Monthly Archives: March 2014

The circulation of Uganda’s fifteen nations as a basis for discussing the future governance direction of Uganda has raised some fundamental questions that the champions of 15 nations have not been able to answer. There are three principal characteristics that define a tribe or a nation:

1. Common ancestry;

2. Common language;

3. Common religion.

Applying these criteria raise questions about the fifteen nations. Take Buganda for example. We always hear those who refer to themselves as Bana ba Kintu and others are called Bana ba Kimera. These are two ancestries.

Then there is the question of language. There are different mother tongues in Buganda. While at Ntare School in the early 1960s we witnessed Baganda students teasing Bakooki students for not speaking proper Luganda. So Luganda is not a common/ancestral language. There are various religions and there is no one common religion in Buganda. Based on the above is Buganda a nation?

In Kigezi clans were just compressed into artificial tribes for colonial administrative convenience, hoping that ultimately we would metamorphose into a nation. But that didn’t happen. That is why after independence Kigezi split into three groups: Kabale, Bufumbira and Rukungiri. Within these three groups there are major differences.

Every time there is discussion regarding federalism, the fifteen nations including their flags and anthems are mentioned. This is what happened at the London conference on federalism in October 2012 (flags were hoisted and some anthems sang) and at subsequent efforts to forge a common position on federalism. The fifteen nations have been widely publicized but none has explained what they mean including their genesis and implications, creating difficulties how to fit them into the federalism work we are doing.

Many Ugandans wish to know the genesis of the 15 nations. Did they evolve from the clan system into tribes and now nations? Were they imposed by colonial officials for administrative convenience and we now find them convenient for our purposes and should be maintained? What were the criteria used? What constitutes a nation? How were the boundaries drawn up and who did it? For example, are Kigezi, Ankole and Toro still nations? What was the position at the time of negotiating the independence constitution regarding these nations? If there is agreement on these fifteen nations can we use them as a basis for negotiating federalism or should we envisage some proposed changes? What would happen if there are some proposals of a complex nature and serious implications? Do we resolve this before moving on? The way Uganda should be governed post-NRM regime will be one of the first items on the agenda and federalism will be among the proposals.

Every time there is discussion regarding federalism, the fifteen nations including their flags and anthems are mentioned. This is what happened at the London conference on federalism in October 2012 (flags were hoisted and some anthems sang) and at subsequent efforts to forge a common position on federalism. The fifteen nations have been widely publicized but none has explained what they mean including their genesis and implications, creating difficulties how to fit them into the federalism work we are doing.

Many Ugandans wish to know the genesis of the 15 nations. Did they evolve from the clan system into tribes and now nations? Were they imposed by colonial officials for administrative convenience and we now find them convenient for our purposes and should be maintained? What were the criteria used? What constitutes a nation? How were the boundaries drawn up and who did it? For example, are Kigezi, Ankole and Toro still nations? What was the position at the time of negotiating the independence constitution regarding these nations? If there is agreement on these fifteen nations can we use them as a basis for negotiating federalism or should we envisage some proposed changes? What would happen if there are some proposals of a complex nature and serious implications? Do we resolve this before moving on? The way Uganda should be governed post-NRM regime will be one of the first items on the agenda and federalism will be among the proposals.

At the 2012 London Conference on federalism attended by Ugandans from all walks of life, the concept meant different things to different participants. However, there was agreement in principle that it was better than the current centralized government. It was decided that studies, consultations and debates be conducted on varieties and contexts of federalism to enable Ugandans take an informed decision.

As reported elsewhere, federalism is increasingly becoming popular. It is also being tailored to suit different situations. Thus there isn’t one model that suits all situations in time and space. We have already examined the cases of Belgium, Indonesia, United Kingdom and Switzerland. In this article, we examine the case of Nigeria.

Nigeria is a diverse country. However, for colonial administrative convenience the northern and southern parts were joined in 1914 to form Nigeria although there were objections. Ethno-regional tensions led to the division of southern Nigeria into the Eastern and Western regions in 1939. In 1946, Nigeria was divided into Northern, Eastern and Western regions. In 1954 a constitution was adopted making Nigeria a federation while giving more powers to the regions to accommodate their demands, making the model sound more a confederation than a federation. The federal system was entrenched at independence in 1960 and hailed at home and abroad as a model for Africa.

During the colonial days north and south Sudan were treated differently. The northern part was developed while the southern part was neglected in all areas of human endeavor.

As independence approached, it was decided that the two parts must be kept together. But these were two countries in one and problems emerged resulting in a mutiny in the south in 1955 on the eve of independence.

To the economic and social marginalization was added the policy of Islamizing and Arabizing the south. Christian and political activities were restricted and outlawed respectively. Educated Southerners fled to Uganda and Congo. In 1963 a resistance movement was launched under the name of Sudan National Union (SANU). The armed wing – the Anya-nya was formed as well and a devastating civil war began.

Through the auspices of the Ethiopian government an agreement between the Sudan government and the southern movement was reached in 1972 in which the south was accorded a significant measure of autonomy within a unitary state. The three southern provinces formed one region with legislature and executive branches of government. While Arabic remained the official language of Sudan, southern Sudan would use English as the principal language. Religious freedom and control of education in the south provided safeguards against enforced Arabization. Most of the Anya-nya fighters were integrated into the national army. A special plan would be launched to promote accelerated development in the south. While peace returned to South Sudan following the Agreement, development did not take place.

Somaliland was a British colony that was basically left untouched culturally and economically. Its main economic activity was cattle herding and export of beef. Ishaq is the dominant clan.

On July 1, 1960 British Somaliland joined Italian Somalia to form an independent state of Somalia as a Republic.

Somaliland is a poor area with livestock herding as its main economic activity. The colonial administration introduced few changes and independence did not improve the area as development activities were concentrated in the south especially in the area around the capital of Mogadishu. Somaliland was also politically marginalized because the Ishaq clan had its nationalistic organization and did not join the Somali Youth League that played a major role in independent Somalia. Ibrahim Egal, the first prominent politician from the north became prime minister in 1967 only to be overthrown in 1969. After that the relations between the north and the south deteriorated.

Eritrea was an Italian colony for fifty years. Italy was defeated in World War II and lost Eritrea. By the UN resolution Eritrea was joined to Ethiopia in 1952 under federal arrangement despite opposition from Muslim Eritreans who wanted independence (Christians wanted unification with Ethiopia). Ethiopia was responsible for foreign affairs, defense, finance, commerce and ports. Eritrea was allowed to form its own government and assembly to take care of local affairs. Eritrea had its own flag, official languages of Arabic and Tigrinya.

Haile Selassie who claimed that Eritrea or parts of it had once belonged to the Ethiopian empire interpreted the federal compromise as a step towards unification. Ethiopia gradually eroded what Eritrea had gained – political rights, trade unions, independent press.

In 1958 the Eritrean flag was discarded. In 1959 the Ethiopian code was extended to Eritrea and political parties were banned, trade union was eliminated, press censorship was introduced and Amharic language replaced Arabic and Tigrinya.

In 1962 Eritrea was annexed to Ethiopia as a province under centralized authority. The Muslims that numbered fifty percent of the population objected and initiated a long and devastating war of liberation.

As we prepare to replace the failed NRM government that has rejected federalism, Ugandans have been discussing the benefits of federalism by examining theory and practice. We have examined the experiences in the United Kingdom, Belgium and Indonesia.

The purpose of the debate is to see what is suitable for Uganda because federalism comes in many varieties and contexts. What is pleasantly clear is that federalism is increasing. As of 2008, there were 28 federal states – five of them from Africa. What does the Swiss federalism tell us?

In 1291 three cantons (a canton is a state of the Swiss confederation) formed a league – a kind of constitution – initially for defense purposes. The three cantons were regarded as a unit. Between 1332 and 1352 four cantons were added to that unit. It was controlled by a federal diet (legislative assembly) while retaining much autonomy for the cantons. Political and security considerations drew the cantons closer together.

By the 16^th century, the confederation was still very loose but the number of cantons had increased to thirteen. Each canton sent two representatives to the federal diet. Through diplomatic efforts the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia that ended the thirty years’ war recognized Swiss independence.