|
The
Monitor
By
Richard M. Kavuma
Aug 8 -
14, 2004
|
JEHOASH
MAYANJA NKANGI has fond memories of a Buganda that had
federo in a Uganda that did not necessarily want federalism. He
has been in both worlds - Kabaka's prime minister and President
Museveni's Finance minister. In this interview, Nkangi shows
Richard M. Kavuma how Uganda and federo agitators can
both have their way and prosper.
What makes federo so important to Buganda?
First, let me clear the deck. Federalism is not about the
windfall tourist revenues of Bwindi, nor about the revenues from
minerals of Karamoja or the coffee of Buganda. Federalism is not
about monarchism - look at Switzerland and Germany. It is
not about ethnicity, otherwise the Americans, who are so diverse
ethnically would have had so many microstates.
What
then were the federalists demonstrating for?
Federalism is rooted in the spirit of an individual to be free.
People want to manage their own affairs those that concern
them intimately and not other people.
The Yugoslavs used to call it self-management.
And
every federalist is, by definition, a unitarist because the same
federal states want the other functions that concern everybody,
for example defence.
It
is a question of what functions do you devolve to the federal
state and which ones do you keep at the centre.
What benefits will Buganda, for instance, get from federalism?
One is spiritual, so to say: there is something about that
freedom of being able to do for yourself something that concerns
you alone. Secondly, efficiency would be increased. Those who
suffer a problem are likely to worry about it more than other
people. The other benefit would be employment.
But
some areas do not want federalism. Supposing you had a wedding
buffet, in one corner there is fish, meat, chips, in another
corner, clearly marked, is pork, but some of the guests are
Muslims. If a Protestant went to the pork corner, I don't
expect the Muslim to object. But at the same time, I don't
expect the protestant to force the Muslim to eat pork.
That
is how it should be with federalism. Those who don't want to
manage their own affairs, fair enough. In 1962, that was the
position. Buganda, Bunyoro, Tooro, opted for federalism; The
Iteso said no. We don't want federalism and they were
administered from Kampala. So, we had a semi-federated state.
And
we had peace - until that peace was disturbed by some one
who wanted more powers than he should have had. If someone does
not want federalism, don't give it to him or her. If some
one wants it give it to him/her but the important thing is the
functions that you devolve. If those functions hurt the body
politic of Uganda, that's a different matter. There is the
issue of Kampala, both Uganda and Buganda want it.
I
have a feeling that we should not fight where there are no wars.
Is Kampala in Buganda? If you are talking geography, which
geography will say that it is not? It has been here many, many
years. But should the administration of Kampala city be under
the Lukiiko of Uganda? That is a different question; and that
can be resolved.
How
can it be resolved?
That was resolved many years ago. For many years, Entebbe was
the headquarters of the colonial government but Buganda never
asked to take over Entebbe. When the headquarters moved to
Kampala, still Buganda has never asked to take over the
administration of Kampala. All they are asking now is to
recognise the geographic fact that Kampala is in Buganda. We are
told Buganda sold Kampala to Uganda.
As
far as I am concerned, in 1962, the Uganda government agreed to
pay Buganda government Shs 1 a year as rent - just a token - in perpetuity [indefinitely]. Really, it is just
recognition: Uganda tells Buganda that I recognise that this is
your land geographically but I am working here; and Buganda says
that, "you work there". We can do the same now. This is
how to solve what I call a pseudo problem.
What
chance do you see for federalism this time?
You see, federalism for me is Ugandan; and everyone who has any
inkling for freedom should love it. As to whether they have a
chance this time, I don't know if there is goodwill, yes.
But you see it now depends on those who are negotiating. But if
it were I, I would let them have it.
Is
lack of goodwill the main obstacle?
I can't say that, because, as of now we don't know the
final answer. They are saying they are still talking. Parliament
is also there. And ultimately the people of this country might
decide this issue.
Are
you calling for a federo referendum?
No! Not necessarily. That is why multi-partyism is important. A
party can come and say, as part of its election manifesto, that
if you give us the mandate, we shall do this and that. And we
intend to do that, we conservatives.
You
chair Ugandan Land Commission, where have you kept Buganda's
9,000 square miles of land?
They say they want this land. The question is Buganda entitled
to it? And you cannot say that they are not entitled.
For
there was a time when this land belonged to Buganda. Then under
the 1900 agreement, Buganda surrendered this land to the British
government to use it for the good of Uganda. When the British
left, the 9,000 square miles, as far as I remember, were sent
back to Buganda.
When
Dr Obote abolished the kingdoms, government took over all public
land and put it here in Uganda Land Commission.
Now,
if the Baganda say that hold on, at one time this belonged to
us, let's have it, I think this is something the government
of Uganda should consider.
|
)
2004 The Monitor Publications
New
Vision
Federalism not secession
WHAT NEXT? Mayanja Nkangi
By Henry Mukasa
QUESTION: The country is currently engaged in the federal debate as a system of government, especially calls by Mengo. Do you support Mengo’s stand on federo?
ANSWER: Well, I would say that if it is a question generally, should we have federalism? Then I say, yes, but for the whole of Uganda. Of course if for some reason Uganda won’t have it, there is nothing to stop Buganda from having it.
Is that demand sustainable?
Essentially federalism is about self-management. You do certain things for yourself which concern you. It is really an aspect of freedom from dependence administratively. You set some things for yourself and do them.
By definition, every federalist is a unitarist because he or she agrees on certain functions, certain powers to share with the central government; some (powers) are mine others are for the central government.
Federalism is one of the most important ways of harnessing together diversities. America would not have come into being until they had a federation. In 1776 they had their revolution against the reign of King George III of England, because at the time they were under Britain. They chased the monarch out, and agreed that “let us have this thing for our self, manage them but then give you others like defence, currency… at the centre.” You harness diversities into a union for the good of the country.
Should federalism in Uganda be based on tribes or regions as demarcated?
You cannot base it on tribes because if you did, Buganda alone has all sorts of people inside it. Take Bugerere –– it is a united nations there. Federalism is not about tribe,
it is about an administrative unit.
Other people who would have supported the Buganda federo demand fear the connection of the Kabaka. How do you separate the two?
Federalism is not monarchism. If that were so, the Americans would not be there as a federal state. The Kabaka is not part of it as a concept. In 1955, Buganda had a new constitution in which the Kabaka was made a constitutional monarch meaning, like the British queen, the Kabaka has no role to play in government. The Kabaka is out of
it, because he is ceremonial, he talks to the Katikkiro, who is the effective head. The Katikkiros come and go but he remains there. So this issue of federation has nothing to do with Kabakaship.
So, how do you allay the fears of other regions/tribes that fear the Kabaka’s involvement?
I would simply say, the Kabaka of Buganda would not share in the effective governance of Buganda. The Katikkiro of Buganda would be the head of that government. Just like the Queen of England.
Mr. Tony Blair now, is the head of the British government but legally it’s the Queen, because she must sign all the laws.
Joined with the demand for federalism is the inclusion of Kampala in Buganda and the 9000 square miles of land. What is your take on that?
Nkangi: If I asked you a question “Is Uganda in Africa?” What would you answer me?
Me: Yes.
Nkangi: Precisely. But if I asked a question that ‘should the Africa Union govern Kampala, that is a different question. The first question is geographical. The second is administrative. And similarly I think Kampala should be treated the same way. To me that should not be a point of contention.
The question should be: should the Lukiiko of Mengo pass laws to be administered in Kampala? That is an administrative question, let them answer it. For me I would give a “No” to the question. And this has been the situation since Uganda was formed.
Then the 9,000 square miles?
Again the 9,000 square miles were part of Buganda, the British came in 1900 and agreed administratively –– “give us some land we want to establish some things ourselves –– okay you take 9,000, we keep 8,000. At independence in 1962, the 9,000 square miles were returned to kingdom of Buganda, the federal state of Buganda and it was administered by the Buganda land board.
I have a feeling that we have bigger things to fight about; the development of this country for instance, than care for things which to me are pseudo issues.
What these people (Mengo) are saying is: “look, we are all Ugandans, lets look at the history, don’t you think you have my jacket in your wardrobe?” “Oh! Let me see its here, how did it come there? Oh! So and so.” Let me have it back, amicably. You see this thing can go back!
I gather the land is now under the district land boards in Buganda, again the question is, “why should the central government insist, and these two governments, Buganda and Uganda quarrel over that?” Let there be a Buganda land board as it were before.
And Obote took this land forcibly. If you don’t return it, you are only saying you support a coup d’etat that Obote effected.
The ordinary Muganda you meet on the streets of Kampala or even in the villages and you ask “why do you want federo?” replies: “I want things as they were in the past.” How were things like in the past?
Under the 1962 constitution, there were seven ministries in Mengo namely: the Katikkiro (Prime minister), Omulamuzi (minister of Justice), Omuwanika (minister of Finance), ministers of health, education, local government and natural resources. That is how it used to be until 1967 when Obote abolished the federal system. So if the Baganda said this is what they want, alright.
So anything to do with those ministries listed, Mengo could handle?
Exactly. Essentially except when it came to universities, higher education and health; say a referral hospital that used to be for the central government. This is the distinction between federalism and decentralisation. Under decentralisation you give some functions to the lower government and anytime you can take them away. Under federalism you cannot unless
it is by the constitution.
What was the advantage of this system when Buganda had some ministries?
If Buganda had a federal status and somewhere in Masaka is a river infested with mosquitoes and malaria is killing people, by the time the ministry of health in Kampala gets worried about that problem, the ministry in Buganda has done so 20 times. This is why the English say: “He who wears the shoes knows where it pinches.” (laughter). You do things that concern you and got time for. This fellow in Kampala is busy covering it for the whole of Uganda.
What then is this fear other people have for Buganda getting federo?
Recently the former VP said it is secession. I would just say, federalism is not secession. By definition where you have got federalism it also means you are joined to the centre. We need amity. For things which don’t concern you, if you don’t want them, leave them.
From what we read in the press on talks between government and Mengo, government wants an elected Lukiiko for Mengo?
You are talking to a man who was elected. Under the 1962 constitution, the Lukiiko of Buganda had about 68 people or so who were elected by the people of Uganda, some, about six were nominated by the Kabaka of Buganda. Then there were some, about 20
Ssaza chiefs. I see no problem about electing a big proportion of the Lukiiko. Because if you are going to have a Lukiiko spending money of the people, even grants got from government are taxes.
Let's have the principle of democracy there. Democracy has come and it should come and
it's not only there for government.
The pessimists say Buganda’s quest for federo might lead to the re-occurrence of the 1966 crisis.
I would answer that: not necessarily. In 1966 Mengo was not the villain of peace. It was the central government. We had a constitution giving certain powers to the federal state of Buganda. In February 1966, the then Prime Minister of Uganda, Dr Milton Obote after a motion had been passed by his own national assembly saying that he had been suspended over something to do with gold in Congo, he effected a coup d’etat: He took over the powers of the president, Sir Edward Muteesa II and the vice, William Nadiope. When he did this, he had already started dismantling the constitutional system. Two months later, he took over the constitution of Buganda and left three ministries, putting Buganda 66 years back as it was in 1900.
We passed three resolutions in Lukiiko that, “Please be constitutional.” Don’t move that way. Until we said all right, if you don't want to behave like this, then take your government off the land. No one said let the non-Baganda go.
Your last word?
My appeal is that the debate about federalism should not be derailed.
It's not about secession, it's not about monarchism, it's not about tribe. Because if it were about tribe in America you would have hundreds of states.
It's about to what extent an administrative unit can manage affairs that don’t concern the state.
Published on: Wednesday, 11th August, 2004
Back
to Top |
