Category Archives: All

The idea of the right to self-determination that was promoted by President Woodrow Wilson is about improving material, social and moral well being of people under colonial rule or dictatorship.

In point V of his fourteen Points program Wilson underscored the need for “A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined”. Point XIV stressed “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small nations”. This principle was incorporated into the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The peace settlement of WWI emphasized the principle of self-determination, meaning the right of each nation to choose its form of government, causing the flame of nationalism to burn even brighter than before. In Kenya and South Africa, for example, the spirit of nationalism focused on the return of land to indigenous peoples.

Before colonial rule communities were identified by clans each with a totem. With colonialism, new notions of tribe, ethnicity and nations emerged and have submerged clans. Discussions regarding self-determination and good governance, have necessitated we know ourselves better. Some Ugandans prefer to revert to clans, others want tribes, yet others prefer ethnicity or nation. Let us focus on tribe and nation.

Tribe: According to the World Book Encyclopedia (1985), tribe is a term used to describe certain human social groups. It is generally a disliked term because it lacks precise meaning and has been applied to many widely different groups. Many groups consider the term to be offensive or inaccurate and prefer different terms like ethnicity or nation. The term tends to be used arbitrarily. Solon a Greek leader decided to divide the Ionian communities into four tribes according to wealth and landownership. Years later Kleisthenes divided the Ionians into ten tribes in honor of Attic heroes. Although Ionians continued to acknowledge their four tribes they ceased to play an important part in the administrative process (Robert Garland 2008).

For over 200 years Bunyoro had been the most extensive and powerful kingdom. Its kingdom included Buganda. Too many wars and a large empire weakened Bunyoro. Buganda under leaders starting with Mawanda began to expand at the expense of Bunyoro. He invaded Busoga. Junju drove Bunyoro out of Buddu and took over Koki. King Kamanya drove Bunyoro out of Buwekula. By the time Suna came to power, Bunyoro had been reduced to Buruli and north Singo, central Bunyoro itself, Bugangaizi, Buyaga and the eastern counties of the present Toro district (Karugire 1973). Kabula was conquered from Ankole.

Notwithstanding all this, according to Gardner Thompson (2003) Buganda had not yet been able to fully assert pre-eminence over its neighbors independently before the British helped it. Thus, according to Philip Curtin (2000), pre-European Buganda remained small (when Britain took over).“It covered only the area a hundred miles or so inland from the north shore of Lake Victoria, in a half-circle that ran west of the point where the Nile flows out of the lake”. And Bunyoro had regained military strength and was recovering its lost territories.

Before the 1900 Uganda Agreement land in Buganda was owned by the people under the supervision of their clan heads (Bataka). The Agreement changed all that. Half of the land that was uncultivated, covered under forests and swamps was taken over by the colonial administration as Crown Land. The other half that was occupied by indigenous peasants was taken over by the Kabaka and his family members, regents, chiefs and a few notables as mailo land. The owners were neither consulted nor compensated for the transformation.

The allocation of land among the new owners was done by the Lukiiko comprising the regents and chiefs. The allocation was not only done so fast, it also resulted in massive resettlement as chiefs moved with their followers to their new land. For example, a Protestant chief evicted from his areas Catholics, Muslims and pagans. A Catholic chief evicted Protestants, Muslims and pagans and a Muslim chief evicted Protestants, Catholics and pagans. The pagans were not represented in the Lukiiko.

The purpose of my research and writing is to provide information to encourage Ugandans to debate issues of interest to the present and future generations. So far I have focused on Buganda and the Great Lakes region, raising issues many of them controversial such as tribes and nations.

In this posting I want to show how the 1900 Uganda Agreement revolutionized Buganda society by changing land ownership, a process that is being repeated at the moment under the NRM government.

In 1899 Sir Harry Johnston was appointed Special Commissioner with a mandate regarding the administration of Buganda and land ownership. Regarding the latter he chose to work with the three ministers that served as regents and the Lukiiko.

Johnson convinced Baganda leaders in part through bribery that uncultivated land, forests and wetlands/swamps – half of Buganda land – come under the Protectorate Government as Crown Land. The rest was shared by the Kabaka, members of his family, the three ministers, saza and lesser chiefs and 1000 notables.

If a nation is defined by a common ancestry, common language and common religion, then Buganda doesn’t qualify as one. Buganda expanded from three counties of Busiro, Kyadondo and Mawokota to a large kingdom comprising people of different ancestries, different languages and different religions.

The expansion of Buganda began in the 17^th century largely by invading and conquering neighboring territories and peoples of Ankole, Bunyoro and Busoga and subjugating the conquered people. Contact with Arabs introduced guns into Buganda that were used in her territorial expansion. It is reported that at one time Kabaka Mutesa I possessed 1000 guns. Guns together with Anglo-Buganda alliance during the colonization process enabled Buganda to acquire more territory by force at the expense of Bunyoro which has consistently demanded return of the ‘lost counties’.

Although Luganda is spoken in all parts of Buganda, many communities still speak their mother tongues particularly in the ‘lost counties’. Buganda is also a multi-religious society.

The abrupt founding of FUF is suspect at a time when Ugandans in the diaspora and at home are gathering momentum and coming together to oust NRM from power, witness The Hague conference. If Sejusa and his supporters were for the opposition they should have attended the conference because the invitation was open to all Ugandans. Instead they held a separate conference shortly after The Hague one to show that there is an alternative.

Besides being rushed, the founding conference was restricted to a few handpicked participants to avoid opposition. One participant who either got in the conference by accident or changed her mind while there was thrown out for asking questions that were not tolerated. The participants wanted to meet in a closed session and hammer out a strategy to divide the opposition in the diaspora. However, exclusion and expulsion tactics have dealt FUF a serious damage.

The manifesto is also divisive. While the impression is about maximum mobilization, FUF is solidly founded on ecumenical foundation, meaning it wants to unify Christians only and separate them from the followers of other religions. According to our records, the first ecumenical council met in AD 325 at Nicaea and defined beliefs for all Christians – not all religions! So why has FUF confined itself to the Christian community only? Students of religions might tell you that that is a divisive strategy.

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.