|
|
FEDERALISM REVERBERATES UNITY IN DIVERSITY |
|
Home | News | Discussion | FAQ | Federal Model | Papers | Seminars | What's New |
|
|
by
Aloysius M. Lugira I
Introduction Publius
Terentius Afer is an ancient and distinguished African playwright, who
lived in about the years 195-159 B.C. In English he is commonly known as
Terence. In his play the Self-Tormentor
he has the following notable quote: “I am a human being, I
consider nothing human to be alien to me" [1988: 77]. Put in
context, this maximum is expressive of the fact that, in essence,
humanity is one, while in manifestation, it is many.
Human beings are created in the image of the Creator. And in that
sense, humanity is one. Creation established this oneness in diversity.
Diversity is indicated in terms of appearances, height, and size, skills
and talents, which render individuation into differences. While
differences generate variety, variety kills monotony. Individuation
articulates subsidiarity, which compliments communality the ultimate
confirmation of which is solidarity. Solidarities evoke ideas of federalism. Looking at federalism reverberating unity in diversity in Uganda, this presentation intends to highlight a few salient features, which affect the constitutional debates, which are currently going on in Uganda. These features will include, the contextualization of unity, diversity, and federalism, democracy as a prerequisite of harmony; the ominous chapter thirteen of the draft constitution, Ugandan share of human political success with other human political experiences like the Swiss experience and Ensi as a Ugandan contribution to the World political nomenclature. II Unity,
Diversity and Federalism Uganda
is a one nation-state. It is a unity of peoples. This is the unity,
which was colonialistically effected into a Uganda Protectorate. This
unity, right or wrong, in the course of about a century has become a
fait accompli. It was formally and solemnly confirmed through the
national, federal, social contract of the Independence Constitution of
1962. The peoples accepted it and through popular representation
ratified it. Like any other human beings these peoples were and are
naturally endowed as rational, social, religious and political beings
regardless of the units to which they happen to belong. The social
contract, in spite of its entire human strength and weaknesses, worked.
Uganda, as the “Pearl of Africa” positively exhibited its potential.
Behind all this was the common sense recognition that there cannot be
unity without units. And these units are the peoples of Uganda. In 1966
Ugandan political zealots, that is politicians like those who intensify
their efforts after they have missed the declared goals, formally
surfaced. “O what a fall was there my country men!” {Shakespeare:
Julius Caesar III. ii}.
The pigeonhole document was forced onto Uganda. After the dictatorial
overthrow of the Uganda National Independence Constitution of 1962
[Lugira 1994:26] in 1966, Apolo Milton Obote imposed on Uganda his
personal constitution. With the military surrounding the Uganda
Parliamentary building and the air force flying war planes over it Obote
had summoned and congregated members of the National Assembly into the
Parliamentary building. The message he delivered was to the effect that
a new constitution of 1967 [Lugira 1994:26] had been produced. He
ordered the congregated National Assembly to ratify it and instructed
them that copies of that document would be found in their pigeonholes.
From this time on, dictatorial rule had been ushered in Uganda and has
been allowed to be in place, now, for more than three decades. Whether
one likes it or not the peaceful unity of Uganda was disrupted. Till
this time, the unity enjoyed by Ugandans, in spite of the constitutional
imperfections which could have been taken care of by constitutional
amendments, was a unity in or through diversity. To ignore proven
experience and drive the peoples into the unknown, while resisting the
aspirations of the peoples, as the case happens to be with the
Constituent Assembly today, is terribly irresponsible. To ignore the
will of the peoples and manipulate a decision about federalism under the
guise of “winner takes all” does not bode well for the future. The
peoples of Uganda ought to be united contractually by letting them
federate into a united Uganda. From
time immemorial, there have existed units of peoples in the region of
Africa designated today as Uganda. These peoples have been culturally
and historically clustered in a variety of solidarities. These
solidarities include peoples inhabiting areas known as: Acholi, Ankole,
Buganda, Bugisu, Bukedi, Bunyoro, Busoga, Karamoja, Kigezi, Lango, Madi,
Sebei, Teso, Toro, West Nile, etc. These names reflect geographic areas
of Uganda the inhabitants of which are peoples whose identities and
diversities are established not only on the basis of culture and history
but are established also on territorial basis as well as on a deep sense
of belonging. This diversity, in the majority of cases, has been
safeguarded even by the colonialist and arbitrarily forged unity known
as Uganda Protectorate. What Uganda needs today is not an arbitrary type
of unity borrowed and expanded from the brutal constitution of 1967, as
the current draft constitution suggests? Uganda needs a deliberately
conscious arrangement of unity. The best one knows, in our time, is an
undiluted federal arrangement. During the late fifties preparers for the political independence of Uganda, considered federalism as the obvious way for a united Uganda. Unfortunately some people, as it were, fell by the way side. They made their vision become blurred. They looked at federalism in an obfuscated manner. They ended by putting in place a dangerously tactical federal arrangement. What one needs today is to establish a conscientiously federal arrangement, which respects the equality of the peoples of Uganda. To generate a harmoniously political prosperity, the people of Uganda need to establish a unity, which respects the centuries-old diversity. This can aptly be done through federalism. Federalism is a consciously principled political system concerned with the combination of self-rule and shared-rule. Federalism involves the linkage of individuals, groups and polities in a lasting union in such a way as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while maintaining the respective integrities of all parties concerned. “As a political
principle, federalism has to do with constitutional diffusion of power
so that the constituting elements in a federal arrangement share in the
process of common policy-making and administration by right, while the
activities of the common government are conducted in such a way as to
maintain their respective integrities. Federal systems do this by
constitutionally distributing power among general and constituent
governing bodies in a manner designed to protect the existence and the
authority of all.” [Elazar 1979:5-6]. It
should be noted that concept federalism is derived from the Latin foedus,-eris,
which implies: agreement, compact, covenant, pact and treaty (bweyamo,
mukago, ndagaano, mato opwut, in some Ugandan diverse
conceptualization). A federal arrangement is a serious commitment that
any one worth hi/her word has to honor. One of the characteristics of
federalism that makes it most compatible with Ugandan’s desirable
politically central integration, is its aspiration and purpose to
simultaneously generate and maintain both unity and diversity. By
historically clear and loud evidences federalism has been successfully
applied to achieve political objectives like those Uganda is in need of.
These include: One: To institute workable political arrangements, Two:
To create a workable policy, III
Uncurtailed Democracy is a Prerequisite for Harmony Since 1964 authoritarianism, dictatorship and totalitarianism have chronically infected the Ugandan political scene. The thirty years of bananas in Uganda is a metaphor that has extensively gone beyond the confines of Uganda. With a resolve of “never again” we should work out a constitution that ensures a national system of government which is fostered by undiluted democracy. In this sense, democracy should strictly be understood as a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people/peoples and exercised directly by them (like in referendum) or by elected agents to whom power is delegated by the people, under a free electoral system. Given the arbitrarily and colonialistically forged Uganda, Uganda becomes a body of peoples before it is an entity of a people. To achieve the goal of democratically developing into a people of peoples, a great deal of mutual understanding is required. Democracy works from down and up. It is from the people/peoples to their representatives at the apex of governance. IV The Ominous Chapter Thirteen Chapter
Thirteen of the Draft Constitution is ominous not because of the
superstitious connections tied to the number thirteen. It is ominous
because of the message it conveys. The message carried by this chapter
is a reproduction of the substance of the 1966 and 1967 constitutions
and their subsequent dictatorially totalitarian revisions on Local
Government in Uganda. The decentralization suggested is so framed that
if it is so pursued can land the Country back into the quagmire of the
past. We have heard so many praises sung, from some corners, in favor of
this type of centralization. The
crucial references to Chapter Thirteen are: Article 20l (1), which reads
as “The system of local government in Uganda shall be based on the
district as a unit under which there shall be such administrative units
as Parliament may by law provide.” Article
202 reads (1): “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, for
the purposes of local government, Uganda shall be divided into the
districts which existed immediately before the coming into force of this
Constitution.” (2):
“Subject to this Constitution, the districts referred to in
clause (1) of this article shall be deemed to have been divided into the
administrative units which existed immediately before the coming into
force this Constitution.” The
fact that these articles originate in the pigeonhole constitutions
mentioned above, these articles and clauses are so tainted that they
become detrimental to undiluted democracy. Article 20l exists as a
result of the brutal constitutional overthrow of 1966 and 1967. Should
the democracy we are groping for be tied to such circumstances? We are
looking for a democracy in which authority emanates from the people
through a democratically just, free and fair electoral system and not
from the people who are at the top because of the barrel of the gun. Article
202 (1) & (2), exemplifies the tactical decentralization which is
based on the infamous constitutional documents mentioned above. It does
also stand for simplistic proposals for crucially important provisions
for political sanity in Uganda. The
identifiably existing peoples of Uganda, like the peoples who inhabit
Acholi, Ankole, Buganda, Bugisu, and others, as were already enumerated
above, should form the constituent units of the federal state of Uganda.
In case some of those people prefer a modification in identification
and/or they would like to make different proposals about themselves,
they should be the final determinants. In this respect people should be
fully allowed to practice their democratic right by allowing them to be
what they are. In promoting democracy the worst thing is to appear as if
people are being spoon-fed about their rights. If it is the only way for
the people to say what they are and what they want to be then they
should be encouraged to use their right to a referendum among
themselves, to reach a determination. The
future of Uganda should not be based on those brutalizing circumstances.
People have sacrificed so much to redress the imbalances of past unjust
and failed policies. People lost lives by hundreds of thousands,
particularly in the Luwero triangle, in search of justice. People fought
with guns; people fought with pens, etc. So many Ugandans, known and
unknown fought to rid Uganda of the effects of 1966, 1967 and the
following years. No one can appropriate to him/herself the monopoly of
having fought for political sanity in Uganda. What all of us should do
is to let vigilance become the price of freedom. Tactical
decentralization like the chopping of Buganda into tiny portions like
Kalangala is a divide et
impera (divide and rule)
the effects of which is a déjà vu. Federal
decentralization results into Federal centralization the result of which
is a strong Central Government whose authority is democratically
delegated to it by the people/peoples. A consciously deliberate and federalistic handling of pluralism in Uganda will generate a uniquely cultural mosaic of the peoples of Uganda. On one hand, contributors to such development will highly be recommended in the Annals of our country, while on the other hand, iconoclastic decentralization will not stand the test of time. V
Switzerland as an example of enduring Federalism The
writer of this paper lived in Switzerland for about eight years. It was
also in Switzerland, while he was writing his doctoral thesis that he
deepened his understanding of Churchill’s description of Uganda as the
Pearl of Africa. Switzerland faced ethnic and linguistic problems. Problems or religion, cultural and political parties, like in Uganda today, were not in short supply. In search of unity the Swiss fought each other for six hundred years. In 1291 they invented federalism as a government system that has helped them pave the way for successful national unity. The best known aspect of Switzerland’s success is the harmony and security in which people of diverse linguistic and cultural background coexist. This resulting ultimately not from a “melting pot” effect but from a deliberately conscious policy of maintaining, respecting and accepting each others’ cultural, linguistic and religious differences without antagonizing each other. This could only be achieved through policies and principles of federalism. What the Swiss could achieve through federalism, Ugandans can also achieve through conscientious federal arrangements. Amagezi muliro: Bwe gukubulako okima ewa munno. (Wisdom is like fire if you have none you fetch from your neighbor). Instead of trying to learn about why Switzerland is successful, and thereby take that advantage to improve the lot of the people, as General Olusegun Obasanjo scolded the other day in Kampala, African leaders siphon and stash huge amounts of national funds into banks abroad, mostly in Switzerland. (Boston Globe, December, 14th 1994). VI
ENSI: Contribution
to World Political Nomenclature This presentation proposes that Ugandan people should build a unity in a federally united state whose constituent units are based on culturally and historically recognizable areas and populations like those of Acholi, Ankole, Buganda, Bugisu, etc., as already have been fully enumerated above. Also one wishes, strongly, to recommend that Uganda uses this opportunity to put its stamp on the world political map nomenclature by introducing the name ENSI, as Switzerland has done with the name canton. Thus ENSI should become the general designation of the constituent units of the federal state of Uganda. Prerequisite should be that each of the ENSI frames a written constitution which is not inconsistent with the Nation State Federal Constitution of Uganda. For specific identification of those units in relation to ENSI, we would therefore be in position of speaking about Ensi Acholi, Ensi Ankole, Ensi Buganda, Ensi Bukedi , Ensi Karamoja etc., which for simplification purpose would simply be referred to as: Acholi, Ankole, Buganda, Bukedi, Karamoja, etc. ENSI is an inclusively dignified concept. It stands for earth, land, country, nation and world given an appropriate grasp of the context within the concept ENSI is applied. This concept can be understood in terms of unity, as it is also perceived in terms of plurality. It is a reflection of unity in diversity, par excellence, and unity and diversity being the main stay of the people of a comfortably United Uganda. This also helps to inspire a vital union with a touch of a Ugandan self-esteem. This can also save us from the disease of escapism into dialectical materialistic rhetoric like the so often repeated cliché of backwardness which does not help to generate inspiring self-esteem necessary for positive participation in nation-building. On the other hand the concept DISTRICT was imposed to stand for the units out of which to build Uganda. District as the designation of the constituent units is bound to reflect unfortunate mixed thinkings and feelings as well as obfusticating perceptions about Uganda. At worst it robs Uganda of those inspirationally motivating dispositions of a nation. Ugandan ancestral wisdom has it that Nsibambi edibya mutere [Badly wrapped food product, makes the product to lose the market]. And Nsibambi ekulwaanya n’ekibira. [A crosscriss bound bundle of firewood makes a difficult passage through the forest]. So is district in terms of constituent units for Uganda. Going deeper into the etymological meaning of “district”, as a derivative of the Latin verb distringere, the meaning behind the term “district”, by mentioning a few equivalents, means: molest, coherse, compel. Thus, “district” is in consonance with the brutal political activities of 1966, 1967, etc. Given the context of political development in Uganda “district” reflects a process of putting down in the sense of a suppression. For example an undemocratically initiated process of the breaking down of Buganda into ephemeral districts is in a way a process of putting Buganda down, particularly when the direct people concerned are not appropriately consulted. This is particularly so when the very name Buganda is made to evaporate off the map of Uganda [Museveni 1995: see Map]. It is a fact that anthropologically, artistically, constitutionally, historically, politically, philosophically, theologically and in many other fields of codification and communication Buganda has for many years been on the world map. It is mind bugling for some political zealots to think that they can simply do whatever they want to do without reference to and respect of the aspirations of the people. It should be clearly noted that what applies here to the people of Buganda is also applicable to other peoples of Uganda. For centuries, with its clearly cut unwritten constitution, the 1900 agreement with the British, and of late with a written constitution, Buganda successfully steered herself in a populationally and territorially cohesive manner. Continuing the process of dismantling Buganda which was initiated by the 1966 brutal attack on Buganda, and particularly having tantalized it with a stupendously inspiring and motivating coronation, at best it is inconsideration, at worst it is a shortsighted self-serving slapdash in the face. One hears a lecture on “Gratitude is good virtue” [New Vision, August 1, 1994:2]. Definitely, many recalcitrants of federalistic aspirations would not be in Kampala were it not for the cooperation and sacrifices of the people in the Luweero Triangle. Beside gratitude, there is a more elevated virtue of avoiding to insult the memories of the unsung heroes who lost their lives in the Luweero Triangle in the process of protecting of combatants they thought were liberators [Lugira, 1994:18, ftn. 10]. For all what is known and for all what the facts are, there must be something wrong in the state of “district” when a Lt. Col. Guma erupts the way he did recently in a Constituent Assembly meeting. [Lugira, 1994:18, ftn. 11]. The root cause of all this may be diagnosed as a triple cancerous tumor of, for lack of a better descriptive word in English, Eihari, a Runyankole word for the insatiably impetuous craze for controlling things under the belief of “what is yours we share, what is mine I keep”, and a summation of all self-serving designs. In that sense, the most dangerously political disease Uganda happens to be suffering from today is controlitis [An inordinate proclivity by which one would not feel safe without controlling others]. The disease becomes something ominous when it is revamped by the ideology characterized as tricksology. This is a conglomeration of clever and shrewd ways by which people are used and thrown away as well as being tranquilized into dormancy of kasita twebaka ku tulo, a hopelessly transitory culture which has affected many Ugandans into feelings like are summarized in the current saying that “ I do not care since I can have my sleep at night”. Designs to chop to pieces the beloved Ensi in Uganda through districting which in effect leads to obliteration of cultures and histories call for Solomon’s judgement to mind. Briefly: Two prostitutes lived in the same house. In the same house they each one bore a child. One child died. The mother of the dead child furtively exchanged the dead child for the living child. On noticing what had happened the mother of the living child appealed to King Solomon, who attentively heard their case. In passing judgement the king called the attendants [1 Kings, Chapter 3:16-28. The Judgement of Solomon]: And the king said, “Bring
me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. And the king
said, “Divide the living child in two and give half to the one, and
half to the other.” Then the woman whose child was alive said to the
king, “Oh my lord, give her the living child, and by no means slay
it.” But the other said, “It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide
it.” Then the king answered and said, “Give the living child to the
first woman, and by no means slay it; she is its mother.” Faced with the problematic districting proposals of the draft constitution regarding the constituent units of the nation-state of Uganda, the Constituent Assembly has to follow Solomon’s advice to achieve a wise contribution to the future well being of Uganda. It is through federal arrangements that Uganda can be helped to avoid the seeming fiasco ahead of us. People should see, judge and act on what is currently going on. They should help talk districting devotees out of those dangerous districting ideas. People should write more and more to clarify the situation. Remember the pen is mightier than the sword. [Bulwer-Lytton, 1979 compare Cicero/Edmunds 1886]. The paper dwells a bit more on Buganda than it does on other suggested constituent units for a federal state of Uganda. The reason for this is because so far the Constituent Assembly debates on this issue have pointed out Buganda as a point of focus. The views in this presentation are aimed at being appropriately applied to all and each of the suggested constituent units. In sum to advocate for a United Uganda through federal arrangements with Ensi as constituent units is foresighted, because, federalism: 1. Recognizes Uganda’s
natural pluralism. It should finally be noted that one people’s concern is a concern of all. Political instability in our country cannot avoid affecting peoples around that country and beyond. With Aurelius Saint Augustine, as one of the preeminently creative African thinkers and writers, in history: “Every human being is mostly connected with every fellow human being, nor should any distance of relationship enter into consideration where there is a common nature.” [Parsons, 1964:316]. The people of Switzerland, those of the United States of America and those of Germany who have experienced problems of nation building and unity like Uganda, discovered federalism to be the best means by which to acquire justice and peace. They realized the diversity of their situation. They shaped their destinies into successful entities through federal arrangements. As honest shapers of our destiny it is important to realize that in Uganda we should apply federalism so as to let it reverberate unity in diversity to the advantage of the Pearl of Africa. Apter, David Ernest. 1967. The Political Kingdom in Uganda: A Study in Bureaucratic Nationalism. Princeton University Press. Augustine, Aurelius Saint, Bishop of Hippo. Letters. Volume III. (131-164) Translated by Sister Wilford Parsons. 1964. Washington: Catholic University of America Press. Bible: The Jerusalem Bible. Alexander Jones, General Editor. 1966. Garden City, N.Y.: Double Day. Bulwer-Lytton, Edward George, Baron Lytton. 1979. “Richelieu (1838) II.ii”, in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations: “ Beneath the ruler of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword. “ Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Three Books of Offices: Or Moral Duties. Translated by Cyrus R. Edmunds 1886. Constitutional Documents 1954. Agreed Recommendations of the Namirembe Conference. Entebbe: Government Printers. 1957.The Story of the Uganda Agreement by J.V. Wild. London: McMillan and Co. Ltd. 1959. Report of the Constitutional Committee. Entebbe: Government Printer. 1961. Report of the Uganda Constitutional Conference. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1962. Report of the Uganda Independence Conference. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1962. Uganda
Constitutional Instruments. Entebbe: The Government Printer.
Including: Legislative Lists in Respect to the Federal States other than the Kingdom of Buganda and Towns under Central Administration. 1967. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Entebbe: Government Printer. The Draft Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Published as part of the report by the Uganda Constitutional Commission, P.O. Box 7206, Kampala, Uganda. Entebbe: UPPC, with no date given. Elazar, Daniel, J. 1979. Federalism and Political Integration. Ramat Gan, Israel: Turtledove Pub. _____________. 1987. Exploring Federalism. University of Alabama Press. Ingham, Kenneth. 1958, 1983. The Making of Modern Uganda. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Johnston, Sir Harry Hamilton, (1858-1927). 1902. The Uganda Protectorate, New York: Dodd, Mead. London: Hutchinson. Lugira, Aloysius M. 1994. Federalism Reverberates Unity in Diversity. A Ugandan Perspective. Winchester: Africa Resource Institute. Museveni, Yoweri. 1995. What is Africa’s Problem? Speeches and Writings of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. Shakespeare, William (1564-1616). Julius Caesar. Edited by Marvin Spevak. 1988. Cambridge (Cambridgeshire),
New York: Cambridge University Press. Terence Publius Afer. The Self-Tormentor. Edited wit a translation and commentary by A.J. Brothers. 1988. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. |
| © 2002 Federo for all Uganda, All Rights Reserved | |
