to his own constitution, President Museveni is due to hand over power to a successor in March 2006. But what if he decides to amend his constitution and soldier on? To go back on the very constitution which he introduced will expose Museveni as a fraud to be resisted. And then what, you ask? Well, many suitors will line up and we will fall behind the person who promises to champion our aspirations for the country. As we said, aspiring candidates for the presidency should seriously be putting their visions in binders for our consideration. Indeed as a matter of urgency we need to know the alternatives for 2006 by January 2004. This regardless whether or not President Museveni steps down in 2006. END