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

Outspoken Member of Parliament and organising secretary of Uganda's Conservative Party, JOHN KEN LUKYAMUZI, is one of those advocating for Uganda to become a federal state. He spoke with Staff Writer DAVID KAIZA last week

The drive for federalism is very strong now. Why is this so?

Because whenever you talk about federalism, you are essentially talking about freedom; people's freedom, societal freedom. It is the need for viable regions to liberate themselves from the shackles of poverty.

There are those who say that 40 years into independence, Uganda has not yet settled down. Is there something intrinsically wrong with the political systems we have had?

Uganda attained its independence as a semi-federal nation and we were all happy. We were harnessing the resources of the rich mosaic of our rich culture, possibly found nowhere else in Africa. That order was scrapped unilaterally by Milton Obote and since the abrogation of the 1962 constitution, this country has never settled down. 

We have as a result of that disaster entertained fascism under Idi Amin, confusion under Paul Muwanga and General Tito Lutwa, dictatorship under Obote II and the Movement hegemony under Museveni. As a result of that, the economy has crumbled. Over 1.5 million people live in camps in northern Uganda. Nearly 40 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line.

How do you link fascism, confusion, dictatorship and hegemony to political systems?

When Obote scrapped the constitutional order, that was the beginning of our civil strife; elections were due to take place in 1967, but they were not held. So we lived under an era of confusion.

If you have free and fair elections, would stability be assured?

Free and fair elections are not a panacea for political instability. Federalism ensures freedom. You can then freely tackle the society's economic problems. Once you lack that, the end result would be coercion, resort to force of arms, dictatorship and economic decay. Once the people are assured of freedom, they can be productive.

There are fears federalism will divide Uganda into ethnic units.

All those who say that are enemies of this country. The assumption is that Uganda can succeed when it is homogeneous. Look at Somalia: homogeneous as it is, there is an underlying genocide. So, there is no guarantee that once you have a homogeneous focus, then you will succeed. Ugandans should be proud of the diversities they command.

Federalism is a complex topic; you are talking about the transfer of power from the centre to the sub-units; how is this going to work, because not every corner of Uganda has similar structures?

Federalism as a phenomenon is not measured from the yardstick of size. It brings compromise where none would be possible. That is why Switzerland, a state much smaller than Uganda, is a federation. 

Federalism comes because of a society's unique problems. There are areas that may not be federal-prone, so the noise of federo may be negligible. 

Since we already have standing institutions, let us harness those and even possibly expand from what we have. Uganda has three sectors  traditional like Buganda, Busoga and in Lango and Acholi. The fact that Buganda is a big socio-cultural institution should not be an offence. It should be a pride for every Ugandan, because then the Uganda government, as the main supervisor, would spend very little money on institution-building.

Where would the power removed from the central government go; is it going to reside in the king, in which case you would be making a return to feudalism  the landed people would control the state and the common people would have no access to democracy?

When you talk about federalism, you must talk about specificity. Federalism addresses the real problems as they occur in society. Once we choose to go federal, the power will be shared equitably between the centre and the regions. In the case of Buganda, the Lukiiko (parliament) would be elected by the people. The Katikiro (Buganda prime minister) could be internally elected, depending on what the Lukiiko would choose. The Kabaka remains a unifying force of the Baganda. He reigns. He does not rule.

So, is this is not a return to feudalism?

It is not. Buganda has since 1955, during the Hancock recommendation in Namirembe, dropped the feudal characteristic. The kingdom was democratised since 1955. The Kabaka remained with only six nominees.

Whether a state is small, once we choose to adopt 14 states, the powers devolved to the state will be equal to the powers devolved to Buganda, whether small or big. The smallest state would command the same degree of power as Buganda would.

If you look at the US, Switzerland or Austria, the cohesive characters tend to be economic and geographic, other than ethnic. In Uganda, it seems when we federate, people will go back to tribal units. The tribal sentiment would be the overruling factor. Do you not see some latent danger in that?

No. That is a big mistake people are making. One of the reasons which motivate the formation of a federation is a common culture, language and economic heritage. Those are decisive factors for federalism. They do not necessarily breed ethnicity.

What happens to freedom of movement or ownership of property; all over Uganda, you find people from different backgrounds have settled everywhere. 

Lets revisit Buganda. In all the regions of Uganda, there is none as accommodative as Buganda. If this accommodation is viable today, why wouldn't it be under a federation?

Buganda was opposed to an East African federation. There is the view that instead of tribal units, Uganda would be more viable if it belonged to a bigger East Africa?

President Museveni says he supports the East African federation but not Ugandan federation. That is outrageous because first and foremost, you must ensure that the country, which wants to promote the East African federation, has a case point of amicable existence. 

Comments\Views about this article

Back to Top