Is creation of Tutsi Empire real or imaginary?

Although some people have denied that Batutsi are nearing creation of a Tutsi Empire initially covering Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda and later other countries in middle Africa (from Indian Ocean Coast to Atlantic Ocean Coast) and Horn of Africa and possibly Southern Africa there is sufficient evidence to prove them wrong (Alec Russel 2000; Joseph Weatherby 2003 and EIR Special Report 1999). Namibia joined the 1998/99 war waged by Rwanda and Uganda against DRC because the leaders there were not sure what would follow after the defeat of DRC forces.

To understand the background to the formation of Tutsi Empire one needs to trace efforts to restore the short-lived Mpororo kingdom and expand it into a Tutsi Empire and why Museveni has talked a lot about Pan-Africanism and the weaknesses of balkanization in East Africa although he prefers balkanization for Uganda which he has sliced into over 100 economically unviable districts.

Mpororo kingdom was formed by a breakaway Batutsi group from Rwanda in mid-seventeenth century (1650s) and lasted less than or 100 years. Mpororo covered parts of present-day northern Rwanda, most of southwest Ankole (Ntungamo) and parts of Kigezi bordering Ankole (S. R. Karugire 1980; G. N. Uzoigwe 1982 and Christopher Ehret 2002).

Roadmap to achieving a federal government in Uganda

Fellow Ugandans and friends

One of the major complaints at Uganda meetings that I have attended is that participants are never given reports in good time to study them and consult appropriately in order to debate effectively and take informed decisions. Consequently, meetings end up without taking decisions on the way forward.

Given the vital importance of the London Federal Conference, I have decided to publish my preliminary thoughts before the meeting to give Ugandans and others an opportunity to make comments and suggestion especially on points I may have left out for incorporation into the final statement so that everyone participates in this exercise. I have already circulated a draft statement on “What do we know about federal governments?” on Ugandans at Heart Forum, www.udugandans.org and www.kashambuzi.com.

Please let me have your comments and suggestion as soon as possible before finalizing them for the conference.

Eric

Roadmap to achieving a federal government in Uganda

My presentation is in two parts:

1. Renewing national support for a federalism

What do we know about federal governments?

The word federal is derived from a Latin term foedus which means covenant or compact. Federalism is sometimes used interchangeably with decentralization. Federalism is a system in which political power is shared between a central (national) government and smaller governmental units. The central government is often called the federal government and smaller units called states or provinces. The division of power between the federal government and states or provinces is defined in the constitution. The principal objective of federalism is to balance the interests of different ethnic and language groups, regions, etc and between different groups or regions and the central government.

Central or unitary governments hold principal powers and choose what to give to states or provinces. Some governments that appear federal use unitary systems, making states or provinces serve as administrative rather than political units. In a federal system, citizens usually owe their loyalty directly to the central government.

Federal systems are classified as coming-together like the American-style federalism and holding-together like India, Belgium, Nigeria and Spain designed to hold multicultural societies together by devolving powers constitutionally and forming a federation. Federalism whether democratic or not is the result of bargain involving an element of give and take. In other words, to have lasting impact federal systems of government should not be imposed by stronger members on weaker ones. Different regions in a country or different states should come to the table as equals and bargain a win-win outcome.

Museveni didn’t pick up the gun to save and develop Uganda

When you break new ground, as I am trying to do, you are bound to run into all sorts of difficulties. Some will misunderstand, others will misinterpret, yet others will dismiss you as a trouble maker, a sectarian or an ambitious person to be avoided like a plague. Readers of my contribution on Ugandans at Heart Forum are familiar with what has been hurled at me. Some who are worried about what may happen have suggested I use a fake name or drop writing altogether. I thank them all for their concern. After careful reflection and prayer, I decided that changing at this late hour may not be the right thing to do.

In my spare time I devoted some thirty years studying the Great Lakes region (southwest Uganda, Eastern DRC, Burundi and Rwanda) to understand why it is a troubled and unstable part of Africa. I concluded that the trouble comes from minority Nilotic Tutsi (Batutsi) trying to reassert their dominance over majority Bantu Hutu (Bahutu) and Iru (Bairu), a decision that has automatically led into accusations of genocide promotion and tribal hatred.

What will Museveni report to Uganda on October 9, 2012?

On October 9, 2012, Uganda will observe 50 years of independence. The president is expected to report what has happened to Uganda and her citizens since October 9, 1962. To do that he needs to recap what independent Uganda inherited from British colonial administration. He should outline why Ugandans demanded independence and how it has been used to realize our dreams. In doing so, he is expected to look at the processes but most significantly at real outcomes in terms of quality of human life and status of our environment. In short, are we better off democratically, economically, socially and ecologically than we were fifty years ago?

On October 9, 1962, John Kakonge (RIP) then Secretary General of UPC that formed the first government issued a statement under the title “Uganda Regains Freedom”. He observed, inter alia, that Uganda inherited an impoverished nation, based on traditional agriculture and very low living conditions characterized by inadequate education and health care facilities, very high mortality rate, low school attendance and many other challenges. He left out the good things that the colonial administration did.

Uganda needs righteous and ethical leaders

A righteous leader is one who is morally right, fair, upright, virtuous and law-abiding. Readers familiar with my publications since 1997 will have realized that I am trying to put together some ideas or a doctrine that will guide Uganda leaders to treat all Ugandans with justice and dignity. Our history has caused Ugandans to live in constant fear and suspicion of one another. Ipso facto, Ugandans don’t trust existing and potential leaders because they have been betrayed by past and present leaders. But fear and suspicion must be overcome in order to live together in peace and security. For this to happen Uganda will need leaders who tell the truth so you know where they stand, are just and ethical and believe in equality for all.

My honest writings that attempt to get to the root causes of Uganda and Great Lakes problems have caused a few people (who are using different names to give the impression that there are many opposing my views) to demand that discussing ethnic, tribal or clan differences is dangerous and should be stopped (I attended Ttabamiruka Convention in Boston, USA a few days ago and Baganda were proud of their clans with no adverse impact on their being Baganda). Those guilty of crimes against humanity in the Great Lakes region are demanding that African borders be dismantled so they can disappear in other parts of the continent to avoid being apprehended.

The difference between Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo and Bantu Bairu/Bahororo in Rujumbura County

Because I have written disturbing facts about how Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo enslaved and impoverished Bantu Bairu/Bahororo of Rujumbura county in Rukungiri district, Batutsi/Bahororo represented by Museveni and Muhwezi have or their surrogates fought back by dubbing me a Muhororo so that people who don’t know the difference will think I am one of them and should carry the cross with them for the sins they have committed.

“Bahororo” in Rujumbura is a colonial administrative term that was created by British authorities. When the British arrived on the scene, they found many Bantu people identifying themselves by their clan names although collectively were dubbed Bairu (slaves or servants) by Batutsi/Bahororo who came to Rujumbura around 1800 as refugees from their former Mpororo kingdom which Ankole had absorbed. Presumably because colonial officers didn’t like the term Bairu which means slaves or servants, it was suggested presumably by Makobore who was chief of Rujumbura that all people in the county be called Bahororo. That was acceptable to British authorities. As a result there are Bahororo of two types. Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo people now the rulers of Uganda and Bantu Bairu/Bahororo people like me who became Bahororo for colonial administrative convenience.

The difference between Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo and Bantu Bairu/Bahororo in Rujumbura County

Because I have written disturbing facts about how Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo enslaved and impoverished Bantu Bairu/Bahororo of Rujumbura county in Rukungiri district, Batutsi/Bahororo represented by Museveni and Muhwezi have or their surrogates fought back by dubbing me a Muhororo so that people who don’t know the difference will think I am one of them and should carry the cross with them for the sins they have committed.

“Bahororo” in Rujumbura is a colonial administrative term that was created by British authorities. When the British arrived on the scene, they found many Bantu people identifying themselves by their clan names although collectively were dubbed Bairu (slaves or servants) by Batutsi/Bahororo who came to Rujumbura around 1800 as refugees from their former Mpororo kingdom which Ankole had absorbed. Presumably because colonial officers didn’t like the term Bairu which means slaves or servants, it was suggested presumably by Makobore who was chief of Rujumbura that all people in the county be called Bahororo. That was acceptable to British authorities. As a result there are Bahororo of two types. Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo people now the rulers of Uganda and Bantu Bairu/Bahororo people like me who became Bahororo for colonial administrative convenience.

Bread – not guns – is the best weapon against instability

From time immemorial people have rebelled or revolted when they are hungry and feel oppressed including through heavy taxation while at the same time they see their neighbors eating more than enough and living in comfort as in Uganda today. Leaders who understand the dangers of hunger make sure food is available and/or keep prices affordable including through subsidies. The British Corn Laws were designed in such a way that farmers and consumers were protected. In other places soup kitchens are provided to feed hungry people and escape protests. After the Second World War, European countries developed a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to make sure farmers are protected and produce enough food for European consumers at affordable prices. The CAP is heavily subsidized and protected against outside competition.

Comments on Robert Response on Gt. Lakes developments

I am basically a researcher and writer. In doing so, I provide well researched information as a basis for discussion on the way forward. My focus of research and writing is on the Great Lakes region. As such you cannot avoid writing about inter-ethnic conflicts which have been of a zero-sum game: “I am in power and you are out”. I am trying to create space for dialogue so that we engage in a win-win discussion to permit all people in the Great Lakes region to live in peace, freedom and dignity. And what’s wrong with that?

Apart from 1959 to 1994, the history of Rwanda since the 15th century is one of Tutsi dominating, exploiting, impoverishing and marginalizing Hutu people. When Kayibanda became leader of his Hutu party in the 1950s, he approached Tutsi and suggested power sharing in a win-win arrangement. Tutsis refused because to them power sharing with Hutu is impossible (Kagame dismissed the Hutu president, prime minister and other ministers whom he used when he captured power in 1994 before he was able to control Hutu population).