By Mr.  W. L'Pajule'

The debate on Reconciliation is a prerequisite for building the foundation of a new Uganda. My treatment of the topic is based on my life experiences and general formal education. I will attempt to narrate the history of victimizations and root causes of animosities between and among the peoples of Uganda. This will definitely open up a Pandora box of emotional outbursts but, my hope is that, in the end, we will be able to clearly and objectively see our parts in the problems that confront us. Rather than coming up with prescriptions for ironing out these problems and pasts, I will make suggestions and pose questions that will help us come up with some game plans.

It is common knowledge that Uganda has had a dark and traumatic history of internecine violence resulting in sufferings throughout the country. On every forum many abhor any more bloodshed—all wish to carry out their activities of living in relative peace. No one, however, wants to talk objectively about the past with attempts to heal. Real peace will not be handed to us on a platter—we must consciously and diligently work for it. Germane to that peace is the need to reconcile and make peace with the past. Federalism will come; multiparty democracy will come as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We must not build these on the proverbial sand lest any gale storm brings all our efforts back to where we started.

The history of Uganda began with the coming of the British who coined the name from a Swahili expression meaning the land of the Ganda. Over the years we have hurled insults at British colonialism, imperialism and racism and blamed them for our problems while, at the same time, we looked up to them. We need to free ourselves of the love-hate relationship and build a relationship of mutual respect. How do we do it?

The British initial contact was with the Ganda who helped them establish a beachhead and spread their influence throughout present-day Uganda. The relationship was mutually beneficial and the Ganda prospered generating a sense of superiority on their part and envy and hatred from other tribes that still simmer to this day. How can we come to terms with this particular era?

At Independence, Obote, a Northerner came to power by adeptly putting together a national political machinery. The Buganda Kingdom, to maintain its pre-independence status, cobbled up a deal with Obote that helped his success at the cost to a Buganda son, Ben Kiwanuka (RIP). This unholy alliance soon unraveled and two big egos in the persons of Obote and Mutesa (RIP) collided. Lives were lost or ruined, and fortunes lost. The fallout was the beginning of the North (Acholi, Langi)—South (Baganda) divide. How can we come to terms with this particular era?

While no efforts were being made to patch the North—South divide beyond platitudes about “One Nation, One People”, an illiterate Amin swept to power. Understandably the fervor of the Baganda at this news knew no boundaries of educational levels. I remember, even as a child, rather cruel sarcastic remarks by two Baganda classmates about the fates of the Acholi in early 1971. Soon, however, Amin’s goons struck everywhere in Uganda.

Amin has been chased out and some might have settled scores with West Nile while creating another divide. How do we adequately lay Amin and his immediate aftermath to rest? Many lives and fortunes were lost in the campaign to oust him.

Obote 2 came and went, not before the North—South divide increased to a fever pitch. An opportunist in the person of Museveni seized the moment in which many lives and fortunes were lost. He announced a policy of national reconciliation, promising a return to democracy. A new era seemed to open itself to the people of Uganda. But this seemingly optimistic strain of mind was hiding increasing authoritarianism on the part of the President Yoweri Museveni. The situation is far from being ideal today. In the process of his ascend to supreme power, Museveni has had to contend with the Acholi and other pockets of resistances. While many areas took their bitter pills and folded, in Acholi, by dint of its own confusion of purpose and Museveni’s need for absolute military victory, victimizations, that has never been known in the history of any people in modern Uganda, still festers on. As a consequence the North—South divide has been extended to Ankole. The victor usually writes history, but will the victor do so forever if we don’t come to terms with what really happened?

So, how and where do we go from these bleak pasts? The all-encompassing remedy is reconciliation. In my religion the Sacrament of Reconciliation means rebuilding my relationship with my God by confessing the wrongs I have done to others and His edicts as well as ask for forgiveness. If I practiced this, my life would probably be a lot different—but that is another story. This concept, however, seems to be the motivation behind the Reconciliation exercise that South Africans underwent. Various tribes in Uganda have various traditional ways of coming to terms with the wrongs of the past other than by violence. The buzzword in Acholi these days is “Mato Oput” in its efforts to reconcile with the LRA fighters who have laid down their arms.

Many have suggested national get-together of elders. Others have proposed interactions among traditional leaders. Other leaders have taken it upon themselves to apologize on behalf of their constituencies. Yet other have advocated for reconciliation between tribes (or nations) and between political parties in Uganda. There are those who read in the papers that some parties have nothing to apologise for and wonder who is to reconcile to who! If anything, all these efforts must be treated with the seriousness they deserve and should be supported by a formal leadership process that is widely marketed. The success of a viable Federal Democratic Republic of Uganda hinges on looking squarely at the past and bottling that genie and burying it individually and collectively. Until that is done, trust will be hard to come by, and trust is needed for a more healthy political and social life.

Back to Top

Challenges of Reconciliation

By Mr. W. B. Kyijomanyi

The issue of reconciliation is certainly one of the most sensitive in Uganda. Sadly, many Ugandans, national figures included, are not ready or willing to own up to their own mistakes. How do you reconcile a nation that is at denial? How do you reconcile national leaders who think they have never made any bad call? How can a country full of revisionist journalists help reconcile a country? 

Their version of national reconciliation is trying to malign the dead. Do not be surprised when blame for what went wrong in Uganda is pinned on late leaders like Mr. Ben Kiwanuka (RIP), Mr. Grace Ibingira (RIP), Major-General Bazilio Okello (RIP), General Tito Okello (RIP), Prof. Yusuf Lule (RIP), etc. Do not be surprised if only the dead, for obvious reasons take most blame for what went wrong in Uganda. What does that tell you?  To create "innocent victims", journalists and politicians are busy blaming the dead. Does that augur well for national reconciliation in Uganda?

Can Uganda live with its troubled past forever? Is it any wonder that there are apparently millions of Ugandans who are now clinically mentally sick? Is there a direct correlation between that discovery and our troubled and violent past [Granted correlation does not mean cause]? Given such a situation, should we not sooner or later come to terms with our past without passing the buck or blaming others? Should we not take responsibility for our role in creating such a sad state? Virtually we have had to deal with inter-tribal violence, but also intra-tribal violence, intra and inter-religious violence, intra and inter-regional violence etc.

Unless and until, we come to understand the TRAUMATIC meaning of those well-documented violent episodes, on the people on which such violence was committed, reconciliation will not be possible. We have to deal with the violence on DP members within Buganda by KY supporters, whereby the former had their entire banana plantations and property destroyed; the UPC instigated attack on the Lubiri and the thousands of lives lost; UPC instigated violence on some of its own senior members; the Nakulabye and Kisubi incidents; the violence visited upon mostly the Acholi and Langi by Amin's soldiers; the violence visited upon Ugandans by State Research Bureau during Amin's reign; the violence visited upon the people of Arua/Moyo after Amin's downfall; the violence visited upon Ugandans by UNLA in Luwero during the war; the violence visited upon Ugandans after the fall of Obote 2; the violence visited upon mostly Acholi by NRA after the fall of the late Tito Okello (RIP); the violence visited upon the Acholi by both Lakwena and Kony;  the violence visited upon the people of Teso by both NRA and Peter Otai's rebels; the violence visited upon the people of Teso by Karamojongs and vice versa;  the violence visited upon the people of Kasese by both the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces and rebels; the violence visited upon the people of Rukingiri by the Presidential Protection Unit and Kalangala Action Plan group etc.  While the list is not exhaustive, it is quite informative of Uganda's violent past.

Can Uganda's politics be normalized without meaningful reconciliation?  Is it not true that the practice of reconciliation lags the rhetoric?  We must face up to the challenges of reconciliation in Uganda, and in my view that demands that Ugandans come to understand and recognize the traumatic experiences and the meaning for those affected by each violent episode.

Can we achieve that with a simple sorry or regret?  Some of the violence is intra and efforts are underway in some areas particularly Acholi to reconcile its people. That is encouraging and commendable, which brings me to the following question: should other Ugandans dictate to the Acholi and other groups how they should deal with the intra-imposed violence?  After all, Kony and Lakwena instigated violence is mostly directed at the Acoli people.  And it is the Acoli people who will have to immediately live with those they forgive or reconcile with. Shouldn't that be the model where intra ethnic/religious violence is involved? In my view their attitude shows that charity begins at home. Before reconciling with the rest, there has to be reconciliation within, and that applies to other groups as well be they tribal or political. Or should we continue with our "revisionists" efforts to create "innocent victims" in Uganda?

I know that the long-suffering Acoli are part of Uganda.  I know that the insecurity there is a national tragedy.  But I also know that the people who have suffered most under Kony are the people of Acholi. I also know that while the rest of Uganda will have to deal with the consequences of the Acholi tragedy, the immediate people who must confront the dilemma are the local people in Acholi.  It is them who have lost thousands of their family members, and it is them who have to try and reconcile the community.  My point is this: if the Acholi people who have suffered so much from this senseless tragedy are ready and willing to forgive their tormentors for the sake of ethnic harmony in Acholi, do we have the moral ground to tell them how or demand otherwise? 

Should we for example, insist that since the tragedy has had national ramifications, the issue of reconciliation should not be entirely left to the Acoli people?  Is that not the failed NRM policy?  That is the mentality that we must get away from and in keeping with our main goal here, that would be against the aspirations and wishes of the local community. Should national interests dwarf the local interests within Acholi? The last time I checked the national effort was to defeat Kony but has instead left thousands in camps. If the local initiatives by the community can lead to an acceptable solution within Acoli, who are we to insist that because it is a national tragedy, they can't do that?  It is precisely of that mindset that Federalism looks very promising.

"Among precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to take on precaution against our own.... I dread our being too much dreaded.... We may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto un-heard of power. But every nation will think we shall abuse it.... Sooner or later this state of things must produce a combination against us, which may end in our ruin". (Edmund Burke, 1775).

That was Burke's advise to Britain then when it was the dominant imperial global power. And in many ways it is relevant for our reconciliation dialogue. Think about it critically given our history.

"I am talking to millions of men who have been skillfully injected with fear, inferiority complexes, trepidation, servility, despair, and abasement." Indeed, racism skillfully injects fear and feelings of inferiority and trepidation into many. In another example, a young Negress states, "Me? A Negress? Can't you see I'm practically white? I despise Negroes. Niggers stink. They're dirty and lazy. Don't ever mention niggers to me." Inferiority automatically attaches negative characteristic and abilities to people who are not white. The young "Negress" in the above example automatically associates Negro with the following characteristics -- lazy, dirty and stink, and wishes to disassociate herself from "niggers" although she is a Negro herself. This form of negative and debasing stereotyping perpetuates racism and infiltrates the culture and the language of all peoples" (Frantz Fanon, 1967, Black Skin White Masks).

This second quote is also relevant for our reconciliation dialogue. Granted, in line with my long quote on Immanuel Kant, we need and encourage members to speak freely. But as Mr. L'Pajule' urged us sometime back, let us be proud of who we are. Reconciliation in Uganda demands frank, but sincere dialogue. It is useless to blame an entire group. It is useless to lament why you were born into a specific group. It is useless to stereotype an entire people like the fellow quoted in Fanon above. Let us not perpetuate the negation of the "Other". Let us not internalize our perceived inferiority, because doing so will not help our reconciliation efforts.

I agree with Mr. L'Pajule' that we need proud Bakiga, Acoli, Baganda, Basoga, Banyoro, Karamojong, Alur, etc. or DP/UPC/CP/UPM/Movement people to have meaningful reconciliation. Those who internalize inferiority [racism] suffer from what Fanon termed "Psychic torture" and won't help our dialogue. Those who internalize their perceived inferiority only serve the status quo. That is how inferiority is reproduced and maintained in the domination discourse...and reproduced as the cultural norm, as the "status quo" in Uganda. Those who internalize inferiority [racism] lament why they were born Blacks, Indians, Pakistanis, darker skinned, Basoga, Acoli, Baganda, Batoro, Langi, Kakwa etc. They would rather be the "Other". That is the basis for our problems in Uganda, and has been institutionalized in the minds of many. It is unfortunate that some people choose to abandon their people, culture, and race in favour of another. To reject what one was born with, "what is most real in one, the only things not borrowed is a fatal mistake". The internalization of inferiority works towards the negation of selfhood that results into seeing oneself in the eye of the "Other". The negation of the selfhood occurs when people want to change their "situation" which looks deplorable in the eye of the "Other". This "situation" is supposedly one's ethnic/tribal group status. Anyone with such an internalized mind will not help us with the crucial task of reconciliation in Uganda.

Yes, let us employ the motto of enlightenment: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding, but do not suffer from "Psychic torture" by internalizing any perceived inferiority in Uganda. As federalists, we believe in equality among, and within States/Provinces. Let the dialogue continue, and the best way is to try and see the message behind the two quotes cited above. They both have relevance towards the difficult task of national reconciliation in Uganda.

Back to Top

The Necessity of Apologies

By Mr. M. Kibuka

This is a summary of mistakes that need to be addressed in a reconciliation dialogue:

• The 1964 Mutiny
• The 1966 Lubiri Crisis
• The 1967 Pigeon Constitution
• The 1969 One Party declaration
• The 1971 Coup d'etat
• The 1979 Liberation War
• The 1979 Lule issues, accompanied with Muwanga, Binaisa etc.
• The 1980 Controversial General Elections
• The 1980 West Nile Armed Incursion
• The 1985 Okello-Okello case
• The 1986 Museveni Takeover
• The 1990 Broad base government prolongation
• The 1995 NRM Constitution
• The 1996 Presidential Elections
• The 2001 Presidential Elections
• The Lugogo Assassination Attempt
• The Acholi Tragedy
• Obote wanted dead on sight
• Besigye, wife, son and family pursued
• Harassment Reform Agenda Activists

The following items illustrate that there are people out there who see the necessity to reconcile:

1. Otai apologises for Obote-II crimes: Former State Minister for Defence in Obote II, Peter Otai, has apologised to the people of Uganda for the deaths of many people when the Uganda People's Congress (UPC) was in power between 1980-85.

2. Matsanga Apologises For Role In Kony War: The former LRA spokesman and secretary for political affairs, David Nyekorach Matsanga, has apologised to Ugandans for his role in the rebel ranks between February 1998 and April 1999 when he resigned.

3. Mukura: lessons after 10 years: Lt. Gen. Salim Saleh had the sense to publicly apologise for the Mukura incident.

4. Mwalimu's enduring legacy: Was Nyerere a great man? Yes he was. Nyerere was a great man. Always simply dressed and disarming in the manner in which he poked fun at himself and almost ridiculed his best qualities, Nyerere was the epitome of sharp wit and a razor-like mind. He suffered no fools, but when he found himself foolish he was ready to accept his mistakes. That is why Nyerere, in the mid-eighties, as Tanzania's economy was limping towards disaster, apologised to his people and bowed out of office. He accepted the shortcomings of his ujamaa policies and exhorted Tanzanians to restructure the economy without throwing the baby away with the birth water.

To living heads of states and governments [and ex-heads] in Africa we need to pose two questions. How do they compare with Nyerere? Can they accept their mistakes, apologise and bow out? These questions are posed with much concern for genuine answers in [Kampala,] Harare, Windhoek and Nairobi.

Federalism is a complex matter by nature, and we must build trust of some sorts if we are to sit on the same table and negotiate it. What we must know is that we can't go on like this, and some sort of power-sharing formula must be discussed. In these negotiations, no body should be closed out. Allow me to think out loudly (and please, do not tear me alive): Could you imagine Museveni being the delegate to the Federalism Conference for Ankole, Obote for Lango, Besigye for Kigezi, Mulondo for Buganda, Kony for Acholi and such a conference comes to fruition without some sort of genuine apologies? I do not think so! That's one reason I concur with Mr. Muwanga-Zake that reconciliation may make sense if it is carried out between the ethnic groups.

Federalism demands that we negotiate our co-existence, and that negotiations shall only come to fruition if we trust each other. This may as well include some reconciliation and apology to each other. Allow me to reflect on what Judge Okello revealed to us. He wrote: "My careful observation of the development of the political trend of Uganda since 1966 enables me to come to the irresistible view that the crucial political problem facing Uganda today is lack of serious trust among the people of Uganda themselves. I do not want to be hypothetical about this point. It is difficult for the various ethnic groups of Uganda to work together in harmony."

I think that we should give more thought on reconciliation.

References:

1. Otai Apologies: http://allafrica.com/stories/199807260024.html
2. Matsanga Apologises: http://allafrica.com/stories/200002250097.html
3. Salim Saleh Apologies: http://allafrica.com/stories/199907110051.html
4. Mwalimu Nyerere Apologies: http://allafrica.com/stories/199910170040.html
5. Judge Okello Observations: http://www.federo.com/Pages/1967_constitution_and_the_problems.htm

Back to Top

Truth is the Key to genuine Reconciliation

By Mr. J. Akena

Reconciliation without truth is a non-starter! It can be clearly seen from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Without first ascertaining the truth how do we begin to reconcile? I think the events leading to and culminating in 1966 were a national tragedy but fear that we may not agree to the reasons leading to and why it came about. When we establish the Truth then Reconciliation can follow. The culmination without the events that brought it about should not a starting point, likewise 'Acholi' tragedy looked at from the point of view of the traumatic effects and not the root causes is a poor recipe for Reconciliation.

Back to Top

The Emotions vs. Intellectual Level of Public Debate