|
By
Norbert Mao, MP
Dear
compatriots,
I
believe that federalism is the highest form of decentralisation. Any
government in Uganda therefore which is committed to decentralisation
cannot deny federalism as an ultimate goal. Self-determination and
freedom are other grounds for federalism.
Some
people confuse federalism with monarchism. This has clouded the debate
in a shroud of fear spread by xenophobic politicians. The debate should
therefore be focused largely on administrative efficiency and the right
of peoples to self-determination. There are individual rights and
people's rights. Federo belongs to the latter category.
Let
it also be said without fear that in the struggle for federo some
leaders from Buganda have been easy pawns in the hands of the enemies of
federo. The somersaults by key Baganda leaders during the constitutional
debate are still fresh in our minds. As long as individual Baganda
politicians still have the incentive nay guts to cut deals with the
successive regimes for their personal gain, federo will continue to hang
like a carrot before the eyes of the donkey while the stick of tyranny
is wielded to the detriment of the people.
This
does not mean there are no positive signs. The most obvious one is that
federo is now firmly on Uganda's political to-do list. Gone are the days
when Ugandan's were told that even a sound night's sleep is a great
favour "ushered in by the National Resistance Movement".
Federo was on the AOB nay BOA (i.e. Business Outside Agenda). This has
changed and politicians will ignore it at their own peril. This of
course has invited opportunistic responses from the politically
ambitious who posture themselves in a position where they can catch the
most votes. All of us are open to this accusation but let each person's
record speak for itself.
The
second positive sign is that Buganda which is the flagship community as
far as federo is concerned are finding their own distinct voice in the
NRM din. The politics of "kati twebaka ku tulo" uttered in
mega-decibels is slowly being dwarfed by legitimate demands from the
grass roots. I frequently meet HM the Kabaka's saza chiefs and they tell
me that the countryside is aflame with serious demands. I frequently
meet with members of the Lukiiko and Buganda Government Ministers who
tell me that they are under a lot of pressure. Demagogues can take
advantage of this but fortunately many of these local leaders are
well-educated, financially stable people capable of reasoning their way
through the maze that is politics.
The
third positive sign is that federo is now a national issue. It has a
firm supportive basis both in theory and in practice. Many communities
in Uganda now want federo to be discussed by the organs of the state in
order that decisions are made. There is still need for serious political
education in order to strengthen the convictions of federo adherents and
to illuminate their understand. Federo will not be easily won. Those who
want it must therefore be ready for a tough fight.
There
are limits of course. For one federo cannot take off in the absence of
constitutionalism. Constitutionalism allows for a healthy tension
between the various organs and units of government. Indeed federo will
bring about some tensions between the federal government and the federal
units. There must therefore be acceptable mechanisms of resolving these
tensions. The supreme law must clearly delineate the margins of power
and allow for an independent judiciary to interpret and arbitrate where
there is tension.
In
1998 I attended a course on federalism at the Institute of Federalism in
Fribourg, Switzerland. I can therefore speak with some authority on this
subject. Those who struggle for federo must know that unless they stand
shoulder to shoulder with those crusading for constitutionalism, they
will be like a man who catches a big fish without the means to ward off
the sharks. In the absence of the rule of law federo cannot sprout. The
struggles for federo must therefore also be the struggle for good
governance.
There
is no contradiction between a strong federal national government and
strong federal units. But this can only be healthy if there is rule of
law rather than "law of rulers". This was the problem in the
wake of our independence. Dr. Obote grew paranoid and instead of
responding by turning to the law as a final arbiter of an obvious
conflict of interests, he employed "whim-power". He
unilaterally changed the rules of the game. Let it be emphasized however
that even a federal arrangement is still a UNION. And the national
government has the duty to protect that union. These things must be
agreed upon in a constitution. Once the rules are agreed to, the game
should proceed according to the rules of the game.
Let
me end by saying something which may be controversial but which I have
thought seriously about. I believe that if LT. GEN. Museveni was at the
helm during the Buganda crisis we would have seen worse. I have some
basis for this conclusion. Witness his highhanded response when he
ordered troops to fire on unarmed crowds in 1979 during the NO LULE, NO
WORK demonstrations. His subsequent delight in violence in northern
Uganda also bears out this character trait. Only recently he verbally
sentenced critics of "his army" to death in the famous
"six feet under" pronouncement. This is not an attempt to
exonerate Dr. Obote. Dr. Obote was high handed and he breached the rules
agreed to. There were ways he could have responded to the threats from
the Kabaka's government using the force of the law rather than the law
of force. What I am suggesting is that Lt. Gen. Museveni could have
wreaked more havoc. I know Musevenites will dive for my jugular for
saying this but I did not want to leave it unsaid. In our debates let us
endeavour to scratch where we are itching. If your a** is itching you do
not scratch your forehead just because it is convenient. Truth is Lt.
General Museveni will never agree to demands for federo. He is a
stumbling block to federo. Those who want federo must therefore resolve
to tear through him, go over him, or around him. My preference is the
third choice. He should wake up one morning and find that he is alone in
that awkward position. That is what we did regarding the demands for a
peaceful resolution of the conflict in N. Uganda. He remained pitifully
alone in the warmonger’s corner. Now he at least does not oppose peace
talks with the same gusto of a few years ago.
Those
who want to wait for Museveni to grant them federo can as well wait for
goats to start laying eggs. They can as well wait for orange trees to
start sprouting mangoes. In law we say "Nemodat quod non
habet" – you cannot give what you do not have. Lt. Gen. Museveni
does not have it in him to grant such freedoms as federo. At least he
has never supported it.
Best
regards,
~Norbert
Mao, MP~
PS:
Thank you to the vibrant voices on this list. I enjoy reading the
various passions and viewpoints contend. I like the irreverence of it
all. No idea is too sacred to be excused from the rigours of reason.
Even the Lord Jesus himself said "come let us REASON
together". He did not say "come and let me LECTURE you"!
|
