Feudalism or federalism for Uganda

There is a struggle between Ugandans in favor of feudalism and those in favor of federalism.

Feudalism is an economic and social system of lords or kings, knights (soldiers) and serfs (peasants). It dominated European medieval period but has occurred in other societies like pre-colonial Rwanda. The center of feudalism was the king who was also a warrior supported by knights. The king centralized power in his court and owned the land which he used to compensate knights for military service. The grant of land to knights was called ‘feud’ or ‘fief’ hence feudalism.

Feudalism was marked by hierarchy of rank (lords, knights and serfs). “In fact, feudal society was marked by a vast gulf between the very few, very rich, great landholders and the mass of the poor who worked for the profit of the nobility” (Robert Stewart 2002).

Federalism (which is federo in Luganda) simply means sharing power between central and provincial or local governments, giving the latter constitutional authority to plan their development according to their endowments, history and culture.

In Uganda the group led by Yoweri Museveni is trying to solidify feudalism with Museveni as the lord with full power to dish out land to his top ranking soldiers in return for military support reminiscent of medieval Europe.

If M7 hears peoples’ grievances and acts, a revolution will be averted

Revolutions that overthrow long established regimes happen swiftly. But conditions leading up to them take longer to crystallize. Revolutions thus occur in countries where regimes are incapable of adjusting to the demands of the people. Revolutions such as those in France, Mexico and Russia occur in stages. They are preceded by enlightenment or reform movements whose suggestions are ignored, then the regime collapses followed by a full scale civil war. Countries where revolutions occur exhibit similar characteristics. In France, Mexico and Russia the respective previous decade was marked by famine and economic crisis. The three countries were also predominantly agrarian in which the peasants who formed the majority of the population were exploited and starving. The three elements of hunger, economic crisis and agrarian society define today’s Uganda.

Understanding Bahororo might help solve Uganda’s political problem

I am a strong believer in understanding the root cause of a problem before attempting a solution. I am also a strong believer in using peaceful means including diplomacy to solve disputes.

These two beliefs have forced me to take risks and write and speak about Bahororo who are the rulers of Uganda since 1986. Articles on Bahororo – their origin, connection with Batutsi of Rwanda and their rise to power in Uganda are posted on www.kashambuzi.com.

Questions have continued to be raised about Bahororo ancestry, their connection with Nilotic people, Batutsi, Bahima and Banyamulenge.

For easy reference let me summarize what I have written about Bahororo mindful that in trying to simplify a complex story, I may skip some useful information. If unsatisfied with the story below, do not hesitate to contact me if necessary privately at [email protected]

Bahororo are Batutsi from Rwanda who founded a short-lived Mpororo kingdom (hence the name Bahororo that is people of Mpororo kingdom) in present-day northern Rwanda and southwest Uganda mostly in present-day Ntungamo and parts of present-day Kabale district.

The kingdom was established around 1650 in areas already settled by Bantu people. It disintegrated around 1750 or earlier because of internal disputes.

The impact of ideological conflicts on Uganda’s stunted development

Discussions of Uganda’s slow development have centered on challenges like rapid population growth, hostile ecological environment and poor governance. While these have had an impact, attention needs also to be directed at ideological conflicts as well. These ideological conflicts have diverted development resources – time, financial and human – to non-developmental activities or led to failure to utilize fully Uganda’s human talent.

Conflicts between Catholics and Protestants denied Catholics to form an independence government in 1962 because Protestants in the UK and those in Uganda were not prepared to relinquish power the chiefs and their relatives had enjoyed since 1894. Qualified Catholics were either sidelined or under-utilized with all implications in loss of morale or reduced incentive to produce to the optimum level. The situation changed with the NRM government since 1986, putting Catholics ahead of some Protestants and repeating the same ideological problem. Many good Protestants are languishing in the ‘dark’. Anti-sectarian law has ensured that little is said about this problem.

Spontaneous revolts don’t wait for police permits

When Uganda’s Inspector General of Police Major General Kale Kayihura talks about receiving advance information from leaders about planned demonstrations, the date, venue and the numbers expected, he has in mind an ordinary demonstration regarding say a complaint about frequent floods in the capital city of Kampala. This kind of demonstration is not a revolt to change government.

What Ugandans have in mind are revolts similar to what happened during the peasants’ revolts in medieval Europe, French Revolution etc to change the regime or score major points except that we plan to do it peacefully and democratically through demonstrations.

In time and space, revolts and revolutions represent deep-seated and long-held grievances like poverty, unemployment and hunger as well as elections rigging as in Uganda since 1980. Ugandans have been frustrated for a long time and are very angry. They want to stop Museveni who has brought untold suffering from continuing as leader of Uganda after the messy elections.

What Ugandans are waiting for is a spark and this cannot be predicted in terms of date, venue or leaders. It could happen any time and possibly without leaders. Therefore there won’t be time to apply for police permits. Museveni did not get a police permit before he entered Luwero in 1981. So why does he demand one when we know he won’t give it.

Dividing Uganda into Nilotic North and Bantu South is not correct

When I wrote that dividing Uganda into watertight Nilotic North and Bantu South was not entirely correct, some people sought clarification and elaboration. Earlier on some people had also raised the question whether the people of southern Uganda who are linguistically the same (Bantu-speakers) are also racially (or ethnically) the same.

For Uganda’s northern region one can safely use the Nilotic classification. For Buganda, Bunyoro and Toro one can also safely use the Bantu classification since intermarriage between Nilotic and Bantu peoples was so thorough that new communities emerged, adopted a common Bantu language and practiced mixed farming thereby ending the pastoralist and agricultural specialization between Nilotic and Bantu peoples respectively. However, in south west Uganda (Ntungamo and Rujumbura in particular) the situation is different.

Bantu people who speak Bantu language or Bantu Bantu-speakers (BBS) from Cameroon/Nigeria border arrived in southwest Uganda first through the Congo region. They practiced mixed farming of crops, short horn cattle, goats and sheep and poultry. They also manufactured a wide range of products particularly those based on iron ore. Centuries later, Nilotic Luo-speaking people with long horn cattle arrived in the area. Their ancestors came from southern Sudan. Although the Nilotic people (Bahima and Bahororo) adopted Bantu language, hence Nilotic Bantu-speakers (NBS), culturally and economically they remained distinct from Bantu Bantu-speakers (BBS). Separate identities were retained through a combination of strict restrictions on inter-marriage and specialized economic functions.

When will Uganda become an independent country?

According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary independent means, inter alia; not dependent; not subject to the control, influence, or determination of another or others; not subordinate; not depending on another for financial support; self-commanding or self-directing; bold, unstrained and controlling or governing oneself.

After the Second World War, British colonial authorities realized that time had come to involve African participation in colonial administration and to make sure that there was an orderly transfer of power to stable, pro-British governments. The innovative policies designed by Arthur Creech Jones and Andrew Cohen in 1947 represented an attempt to anticipate the growth of nationalism and as the first steps in creating a future ‘informal’ empire. These proposed initiatives were to remain confidential. London was expected to conceal its hand and to “withhold from aspiring colonial politicians the knowledge that Britain had already decided to reward them in the future with political power” (L. J. Butler 2002).

A region in retrogression

To retrogress means going backward to earlier and worse conditions. The Great Lakes region of Africa is not only in distress politically, economically, socially, culturally and ecologically but it is also drifting toward European middle Ages conditions of poor housing, poor clothing and poor feeding etc. Unfortunately comprehending this sad situation has been severely constrained by those who equate ‘stability’ with military dictatorship and ‘Big Brother’ tactics and ‘prosperity for all’ with GDP and per capita growth rates and low inflation. Those like me who cherish peace, security, dignity and development for all may find this article disturbing. To prevent is always better and cheaper than to cure. That is why this article has been written. It seeks to expose what is happening with reference to medieval Europe experience so that citizens of the region and their friends in the international community can take pre-emptive measures.

Three European ideas

To understand what is going on in the region requires an understanding of the meaning and application of three ideas which originated in Europe – (1) feudalism and its three principle elements of protection, tribute and prayer; (2) specialization or comparative advantage and (3) race.